Nebraska
QAP scoring guide.
Nebraska Investment Finance Authority (NIFA) · 2026-2028 (three-year cycle: 2026/2027/2028) QAP
Competitive scoring
Not stated in the QAP, Allocation Plans, Applications, or Scoresheets. Nebraska's LIHTC program is oversubscribed, but no historical winning-score threshold or recent award summary showing actual competitive scores is published in these documents; only the 40-point statutory floor (in "Other Selection Criteria") is disclosed.
Select a category to read its scoring criteria.
01Compliance & Extended Use Periods
3 pts
02Right of First Refusal
2 pts
03Eventual Tenant Homeownership (CROWN)
3 pts
04Preservation
3 pts
05Senior Development
2 pts
06Family Development
1 pts
07Mixed Income Development
3 pts
08Development of Market Rate Units
1 pts
09Development of Housing in Greater Nebraska
1 pts
10Economic Development Certified/Leadership Certified/Entitlement Community
2 pts
11PHA Referral Agreement
1 pts
12Track Record of Applicant, Owner, and/or Consultant
1 pts
13Management Qualifications and Experience
4 pts
14Design Standards
8 pts
15Green Standards
6 pts
16Amenities
8 pts
17Project-Based Rental Assistance
4 pts
18Supportive Services
4 pts
19Leverage and Collaboration
6 pts
20Proximity to Services (Non-Metro only)
2 pts
21Community Housing Initiatives (Non-Metro only)
1 pts
22Small Community (Non-Metro only)
3 pts
23Areas of High Opportunity (Metro only)
4 pts
24DHHS-DBH Referral Commitment
1 pts
25Qualified Census Tract / Community Revitalization
2 pts
26Neighborhood Plan or Choice Neighborhood
1 pts
27Housing and Healthcare Component (H3C priority)
See criteria
28Targeting Gross Rents to Lower Levels (NIFA Scored Criteria)
5 pts
29Efficient Housing Production (NIFA Scored Criteria)
6 pts
30Efficient Use of HOME/HTF Funds (NIFA Scored Criteria)
See criteria
31Natural Disaster Designation (NIFA Scored Criteria)
2 pts
2026/2027/2028 QAP, 9% LIHTC/AHTC Allocation Plan Section 4.2 "Scoring of Competitive LIHTC Application" and Section 5.3(b) "Evaluation of Threshold Deficiency Correction" (this section's own text refers scoring ties to the Application's "Final Ranking," it is not itself titled "Final Ranking"); 9% LIHTC/AHTC Application, Section G "Description of NIFA/NDED Scored Criteria" and Section H "Final Ranking" (pp. ~26-46 of the Application as paginated within the combined QAP PDF: https://www-nifa-org-files.s3.amazonaws.com/c0d6-32307177-0.0_26-27-28_Full_QAP_Doc.pdf). Full category-by-category point tally is published as standalone documents: "2026/2027/2028 9% Scoresheet" (https://www-nifa-org-files.s3.amazonaws.com/5df4-52307177-2026.27.28_9_percent_scoresheet.pdf) and "2026/2027/2028 4% Scoresheet". The Scoresheet's own stated grand totals are split by geography, not one flat number: Non-Metro Max = 87 points, Metro Max = 85 points (both excluding the two non-numeric priority mechanisms, Housing/Healthcare Component and Efficient Use of HOME/HTF Funds, which are evaluated pass/fail outside the point system). 4% program scoring differences at 4% LIHTC/AHTC Allocation Plan Section 3.3 "Evaluation of the Full LIHTC Application and Threshold Deficiency Correction."
Tie-breakers
Review the agency’s tie-breaker rules alongside the scoring criteria.
- Consideration given to meeting the state's established set-asides
- Readiness to proceed: zoning compliance and building permits already issued
- Serves the lowest-income tenants, including via project-based vouchers
- Commits to the longest affordability period
- Prior performance and capacity of the applicant/owner
- Most efficient use of LIHTC on a per-unit basis
- Location in a Qualified Census Tract tied to a community revitalization plan
Underwriting parameters
2026/2027/2028 QAP -- 9% LIHTC/AHTC Application, "Exhibit 111 -- Development Worksheets (Underwriting Criteria)," item 2, "Minimum Underwriting Guidelines" table (approx. p.22-23 of the 9% Application as paginated within the combined QAP PDF, https://www-nifa-org-files.s3.amazonaws.com/c0d6-32307177-0.0_26-27-28_Full_QAP_Doc.pdf). The identical table and DCR requirement is mirrored in the 4% Bond Application's own Exhibit 111 (approx. p.23-24 of that application). Fee cap language (24% combined developer/contractor/consultant fee cap; 5% acquisition developer fee cap; 7% architect/engineering fee cap) is at Section 9.2 "Maximum Fee Limits" (9% Allocation Plan) and Section 3.4/3.5 (4% Allocation Plan). Fee schedule at "Appendix A -- Fee Schedule" of each Allocation Plan.
Utility allowance
Preferred method: None mandated as a default for the general case; hierarchy is assistance-driven: RHS method if RHS-assisted; HUD-required allowance if HUD-regulated; mandatory PHA (Section 8 Existing Housing) allowance if a tenant receives HUD rental assistance in a non-RHS/non-HUD-regulated building. Only for buildings with no RHS/HUD assistance does the owner get a free choice among PHA schedule, NIFA Agency Estimate (HUD USM-based), Utility Company Estimate, owner-calculated HUD USM, or Energy Consumption Model.
NIFA Affordable Housing Tax Credit Program Compliance Manual (Updated 12/2021), Chapter 3, "Sources of Utility Allowances," pp. 3-3 to 3-4; consistent boilerplate also appears in the 2026-27-28 9%/4% LIHTC/AHTC Application, "Utility Allowance Calculations" section (p.14 of the 9% application PDF).
