FY 2017 Community Compass NOFA U S Department

  • Slides: 26
Download presentation
FY 2017 Community Compass NOFA U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

FY 2017 Community Compass NOFA U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rating Factors Summer 2017 1

Presenters Benjamin Frey, Program Analyst, Technical Assistance Division Office of Community Planning and Development

Presenters Benjamin Frey, Program Analyst, Technical Assistance Division Office of Community Planning and Development Stephanie Stone, Director, Technical Assistance Division Office of Community Planning and Development Takiyah Worthy, Team Lead, Technical Assistance Division Office of Community Planning and Development 2

Rating Factor Scoring Changes Rating Factor 2016 NOFA 2017 NOFA Rating Factor 1: Capacity

Rating Factor Scoring Changes Rating Factor 2016 NOFA 2017 NOFA Rating Factor 1: Capacity of the Applicant 55 points 51 Points Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach 25 points 29 Points Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results 20 Points 3

FY 2017 Community Compass NOFA U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

FY 2017 Community Compass NOFA U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rating Factor 1: Capacity Summer 2017 4

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant Maximum Points: 51 1. A. Experience and Expertise

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant Maximum Points: 51 1. A. Experience and Expertise in TA Programs and Topics (20 points) Applicants should: § Clearly state any category/program/topic of interest, and accurately describe experience and expertise. § Refer to the Table of Categories, Programs and Topics, and Funding Sources displayed in Section I. A. 1. a. § For Mc. Kinney-Vento, National Homeless Data Analysis Project, NAHASDA, or Native American Housing and Community Development TA funding, describe experience and expertise in categories relevant to those particular funding sources 5

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. A. Experience and Expertise in TA Programs

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. A. Experience and Expertise in TA Programs and Topics, cont’d Applicants may: § Consolidate descriptions of expertise and experiences that span multiple programs/topics/categories § Describe experience or expertise in programs or topics not listed, if: • They are directly related to a program or topic area • Must describe its relevance to topics listed in the table 66

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. A. Experience and Expertise in TA Programs

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. A. Experience and Expertise in TA Programs and Topics, cont’d Seeking Experience and Expertise: § Broad, Diverse, Clearly Focused § in programs or topics in more than one category § in more than one program or topic within a category 77

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. A. Experience and Expertise in TA Programs

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. A. Experience and Expertise in TA Programs and Topics, cont’d § Include only experience between Summer 2012 and the publication date of the NOFA § Experience of less than one year will not count towards total experience § Staff, subcontractor, and consultant experience § Greater experience 88

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. B. Past Performance (17 points) 1. B.

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. B. Past Performance (17 points) 1. B. i. Eligible Activities (3 points) List eligible activity categories in which applicant has conducted activities between Summer 2012 and the publication date of the NOFA Eligible Activity categories: i. Needs Assessment ii. Direct TA and Capacity Building Engagements iii. Tools and Products iv. Self-Directed and Group Learning v. Knowledge Management vi. Data Analysis, Reporting, and Performance Measurement vii. NAHASDA Allocation Formula Administration and Negotiated Rulemaking and Consultation Support 9

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. B. Past Performance (17 points) 1. B.

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. B. Past Performance (17 points) 1. B. ii. Recent Engagements (10 points) Examples of each “Eligible Activity” category identified (1. B. i) Must include: 1. Challenge, gap, or issue that the TA was designed to address 2. Recipient(s) or customer(s) of the TA 3. Time period during which the TA was provided (between Summer 2012 and July 2017) 4. How the TA was provided, including any challenges encountered 5. Quantifiable accomplishments or results of the TA 10 10

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. B. Past Performance (17 points) 1. B.

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. B. Past Performance (17 points) 1. B. ii. Recent Engagements (10 points) Include only one example per eligible activity category If multiple eligible activities took place during a single engagement, the applicant may use that engagement to describe all of the eligible activities Beneficiary of the technical assistance cannot be a HUD office division (e. g. a HUD Regional, Field, or Headquarters office) 11 11

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. B. Past Performance (17 points) 1. B.

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. B. Past Performance (17 points) 1. B. iii. Letters of Reference (4 points) Letters from the customers/recipients of the work described in the “Recent Engagements” section (described in Rating Factor 1, Section 1. B. ii. ) must include descriptions of: § Services or TA provided § Quantifiable results or accomplishments § How results/accomplishments were evaluated § Testament to customer’s experience working with applicant, whether work was completed on time, level of quality, and responsiveness to customer needs Important: The letters of reference in section 1. B. iii should come from the customers/recipients of the work described in the “Recent Engagements” section (1. B. ii). 12 12

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. C. Award Management (14 points) i. Required

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant 1. C. Award Management (14 points) i. Required qualifications and experience of key personnel responsible (4 points) § Financial management § Supervision of assignments, work plans, and HUD reporting essentials § Compliance with Federal and HUD requirements ii. Contingency/backup procedures (4 points) in the event of unforeseen circumstances iii. Step-by-step internal processes (6 points) § Managing financial awards § Responding to assignments § Reporting TA outcomes § Procuring, managing, overseeing, and paying subcontractors and consultants 13 13

