Laserfiche WebLink
subject to negotiation. Selectman Sherman added that POAH was more sensitive to the area. <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that there was deliberation in the Working Group on the matters that did not <br /> have consensus, adding that there was consensus on how the proposals were scored using an <br /> objective score sheet. Mr. Lehrer added that one of the bidders had a significantly stronger score <br /> than the other. Mr. Abbott stated that he disagreed with the score sheet, but agreed that CCD <br /> may not have been able to complete the work as proposed. <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that highly weighted categories were Developer Experience& Capacity and <br /> Financial Feasibility, which showed the primary differences between the overall scores. The <br /> other categories featured similar results between the proposers. Mr. Lehrer reported that CCD <br /> earned 52 points out of a possible 100 points. Mr. Lehrer confirmed that CCD did not deliver <br /> comparable reference projects that the Working Group could score, resulting in earning just 1 of <br /> 20 points. In Financial Feasibility, CCD scored 7 less points than POAH/HAC due to their <br /> inability to deliver comparable projects and securing financing for comparable projects. <br /> References could not be contacted because they did not offer comparable projects, so no points <br /> could be awarded in this category. CCD earned more points than POAHIHAC in Affordability <br /> & Support Services and Building Design. <br /> The POAH/HAC proposal was stronger, across the board, by consensus of the Working Group.. <br /> POAH/HAC received 19 of 20 points in Developer Experience& Capacity and provided five <br /> references from projects to call and vet. In Financial Feasibility, POAH/HAC showed a strong <br /> track record with ownership and management of multiple properties on Cape Cod for which they <br /> secured financing, achieving the maximum score. Mr. Lehrer noted that he scored the references <br /> as an individual, not by the entire Working Group. Mr. Lehrer conducted a thorough reference <br /> check posing specific questions and including any concerns or challenges experienced, including <br /> working with abutters and addressing nitrogen issues. References regarding POAH resulted in <br /> all indicating that they had already discussed working with POAH again in the future. <br /> Mr. Johnson expressed concern about developing housing that did not work for the people living <br /> in the units and hoped that concerns regarding the design could be addressed. Mr. Lehrer <br /> responded that he found both proposals offered a strong architectural and site design and would <br /> offer a strong community aesthetic to allow people to thrive. Mr. Lehrer noted that CCD <br /> received I 1 points out of 15 while POAH/HAC received 8, adding that the Committee and the <br /> Trust would not be awarding the permit for development. Mr. Lehrer felt that concerns <br /> regarding design could be addressed with the developer during the permitting process. Based on <br /> the checklist, POAH/HAC scored 26 points higher than the other. <br /> Approval of a Recommendation to the Affordable Housing Trust for Selection of a <br /> Developer-Chairman Isbitz returned to chairing the meeting and inquired whether there were <br /> additional questions. Based on the scoring sheet, POAH/HAC appeared to be the stronger <br /> proposal. <br /> MOTION: Mr.Abbott made a motion to send a letter to the Affordable Housing Trust <br /> that the Affordable Housing Committee recommends POAH/HAC as the co-developer <br /> submitters we are selecting as the best presentation. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. <br /> 5 <br />