"What can this actually cost under OHFA's rules, and whose wage rules apply to our GC?"
The cost ceiling is federal and borrowed, not an OHFA-specific dollar table
OHFA states directly that it will use "the HOME Program Maximum Per Unit Subsidy Limits currently in effect as the limit on total development costs per unit, based on bedroom size" -- a HUD-published table (derived from Section 221(d)(3) limits) that OHFA adopts rather than replacing with its own figures. If HUD does not update that table for a given year, OHFA's own fallback is to take the current limits and increase them by 10%. The QAP is explicit that OHFA will not give preference solely for the lowest construction cost, and that a Development can still be found ineligible for a reservation on cost-reasonableness grounds even if it technically clears the per-unit ceiling.
The only exception to the per-unit ceiling is for Historic Rehabilitation Developments or Developments located in a Federal Opportunity Zone, and even then the ceiling can only be exceeded up to 130% of the current Maximum per Unit Subsidy -- the QAP's own words are that the cost per unit "will [not] be allowed to exceed more than thirty percent (30%) of the current Maximum per Unit Subsidy currently in effect," i.e., a 30-point cushion, not an open-ended exception.
A second, independent hard cap: $250 per square foot, tested separately from the per-unit ceiling
OHFA also tests cost per square foot as part of feasibility review, and sets an absolute ceiling: costs per square foot over $250 (excluding land) trigger a Failed Threshold item "even if maximum per unit limits are not exceeded" -- OHFA's own words, and worth reading literally. This is a genuinely separate test from the per-unit dollar cap above; a Development sized with small, efficient units could clear the per-unit ceiling comfortably while still failing on cost per square foot, and vice versa for a Development with large units. The same Historic Rehabilitation / Federal Opportunity Zone exception applies here too, capped at 130% of the standard per-square-foot limit.
Separately, for rehabilitation Developments: OHFA requires a minimum rehabilitation investment of the greater of $30,000 in hard costs per unit, or hard costs equal to at least 20% of Eligible Basis -- a floor meant to screen out cosmetic-only rehabs from qualifying as substantial rehabilitation.
Developer and contractor fees are capped by rule, not negotiated -- but the numbers live in the annual Application, not the codified rule text
OHFA's codified Chapter 36 rule at 330:36-4-2.1 does not itself state a developer-fee or contractor-fee percentage -- its actual text simply provides that allowable Developer Fees and allowable contractor fees "shall be established in the AP" (the Application Packet OHFA adopts each cycle). The 2026 QAP's Attachment C is that AP, and it is where the specific percentages below are actually set. The practical effect is the same either way: these are fixed program limits set by OHFA's own governing documents, not something a Developer negotiates deal by deal -- but a researcher checking the rule text alone, without also pulling the current year's QAP, would find the rule silent on the actual numbers.
| Fee | 9% cap | 4% cap |
|---|---|---|
| Developer fee | 15% of Eligible Basis (before any boost), excluding the fee itself | 20% of Eligible Basis (before any boost), excluding the fee itself |
For acquisition/rehabilitation deals, the developer fee is prorated between the acquisition and rehabilitation components based on each one's share of Eligible Basis.
| Development size | Total contractor fee cap | General requirements | General overhead | Builder's profit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small (60 units or fewer) | 16% | 6% | 2% | 8% |
| Large (more than 60 units) | 14% | 6% | 2% | 6% |
General requirements and general overhead are fixed at 6% and 2% regardless of size; only the builder's-profit component drops (from 8% to 6%) once a Development crosses the 60-unit line. A 5% construction contingency is allowed for new construction and 10% for rehabilitation, calculated against a narrowly defined hard-cost base (on-site work, new structures/rehab costs, accessory structures, permits/fees, and FF&E only).
Two items that read like Oklahoma mandates are actually optional, scored elections
Given Oklahoma's tornado exposure, it would be a reasonable guess that OHFA requires storm shelters or safe rooms in new AHTC construction. This research pass found the opposite: the storm shelter/safe room is one of up to ten Development Amenities an Applicant can voluntarily select, worth 5 of the maximum 10 Development Amenities points (every other listed amenity is worth 1 point each). If selected, it must be built to "the most recent State of Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission minimum State requirement for storm shelters, which currently requires construction according to ICC/NSSA 500 Standard, FEMA 320 Guideline, FEMA 361 Guideline or other equivalent approved engineered system," sized for one person per bedroom across all possible residents, with resident access guaranteed. There is no separate Threshold requirement mandating a storm shelter independent of this scoring election.
