"DHCD's Consolidated RFP has one deadline for HOME, CDBG, NHTF, LRSP, and both Housing Tax Credits — but does that same deadline cover a 4% bond deal, or is DCHFA actually running its own separate competition I need to hit first?"
The Consolidated RFP: threshold, then score, in two pools
The FY2026 RFP describes a three-step review: (1) Threshold Review, checking pass/fail compliance with the RFP's Threshold Eligibility Requirements — the RFP is explicit that “this Threshold Eligibility Review will not translate into a ‘Threshold Score’ for purposes of DCHFA tax-exempt bond financing requests, as was the case in previous solicitations”; (2) Evaluation Criteria Review, where surviving applications are “rated and ranked based on cumulative project scores” after DHCD incorporates feedback from partner agencies; and (3) Final Selections, made by the DHCD Director, who may weigh factors the score doesn't fully capture — unit-type variety, geographic distribution, existing-DHCD-asset conditions, workload capacity, and budget considerations — on top of the ranking. A selection letter “is not a commitment for funding and will not outline financing terms and conditions.”
Projects compete in one of two pools — Production or Preservation — based on which unit type makes up more than 50% of the project, with DHCD reserving the right to reassign a project's pool if needed.
| Category | Maximum points |
|---|---|
| Project Readiness and Past Performance | -30 (deductions only: Error-Free Submission -10, Readiness to Proceed -4, Cost/Funding Guideline Compliance -5, Past Performance -14) |
| Designated Housing Targets | 40 |
| Place-Based Priorities | 30 |
| Maximizing the Impact of DHCD Resources | 60 (Leverage alone accounts for 40 of the 60) |
| Innovative and Community-Oriented Features or Programming | 30 |
| Lowest Construction Cost Bonus | 20 (one project per pool — Production and Preservation — only) |
Leverage is the single largest scoring line in the entire Evaluation Criteria — worth as many points on its own (40) as the Place-Based Priorities and half of Designated Housing Targets categories combined — and is scored directly on how little DHCD money a project needs (maximum points go to projects with less than 30% DHCD Participation, and to projects raising 25% or more of total sources from non-DHCD sources).
DHCD also commits to transparency after the fact: “Data and information from previous application cycle, including the number of applications and scores, will be published following the granting of awards.”
Capacity, experience, and the two-project cap
The RFP requires a fully-identified development team at application — Owner, Guarantor(s), Developer, Development/Financing Consultants, Architect, General Contractor, Civil Engineer, Construction Manager, Management Agent, and (if applicable) Resident/Supportive Services and Housing Counseling/Home Sales partners — each supported by due-diligence documentation (corporate documents, qualifications, resumes, references, organizational charts, financial statements, and AIA documents). “At least one of the following key team members — Owner, Developer, or Development/Financial Consultant — must have prior experience completing and operating affordable housing Projects of a similar type and scope as the Project being proposed,” and the guarantor “must have the financial capacity to ensure that the Project will deliver regardless of any potential delays or cost overruns.” Core team members must submit a Clean Hands Certificate and a Certificate of Good Standing issued by the District.
The RFP also caps how many projects any one person or firm can be attached to in a single cycle: “No individual, sponsor, development consultant, or pass-through entities can be associated with more than two (2) projects in the Consolidated RFP in any capacity,” and separately requires that a development consultant have “no ownership interest, land ownership, investment, or affiliation with the development entity, whether nonprofit or for profit.”
9% and the DC LIHTC ride the Consolidated RFP; 4%/bonds run on DCHFA's own calendar
The QAP's own narrative on 4% Tax Credits reads as if the process is open-ended: “Applications for 4% Tax Credits without competitive gap financing are accepted on a rolling basis and must be submitted directly to DCHFA via its online portal.” But the same QAP's Definitions section describes a much more structured reality: “Readiness Review: Project review process conducted by DCHFA. DCHFA will review Projects for readiness in two application periods per year for tax exempt bonds. One Readiness Review Application will occur in January and one in July, depending on the availability of resources.” DCHFA's own published competitive-application document confirms why: “With the persistent high demand for limited Bond Cap outstripping supply, tax-exempt bonds and associated 4% LIHTCs... remain competitive. This ongoing competitive environment required a shift from DCHFA's former rolling application process to one that prioritizes projects.” This research treats that shift, not the QAP's looser “rolling basis” language, as the operative current process, and flags the inconsistency in the QAP's own text explicitly rather than resolve it by assumption.
To submit to Readiness Review, a project must already hold a DHCD Threshold Review and Evaluation Score — DCHFA's document states outright “you cannot submit for a DHCD Threshold Review and Evaluation Score in the same round that you apply for DCHFA Bond Cap” — plus a complete DCHFA Stage II application, and documented proof of the ability to close within six months: evidence of at least one round of DC Department of Buildings permit review, zoning-compliance documentation, Letters of Intent from every construction lender, permanent lender, subordinate lender, and LIHTC/DC-LIHTC syndicator (each dated within 90 days of submission), and a general contractor construction-cost estimate on DHCD Form 215 based on Design Development drawings.
