Spreadsheet: 2c4271e0-46ef-49a8-8c80-9fc094945791
Sheet: NOFA Scoring

 |  |  |  | 2014 Section 108 Opportunity Fund NOFA
1. FINANCING |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points
 | 1.1 | Budget Reasonableness based on project goals (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 5-0 | Sources and uses balance.  Sources and cost assumptions are documented, appropriate and reasonable.
 |  |  |  | Sources and uses balance, but sources and costs are either not well documented or are questionable.
 |  |  |  | Sources and uses don't balance and/or sources and costs aren't appropriate or reasonable. |  | 5
 | 1.2 | Development Cost Reasonableness based on project goals (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 5-0 | Total development costs are reasonable and demonstrate cost efficiences compared to similar projects
 |  |  |  | Total development costs are reasonable or somewhat reasonable and are roughly the same as those for similar projects |  | 5
 | 1.3 | [NAME]: Expenses (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 5-0 | Expenses are fully documented and based on actuals for [NAME]'s or other existing projects
 |  |  |  | Expenses are documented but are either not well documented or are questionable
 |  |  |  | Expenses aren't documented and/or aren't reasonable or appropriate |  | 5
 | 1.4 | [NAME]: Income (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 5-0 | Income is fully documented and is based on actuals for [NAME]'s or other existing projects or a market study
 |  |  |  | Income is documented but is either not well documented or is otherwise questionable
 |  |  |  | Income isn't documented and/or is not reasonable or appropriate |  | 5
 | 1.5 | [NAME]: Short-Term/Long Term Performance (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 5-0 | As measured by cash flow, DCR, reserve deposits, cash cushion, total expenses, fee structure and related measures, proforma is credible AND demonstrates successful operations
 |  |  |  | As measured by cash flow, DCR, reserve deposits, cash cushion, total expenses, fee structure and related measures, proforma is somewhat credible and/or  operational success is possible, but questionable
 |  |  |  | As measured by cash flow, DCR, reserve deposits, cash cushion, total expenses, fee structure and related measures, proforma is not credible AND/OR appears to be leading toward refinance/restructure/default before end of relevant loan term(s) |  | 5
 | 1.6 | Terms of Other Financing  (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 2 | Assumptions about interest rates, equity yields, loan terms, deferred developer fee payment are in line with local industry norms and PHB experience |  | 2
 | 1.7 | Operating [NAME] (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 1 | Total debt service coverage ratio >1.15:1 in first 15 years of project |  | 1
 | 1.8 | Leveraging  PHB Funds (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 5-0 | PHB funds are leveraged to the greatest extent possible relative to the project proposed and the leverage proposed is well justified.
 |  |  |  | There is some leveraging of PHB funds, however, leverage could be stronger/higher or there's limited justification for the leverage proposed
 |  |  |  | There is no leveraging of PHB funds or little or no justification for the leverage proposed |  | 5
 | 1.9 | Sponsor Equity (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 2 | Sponsor proposes to provide their own cash/property equity (not, e.g. LIHTC or SDC waivers)  > 2% of TDC |  | 2
 | 1.10 | Developer Fee (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 1 | Developer fee is within PHB standards  for project size/complexity (see link in NOFA document) |  | 1
 | 1.11 | Outside Funding Commitments (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 4-0 | Other funding needed for project is well documented, appears likely to be committed in amounts proposed and within proposed schedule  given evidence provided and PHB's past experience with funding sources
 |  |  |  | Other funding needed for project is well documented, but there's little evidence of commitment or interest
 |  |  |  | Other funding needed for project is not well documented, and there's little evidence of commitment or interest |  | 4
 |  |  |  | Maximum Financing Points |  | 40
 |  |  |  | Threshold Financing Points‡ |  | 26
 |  |  |  | ‡ Proposals must score threshold or more points to continue in scoring/evaluation process
2. INVESTMENT PRIORITIES
 |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points
 | 2.1 | Opportunity Mapping (chose one score)*
 |  |  | 4 | Project located in "High" Opportunity Area
 |  |  | 3 | Project located in "Medium - High" Opportunity Area
 |  |  | 2 | Project located in "Medium" Opportunity Area
 |  |  | 1 | Project located in "Medium - Low" Opportunity Area
 |  |  | 0 | Project located in "Low" Opportunity Area |  | 4
 |  |  |  | * All five "Combined Indicators"
 | 2.2 | Population served (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 2-0 | Population to be served are 100% "low-mod"
 |  |  |  | Population to be served are 51% "low-mod"
 |  |  |  | Population to be served are less than 51% "low-mod" |  | 2
 | 2.2 | Anit-displacement (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 2-0 | Proposer has well thought out plan to counter potential displacement and/or gentrification that results from proposed activity
 |  |  |  | Proposer has plan to counter potential displacement and/or gentrification, but plan is questionable with regard to achieving the stated goals.
 |  |  |  | Proposer does not have a plan to counter potential displacement and/or gentrification, or plan presented can not reasonably be expected to achieve stated goals. |  | 2
 | 2.3 | [NAME] (choose one score)
 |  |  | 2 | Proposes to apply for and receive LEED Gold or Earth Advantage Gold certification or better
 |  |  | 1 | Proposes to apply for and receive [NAME] or Earth Advantage Silver certification
 |  |  | 0 | No green building proposal |  | 2
 |  |  |  | Maximum Investment Priority Points |  | 10
3. QUALIFICATIONS |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points
 | 3.1 | Sponsor Project Experience (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 7-0 | Sponsor has a significant history of successfully leading development projects of similar size and scope, has secured and closed similar financing, and has managed projects of similar complexity or if history is limited has substantially augmented development team to provide necessary experience.
