STATE LIHTC RESEARCH

American Samoa
QAP scoring guide.

Development Bank of American Samoa (DBAS) — administers the territory's LIHTC/Section 42 program under oversight of the Governor's Office and American Samoa's Single Point of Contact (SPOC)/Office of Federal Programs, per American Samoa Executive Order No. 008-2006

Browse all states ↗

● Verified guideChecked Sep 13, 2026

THE POINT TABLE

Competitive scoring

16 categories

Select a category to read its scoring criteria.

Percentage of Low-Income Units

0-10 pts

Weighted score based on the AMGI level committed to for set-aside units: units targeted at ≤40% AMGI weight 1.0, ≤50% AMGI weight 0.8, ≤60% AMGI weight 0.6, above 60% AMGI weight 0; weighted average of unit shares x10. Full 10 points requires committing 100% of units to ≤40% AMGI.

Extended Affordability Period

0-6 (the source document's own summary table understates this as 0-5, but its detailed tier schedule -- the section that actually governs scoring -- runs six tiers up to 33+ years = 6 points) pts

Points for restrictive-covenant affordability longer than the Section 42 15-year minimum: 15-18 yrs=1 pt, 19-22 yrs=2 pts, 23-25 yrs=3 pts, 26-28 yrs=4 pts, 29-32 yrs=5 pts, 33+ yrs=6 pts.

LIHTC-to-Low-Income-Unit Cost Ratio

0-6 pts

Scored on annual LIHTC requested per proposed low-income unit, in $1,000 tiers: $18,000+/unit/yr = 0 pts down to $7,999 or less/unit/yr = 6 pts.

Zoning / Development Readiness

0 or 4 pts

4 points if the applicant already has all necessary development/zoning approvals and can proceed without further variances; 0 points if rezoning, variances, or subdivision approval are still required.

Tenant Selection Process

0-2 pts

Points for demonstrating a written process, acceptable to DBAS and the SPOC, for making low-income units available to eligible individuals/families: 0 pts if no acceptable process is provided, 1 pt if acceptable to only one of DBAS/SPOC, 2 pts if acceptable to both.

Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing

0 or 2 pts

2 points if the applicant is acquiring/rehabilitating a LIHTC project with an expiring compliance or extended-use period (and agrees to extend affordability 15+ more years), or a HUD/USDA Rural Development-assisted project at risk of conversion to market rate (with a similar 15+ year extension commitment).

Tenant Population Preference

0-6 pts

Up to 2 points for serving elderly households (at least 25% of total low-income units), plus up to 4 points for family/larger-household units: 2BR+ units at 10-19% of units=1 pt, 20-29%=2 pts, 30-39%=3 pts, 40%+=4 pts.

Special Housing Needs

0-4 pts

Points for committing to services that enhance livability for tenants with special housing needs (physical/mental disability, homelessness); the full 4 points requires an executed commitment from a third-party service provider or an experienced in-house provider. Services must be optional to tenants and provided at no added cost.

Non-Profit Participation / Set-Aside Election

0-3 pts

0 pts if not sponsored by/participating with a qualified non-profit (as defined in IRC §42); 1 pt if participating with a qualified non-profit; 3 pts if the applicant elects to receive its allocation from the non-profit set-aside, which then binds the owner to non-profit set-aside compliance for the project.

Tax Credits Requested as % of Total Project Cost

0-5 pts

Scored on total LIHTC requested (annual amount x 10 years) as a percentage of total project cost: more than 80%=0 pts, 71-80%=1 pt, 61-70%=2 pts, 51-60%=3 pts, 41-50%=4 pts, 40% or less=5 pts (rewards lower credit reliance/more-leveraged deals).

Developer Fee as % of Total Project Cost

0-5 pts

More than 15%=0 pts, 15%=1 pt, 12%=2 pts, 10%=3 pts, 8%=4 pts, less than 6%=5 pts. Developer Fee = consulting fees, project management fees, developer overhead and developer fees; excludes Architectural, Engineering, Accounting, and Legal fees.

Project-Based Rental Assistance Subsidies

0-4 pts

4 points if the whole project has project-based rental subsidy (e.g., Rural Development 515, HUD Section 8 project-based assistance) limiting tenant rent to about 30% of gross income; prorated 1-4 points if only a portion of units are subsidized, based on the ratio of subsidized units to total LIHTC and non-LIHTC subsidized units developed simultaneously.