Projects are then ranked “based on the DHCD Threshold Review and Evaluation Score in the order from high to low scores, until the available Bond Cap is exhausted,” with ties broken first by DHCD's own geographic-location score, then by the largest percentage of units restricted to 30% MFI. A preliminary bond inducement — available within 60 days of an acquisition/rehab project's acquisition date, solely for IRS compliance purposes — “does not constitute a DCHFA commitment of Bond Cap” and does not excuse the project from still competing through Readiness Review.
What never touches the Consolidated RFP: HPTF and HANTA
As covered in Phase 7, HPTF financing is pursued through DHCD's own separate, rolling, quarterly Open RFP (concept application and meeting, then a Letter of Interest, then a full financing application, then DHCD's Loan Review Committee and, per DHCD's own published workflow, a DC Council approval step) — never through the Consolidated RFP's Form 202/Threshold/Evaluation process. HANTA's property-tax-abatement RFA is similarly separate: a rolling application reviewed on a monthly cycle, administered directly by DHCD outside both the Consolidated RFP and DCHFA's bond calendar.
What the application itself requires: Form 202 and the underlying document set
Every Consolidated RFP application is built around the current version of Form 202 – Application for Financing, a multi-tab spreadsheet covering the development budget, operating pro forma, tax credit calculations, and unit information; the RFP warns that “any prior versions of the Form 202 will not be accepted and render your application as non-responsive.” Applications are submitted only through DHCD's Online Application System (Quickbase) — “No hard copy applications will be accepted” — alongside an extensive uploaded document set (Form of Contract Affidavits for every team member, appraisal, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, market study, and more). The mandatory 9% Application Fee ($600 nonprofit / $850 for-profit) must be included with the application itself, not paid later.
Financial-criteria documentation includes acquisition cost reasonableness (an appraisal-backed analysis, with any affiliated-party value increase expected to be offset by a seller's note), and letters of interest or commitment “from all participating lenders and investors” evaluated source-by-source against market-standard terms. Site control must extend “at least 180 days beyond the date of the application submission or be demonstrably renewable” to reach that point. A project requiring a Map Amendment, Stage 2 PUD, Design Review, or consolidated PUD application must already have that application submitted to the Zoning Commission before the RFP application is filed, and a project in a Historic District (or otherwise requiring Historic Preservation Review Board approval) must already have HPRB conceptual-design approval in hand before submission.
Where this goes wrong
- Assuming a 4%-only bond application can be submitted at any time because the QAP's 4% Tax Credit narrative section calls the process “rolling.” The QAP's own Definitions section and DCHFA's current competitive-application document both describe two fixed annual Readiness Review windows (January and July) once Bond Cap demand exceeds supply.
- Believing a DHCD Threshold Review/Evaluation Score can be obtained in the same round as a DCHFA Bond Cap application. DCHFA's process requires that score to already be in hand before Readiness Review submission — the two cannot be pursued simultaneously in one round.
- Missing the two-project cap. No individual, sponsor, development consultant, or pass-through entity may be associated with more than two projects in a single Consolidated RFP cycle, in any capacity.
- Treating a development consultant as eligible to also hold an ownership stake in the deal. The RFP requires a consultant have “no ownership interest, land ownership, investment, or affiliation with the development entity.”
- Assuming a DHCD Threshold Review score still functions as a separate “Threshold Score” DCHFA weighs for bond financing, the way earlier solicitations worked. The FY2026 RFP explicitly discontinued that: Threshold Review is now pass/fail only, and it is the subsequent Evaluation Criteria score that DCHFA uses to rank Bond Cap requests.
- Missing the per-project Bond Cap ceiling. No project may receive more than the lesser of 20% of DCHFA's annual Bond Cap allocation or $77.56 million, regardless of the project's own size or need.
- Assuming HPTF or HANTA applications can be bundled into the Consolidated RFP submission. Both run on their own separate, non-RFP calendars administered directly by DHCD.
- Underweighting Leverage in application strategy. At up to 40 of roughly 190 scoreable Evaluation Criteria points, it is the single largest category — larger than Place-Based Priorities and half of Designated Housing Targets combined — and is scored directly on how little DHCD money a project needs.
- Treating a prior-year Form 202 as a minor version mismatch. The RFP states any outdated version “will not be accepted and render your application as non-responsive” outright, not merely deducted points.
- Assuming HPRB or zoning approval can follow Consolidated RFP application submission for a historic-district or PUD site. The QAP requires HPRB conceptual-design approval, or the relevant zoning application, to already be submitted or obtained before the application itself is filed.
- Assuming DCHFA's published Readiness Review terms (January/July windows, the $77.56 million per-project cap, required submission documents) are fixed year over year. DCHFA republishes this competitive-application document annually — the January 2025 version was the most recent this research could confirm — and terms (including one-off additions like a July 2025 Green Housing compliance memorandum) can change; confirm the current-year version directly with DCHFA before relying on any specific figure.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies