Spreadsheet: 024d0824-5948-45db-b0e5-243fd5987682
Sheet: NOFA Scoring

1. FINANCING |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points |  | Proposal Score
 | 1.1 | Budget Reasonableness (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 4-0 | Sources and uses balance.  Sources and cost assumptions are documented and are 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. |  | 4
 | 1.2 | Development Cost Reasonableness (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 1 | PHB subsidy <$45  per residential square foot |  | 1
 | 1.3 | Proforma: Expense Documentation (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 4-0 | Expenses are fully documented and are based on actual expenses of 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 |  | 4
 | 1.4 | Proforma: Income Documentation (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 4-0 | 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 |  | 4
 | 1.5 | [NAME]: Short-Term/Long Term Performance (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 4-0 | Proforma demonstrates successful operations as measured by DCR, reserve deposits, cash cushion, total expenses, fee structure and related measures
 |  |  |  | Proforma demonstrates some understanding of factors needed for successful operations as measured by DCR, reserve deposits, cash cushion, total expenses, fee structure and related measures
 |  |  |  | [NAME] appears be leading toward refinance/restructure before end of relevant loan term(s) and/or potential default |  | 4
 | 1.6 | Terms Of Other Financing  (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 1 | Assumptions about interest rates, equity yields, loan terms, deferred developer fee payment are in line with local industry norms and PHB experience |  | 1
 | 1.7 | Operating [NAME] (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 1 | Total debt service cover ratio >1.15:1 in first 20 years of project |  | 1
 | 1.8 | Leveraging  PHB funds (choose one score)
 |  |  | 2 | PHB funds are leveraged to the greatest extent possible relative to the project proposed and the leverage proposed is well justified.
 |  |  | 1 | There is some leveraging of PHB funds, however, leverage could be stronger/higher or there's limited justification for the leverage proposed
 |  |  | 0 | There is no leveraging of PHB funds or little or no justification for the leverage proposed |  | 2
 | 1.9 | Sponsor Equity (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 1 | Sponsor proposes to provide their own cash/property equity (not, e.g. LIHTC or SDC waivers)  > 2% of TDC |  | 1
 | 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 (choose one score)
 |  |  | 2 | 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
 |  |  | 1 | Other funding needed for project is well documented, but there's little evidence of commitment or interest
 |  |  | 0 | Other funding needed for project is not well documented, and there's little evidence of commitment or interest |  | 2
 | 1.12 | Operations (score if criteria met)
 |  |  | 1 | Project/proposal reflects industry best management practices for asset management, replacement reserves, resident services and the like. |  | 1
 |  |  |  | Maximum Financing Points* |  | 25
 |  |  |  | Threshold Financing Points‡ |  | 16
 |  |  |  | *Total available points greater than 25; ‡ Proposals must score threshold or more points to continue in scoring/evaluation process
2. INVESTMENT PRIORITIES
 |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points |  | Proposal Score
 | 2.1 | Moderate Income Targets (chose one score)
 |  |  | 6 | 50% or more units <50% MFI
 |  |  | 3 | 50% or more units <60% MFI
 |  |  | 0 | <50% of units <60% MFI |  | 6
 | 2.2 | Lower Income Targets (chose one score)
 |  |  | 3 | 50% or more units <30% MFI
 |  |  | 2 | 20% or more units <30% MFI
 |  |  | 1 | At least one unit, but less than 20% of units <30% MFI
 |  |  | 0 | No units <30% MFI |  | 3
 | 2.3 | [NAME]  (chose one score)
 |  |  | 2 | 50 or more units
 |  |  | 1 | 20 to 50 units
 |  |  | 0 | less than 20 units |  | 2
 | 2.4 | Project Type (chose one score)
 |  |  | 5 | Preservation of expiring low income housing including 15 yr LIHTC projects or other demonstrated "at-risk" project
 |  |  | 4 | New construction
 |  |  | 3 | Rehabilitation of building/project already in Sponsor's portfolio
 |  |  | 2 | Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing/not-at-risk affordable housing
 |  |  | 0 | Acquisition only or any project type not listed in this subsection |  | 5
 | 2.5 | Programming/Services/PSH (chose one score)
 |  |  | 2 | Project includes programming or services from a qualified provider and there is an clear nexus between population to be served and services provided
 |  |  | 1 | Proposal has some discussion of programming or services, but provider is not fully qualified  and/or the nexus between population to be served and services provided is unclear
 |  |  | 0 | Project should include services but doesn't; or, there's an inadequate nexus between  services proposed and fit with the proposed population |  | 2
 | 2.6 | Programming/Services/PSH - Funding (chose one score)
 |  |  | 2 | Programming has strong, consistent, and historically reliable funding stream and programming leverages non-PHB funding
 |  |  | 1 | Programming has had some historic funding and/or has limited leverage of non-PHB funding
 |  |  | 0 | Programming does not have strong, consistent, and historically reliable funding stream and/or doesn't leverage non-PHB funding |  | 2
