Request for Information: Affordable Housing Rehabilitation Project – 71 Surfside Road

The Town of Nantucket, through its Affordable Housing Trust, invites responders to submit responses for Request for Information: Affordable Housing Rehabilitation Project – 71 Surfside Road.

Background

The Town of Nantucket is located within the County of Nantucket. The Town functions under a Town Manager/Select Board form of government. The Select Board operates under a Charter and enacts policies intended to promote and enhance the general welfare of the Town. In addition to customary municipal operations, the Town operates a skilled nursing facility, a public school system, two wastewater treatment facilities, a housing department, and a solid waste facility.

The Town of Nantucket is located 30 miles off the south coast of Cape Cod. It was settled in 1659 and incorporated in 1671. The Town has an annual year-round population of approximately 18,000 and up to 65,000 seasonal residents. The island is 14 miles in length and 3 1/2 miles wide. Nantucket is comprised of residential, commercial, and large tracts of undeveloped land, including a state forest. Transportation routes include a busy airport, a thriving seaport, and a locally maintained road system which includes urban, suburban and rural road systems.

Project Details

• Reference ID: 2026-AHT-0710
• Department: Housing
• Department Head: Kristie Ferrantella (Director of Housing)

Important Dates

• Questions Due: 2026-07-24T18:00:00.000Z
• Answers Posted By: 2026-07-29T20:00:00.000Z
• Pre-Proposal Meeting: 2026-07-22T17:00:00.000Z — On-site at 71 Surfside Road, Nantucket, MA 02554. Interested responders who plan to attend are asked to notify chsu@nantucket-ma.gov no later than 4PM on July 21, 2026.

Evaluation Criteria

• Responsiveness to submission requirements (10 pts) —
  • A score of 5 - Highly Advantageous: The proposal creatively and thoroughly addresses the Goals and Tasks in this   Request for Proposals.
  • A score of 3 - Advantageous: The proposal adequately addresses the Goals and Tasks in this Request for Proposals.
  • A score of 1 - Not advantageous: The proposal does not address all of the Goals and Tasks in this Request for Proposals.
  • A score of 0 - Unacceptable: The proposal does not address any of the Goals and Tasks in this Request for Proposals.
• Previous related work and references (10 pts) —
  • A score of 5 - Highly Advantageous: Substantial involvement of firm members assigned to this project with five or more such projects and excellent references.
  • A score of 3 - Advantageous: Substantial involvement of firm members assigned to this project with three to five such projects and 3 good references or a combination of good and excellent references.
  • A score of 1 - Not advantageous: Involvement in at least two such projects, and a combination of good and neutral references.
  • A score of 0 - Unacceptable: Involvement of one or fewer similar projects and/or 1 or more poor references.
• Municipal Experience (10 pts) —
  • A score of 5 - Highly Advantageous: Contracted with five or more Massachusetts municipalities for planning consultant services.
  • A score of 3 - Advantageous: Contracted with three or four Massachusetts municipalities for planning consultant services.
  • A score of 1 - Not advantageous: Contracted with two Massachusetts municipalities for planning consultant services.
  • A score of 0 - Unacceptable: Contracted with one or no Massachusetts municipalities for planning consultant services.
• Success of previous related projects (10 pts) —
  • A score of 5 - Five or more similar Plans have been adopted by the respective municipalities with some evidence of successful implementation.
  • A score of 3 - Advantageous: Three or four similar Plans have been adopted by the respective municipalities with some evidence of successful implementation.
  • A score of 1 - Not advantageous: Two similar Plans have been adopted by the respective municipalities and some evidence of successful implementation.
  • A score of 0 - Unacceptable: One or fewer similar Plans have been adopted by the respective municipalities with little or no evidence of successful implementation. 
• Project Understanding (1 pts) —

  o Highly Advantageous: The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated criteria in a way that is beneficial to the Town of Nantucket. This rating indicates a consistently outstanding level of quality, with very little or no risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are no weaknesses.

  o Advantageous:  The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates a generally better than acceptable quality, with little risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor and not material to the Response. Correction of the weaknesses would not be necessary before the Response would be considered further.

  o Not advantageous: The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to possibly meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates a level of risk to the Town. Weaknesses exist but may be corrected through requests for clarification.

  o Unacceptable: The Proposer did not address the criterion.

• Relevant Experience and Similar Projects (1 pts) —

  o Highly Advantageous: The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated criteria in a way that is beneficial to the Town of Nantucket. This rating indicates a consistently outstanding level of quality, with very little or no risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are no weaknesses.

  o Advantageous:  The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates a generally better than acceptable quality, with little risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor and not material to the Response. Correction of the weaknesses would not be necessary before the Response would be considered further.

  o Not advantageous: The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to possibly meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates a level of risk to the Town. Weaknesses exist but may be corrected through requests for clarification.

  o Unacceptable: The Proposer did not address the criterion.

• Project Team (1 pts) —

  o Highly Advantageous: The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated criteria in a way that is beneficial to the Town of Nantucket. This rating indicates a consistently outstanding level of quality, with very little or no risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are no weaknesses.

  o Advantageous:  The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates a generally better than acceptable quality, with little risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor and not material to the Response. Correction of the weaknesses would not be necessary before the Response would be considered further.

  o Not advantageous: The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to possibly meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates a level of risk to the Town. Weaknesses exist but may be corrected through requests for clarification.

  o Unacceptable: The Proposer did not address the criterion.

• Response to General Requirements (1 pts) —

  o Highly Advantageous: The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated criteria in a way that is beneficial to the Town of Nantucket. This rating indicates a consistently outstanding level of quality, with very little or no risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are no weaknesses.

  o Advantageous:  The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates a generally better than acceptable quality, with little risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor and not material to the Response. Correction of the weaknesses would not be necessary before the Response would be considered further.

  o Not advantageous: The Proposer has presented and supported an approach that is considered to possibly meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates a level of risk to the Town. Weaknesses exist but may be corrected through requests for clarification.

  o Unacceptable: The Proposer did not address the criterion.

Submission Requirements

• Respondent Submittals (required) —

  Please Upload your COMPLETE response, including any and all required forms listed in the solicitation and the corresponding attachments.

   

• Authorization (required) —

  I certify that I have read, understood and agree to the terms in this solicitation, and that I am authorized to submit this response on behalf of my company.

• Pricing (required) —
  • Choose Option 1 when you have set line items, for example:
    • This is a quote for goods or commodities.
    • This is a public works bid, with a pricing table that can be uploaded into OpenGov Procurement from an Excel spreadsheet.
    • Seeking services for hourly rate schedules.
  • Choose Option 2 when you need vendors to provide you with the line items. 
• Evaluation Committee? (required) —

  Will there be an evaluation committee to review the proposals and score them based on weights and multiple criteria?