RFQ/P 728 Workforce Housing Development - Feasibility Study & Advisory Services
RFQ/P 728 Workforce Housing Development - Feasibility Study & Advisory Services
Status
The District has contracted with EWH. 6/24/26
All submittals are under review. An update may be provided by 6/15/26.
Responses
Arcadis_Proposal_OxnardUHSD_WorkforceHousing_FeasibilityAdvisory_20260604.pdf
BrailsfordDunlaveyResponseOUHSD_WorkforceHousingProposal_6-4-26.pdf
EWHResponseRFP728OxnardUnionEWH_EHP260604.pdf
EWHRFP728EWH_EHPAttachment1-ProposalForm-Executed.pdf
VolzCompanyProposalforOUHSD2026-06-04.pdf
RFQ/P Documents
Notice Inviting Proposals 728 Workforce Housing Development Feasibility Study Advisory Services.pdf
RFP 728 Workforce Housing Dev Feasibility Study Advisory Services.pdf
Requests for Information (RFI's):
Q: It would appear that there may be a need for an architect to be involved on a team, the architects (and other sub consultants) are wondering if they are a part of the team for the advisory role, will they be precluded from being a part of the development team, if the district does go in the direction of a public private partnership. I only ask this separate or in advance of the 21st when the questions are due as if the answer is they cannot participate on both sides, then advisors will have to find an architect and subs who are OK with being excluded.
A: Any subcontractor or architect that you utilize for the feasibility study will not be precluded from bidding on work related to Workforce Housing.
Q: Would the developer be precluded from bidding work related to workforce housing?
A: No, we will not preclude any Feasibility Study subcontractors, including Developer's, from bidding on future projects.
Q. Is the District willing to consider a more revenue-generating, market-rate development on the site with the required affordable units, or is the District looking for a more mission-driven, lower-revenue program designed to be mostly or exclusively affordable housing to support District teachers and staff?
A: The District’s current direction is mission-driven and focused on evaluating Employee Workforce Housing as a recruitment, retention, and employee stability tool. The District has not made a final project or development model decision, and the feasibility study is intended to help determine what is realistic, financially sustainable, legally compliant, and in the best interest of the District. At this stage, the District is primarily interested in below-market rental opportunities that could benefit District employees, including teachers, classified staff, and other eligible employees, while also protecting District interests and working toward a cost-neutral or financially responsible structure. The District may consider different development models as part of the feasibility review; however, a purely market-rate revenue-generating development is not the primary objective of this effort. The Board presentation identifies the concept as using existing OUHSD-owned surplus property, retaining and attracting staff, renting units to staff at below-market monthly rents, using housing as a recruitment tool, and creating a cost-neutral program.
Q: Does the District feel it has accurate information and data about its employee housing needs based on the prior survey data, or is the District open to or requiring the advisor conducting an employee survey as part of this effort?
A: The District has existing employee housing survey data that shows strong need and interest, and that data should be used as a starting point. The District’s late fall 2023 housing survey had nearly 600 respondents and showed that 53% of respondents do not own a home, 35% of renters share a residence or rent a room, 80% of renters were unable to find satisfactory housing within OUHSD boundaries, 47% spend more than 40% of wages on rent, and 79.1% of renters expressed interest in Employee Workforce Housing.
The District is open to the advisor recommending whether an updated or supplemental survey is needed as part of the feasibility study. If the advisor believes additional outreach, updated employee income data, unit preference data, commute data, rent tolerance, household size, or eligibility information is necessary to support a reliable feasibility analysis, that recommendation should be included in the proposal. The District’s intent is to make sure the feasibility study is based on accurate and useful information before any future project decisions are considered.
Q: Are there title and environmental reports and other site due diligence that has been conducted, and if so, can the District provide that as an addendum to the RFP?
A: The District is currently evaluating what title, environmental, site, and other due diligence materials are available for the subject property. Any available information that the District determines is appropriate to release may be provided by addendum or made available to the selected advisor during the due diligence phase. Proposers should assume that part of the feasibility effort may include identifying, reviewing, and recommending any additional due diligence needed, including title review, environmental review, utility constraints, entitlement issues, site access, infrastructure needs, and other development feasibility items.
