How the estimator works
State Qualified Allocation Plans (QAPs) drive 9% LIHTC allocation through detailed scoring frameworks — typically 100-200 total points across dozens of categories. The exact point allocations, threshold requirements, and tiebreaker rules change every year and vary enormously by state. This estimator is a practitioner-facing screen that reflects the principal scoring categories common to each flagship state, with point weights drawn from recent published QAP cycles. It is not a substitute for the current QAP — it is a tool to triage which scoring strategies look strongest before you start writing the application.
The estimator covers five flagship states: California (TCAC), New York (HCR), Texas (TDHCA), Florida (FHFC), and New Jersey (NJHMFA). For each state, the most current QAP at the time of writing was used to calibrate the categories. Always confirm against the published QAP for your application cycle.
QAP Scoring Estimator.
What this estimator covers
Each state model captures roughly 8-12 of the highest-weight scoring categories from the QAP. Categories not modeled include cycle-specific bonus pools, tie-breaker mechanics, threshold requirements (which must be met to score at all), and qualitative narrative scoring done by HFA staff. The model is most useful for relative comparison across scenarios and for identifying which scoring categories are most worth pursuing for a given deal.
California (TCAC)
California's TCAC QAP uses a competitive set-aside structure (Geographic Apportionments, Special Needs Set-Aside, etc.) with point-based ranking within each set-aside. Principal categories modeled: cost containment, leveraging soft funds, service amenities, high-resource area (DDA-style), green building (CALGreen Tier 1+), at-risk preservation, deeper income targeting, and sustainable building methods.
New York (HCR)
New York HCR's QAP scores applications competitively across multiple set-asides (preservation, supportive housing, etc.). Principal categories modeled: deep income targeting (30% AMI units), supportive services, public housing/RAD preservation, NYC Mitchell-Lama preservation, green building, smart-growth siting, and TOD location.
Texas (TDHCA)
Texas TDHCA's QAP uses a regional allocation formula across 13 service regions plus a separate at-risk set-aside. Principal categories modeled: opportunity area (HOTMA-defined high opportunity), community revitalization plan, leverage of other funds, tenant supportive services, third-party financing terms, and elderly preference (where applicable).
Florida (FHFC)
Florida FHFC operates through RFA (Request for Applications) cycles targeting specific geographies and development types — so "scoring" in Florida is RFA-specific rather than a single statewide rubric. The model captures categories that recur across most FHFC RFAs: total development cost limits, leveraging FHFC subsidies (SAIL, ELI), preferred development type matching the RFA priority, demographic targeting, and county/city local government commitment.
New Jersey (NJHMFA)
NJHMFA's QAP scores applications competitively with bonus points for specific state priorities. Principal categories modeled: deep affordability (30%/50% AMI), supportive housing, smart growth (Planning Area 1/2), preservation, energy efficiency (Climate Mobilization Act compliance), and local government participation.
What this estimator doesn't do
- It doesn't model threshold requirements. Every state QAP has threshold (pass/fail) requirements — application completeness, financial feasibility, site control, market study, environmental clearance, etc. — that must be met to score at all. This estimator assumes thresholds are met.
- It doesn't model cycle-specific bonuses. States often add cycle-specific bonus points for current policy priorities (e.g., wildfire-affected areas, post-pandemic recovery, climate-resilient siting). These are not in the static model.
- It doesn't model tiebreakers. When applications tie on points, states use detailed tiebreaker rules (lowest cost per unit, highest leverage ratio, geographic distribution, etc.) that this estimator does not capture.
- It is not a substitute for the published QAP. Always read the current cycle's QAP and consult with your state HFA staff and an experienced LIHTC consultant before submitting an application.
State-specific context
For deeper state context, see the relevant state page: California · New York · Texas · Florida · New Jersey. For the calendar of 2026 application deadlines in each state, see the 2026 Calendar.
Sources
- California Tax Credit Allocation Committee 9% LIHTC Regulations (recent cycles)
- New York State HCR Unified Funding QAP (recent cycles)
- Texas TDHCA Qualified Allocation Plan (recent cycles)
- Florida Housing Finance Corporation RFA documents (recent cycles)
- New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency QAP (recent cycles)
- IRC § 42(m) (QAP requirement)
- P.L. 119-21, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted July 4, 2025
Disclaimer
The QAP Scoring Estimator is a practitioner-facing screen calibrated to recent QAP cycles in five flagship states. Actual scoring categories, point weights, threshold requirements, and tiebreaker rules change every QAP cycle. Practitioners should consult the current published QAP, applicable state HFA staff, and experienced LIHTC counsel before structuring an application or relying on a modeled score. This is educational content and is not legal, tax, or financial advice.