Similarly, green building or energy-efficiency compliance is not a separate mandatory certification in Oklahoma's AHTC program -- it is Selection Criteria #7, Home Energy Efficiency Rating System (HERS), worth up to 10 points on a sliding scale (a HERS score of 80 or below earns the full 10 points, tapering to 3 points for a 91-95 score), verified post-construction by a Certified RESNET Home Energy Rater and certified on Attachment #12. A Development that skips this election entirely is not disqualified from the program; one that commits to a HERS range and then misses it at final inspection faces a two-Funding-Period application suspension for the Owner/Developer and its Principals, the same consequence OHFA applies to an unfavorable change in the Development Cost Efficiency scoring factors. OHFA's own Chapter 36 rule corroborates this framing at a structural level: its general-provisions section lists "Energy Efficiency/Green Building of a Development" as a category OHFA is free to score as its own item or fold into another Threshold/Selection category from cycle to cycle -- consistent with treating it as a flexible, scored program element rather than a fixed mandate.
Oklahoma has no state prevailing-wage law -- but Davis-Bacon still attaches independently, and not the way HOME and NHTF are often assumed to work the same way
Oklahoma's Prevailing Wage Act was found unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1995, in City of Oklahoma City v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Dept. of Labor (1995 OK 107) -- reporting sources describe the holding as an improper delegation of legislative authority for failing to set definite standards for determining prevailing wages, though this research pass was not able to directly access and quote the court's own opinion text, so that characterization should be treated as a secondary-source summary rather than a verified quotation. The practical result, consistently confirmed across current secondary sources, is that Oklahoma has had no state prevailing-wage statute since 1995: an AHTC Development with no other federal funding source has no state wage floor to comply with, and OHFA's own QAP contains no wage-rate requirement of its own.
Federal Davis-Bacon can still attach independently of the AHTC award itself, and the trigger differs by funding source in a way worth getting right rather than assuming: HOME program regulations require Davis-Bacon prevailing wages once a project has 12 or more HOME-assisted units, with the standard measured by units "assisted" rather than total project size, applied to the entire project (not just the HOME-assisted units) once triggered, and with an explicit anti-circumvention rule against splitting a project into smaller contracts to dodge the threshold. This research pass specifically checked whether the National Housing Trust Fund carries an equivalent trigger, since NHTF is modeled closely on HOME in most other respects -- multiple current sources, and the absence of any labor-standards section in 24 CFR Part 93's own table of contents (unlike HOME's dedicated labor-standards section at 24 CFR § 92.354), indicate that NHTF does not carry a Davis-Bacon requirement. A Development layering NHTF alongside AHTC should not assume Davis-Bacon applies on that basis alone; a Development layering HOME funds should assume it does, once the 12-unit threshold is crossed.
Where this goes wrong
- Treating OHFA's per-unit cost cap as an Oklahoma-specific dollar figure -- it is HUD's HOME Program Maximum Per Unit Subsidy Limits, adjusted automatically, with a 10% OHFA-applied inflator only if HUD itself fails to update the table for the year.
- Passing the per-unit cost cap and assuming that clears cost Threshold -- the $250/sf ceiling is tested independently and can fail a Development that comfortably clears the per-unit dollar limit, or vice versa.
- Applying the Historic Rehabilitation / Federal Opportunity Zone cost exception to a Development that does not actually qualify as Historic Rehabilitation or sit inside a Federal Opportunity Zone -- the QAP states this is the only exception to either cost ceiling.
- Sizing contractor fees off the wrong unit-count line -- crossing 60 units drops the builder's-profit cap from 8% to 6% (general requirements and overhead stay fixed at 6% and 2% regardless of size).
- Treating the storm shelter/safe room as a required feature of Oklahoma AHTC construction -- it is one of up to ten optional Development Amenities, worth 5 of 10 possible points, not a Threshold requirement.
- Treating the HERS energy score as a mandatory green-building certification -- it is an optional Selection Criteria election worth up to 10 points; skipping it does not disqualify a Development, but committing to a score and missing it at final inspection triggers a two-Funding-Period application suspension.
- Assuming Oklahoma has a state prevailing-wage floor for AHTC construction -- the state's Prevailing Wage Act was struck down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1995 (1995 OK 107), and OHFA's own QAP contains no wage-rate requirement of its own.
- Assuming National Housing Trust Fund layering triggers Davis-Bacon the same way HOME financing does -- this research pass found HOME's 12-or-more-assisted-unit trigger (24 CFR § 92.354) has no confirmed NHTF equivalent, despite NHTF being modeled closely on HOME in most other respects.
- Assuming a project can dodge HOME's Davis-Bacon trigger by splitting a single Development into multiple smaller HOME contracts -- HOME regulations explicitly prohibit this.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies