Foster City City Council
May 4, 2026

Attachment 3, Scoring Summary for RFP
Foster City Affordable ADU Program - RFP Due February 20, 2026 Type A (Loan
Admin)
Type B or C
(Loan +
Construction
or sales/
Installation)
Item Criterion Max Points Max Points Scoring Guidelines HEART HGSF TMO HEART HGSF TMO Notes 1 Demonstrates understanding of the requested work and responsiveness to the scope of services;  5 5 5=excellent; 4=very good; 3=
good; 2=fair; 1=poor 5 5 3 5 5 2
2 ​Quality, feasibility, and completeness of the proposal; 5 5 5=excellent; 4=very good; 3=
good; 2=fair; 1= poor or
incomplete
5 5 1 5 5 1
Both HEART and HGSF had complete, excellent proposals. TMO's proposal was incomplete and included a statement that the proposal is really for a software system intended to be used by the selected vendor or by the City should the City manage the program in house. 3 ​Additional costs to the City; 3 3
ranked based on cost; if no costs
provided, score is 0. Lowest cost
=3, next lowest = 2, no cost
provided = 0
3 1 2 3 1 2
HEART=$60,510; HGSF=$0; TMO=$21,240 per year x 3 years = $63,720. See item 8 for HGSF regarding gap funding required. Gap funding would need to fund the full cost of an ADU and could be as much as $200K per ADU, adding an additional $1.6 million to the program.
4 ​Quality of construction products, associated warranties, energy efficiency and sustainability features, supply chain logistics, and customer service for homeowners.
0 5
5=excellent; 4=very good; 3=
good; 2=fair; 1=poor; 0=no
response or does not apply;This
item does not apply for
respondents for loan
administration responses.
0 5 0 0 5 0 Not applicable to HEART and TMO
5 ​Experience: a) related experience in the Bay Area and California in building or selling/installing, ADUs, if applicable for the type of program for which Responder is applying; b) related experience partnering with municipalities to implement residential building/financing programs; c) related experience in providing financing products for residential construction projects; d) expertise and experience of the project team members and in-house expertise; and 6 9
for a, b, and c individually:
3=excellent; 2=good; 1=fair or
limited information provided;
0=no response. Max score is 3 for
each section. Max score is 9 for
this item.
6 9 1 6 9 0
Item (a) does not apply to HEART or TMO; for Item (b), HEART partners with all 20 San Mateo County jurisdictions and Habitat has substantial experience in Bay Area Cities; for TMO, the firm has substantial experience with cities but did not specify any Bay Area cities in their proposal. For item (c) HEART and HGSF demonstrated this experience but TMO did not respond to this item.
6 ​Agency financial stability; 5 5
5=excellent; 4=very good; 3=
good; 2=fair; 1=poor; 0=no
response
5 5 0 5 5 0 All three respondents appear to have excellent financial stability. 7 ​Impact of proposal on cost and timeline; 2 2
2=meets city's cost and timeline
goals; 1=does not meet city's cost
and timeline goals; 0=no response
2 1 0 2 1 0
HGSF's proposal will require development and implementation of a secondary gap funding loan program, which will add several months to the program timeline.
8 ​Impact of/feasibility of exceptions/changes to the Program Guidelines; and 5 5 5=no exceptions or all exceptions
acceptable and in compliance
with with HE Program H-D-4-b
requirements; 3=exceptions could
be acceptable but create cost
and/or administrative burden to
the City; 1=exceptions result in
non-compliance with H-D-4-b;
0=no response.
5 3 0 5 3 0
HEART: exceptions are acceptable and minor; HGSF: exceptions include 1) adding a <120% AMI requirement for homeowner loan applicants which could deter homeowners from applying and limit the pool of qualified applicants; 2) reduction of program funding to $1,000,000 from $1.1 million and removal the $150K loan amount and incentive for special needs; all loans would be for $125K; 3) proposal requires the City to provide gap funding through a different program to fund ADUs at 100% of project cost. Could be as much as $200K per ADU or $1.6 million total.
9 ​Acceptance of the City’s Standard Agreement for Professional Services and insurance requirements, including any proposed changes to the agreement or insurance coverages (See Attachment);
3 3
3 = no exceptions; 2 = minor
exceptions; 1 = substantial
exceptions;
2 2 0 2 2 0 HEART and HGSF requested minor changes. No response from TMO. 10 ​References and portfolio review; 5 5
5=excellent; 4=very good; 3=
good; 2=fair; 1=poor; 0=no
response
5 5 0 5 5 0
Both HEART and HGSF included excellent references and both have related experience for the type of program proposed. TMO did not include this item in their proposal.
11 ​Portion of City funds to be spent on Proposer’s administrative costs or other Proposer fees rather than on loans to borrowers.  3 3 Ranked in order of % from 3 to 1; 0=no response 3 2 0 3 2 0 HEART=5%; HGSF=9%; no response from TMO Total possible score 42 50
Total Score of Respondent 41 43 7 41 43 5
Percentage of Possible Score 98% 86% 17% 98% 86% 12%
Rank based on percentage of Possible Score 1 2 3 1 2 3
Type A
NJ Scores VB Scores
1=highest ranking proposal; 2=next hightest; 3=lowest rank.