US Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD Summer 2017 1 Rating Factors 2 Presenters Benjamin Frey Program Analyst Technical Assistance Division Office of Community Planning and Development ID: 816552
Download The PPT/PDF document "FY2017 Community Compass NOFA" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
FY2017 Community Compass NOFAU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Summer 2017
1
Rating Factors
Slide22Presenters
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 DivisionOffice of Community Planning and Development
Slide33
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
20 Points
Slide4FY2017 Community Compass NOFAU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Summer 2017
4
Rating Factor 1: Capacity
Slide55
Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant
Maximum Points: 51
1.A. Experience and Expertise in TA Programs and Topics (20 points)
Applicants should:
C
learly 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 McKinney-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
Slide66
6
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
Slide77
7
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
Slide88
8
8
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
S
taff
, subcontractor, and consultant experience
Greater experience
Slide99
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:
Needs Assessment
Direct TA and Capacity Building Engagements
Tools and Products
Self-Directed and Group Learning
Knowledge Management
Data Analysis, Reporting, and Performance Measurement
NAHASDA Allocation Formula Administration and Negotiated Rulemaking and Consultation Support
Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant
Slide1010
10
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:
Challenge, gap, or issue that the TA was designed to address
Recipient(s) or customer(s) of the TA
Time period during which the TA was provided (between Summer 2012 and July 2017)
How the TA was provided, including any challenges encountered
Quantifiable accomplishments or results of the TA
Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant
Slide1111
11
11
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)
Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant
Slide1212
12
12
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.) m
ust
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)
.
Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant
Slide1313
13
13
13
13
1.C.
Award
Management (
14
points)
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
Contingency/backup procedures (
4
points)
in the event of unforeseen circumstances
Step-by-step internal processes (
6
points)
Managing financial awards
Re
sponding
to assignments
Reporting TA outcomes
Procuring, managing, overseeing, and paying subcontractors and consultants
Rating Factor 1: Capacity of Applicant
Slide14FY2017 Community Compass NOFAU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Summer 2017
14
Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach
Slide1515
Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach
Maximum Points:
29
Three Primary Factors:
Demonstrated understanding of capacity issues facing entities (11 points)
TA approach to address capacity issues (
15
points)
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
Slide1616
Community Snapshot Questions
How your organization would deliver Technical Assistance to help the entity described (i.e. state, city, CoC, PHA or THD)
What kind of Technical Assistance your organization would deliver and what program improvements would result.
Specific actions that would ensure programs are compliant and consistent with HUD policies.
What data or reports your organization would review to determine the scope of the problem.
What resources the your organization would recommend.
What strategy your organization would propose for developing a TA plan.
Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach
Slide1717
Applicants that wish to be considered for:
McKinney-Vento TA & National Homeless Data Analysis Project:
Must address CoC
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 programApplicants must address all elements for each entityApplicants may need to make assumptions in order to craft a complete response
Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach
Slide1818
Scoring will be based on:
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
Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach
Slide1919
19
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 proposedDegree to which TA approach utilizes existing, relevant HUD TA resourcesDegree to which TA approach would likely result in improved program administration or implementation and is consistent with HUD program requirementsDegree to which the skills, experience, and expertise of the team are appropriate
Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach
Slide2020
20
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
Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach
Slide21FY2017 Community Compass NOFAU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Summer 2017
21
Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results
Slide2222
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:
Intended results of the TA approach described
in response to Rating Factor 2, which can be short-term and longer-term
Recommendations TA provider would make
to entity(s) in order to sustain TA results over the long term (e.g., after TA period ends)
Slide2323
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:
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
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
Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results
Slide2424
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:
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
Rating Factor 3: Achieving Results
Slide25What if I Have More Questions?
Sign up for
email notifications
at
www.grants.gov
Review
Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQs) document at
www.grants.gov
Examine the Community Compass NOFA
FAQs
section on the HUD Exchange at
www.hud.gov
and
http://hudexchange.info
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
Slide26Submit questions about the NOFA via email to:
communitycompass@hud.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.
Questions?
26