Not stated. The QAP does not publish a historical winning-score threshold, and no AHFC scoring summary or recent GOAL award-results document with per-project scores was located during this research.
Select a category to read its scoring criteria.
01
1. Project Location
21 pts+
a. Located in a "small community" as defined in the QAP (population ≤6,500 not connected by road/rail to Anchorage/Fairbanks, or ≤1,600 if connected but ≥50 mi from Anchorage / ≥25 mi from Fairbanks) — 20 pts. b. Located in a Qualified Census Tract (HUD, IRC §42(d)(5)(C)) AND contributes to a community revitalization plan — 1 pt.
02
2. Project Design
52 pts+
a. Energy Efficiency (14 pts): 5-Star-Plus/BEES rating tiered by cost area — moderate 4 pts, intermediate 6 pts, high-cost 8 pts — OR cost-effective rehab building improvements (≥$40/unit/yr savings) 5 pts (either/or); PLUS either cost-effective renewable energy (≥$40/unit/yr benefit) 6 pts OR cost-effective EE improvements beyond 5-Star-Plus 6 pts (either/or). b. Larger units for households with children (3+ BR), formula-scored — up to 2 pts. c. Units equipped for physical/sensory disabilities, formula-scored (100% of units for senior projects, 25% for non-senior) — up to 8 pts. d. Rehabilitation project — 2 pts base, +4 pts if in a 3-yr negative-population-growth area, +4 pts if area vacancy exceeds statewide average, +6 pts if converting non-affordable→affordable or non-senior→senior (up to 16 pts total; sub-items ii-iv require meeting the minimum rehab cost threshold). e. Tenant storage facilities for all units — 1 pt. f. Service-enriched housing (substantive social services for homeless/disabled tenants in set-aside units) — 3 pts. g. Project-based rental assistance covering ≥25% of units for a ≥15-year term — 8 pts.
03
3. Project Characteristics
38 pts+
a. Serves lowest-income tenants: formula-scored for setting aside >10% up to 60% of units at ≤50% AMI — up to 12 pts. b. Extended low-income use commitment of 30 years (forfeits qualified-contract termination right) — 1 pt. c. Serves special-needs populations beyond required set-asides, formula-scored up to 50% of units — up to 8 pts. d. Project Mix: income-mix targeting relative to census-tract characteristics (2-8 pts across three sub-tests) plus a 4-pt bonus if ≥20% of units are unrestricted and the remainder restricted (or vice versa) — up to 12 pts. e. Intended for eventual tenant ownership — 1 pt. f. Preference in occupancy for homeless families — 1 pt. g. Written commitment prioritizing public housing waiting lists — 1 pt. h. Veterans housing preference — 2 pts. i. Senior housing offset (senior-dedicated project, ≤20% of units otherwise income-restricted) — 8 pts. NOTE ON SOURCE DATA: AHFC's own "Rating and Ranking Criteria Summary" table (p.38) states this category's ceiling as 38 points, but the individually listed sub-item maximums as written in the QAP body sum to 46 points (12+1+8+12+1+1+1+2+8) — an apparent unreconciled internal inconsistency in this version of the QAP, reported here as-is rather than corrected.
04
4. Market Conditions
45 pts+
a. Opportunity (area unemployment rate vs. statewide rate, 6 tiers from 0 pts to 15 pts) — up to 15 pts. b. Rental Market Strength (area vacancy rate per AK Dept. of Labor survey, 6 tiers from >12% vacancy = 0 pts to <4% vacancy = 15 pts) — up to 15 pts. c. Location Trends (3-year average population growth rate, tiered) — up to 15 pts.
