HUD Statement on Decision by Court of Federal Claims in CMS Contract Management, et al. v. United States Monday, April 22, 2013

On Friday, April 19, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims validated HUD’s method of awarding contracts to administer the Department’s project-based rental assistance programs.  The Court found that these contracts are cooperative agreements and therefore, the manner in which HUD awarded these contracts is proper.

It is HUD’s objective to offer a competitive process that ensures the continued delivery of high quality, cost-effective, products and services to residents of project-based Section 8 assisted housing and to property owners.  It is the Department’s intent to institute a performance-based approach to these contract awards to conform to current market conditions and to seek significant annual cost savings of more than $100 million on behalf of the American taxpayer.

Further details regarding the timeline of events will follow.

• NOFA at www.grants.gov
• NOFA (PDF)
• ACC for  NOFA (PDF)
• NOFA Appendix B FTE Chart
• NOFA Technical Correction March 15, 2012
  • Technical Correction Two
• Highlights of PBCA NOFA & ACC for NOFA (2012 Changes, Deletions, Additions)(Updated April 6, 2012)
• Registering and Applying through Grants.gov
• March 19, 2012 Training Webcast for the PBCA NOFA
• Updated PBCA NOFA & ACC Q&A Summary (Updated May 25, 2012)
• Submit NOFA for PBCA and ACC NOFA Questions to: Multifamily Housing-Office of Housing Assistance Contract Administration Oversight.

NOTE:  The number of Project-Based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts assigned to PBCAs changes periodically as contracts are transferred from Traditional Contract Administrators (TCAs) to PBCAs, contracts are transferred from HUD to PBCAs, or contracts are transferred from PBCAs to HUD.  The number active PBCA assigned Section 8 Contracts listed below may change prior to the execution of the ACC. 

• Active PBCA Assigned Section 8 Contracts for NOFA (Excel) Updated April 27, 2012.

The management and occupancy review (MOR) requirements under Performance Based Task #1 in Exhibit A, Section 3.1, of the ACC has changed.  MORs are required only for projects with an Unsatisfactory, Below Average, and Satisfactory rating assigned to the last review under the Risk Based MOR approach.  No MORs will be conducted for projects with an Above Average and Superior rating assigned to the last review during either 12-month period of the ACC Term.  MORsare required for all Mark-to-Market projects without regard to the rating assigned to the last review.

• MOR Ratings for Projects  (Excel) (sorted by state, this list does include Mark-to-Market Projects: Options 1, 2, 3a and 4) Updated June 4, 2012. The following States have been updated: DE, NC, NJ, PA, SC and WV
• Mark-to-Market Projects (Excel)(sorted by state: Options 3b) Updated June 4, 2012. The following States have been updated: DE, NC, NJ, PA, SC and WV

State Attorney General Letters 

• Arizona 
• California
• Connecticut 1
• Connecticut 2
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Kentucky
• Maryland
• Michigan
• New Mexico 1 
• New Mexico 2 
• North Carolina
• Oregon 1
• Oregon 2
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Virginia
• West Virginia

Proposed Administrative Fee Percentages All Applicants under Invitation 2011 (PDF)