One window, one published score line, and a fee structure that assumes you clear it — Guam

A single application window, not a sequence of gated deadlines

There is no Pre-Application gate, no separate Waiver Requests deadline, and no Threshold Submission date that falls weeks or months after the scored Competitive Application — all of it, scoring documentation and threshold documentation together, is due once, at Application Closes. The Application Fee is $1,500 per application, "the same for all applicants," payable by Cashier's Check at submission (2025 LIHTC QAP, Section V).

Threshold documentation: what has to be in the package the day it's due

The Good Faith Deposit is a separate, later financial commitment, not a submission-day cost: "A good faith deposit of ten percent (10%) of the first year's federal tax credits reserved shall be payable at the time the executed binding agreement is submitted to GHURA." What happens to it is worth planning around before an applicant treats it as a refundable hold: "Upon allocation and issuance of the IRS Form 8609, eighty percent (80%) of the good faith deposit shall be retained by GHURA as an administrative fee. The remainder of the good faith deposit may be refunded to the applicant in the sole discretion of GHURA" (2025 LIHTC QAP, Section V). GHURA also states that failing to meet elections made in the scoring criteria or requesting additional credits after the fact "may result in the retention of the entire good faith deposit."

Scoring: a published minimum score, and fifteen criteria worth 111 points

The QAP does not state a maximum number of applications a single Developer may submit per round, and does not describe a self-scoring mechanism for resolving an over-limit Developer's applications the way some mainland QAPs do — this research found the QAP simply silent on a per-developer cap. That silence should not be read either as confirmation that no cap exists or as confirmation that one does; it should be confirmed directly with GHURA before an applicant plans a multi-project round. Where the QAP is explicit is on ties: "In the event of a tie in the scores, Applications will be ranked according to tax credits per unit favoring the development that requires the fewest tax credits per unit" (2025 LIHTC QAP, Section IV).

GHURA's discretion survives a passing score. Section IV states GHURA "reserves the right to disapprove any Application or project for any tax credit reservation or allocation, regardless of ranking under the criteria and point system," and separately that GHURA "in no way represents or warrants to any interested party... that the project is, in fact, feasible or viable." An applicant should treat 77 points as a threshold to clear, not a guarantee.

The Flores Rosa Gardens reservation, the $5,021,880 balance, and what could not be confirmed about Summer Vista II

The 2025 QAP text itself states: "The Board of Directors has approved the issuance of an allocation reservation of 2025 tax credits in an amount not to exceed $1,793,120 to Flores Rosa Gardens LLC for the Flores Rosa Gardens development... A total of $5,021,880 in credits is available for award net of this reservation" (2025 LIHTC QAP, Section II). This research independently corroborated the Flores Rosa Gardens reservation: a document filed with the Office of Public Accountability, Guam references a "2025 GHURA Low Income Housing Tax Credit Carryover Allocation Agreement with Flores Rosa, LLC" dated February 3, 2025, and Flores Rosa Gardens is a real, since-built affordable community in Tamuning with units rent-restricted at or below 60% of Guam's area median income.

This research could not confirm, from any GHURA board packet, meeting minutes, press release, or news report located, that Core Tech Development's "Summer Vista II" was the entity that received the remaining $5,021,880 at the December 11, 2025 Award Decision. What is confirmed independently: Core Tech Development has an active, multi-project affordable-housing pipeline on Guam under the "Summer" name (Summer Vista I in Dos Amantes, Dededo; Summer Breeze I in Barrigada; Summer Town Estates and Summer Homes elsewhere), and Summer Vista I itself broke ground in February 2025 — which is before this abbreviated 2025 QAP cycle's own Award Decision date, meaning Summer Vista I was necessarily funded from an earlier allocation cycle, not from the $5,021,880 balance described in this QAP. A specific project called "Summer Vista II" tied to the December 2025 award could not be located in a searchable GHURA board record as of this research. Anyone using this example to illustrate GHURA's review process should verify the recipient and amount directly against GHURA's own December 2025 board minutes or a subsequent Carryover Allocation Agreement filing, rather than citing the Summer Vista II connection as established fact.

Appeal Review: a fast, paper-heavy process for a non-selected applicant

An applicant who receives a Non-Selection Letter has seven calendar days to submit a written request for an Appeal Review to GHURA's Executive Director, delivered to GHURA's main office at 117 Bien Venida Avenue, Sinajana. "The Appeal process shall conclude within ten (10) calendar days from the receipt of the Appeal request" (2025 LIHTC QAP, Appendix 3, Administrative Procedure for LIHTC Program Appeal Review). GHURA identifies a 3-to-5-member Appeal Review panel, drawn from outside the Research, Planning and Evaluation Division, before awards are even announced, and a separate Appeal Review Committee of at least three employees appointed by the Executive Director. Both GHURA and the Applicant must submit a written summary capped at ten pages (exclusive of attachments) at least five days before the meeting; each side's initial presentation is capped at one hour, with GHURA's response capped at 20 minutes, and any follow-up question the Committee needs answered after the meeting must get a response from both sides within 48 hours. The Committee "will only consider documents of record" — GHURA's own scoring documentation, the Application as submitted, and correspondence during the scoring process — and an Applicant "may not clarify... a 'scoring' category... during scoring or during the Appeal process," which makes the quality of the original submission, not a later explanation, the decisive factor.