QAP Scoring Estimator.

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.

What this estimator covers

For each state, the sliders reproduce the scored point categories and their maximums from that state's current QAP or regulation (cited in the tool, per state). Deduction items, "reserved" categories, and tiebreakers are excluded from the sliders — tiebreakers are listed separately, read-only, because they break ties rather than award points. Threshold (pass/fail) requirements, set-aside structures, and qualitative staff scoring are not modeled. The output is a directional comparison; the official state self-score sheet governs.

New York (HCR / DHCR)

Scored under 9 NYCRR Part 2040, §2040.3(f) (effective June 11, 2025) — a single statewide rubric of 17 point categories totaling 100 points. High confidence (read from the operative regulatory text). Note: "Projects in well-resourced areas" and "Investment in underserved areas" are geographic opposites and in practice mutually exclusive, so a single project rarely earns both. NYC HPD sub-allocates credits under a separate rubric.

New Jersey (NJHMFA)

Scored under N.J.A.C. 5:80-33.15 — the Family Cycle (2026 QAP adopted Feb 2, 2026), 18 positive-point categories totaling ~97 points. High confidence. NJHMFA also runs separate Age-Friendly Senior (§33.16) and Supportive Housing (§33.17) cycles with different rubrics; this models the Family cycle only. Pure deduction items are excluded.

California (CTCAC)

Scored under Cal. Code Regs. Title 4, §10325(c) — 7 scored categories totaling 106 points, dominated by Lowest Income (52 pts). GP and Management Company experience points under (c)(1) are awarded in the highest applicable category and are not cumulative (category max 7). Medium confidence — verify each maximum against the official CTCAC self-score. Leveraged-soft-resources and basis-to-cost ratios are tiebreakers, not points.

Texas (TDHCA)

Scored under 10 TAC §11.9 — 24 scored categories. Low confidence: the maximums shown reflect the 2025 §11.9 baseline; the codified 2026 figures could not be machine-read. Confirmed 2026 changes include HUB scoring removed from Sponsor Characteristics, "Quantity of Low-Income Units" demoted from a scored category to a tiebreaker, and Opportunity Zone added as a 7-point alternative under (d)(7). Verify against the codified 2026 §11.9 / official self-score.

Florida (FHFC)

Florida Housing scores applications per-RFA (Request for Applications) under Rule 67-48 / 67-60 F.A.C., not via a statewide point rubric. Scored points are minimal (~10–15); selection is driven by threshold eligibility, funding preferences/priority levels, and a random lottery number. Because there is no statewide rubric, the tool shows an explainer for Florida instead of sliders — use the specific RFA's Section Four scoring.

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 apply tiebreakers. The tool lists each state's tiebreaker rules (lowest cost per unit, leverage ratio, lottery number, etc.) read-only for reference, but it does not compute or apply them — tiebreakers only matter when applications tie on points.
• 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.