FY 2017 Community Compass NOFA U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

FY 2017 Community Compass NOFA U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Summer 2017 14

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Maximum Points: 29 Three Primary Factors: 1. Demonstrated

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Maximum Points: 29 Three Primary Factors: 1. Demonstrated understanding of capacity issues facing entities (11 points) 2. TA approach to address capacity issues (15 points) 3. Addressing multiple entities (3 points) Community Snapshot Scenarios explaining five different entities: § State § City § Continuum of Care § Public Housing Agency § Tribal Housing Department Choose one or more entities, up to 5 15

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Community Snapshot Questions 1. How your organization would

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Community Snapshot Questions 1. How your organization would deliver Technical Assistance to help the entity described (i. e. state, city, Co. C, PHA or THD) 2. What kind of Technical Assistance your organization would deliver and what program improvements would result. 3. Specific actions that would ensure programs are compliant and consistent with HUD policies. 4. What data or reports your organization would review to determine the scope of the problem. 5. What resources the your organization would recommend. 6. What strategy your organization would propose for developing a TA plan. 16

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach § Applicants that wish to be considered for:

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach § Applicants that wish to be considered for: • Mc. Kinney-Vento TA & National Homeless Data Analysis Project: Must address Co. C • NAHASDA TA or Native American Housing and Community Development TA: Must address Tribal Housing Department • PHA Administrative Receivership and Recovery: Must address PHA § An applicant that addresses “the State” must respond to multiple issues presented, not just a single issue or program § Applicants must address all elements for each entity § Applicants may need to make assumptions in order to craft a complete response 17

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Scoring will be based on: a. Demonstrated understanding

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Scoring will be based on: a. Demonstrated understanding of capacity issues (11 points) § Description of all capacity issues facing the entity § How issues are interrelated, where applicable § Description of potential impact on administration of affordable housing and community development programs 18

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Scoring will be based on: b. TA approach

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Scoring will be based on: b. TA approach to address capacity issues (15 points) § Degree to which TA approach is linked to the capacity issues § Degree to which there is a clear and logical rationale for TA approach proposed § Degree to which TA approach utilizes existing, relevant HUD TA resources § Degree to which TA approach would likely result in improved program administration or implementation and is consistent with HUD program requirements § Degree to which the skills, experience, and expertise of the team are appropriate 19 19

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Scoring will be based on: c. Addressing multiple

Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach Scoring will be based on: c. Addressing multiple entities (3 points) § Applicants successfully addressing more than one entity will earn up to three points, and maximum points will be awarded for addressing all five entities § Exception for applicants that address only the Tribal Housing Department 20 20

FY 2017 Community Compass NOFA U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

FY 2017 Community Compass NOFA U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results Summer 2017 21

Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results a. Intended results of TA approach and sustainability over

Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results a. Intended results of TA approach and sustainability over time (8 points) This subfactor is based on the information in the Community Snapshot. Applicants should provide the following in their response: i. Intended results of the TA approach described in response to Rating Factor 2, which can be short-term and longer-term ii. Recommendations TA provider would make to entity(s) in order to sustain TA results over the long term (e. g. , after TA period ends) 22

Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results b. Tracking performance and results (6 points) This subfactor

Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results b. Tracking performance and results (6 points) This subfactor does not refer to Rating Factor 2 or the Community Snapshot. Applicants should provide the following in their response: i. Description of applicant’s performance management processes: • Types of goals, outcomes, and key milestones used for TA engagements • How the goals, outcomes, and milestones are determined • How progress toward goals, outcomes, and milestones is tracked ii. Description of applicant’s processes or policies for ensuring accountability for achieving goals, outcomes, or milestones: • How often performance or progress is evaluated • Steps taken to improve performance when milestones, goals, or outcomes are not met 23

Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results c. Problem-solving to achieve results (6 points) This subfactor

Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results c. Problem-solving to achieve results (6 points) This subfactor does not refer to Rating Factor 2 or the Community Snapshot. Applicants should provide the following in their response: i. Describe a previous TA engagement in which unforeseen circumstances changed the project scope, forcing the applicant to change its approach: • Short description of the engagement or project • Description of the unforeseen circumstances and how those circumstances changed the scope of the project • Description of how the applicant adjusted its TA plan to ensure that the changing needs of the customer were adequately addressed • Description of the ultimate outcomes/accomplishments of the TA engagement 24

What if I Have More Questions? 1. Sign up for email notifications at www.

What if I Have More Questions? 1. Sign up for email notifications at www. grants. gov 2. Review Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document at www. grants. gov 3. Examine the Community Compass NOFA FAQs section on the HUD Exchange at www. hud. gov and http: //hudexchange. info 4. Read the “General Section to HUD's Fiscal Year 2017 Notice[s] of Funding Availability for Discretionary Programs” on the HUD website www. hud. gov 25

Questions? • Submit questions about the NOFA via email to: communitycompass@hud. gov • All

Questions? • Submit questions about the NOFA via email to: [email protected] gov • All questions will receive an email response. Disclaimer: In the event of any conflicts concerning information in this document and the 2017 Community Compass NOFA No. : FR-6000 -N-06; the NOFA will prevail. 26