7-CDBG Multi-Family Acquisition Rehabilitation Scoring Criteria.pdf

PROPOSER

NAME

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Total

Possible (Up To)

Total

1. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES

Documentation of the National Objective benefiting extremely low, low-, low- to moderate income persons. 10 pts. = (0-30% AMI ONLY!). If serving more than one AMI category, points will be awarded for the category with the most persons to be served.

0-30% AMI ONLY (= 10 pts) 30% AMI (= 5 pts) 30.1-50% AMI (= 3 pts) 50.1-80% AMI (= 1 pts)

2. PROJECT TIMELINE

Proposal provides detailed timeline for expenditures. Preliminary schedule includes:

• Permitting and approvals from federal, state, or local agencies.

• Time frames for any contemplated requests for other federal, state or local resources.

• Timeline of initiation, construction phasing, completion and opening of proposed project.

• Additional major milestones and the proposed major responsibilities.

• Timeline ensures proposed project commences within 12 months and is completed and occupied within two (2) years of executed funding agreement.

Specific details, major project requirements, major milestones, begin & complete dates (= 10 pts) General timeline (non-specific) details (= 6 pts) Timeline (minimal) details (= 3 pts) No timeline (= 0 pts)

3. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE CAPACITY

Project team experience utilizing HUD funds specifically CDBG

• 5+ years’ experience – team members identified (= 15 pts)

• 3+ years’ experience – team members identified (= 10 pts)

• 2 years’ experience – team members identified (= 8 pts)

• Less than 2 years’ experience (=0 pts)

• Some experience – no team members identified (= 0 pts)

• No applicable experience (= 0 pts)

Proposal provides a narrative of the proposer’s approach to the project and its ability to complete the project on time and within budget. Describes the project team’s years of experience in meeting the homeless set aside requirement, administering grants, compliance and fiduciary responsibilities.

• Detailed, specific description (=3 pts)

• General description (=1 pts)

Project team grant experience:

• 3+ years’ project/grant experience – team members identified (=2 pt)

• No applicable experience (=0 pts)

CDBG PY 2026 Multi Family Acquisition / Rehabilitation Scoring Sheet

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Total

Possible (Up To)

Total

Proposer has provided specific information for a minimum of three (3) successfully completed multi-family rental developments or five (5) homes on the same parcel of land for multi-family homeownership.

• Explanation of how previously developed projects listed were managed by staff, outsourced staff, partners, general contractors etc. (= 3 pts)

• Legal and financial documentation on completed projects, i.e., legal surveys or sketches, architectural renderings, and site plans and photos of the final project. (=2 pts) No specific information provided (=0 pts)

4. PROJECT PROPOSAL READINESS/ ABILITY TO PROCEED

• Evidence of Site Control Recorded title/executed lease/purchase contract (= 5 pts) Option to Purchase/Option to Lease / Local Government Resolution (=2 pts) with earnest money deposit for purchase/pending contracts/agreements (= 2 pts)

• Land Development Site and Subdivision Pre-Submittal Conference and documentation provided.

Meeting attended/all requested documentation provided (=3 pts);

Meeting attended/partial documentation provided (=2 pts);

Meeting scheduled; not attended/completed conference application form provided (=1 pt);

Meeting scheduled/meeting not attended/no documentation provided (=0 pts)

• Elevations and other architectural elements are consistent with County’s development expectations.

(2 points awarded only if indicated by the County in the Site & Subdivision Pre-Submittal Conference notes).

5. PUBLIC BENEFIT

• 50% of the units are developed for households at or below 50% AMI (= 1 pts)

• Proposal targets special needs households in whole or in part (= 2 pts)

• Narrative describing the plan for long term ownership and management for multi-family rental acquisition rehabilitation and/or conversion projects or describing the plan to ensure 30-year affordability for multi-family homeownership acquisition rehabilitation and/or conversion projects Specific details (= 2 pts); General details (= 1 pts); Lack details (= 0 pts)

6. PERFORMANCE OF PAST SUBRECIPIENTS – Most recent project within last three (3) Program Years

- SCORE PAST SUBRECIPIENTS ONLY – (Score Provided by AHS)

Projects met all accomplishments with no funds returned and timely close-out (= up to 9 pts)

Project accomplishments unmet (=deduct 3 points) Delayed or untimely project(s) Closing (=deduct 3 points) Grant funds returned for reallocation on incomplete or completed project(s) (=deduct 3 points)

Quarterly reporting on time (=2 pts); Reporting late/No reporting (= 0 pts)

Monitoring & compliance issues, findings or concerns:

No findings or concerns (= 4 pts)

Compliance issues resolved (=2 pts)

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Total

Possible (Up To)

Total

7. EXPERIENCE OF NEW PROPOSERS – SCORE NEW PROPOSERS ONLY

Proposer’s project team experience with similar development projects similar to the one proposed.

Project Team has:

5+ years project experience in Hillsborough County (= 15 pts) 3+ years project experience in Hillsborough County (= 10 pts) 3+ years project experience with other local government or another agency (= 8 pts) 2+ years project experience in Hillsborough County (= 4 pts) 2+ years project experience with other local government or another agency (=2 pts)

8. LEVERAGING – (Score Provided by AHS)

To what degree is the proposer leveraging dollars for this project 50% or more of the project is leveraged by non-County funds (=15 pts) 40-49% of the project is leveraged by non-County funds (= 12 pts) 30-39% of the project is leveraged by non-County funds (= 9 pts) 20-29% of the project is leveraged by non-County funds (=6 pts) 10-19% of the project is leveraged by non-County funds (=3 pts) Less than 10% of the project is leveraged by non-County funds (= 0 pts)

9. FINANCIAL CAPACITY – (Score Provided by OMB)

• Did the proposer provide audited financial statements along with the accompanying audit opinion letter and notes to the statements for the two most recent audit periods?

• Are the proposer’s audited financial statements recent enough to provide insight into the organization's current financial position?

• Does the proposer show financial oversight and internal controls?

• Can the proposer achieve income stability by demonstrating capacity to generate income?

• Does the proposer show responsible stewardship of resources it has received?

• Are there adequate management practices in place for financial reporting?

• Is the proposer able to carry out its mission in a stable and effective way that will ensure project completion?

• Is the proposer’s Current Ratio (Current Assets vs. Current Liabilities) equal to or greater than 1?

• Does the proposer have at least 90 Days Cash on Hand? (industry average is 90 days)

• Is the proposer’s Debt Ratio low enough that debt-related costs do not jeopardize its ability to conduct normal business operations or pay normal operating expenses?

• Is the proposer’s Reliance on Grants and Government Ratio sufficiently low to suggest that the organization can continue operations if governmental revenue sources decrease by a material amount or in their entirety?

• Does the proposer’s General, Administrative and Fundraising Cost Ratio indicate that the majority of revenues are being used for direct program services and to carry out the organization’s mission?

• Does the proposer’s Profitability Ratio indicate that the organization is generating annual income equal to or in excess of annual expenses?

10. BONUS (Score Provided by AHS)

Proposal site location is in a NRSA 2

Proposed site location is located within 1 mile of mass transit service 3

TOTAL POINTS 115

This document is for informational purposes only and is not required to be submitted with the proposal