 |  |  |  | Sponsor has a some history of successfully leading development projects of similar size and scope, has some experience securing and closing similar financing, and has some experience managing projects of similar complexity or if history is limited has made some attempt to augment development team to provide necessary experience
 |  |  |  | Sponsor has a limited or no history of successfully leading development projects of similar size and scope, securing, and closing financing and managing projects of similar complexity and/or has made limited or no attempt to augment team to provide necessary experience. |  | 7
 | 3.2 | Partners and Partnering (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 4-0 | Development team members proposed/selected have significant experience with type of project and partnerships proposed.  Development team members have been meaningfully involved in project so far
 |  |  |  | Development team members proposed/selected have some experience with type of project and partnerships proposed.  Development team members have had some involvement in project so far
 |  |  |  | Development team members proposed/selected have limited or no experience with type of project and partnerships proposed.  Development team members have not been meaningfully involved in project so far |  | 4
 | 3.3 | Portfolio Management (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 4-0 | Sponsor's existing portfolio is performing well financially.  [NAME] is current with all obligations.
 |  |  |  | Sponsor's existing portfolio is performing adequately financially.  [NAME] is performing adequately with all obligations.
 |  |  |  | Sponsor's existing portfolio is performing poorly financially.  [NAME] is having significant problems with all obligations. |  | 4
 |  |  |  | Maximum Qualifications Points |  | 15
4. READINESS |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points
 | 4.1 | [NAME]  (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 6-0 | Project schedule is congruent and realistic
 |  |  |  | Project schedule is somewhat realistic, but contains questionable assumptions
 |  |  |  | Project schedule is not congruent or realistic |  | 6
 | 4.2 | Due diligence items (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 4-0 | Numerous due diligence items have been completed and are included with proposal
 |  |  |  | A limited number of due diligence items have been completed and are included with proposal
 |  |  |  | No due diligence items have been completed or  are included with proposal |  | 4
 |  |  |  | Maximum Readiness Points |  | 10
5. EQUITY |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points
 | 5.1 | Minority, Women and Emerging Small Business (MWESB) construction contracting past performance (choose one score)
 |  |  | 2 | For projects 2008 and after, aggregated [NAME] participation rate exceeded 30%
 |  |  | 1 | For projects 2008 and after, [NAME] participation rate exceeds 20%
 |  |  | 0 | For projects 2008 and after, [NAME] participation rate less than 20% |  | 2
 | 5.2 | Minority, Women and Emerging Small Business (MWESB) construction contracting proposed performance (choose one score)
 |  |  | 10 | For this project, commitment to meet or exceed 30% MWESB participation on this project AND commitment is credible
 |  |  | 5 | For this project, commitment to meet or exceed 20% MWESB participation on this project AND commitment is credible
 |  |  | 0 | For this project, no commitment to MWESB participation or commitment appears to be below 20% participation or commitment is not credible |  | 10
 | 5.3 | [NAME] certified professional services, e.g. architect, consultant, engineer, past performance (choose one score)
 |  |  | 2 | Engaged at least 2 MWESB certified firm in  most recent projects
 |  |  | 1 | Engaged at least 1 MWESB certified firm in  most recent projects
 |  |  | 0 | Engaged no MWESB certified firm in  most recent projects |  | 2
 | 5.4 | [NAME] certified professional services, e.g.  architect, consultant, engineer, proposed performance (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 2 | For this project, commitment to include at least 1 MWESB professional service provider AND firm identified  in proposal (no points if firm not identified) |  | 2
 | 5.5 | Minority or women workforce participation, proposed performance (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 4-0 | As presented in the Equity and Diversity Narrative the proposed outreach activities for minority and women workforce participation and apprenticeships are likely to lead to utilization rates of 9% for women and 26% for minorities or greater.
 |  |  |  | As presented in the Equity and Diversity Narrative, the proposed outreach activities for minority and women workforce participation and apprenticeships may lead to some utilization of women and minorities.
 |  |  |  | As presented in the Equity and Diversity Narrative, there are either no proposed outreach activities for minority and women workforce participation and apprenticeships or the proposed activities are unlikley to lead to utilization of women and minorities. |  | 4
 | 5.6 | Property management  (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 2 | Property management firm is minority or women owned or If self-managed, sponsor's property management staff are diverse and representative of resident population |  | 2
 | 5.7 | Marketing  (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 3-0 | Marketing efforts proposed meet PHB/City equity and diversity goals and are appropriate for targeted population
 |  |  |  | Marketing efforts proposed somewhat meet PHB/City equity and diversity goals and are somewhat appropriate for targeted population
 |  |  |  | Marketing efforts proposed don't meet PHB/City equity and diversity goals and/or are not appropriate for targeted population |  | 3
 |  |  |  | Maximum Equity Points |  | 25
 |  | TOTAL POINTS
 |  |  |  | TOTAL POINTS |  | 100
 |  |  |  | THRESHOLD TOTAL POINTS‡ |  | 70
 |  |  |  | ‡ Propals must score threshold or more points to continue in scoring/evaluation process