North Tampa Housing Development Corp.
Improving Housing For Florida Communities
CA Quarterly Review, Fall 2013
September 18, 2013

CA review
In This Issue: The CA Quarterly Review | Fall 2013
HUD Issues Changes to Handbook 4350.3 3
What's New on HUDClips 3
HUD Notice 2013-23 Submission of AFS 4
Implementation Delay for TRACS 202(d) 5
Same-Sex Housing Discrimination Study 5 - 6
HUD Notice 2013-21 Owner Adopted Preferences 7 - 8
HUD Published FY 14 OCAF Factor 9
VAWA Reauthorization 9
Check out the Discussion Forum on the NTHDC website!

From the Desk of Don Shea, Director and Contract Administrator

I hope everyone had a great summer. While we still don’t have much relief from the heat yet, the Fall season is now upon us. A lot has transpired over the past several months. From HUD’s recent statement, you should know the recent awarding of PBCA contracts is currently on hold. To say this has been a long process is an understatement and I thought it would be helpful to provide a summary of the process and where things currently are.

On July 1, 2011, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced the PBCAs who would perform contract administration duties for the Section 8 program. This was followed by several protests regarding the manner in which the awards were decided. Shortly thereafter, HUD withdrew 42 of the 53 PBCA awarded contracts with the intent to re-compete them again under a new Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). The 11 awards which did move forward were for uncontested contracts in 9 states and 2 territories: Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming and U.S. Virgin Islands. NTHDC was awarded the U.S. Virgin Islands PBCA contract and has been the PBCA for the territory since 10/1/2011. On March 10, 2012, HUD released a new NOFA to re-compete awards of the 42 contracts which were withdrawn from the previous procurement. This introduced significant changes to the selection process and expectations under the PBCA contract. Some of those changes include “risk based” management reviews, preference for in-state applicants, a cap on the administrative fee and changes to the scoring of the application.

Following the release of that NOFA, several groups filed protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The protests were based on the use of the NOFA and the significant restrictions it applied to open competition.

In August 2012, a GAO decision sided with the groups protesting and stated that the NOFA used by HUD to obtain bids for the 42 states was improper. GAO recommended the NOFA be removed and replaced with a contract procurement. HUD was provided up to 60 days to respond to the GAO recommendation. Their response exceeded the allowed time and in December 2012 HUD informed GAO that it would move forward with the NOFA. This was followed by several PBCAs filing lawsuits against HUD stating the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was not appropriate for awarding of the PBCA contracts

In February 2013, additional arguments were heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, DC. These centered on HUD’s use of a NOFA to select PBCA and the restriction on competition. Out-of-state applicants in states where qualified in-state applicants submitted bids were fundamentally eliminated from competing due to the in-state preference. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of HUD allowing them the authority to use the NOFA process. This was followed by a joint appeal from contract administrators and the case was escalated to the Court of Appeals in May 2013.

In August 2013, HUD moved forward with the NOFA process and announced PBCA awards for the 42 states that were part of the competition. Following this announcement, an injunction was granted by the court. This decision prevents HUD from awarding the new contracts in the 42 states until this case is decided by the Appeals court. HUD released the following statement in response…”On August 27, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiff-Appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal. Thus, HUD may not execute the new ACCs until the case is resolved. Further, no transition activities should occur until further notice. Any additional information will be provided as soon as it is available.”

With the injunction, there will be no transition taking place until the case is decided by the court. NTHDC will continue to fulfill its duties as PBCA in the state of Florida and the current PBCA contract with HUD is in effect until December 31, 2013. We anticipate another contract extension at some point while the court decides the matter. For the U.S. Virgin Islands, the PBCA contract also runs through the end of 2013. HUD has indicated a two year extension will follow for the U.S. Virgin Islands PBCA contract.

It is difficult to summarize a process that has been going on for an agonizing number of years now, but we wanted you to know the status of the situation that is beyond our control.

Don Shea
Director and Contract Administrator, NTHDC

Want to Read the Complete Newsletter, Download the Print Version Here

For More Information goto our Newsletters Archive
Other Newsletters
CA Quarterly Review Winter 2023CA Quarterly Review Fall 2023CA Quarterly Review Summer 2023CA Quarterly Review Spring 2023CA Quarterly Review Winter 2023CA Quarterly Review Fall 2022CA Quarterly Review Summer 2022CA Quarterly Review Spring 2022CA Quarterly Review Winter 2021CA Quarterly Review - Fall Edition 2021CA Quarterly Review - Summer Edition 2021CA Quarterly Review - Spring Edition 2021CA Quarterly Review - Winter Edition 2020CA Quarterly Review - Fall EditionCA Quarterly Review - Summer EditionCA Quarterly Review - Spring Edition, 2020CA Quarterly Review Winter EditionCA Quarterly Review Fall EditionCA Quarterly Review Summer EditionCA Quarterly Review, Spring EditionCA Quarterly Review, WinterCA Quarterly Review, Fall 2018CA Quarterly Review - Summer 2018CA Quarterly Review, Spring 2018CA Quarterly Review, Fall 2017CA Quarterly Review, Summer 2017CA Quarterly Review, Spring 2017CA Quarterly Review, Winter 2016CA Quarterly Review, Fall 2016CA Quarterly Review, Summer 2016CA Quarterly Review, Spring 2016CA Quarterly Review, Winter 2015CA Quarterly Review, Fall 2015CA Quarterly Review, Summer 2015CA Quarterly Review, Spring 2015CA Quarterly Review, Winter 2014CA Quarterly Review, Fall 2014 CA Quarterly Review, Summer 2014CA Quarterly Review, Spring 2014CA Quarterly Review, Winter 2013CA Quarterly Review, Fall 2013CA Quarterly Review, Summer 2013CA Quarterly Review, Spring 2013CA Quarterly Review, Winter 2012CA Quarterly Review, Fall 2012CA Quarterly Review, Summer 2012CA Quarterly Review, Spring 2012CA Quarterly Review, Winter 2011CA Quarterly Review, Fall 2011CA Quarterly Review, Summer 2011CA Quarterly Review, Spring 2011CA Quarterly Review, Winter 2010 | December 22, 2010CA Quarterly Review, Fall 2010Optional Smoke-Free Housing PolicyNTHDC Owner/Agent PortalCA Quarterly Review, Summer 2010CA Quarterly Review, March 22, 2010CA Quarterly Review, December 2009CA Quarterly Review, September 2009CA Quartely Review, Summer 2009CA Quarterly Review, Spring 2009CA Quarterly Review, December 2008