Homeownership Opportunity

0 or 1 pts

1 point if the applicant offers tenants a right of first refusal to acquire the property under IRC §42(i)(7), supported by a feasibility analysis of tenants' ability to purchase and a plan for offering units for homeownership.

Project Location and Market Demand

0-6 pts

DBAS's discretionary evaluation of factors including urban-core vs. rural district location; proximity to employment, recreation, shopping, and medical facilities; strength of the market study; whether proposed rents are below surrounding market rents; appropriateness of design/density for the neighborhood; and documented/supported market demand.

Developer Experience

0-6 pts

DBAS's discretionary evaluation of the developer's and development team's ability and track record completing projects and meeting program objectives on past proposals, and any history of chronic/substantive noncompliance or adverse tax-credit history with other state/territory allocating agencies.

Overall Project Feasibility

0-10 pts

DBAS's discretionary evaluation of development-cost reasonableness; financing-structure feasibility; operational feasibility (including reasonableness of operating expenses); resolution of outstanding site, zoning, and utility issues; adequacy of Operating Reserve and Repair & Replacement Reserve; tenant services/amenities; and adequacy of development-budget contingencies.

Scoring source

American Samoa LIHTC "Qualified Allocation Plan" (Development Bank of American Samoa, DRAFT, June 2008, for Calendar Years 2008 & 2009), Section III "Selection Criteria": Minimum Thresholds (p.3), Tax-Exempt Bond treatment (p.4), and the Criteria Point System, Criteria 1-16 (pp.4-10). Same document and same staleness caveat as underwriting_citation: this is the only QAP document locatable for American Samoa (retrieved via the Wayback Machine archive of novoco.com/public-media/documents/americansamoa_draft_08.pdf, since the live URL is now blocked); it is an 18-year-old draft covering only CY2008-2009 and no more current QAP could be found on DBAS's site or elsewhere. No typical-winning-score or tie-breaker data exists for this small territorial program. Note: no LIHTC/QAP activity of any kind is advertised on DBAS's current website (2026) -- its only active federal tax-credit housing program is the one-time 2009 ARRA Section 1602 exchange grant; contemporaneous 2012 local reporting states American Samoa has never used the standard competitive 9% process. The territory's competitive 9% program appears to have been dormant since 2008-2009, which is the more accurate framing than a simply "stale" QAP.

MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

Underwriting parameters

American Samoa LIHTC "Qualified Allocation Plan" (Development Bank of American Samoa, DRAFT, June 2008, for Calendar Years 2008 & 2009) — the only QAP-type document locatable for this territory (hosted historically by Novogradac at novoco.com/public-media/documents/americansamoa_draft_08.pdf; the live URL now returns HTTP 403/Cloudflare, retrieved instead via the Wayback Machine archive of that URL). This QAP has no distinct "Underwriting Standards" section; underwriting-adjacent content is folded into Criterion 16 "Overall Project Feasibility" (Section III.C, pp.10-11), Section III.B "Tax-Exempt Bond" treatment (p.4), Section VI.B "Set-Aside" (p.14), and Section V "Fees" (p.12). IMPORTANT CAVEAT: this is an 18-year-old DRAFT covering only calendar years 2008-2009; no evidence of a superseding or more current version could be found. DBAS's current program page (dbas.as/programs/section-1602/) and its "for-applicants"/"for-project-owners" sub-pages host only tenant-certification and compliance forms (income verification, TIC, owner's certificate of continuing compliance, etc.), not a current QAP or underwriting-standards document. Several typical underwriting parameters (DCR minimum, vacancy-rate assumption, rent/expense escalation, operating-expense floor) are not addressed anywhere in this document or on the DBAS site. Treat all figures as historical/draft and verify directly with DBAS before using them in live underwriting.

OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS

Utility allowance

Preferred method: utility_company_estimate

ASPA Utility Allowance Schedule for Section 1602 Housing (ASPA letter, Oct. 1, 2013) ↗

No numbered QAP subsection found. The only UA-specific document is a DBAS-posted letter, "Utility Allowance for 1602 Housing," from the American Samoa Power Authority (ASPA) to DBAS President Jason Betham, dated October 1, 2013, filed under DBAS > Programs > Section 1602 > For Project Owners > "Lease Agreements." The Novoco-hosted draft QAP (undated, filename "americansamoa_draft_08.pdf") contains only generic IRC §42(g)(2)(B) rent-restriction language ("Gross rent must include any allowance for utilities save for telephone") with no method-specific narrowing.

YOUR NEXT STEPS

Development guides for American Samoa

Use the LIHTC feasibility checklist →