 | 2.7 | Additional Priorities  (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 2 | Project meets and proposal discusses many/most/all of Portland's "Healthy Connected Neighborhood" policies/actions as found on pages 80-93 of the Portland Plan: a) health and safety; b) vibrant neighborhood centers; c) connections for people, places, water and wildlife |  | 2
 |  |  | 2 | Proposes to apply for and receive [NAME] or Earth Advantage Silver certification (no additional points for higher levels or certification, e.g. gold, platinum) |  | 2
 |  |  | 1 | In the proposed project, sponsor/development team agree to consider use of operating subsidy, e.g. [NAME], Section 8,  Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH), should, during the course of project negotiations, PHB have access to such subsidy and propose their use.   If sponsor/development team agrees, this must be noted in the NOFA proposal to receive score/point. |  | 1
 |  |  |  | Maximum Investment Priority Points |  | 25
3. QUALIFICATIONS |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points |  | Proposal Score
 | 3.1 | Sponsor Project Experience (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 6-0 | 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. |  | 6
 | 3.2 | Partners and Partnering (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 6-0 | Sponsor has successful history managing similarly composed development teams.  Development team members proposed/selected have significant experience with type of project and partnerships proposed.
 |  |  |  | Sponsor has some history managing similarly composed development teams.  Development team members proposed/selected have some experience with type of project and partnerships proposed.
 |  |  |  | Sponsor has little or no history managing similarly composed development teams.  Development team members proposed/selected, whether experienced or not, have not been meaningfully involved in project |  | 6
 | 3.3 | Portfolio Management (score within range provided)
 |  |  | 6-0 | Sponsor's existing portfolio is performing well financially.  [NAME] is current  with PHB obligations.
 |  |  |  | Sponsor's existing portfolio is performing adequately financially.  [NAME] is performing adequately with PHB obligations.
 |  |  |  | Sponsor's existing portfolio is performing poorly financially.  [NAME] is having significant problems with its PHB obligations. |  | 6
 |  |  |  | Maximum Qualifications Points* |  | 15
 |  |  |  | *Total available points greater than 15
4. READINESS |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points |  | Proposal Score
 | 4.1 | [NAME]  (chose one score)
 |  |  | 4 | Project schedule is congruent and realistic
 |  |  | 0 | Project schedule is not congruent or realistic |  | 4
 | 4.2 | Project timeline  (chose one score)
 |  |  | 4 | Project will be shovel ready in 12 months or less
 |  |  | 3 | Project will be shovel ready in 12-18 months
 |  |  | 0 | Project will be shovel ready later than 18 months |  | 4
 | 4.3 | Due diligence items (choose one score)
 |  |  | 2 | Numerous due diligence items have been completed and are included with proposal
 |  |  | 1 | A limited number of due diligence items have been completed and are included with proposal
 |  |  | 0 | No due diligence items have been completed or included with proposal |  | 2
 |  |  |  | Maximum Readiness Points |  | 10
5. EQUITY |  |  |  |  |  | Maximum Points |  | Proposal Score
 | 5.1 | Sponsor's cultural competence specific to race/ethnicity of board, staff and initiatives (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | Board members represent diversity of residents |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Staff and management team represents diversity of residents |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Established partnerships with culturally specific organizations |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Board adopted Equity Plan includes training for staff and board and to better serve specific demographic housing need  and a commitment to development and promotion of diverse staff |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Other: ___________________________________________ |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Diverse resident/ low-income  representative(s) on the board |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Staff diversity |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Board/Sponsor leadership developing equity plan |  | 1
 | 5.2 | Project equity impact: sponsor's programming, development partnerships  (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | Previous projects demonstrate sponsor capacity for appropriate and outcomes- based culturally specific programming |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Project advances sponsor equity plan |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Project planning includes equity analysis |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Other: ____________________________________________ |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Previous projects demonstrate culturally appropriate resident services |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Project programming includes services and/or partnership to meet identified demographic housing need |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Project programming and partnerships appropriate to location |  | 1
