STATE LIHTC RESEARCH

Washington
QAP scoring guide.

Washington State Housing Finance Commission (WSHFC) · 2027 (current 9% competitive cycle) QAP

Browse all states ↗

● Verified guideChecked Sep 12, 2026View source QAP ↗

THE POINT TABLE

Competitive scoring

21 categories

Not published as a target, but the Commission's own 2026 9% Allocation List (most recent completed round, Nov 2025 applications) shows actual funded scores well above each pool's stated minimum: King County pool funded at 167 and 192 points (minimum 160); Metro pool funded at 159, 162, 165, and 166 points (minimum 158); Non-Metro New Production funded at 170-181 points (minimum 154); Non-Metro Preservation/Recapitalization funded at 172 points. In practice, since this is a threshold-then-rank system (not "top score wins"), essentially all applications clearing the point floor and fitting within available Annual Authority get funded — 12 of 17 statewide applications (71%) were funded in the 2026 round.

Select a category to read its scoring criteria.

Additional Low-Income Housing Commitment (§6.1)

50-60 pts

Applicant elects ONE of 20 published set-aside combinations mixing 30/40/50/60% AMI units; deeper income targeting scores higher. Point value depends on whether the county is classified 'Lower Income' or 'Higher Income' (Lower gets +2 pts for the same combo). Same range in all three geographic pools.

Additional Low-Income Housing Use Period (§6.2)

22-44 pts

24 points for committing to a 25-year Additional Low-Income Use Period beyond the standard 15-year compliance period, +1 point per additional year up to 44 points at 45 years. (Note: the summary chart lists the range as 22-44 while the section body text describes the base commitment as 24 points — a minor internal inconsistency in the source document.)

Housing Commitments for Priority Populations (§6.3)

10-35 pts

Applicant selects one path: (A) Permanent Supportive Housing for the Homeless — 35 pts if ≥75% of units in King/Seattle, or 25 pts if ≥25% of units in Metro/Non-Metro; OR (B) Farmworker Housing, 25 pts if ≥75% of units (Metro/Non-Metro only, not available in King); OR (C) up to two of five options (20% Farmworker, 20% Large Households, 20% Disabled, 20% Homeless, or 100% Elderly) at 10 pts each, max 20 pts. Options cannot be combined across A/B/C.

Leverage Scoring and Points (§6.4)

2-10 pts

Points scale with non-equity, non-developer-fee committed capital sources as a % of Total Project Costs; thresholds differ slightly by pool (e.g., King: 5-10%=2pts up to 26%+=10pts; Metro/Non-Metro: 2-7%=2pts up to 18%/23%+=10pts).

Public Leverage (§6.5)

2 pts

Additional 2 points if 50% or more of the leveraged 'other sources' counted under §6.4 are public resources.

Project-Based Rental Assistance (§6.6)

1-5 pts

1-4 points on a sliding scale for the % of low-income units with committed federal PBRA (10-25%=2pts, 26-49%=3pts, ≥50%=4pts), plus 1 additional point for a ≥2-year non-federal Operating & Maintenance funding commitment.

Cost Containment Incentive (§6.7)

1-8 pts

TDC Limit point: 1 pt for being under the applicable Total Development Cost limit, 3 pts for >5% under, or 6 pts for >10% under (non-cumulative); plus a separate Median Square Footage point (2 pts) for being at or below the median cost-per-square-foot within the project's geographic pool for that round.

Developer Fees (§6.8)

0-10 pts

Points scale inversely with the developer fee as a % of Total Project Cost: 10% of TPC=10 pts, 11%=8, 12%=6, 13%=4, 14%=2, 15%=0 pts.

Properties At Risk of Loss or Market Conversion — Rehab only (§6.9)

4-6 pts

Awarded to preservation/rehab projects with an expiring use restriction facing imminent conversion to market rate, significant unmet capital needs threatening the restriction, or (Non-Metro only) a Housing Authority-owned project needing extensive rehab. Not available to New Production pool projects.