Q: Will any subconsultants to the advisor, such as architects, engineers, cost estimators, etc., be precluded from working on the eventual development opportunity either with the District or a P3 partner?
A: The District has not made a final determination on this issue. Proposers should identify all proposed subconsultants and disclose any potential conflicts of interest or future development interests. The District reserves the right to review and determine whether any actual or perceived conflict exists based on the scope of work, procurement requirements, and future project delivery method. Since the purpose of this RFP is advisory and feasibility-related, the District will want to preserve the integrity of any future procurement process and avoid any unfair competitive advantage. Any final determination will be made in consultation with District legal counsel.
Q: Has the District declared the property surplus or exempt surplus?'
A: The District’s Board materials have identified the subject property as surplus property suitable for potential workforce housing evaluation. The Board has also approved Resolution 24-21 in support of Education Workforce Housing, which affirms the District’s commitment to exploring housing solutions for employees and communicates the District’s intent and rationale for pursuing workforce housing initiatives.
For purposes of this RFP, proposers should understand that the District is in the feasibility and due diligence phase and has not made a final development commitment. Any required surplus or exempt surplus determinations, findings, or related procedural steps will be confirmed with District legal counsel and brought forward for Board action if needed.
Q: Has the District gone through a 7-11 process associated with the site?
A: The District has not identified the 7-11 process as a required step for this feasibility study effort. The District’s Board presentation notes that AB 1157 removed the requirement to appoint an advisory committee, commonly referred to as a “7-11 Committee,” before leasing or selling surplus property for staff housing.
Because this RFP is for feasibility study and advisory services only, no final project approval, lease, sale, or development commitment is being made at this time. Any future procedural requirements will be reviewed with District legal counsel before the District takes further action.
Q: Will the District consider selling the property, or is a long-term ground lease the only option being considered?
A: At this stage, the District’s preference is to evaluate options that preserve long-term District control and public benefit, with a long-term ground lease or similar structure being the primary assumed model for feasibility purposes. The District’s workforce housing materials emphasize public asset stewardship, retaining long-term control where possible, supporting recruitment and retention, and avoiding a structure that could negatively impact District finances.The District has not made a final determination and is seeking advisory services to evaluate legally compliant and financially sustainable options. However, sale of the property is not the District’s primary objective at this time.
Q: Other than the initial cost of due diligence and advisory services, does the District have any bond funds available to invest in or contribute to the capital cost of the development of housing on the site?
A: The District has not committed bond funds or other capital funding to the construction of a workforce housing development at this time. The current RFP is intended to evaluate feasibility, including potential development models, funding sources, financing options, public/private partnership structures, grant opportunities, tax credit feasibility, ground lease structures, and other possible funding mechanisms. The April 22, 2026 Board item was informational only and identified no fiscal impact at that stage.
The District’s Board materials also note that Measure E included site development language for possible future workforce housing, but no final project, funding commitment, or capital contribution has been approved. The feasibility study should identify what level of District participation, if any, would be needed for a viable project and should clearly distinguish between District-funded costs, third-party development costs, public funding sources, grants, tax credits, and any other potential financing options.
Q: Does the District have any initial thoughts on potential site access options or preferences?
A: The District has not selected a preferred access option yet and expects the team to evaluate access, circulation, emergency access, neighborhood impacts, school operations, and City coordination.
Q: Has the District conducted any initial soil testing?
A: No site-specific soil testing has been completed. The team should identify what preliminary geotechnical review may be needed.
Q: Is the District looking for the selected team to perform an initial SOAR impacts analysis?
A: Yes, the District would like a preliminary SOAR/land-use constraints review to identify feasibility impacts, approval issues, timing concerns, and next steps.
Q: Given that this engagement is focused on early feasibility, what level of cost estimating is expected as part of the study: high-level benchmarking, or a more detailed estimate that would warrant including a dedicated cost estimator on the team?
A: The District expects high-level feasibility budgeting and benchmarking, not a detailed construction estimate, unless the team determines more detail is needed.