 | 5.3 | Minority, Women and Emerging Small Business (MWESB) construction contracting (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | For projects 2008 or after, aggregated [NAME] participation rate exceeds 30% |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Minority or women certified general contractor, for eligibility of self-performed work in relation to MWESB participation |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Commitment to meet or exceed 30% MWESB participation |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | For all projects 2008 or after, [NAME] participation rate exceeds 20% |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Commitment to meet or exceed 20% MWESB participation on this project |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Commitment to increasing minority or women participation on this project |  | 1
 | 5.4 | [NAME] certified professional services, e.g. accountant, architect, attorney, consultant, engineer, landscape architect  (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | Engaged MWESB firms on previous project |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Contracting plan includes 2 or more MWESB professional service providers |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Contracting plan includes 1 MWESB professional service providers or describes good faith efforts to hire MWESB professionals |  | 1
 | 5.5 | Minority or women workforce participation (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | Workforce utilization meets or exceeds 9% women and 26% minority participation |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Workforce utilization plan describes strategy for increasing minority and women workforce and Section 3 recruitment  by: (see [NAME] for detail) |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Partnering with a Pre-Apprenticeship Training Program (PATP’s) - PYB, OR Tradeswomen, NW College of Const.,  [NAME] and other community organizations |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Use of Apprentices, enrolling existing employees into apprenticeship programs and recruiting Section 3 residents and businesses |  | 1
 | 5.6 | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP) for new project includes analysis of and strategies to address demographic access disparities |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | AFHMP for new project reflects OON Fair Housing Best Practices |  | 1
 | 5.7 | Demographics of residents in sponsor owned/controlled projects  (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | Sponsor has identified disparities in race/ethnicity in demographics served by portfolio |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Sponsor has a strategy to address disparities in race/ethnicity served |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Sponsor can document results from strategy |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | AFHMP on file with PHB is in current format and addresses critical elements |  | 1
 | 5.8 | Resident Services Plan (RSP) in sponsor owned/controlled projects  (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | RSP for new project reflects programming intended to improve outcomes specific to race/ethnicity of residents; funding and [NAME] are in place |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | RSP services  and costs for new project identified, without accompanying written agreements or identified source |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | RSP for new project is appropriate for population as described in Project overview narrative |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Resident outcomes are analyzed by race/ethnicity and utilized to update programs |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Sponsor reports RSP outcomes by race/ethnicity |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Data from resident services is tracked but may not be actively managed or may be insufficient to take corrective action |  | 1
 | 5.9 | Property management  (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | Management firm is minority or women owned |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Property management staff are diverse and representative of resident population |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | If self-managed, Sponsors  property management staff are diverse and representative of resident population |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | On-site staff are resident culture or language proficient |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Staff are trained on fair housing at least annually |  | 1
 | 5.10 | Other vendors, e.g. professional services, laundry, maintenance, landscaping  (score all that apply)
 |  |  | 1 | Vendor list reflects outreach to and inclusion of minority and women firms |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Results are analyzed and utilized to update programs |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | If self-performed, [NAME]'s  maintenance staff are diverse and representative of resident population |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Vendor list includes minority and women firms |  | 1
 |  |  | 1 | Vendor selection process creates opportunities for minority and women firms |  | 1
 |  |  |  | Maximum Equity Points* |  | 25
 |  |  |  | Threshold Equity Points‡ |  | 16
 |  |  |  | *Total available points greater than 25; ‡ Proposals must score threshold or more points to continue in scoring/evaluation process
 |  | TOTAL POINTS
 |  |  |  | TOTAL POINTS* |  | 100
 |  |  |  | THRESHOLD TOTAL POINTS‡ |  | 65
 |  |  |  | *Total available points greater than 100; ‡ Propals must score threshold or more points to continue in scoring/evaluation process