Historic Buildings — New Production only (§6.10)

5 pts

For projects using the federal Historic Tax Credit, listed/eligible for the National Register or in a certified historic district, where ≥50% of units are in the designated historic building(s).

Eligible Tribal Area (§6.11)

6 (King) / 5 (Metro) / 10 (Non-Metro) pts

For projects within an eligible tribe's reservation or service area (poverty rate ≥20% of tribal households), sponsored by the tribe or a tribally designated housing entity. Mutually exclusive with the other location-based criteria (§6.12-6.17).

Location Efficient Projects (§6.12)

2 pts

For projects meeting an enhanced walk/drive-distance standard to community, retail, and grocery/farmers'-market facilities beyond the Evergreen Standard minimum. Same 2 points in all pools.

Area Targeted by a Local Jurisdiction (§6.13)

2 pts

For projects within a local-government-adopted mixed-use/affordable-housing planning area. Available only in King County and Metro Counties, not Non-Metro.

Community Revitalization Plan / CRP (§6.14)

1 pts

For projects within the boundaries of an adopted, published community revitalization plan targeting economic/commercial development funds. Available only in King County and Metro Counties.

Transit Oriented Development / TOD (§6.15)

1 pts

For projects near qualifying (existing or funded/approved) transit facilities. Available only in King County and Metro Counties.

Job Centers (§6.16)

1 pts

For projects within a defined radius (5 miles Metro / 10 miles Non-Metro) of one of the top-25 highest job-growth cities/CDPs (2019-2023) in that pool. Available only in Metro and Non-Metro Counties, not King.

High and Very High Opportunity Areas (§6.17)

1 pts

For projects in a census tract rated High or Very High on the Puget Sound Regional Council's Comprehensive Opportunity Index. Available only in King County.

Nonprofit Sponsor (§6.18)

5 pts

For projects developed/owned/operated by a qualifying Nonprofit Organization alone or in a for-profit/nonprofit co-ownership partnership meeting documentation requirements.

Donation in Support of Local Housing Needs (§6.19)

5 pts

For a committed cash donation to a local nonprofit serving the project's county: $15,000 if Total Project Cost ≤$12.5M, or $25,000 if TPC >$12.5M.

Eventual Tenant Ownership / ETO (§6.20)

2 pts

For single-family/townhome/duplex projects structured to convert units to resident homeownership after the initial 15-year compliance period, per a Commission-approved Conversion Plan.

Energy Efficiency Modeling (§6.21)

2 pts

For new-construction projects committing to Option #1 (Advanced Tools) energy modeling under ESDS §1.02, using a Commission-approved energy modeling consultant engaged early in design.

Scoring source

WSHFC "9% Competitive Housing Tax Credit Policies" (current version dated Aug 3, 2026, for the 2027 cycle), at https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/9percent/2027application/ProgramDocs/9percentTaxCreditPolicies.pdf — Chapter 4 "Minimum Threshold Requirements" (pp.24-35, esp. §4.15) for the eligibility floor; Chapter 5 "Project Ranking Policies" (pp.35-42, esp. §5.2.2 Geographic Credit Pools, §5.2.5 Geographic Dispersion, §5.2.6-5.2.9 ranking/tiebreakers/waiting list) for how points translate into awards; and Chapter 6 "Allocation Criteria" (pp.42-64, §6.1-6.21) for the full points menu. Current-round results cross-checked against WSHFC's "2026 9% Allocation List" (https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/9percent/2026AllocationList.pdf).

WHEN SCORES ARE CLOSE

Tie-breakers

Review the agency’s tie-breaker rules alongside the scoring criteria.

Project is located in a Qualified Census Tract (QCT)
Requests the least total Housing Credit amount
Requests the least Credit per Low-Income Housing Unit

BEYOND THE SCORE

Development strategy

Explore the documented considerations behind a competitive application.

Engage an Evergreen verifier early, use the joint application

Every LIHTC applicant is held to the Evergreen Sustainable Development Standard regardless of funding source, so bringing in a WSHFC-recognized verifier during design rather than after construction avoids a late scramble to meet it. The joint Combined Funders application (WSHFC, WA Commerce, King County, Seattle, and ARCH) lets one submission satisfy multiple public funders at once instead of filing separately with each.