05
5. Underwriting
40 pts+
An application must earn at least 8 of these 40 points to receive any GOAL funding at all. a. Pro Forma Analysis (30 pts): % of Total Development Cost supported by hard debt, sliding scale from 4-6% of TDC = 6 pts up to >15% of TDC = 24 pts (remote small communities scored at 40% of these thresholds); projects contractually barred from debt service by subsidy-source rules get 14 pts automatically; RDAW line-item cost-cap compliance (1 pt) and full line-item description (up to 5 pts, reduced for vague "other" entries) net of a discrepancy penalty (up to -5 pts for RDAW errors/omissions). b. Developer Fee (2 pts): overhead/fee split separately itemized (1 pt) + deferred fee below 30% of total fee (1 pt); -2 pt penalty if a non-owner developer's deferred fee isn't projected to repay within 12 years. c. Debt Coverage Ratio (8 pts): Year-1 DCR ≥1.40 = 8 pts, 1.30-1.39 = 3 pts (only if hard debt ≥4% of TDC); automatic 8 pts if contractually barred from debt service.
06
6. Project Leveraging
28 pts+
Scored by a review committee of 3+ members ranking narrative responses (6-page max) rather than by fixed formula; points are distributed down the consolidated ranking, with the top-ranked proposal in each sub-item receiving the maximum. a. Appropriateness of total development cost (TDC) per unit given location and relative difficulty to develop — up to 20 pts. b. Amount of GOAL funding requested relative to TDC and non-GOAL funding in the project — up to 8 pts.
07
7. Project Team Characteristics
1 pts+
a. A tax-exempt organization or Regional Housing Authority involved on a regular, continuous, substantial basis in both development and operation — 1 pt. b. Penalty points (deduction only, no stated maximum): late progress reports; -1 pt per month an AHFC mortgage is 30+ days past due (up to -5); -3 pts per project/grant with an unresolved IRS Form 8823 filing, "non-compliant" review closing, or audit finding older than 3 months; unapproved/uncorrected changes to a prior award's committed scope trigger the greater of a -3 pt deduction or a deduction equal to the points originally awarded for that commitment.
08
8. Job Training Program
6 pts+
Up to 6 pts for committing to operate a job-training program for low/moderate-income trainees during construction: 1 pt per individual receiving on-the-job training, plus 2 additional pts for ≥20 hours of classroom instruction delivered to at least 2 of those trainees. Requires firm written financial commitments and signed MOAs between owner, contractor, and training organization; failure to implement a program that earned points may result in AHFC recapturing GOAL funding.
Scoring source
AHFC GOAL Program Rating and Award Criteria Plan (QAP), Version June 24, 2026 (https://www.ahfc.us/download_file/view/9334/551) — "Application Rating and Ranking Criteria" (pp. 21-36), rolled up in the "Rating and Ranking Criteria Summary" table (pp. 38-39, which states TOTAL POINTS = 231); threshold requirements (pp. 11-18); tie-break provisions and sponsor/geographic limits under "Geographic Distribution, Sponsor Award Limits, and Tie-Break Provisions" (p. 36); tax-exempt bond scoring treatment under "Allocation of Tax Credits to Projects Financed with Tax-Exempt Bonds Exceeding 50% of Total Project Costs" (pp. 43-44).
WHEN SCORES ARE CLOSE
Tie-breakers
Review the agency’s tie-breaker rules alongside the scoring criteria.
Project's community has gone longest without a GOAL-funded development
If still tied, lowest total development cost per unit wins
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
Underwriting parameters
AHFC GOAL Program Rating and Award Criteria Plan (Qualified Allocation Plan), Version June 24, 2026 (https://www.ahfc.us/download_file/view/9334/551) — "Underwriting" scoring criteria at Rating and Ranking Criteria item 5 (pp. 31-33); developer fee caps, operating/replacement reserves, minimum rehabilitation cost, and processing-fee limits under "Project Cost and Funding Limitations" (pp. 39-43); tax-exempt bond "50% test" rules (p. 43); Compliance Monitoring fees (p. 50). Cross-checked against the companion GOAL Program Policies and Procedures manual (https://www.ahfc.us/download_file/1320/713), which contains no additional numeric DCR/vacancy/escalation standards beyond what the QAP states.