WSHFC -- Evergreen Sustainable Development Standard; WA Commerce -- Combined Funders Application ↗

Max the two free scoring levers before chasing population points

Income-targeting depth and extended-use-period commitments are worth up to 60 and 44 points respectively -- 104 of the real total -- and cost duration-of-restriction, not construction capital. PSH/homeless points (up to 35, the largest population category) won't save a deal that lacks secured operating subsidy, per WSHFC's own 2026 guidance -- prioritize the free levers first.

Washington State Housing Finance Commission -- 2026 9% Tax Credit Program Policies ↗

Don't assume Seattle/King County is always the hardest pool

Real 2025 and 2026 Allocation List data shows King County was actually undersubscribed both years, while the Metro and Non-Metro pools ran deficits requiring forward credit commitments -- the opposite of the common assumption that Seattle is always the toughest pool to win. Only a two-year data point, not a confirmed trend, but worth checking against the current year's own list before assuming it.

Washington State Housing Finance Commission -- 2025 and 2026 Allocation Lists (real award data) ↗

MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

Underwriting parameters

WSHFC "9% Competitive Housing Tax Credit Policies" (current version dated Aug 3, 2026, for the 2027 application cycle), at https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/9percent/2027application/ProgramDocs/9percentTaxCreditPolicies.pdf — Ch.2 §2.8 "Feasibility and Viability Analysis" (p.12) and Ch.4 §4.13 "Financial Feasibility – WAC 262-01-130(7)" (p.31) govern the underwriting/pro-forma review; Ch.3 "Program Limits" (pp.17-24, esp. §3.1 Maximum Credit, §3.5-3.6 Per Capita caps, §3.7 Maximum Developer Fees) and Ch.11 "Fee Schedule" (pp.73-74) cover the caps and fees. Parallel 4%/bond underwriting provisions are in the companion "Bond/Tax Credit Program Policies" (Board-approved 9/26/2025), esp. §2.2, §2.3, §2.6, and §3.17. Note: the formal statutory QAP document itself (QAP.pdf, last amended by the Commission June 28, 2012) is a short, high-level 10-page document that only restates IRC §42(m)(1)(B) selection-preference and compliance-monitoring boilerplate — it contains no numeric underwriting or scoring parameters at all. WSHFC's own Policies document explains this structure directly: "The Tax Credit Program is described in three separate documents: The Qualified Allocation Plan, the Rules, and the Policies" (§1.1) — essentially all quantitative content lives in the Rules (WAC 262-01-130) and the annually-updated Policies, not in the QAP text itself.

OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS

Utility allowance

Preferred method: local_pha

Utility Allowance Information Online (WSHFC directory of local PHA utility allowance schedule links — not a calculator) ↗

9% Tax Credit Program Policies (2027 round), § 2.14 "Utility Allowances"; Tax Credit Compliance Procedures Manual, Appendix O "Utility Allowance Procedures for LIHTC Properties" (Rev. Aug 2023), section "Available Utility Allowance Methods" (Methods 1-8) and "Submitting Alternate Utility Allowance Model Requests on Newly Placed-In-Service Properties"

YOUR NEXT STEPS

Development guides for Washington

PHASE 1Which pool, then which parcel PHASE 2Tying up the site against a single annual clock PHASE 3Choosing an entitlement path when WSHFC doesn't require one at application PHASE 4Two programs, two rulebooks: 9%, 4%/bond, or both PHASE 5Setting the income targeting that decides half your score PHASE 6Cost containment, developer fee, and the labor question PHASE 7The Combined Funders stack and the conditional tax exemption PHASE 8The Combined Funders package, the LIHTC Addendum, and a noon deadline with no exceptions PHASE 9From RAC to Form 8609: the Commission's post-award clock PHASE 10Construction, Cost Certification, and Form 8609 Under WSHFC PHASE 11Year 15, the Additional Use Period, and WSHFC's 30-to-37-Year Extended Use Horizon

Use the LIHTC feasibility checklist →