NHA Responses to RFQ Questions

Questions and Answers received from development teams who have inquired into the RFQ for a Co-Developer for George Reed Village.


Question from The Michaels Organization

  1. In exhibit A of the RFQ there is a site plan that appears cut off in the electronic version of the RFQ that we have? Can a full size one be made available?
    A copy of Appendix A is now located on the Authority’s website as a separate document. To view it please click here.
  2. This rendering appears to be 1 of 4 options; is the NHA willing to share the other alternatives and perhaps why they were not selected?
    As requested by RFP 2017-01 Architectural / Engineering Services, the RFP requested four (4) separate Concept/Site Plans. In reviewing and deciding the best Site Plan for the project, NHA, the Board of Commissioners and the RAB members considered all four (4) Site Plans and ultimately decided on the Site Plan attached to the RFQ. The final selection of a plan considered the open green space, the style/type (buildings) of option #4, the number of buildings and the number of units in each building as well as the placement of each building and considers the required parking spaces per city code.
  3. Is there a listing of the “off site parcels” contemplated in the RFP?
    There will not be off site properties. All of the units included in the development will be located on the property shown on the Site Plan attached as Appendix A. The “scattered site properties” referenced in the RFQ are the existing scattered site properties, which will be demolished or disposed of with HUD approval and replaced with units located on the property shown on the Site Plan.
  4. Has the Authority contemplated alternatives for the redevelopment, including section 18 or RAD opportunities?
    NHA has considered both Section 18 and RAD, but preliminarily determined that redeveloping the project with project-based vouchers by way of a Streamlined Voluntary Conversion would provide NHA the greatest level of funding to develop the project to best fit the needs of its residents. That said, NHA is open to other proposals if developers have proposals pursuing Section 18 or RAD that can produce greater levels of funding for NHA and the project.
  5. Page2 of the RFQ sites a desire to meet a 25% Section 3 and a 10% for MBE/WBE benefits, on page 9 it requests a plan for 30% DBE participation. Confirming you would like to see the inclusion of a plan for DBE’s at 30% NOT the 10% cited earlier. Also does the NHA definition for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises include, not only MBE and WBE, but also Disable person Business Enterprises, and Veteran Business Enterprises?
    In response to your question related to the MBE/WBE goal, the MBE/WBE goal of 10% included on pg. 2 of the RFQ is the correct percentage for the redevelopment.In response to your question on whether NHA’s definition for DBE is intended to include MBE, WBE, Disable Person Business Enterprises, and Veteran Business Enterprises, the answer is yes. Therefore the MBE/WBE goal referenced on pg. 2 and the DBE goal referenced on pg. 10 are both 10%.

Questions from Leon N. Weiner & Associates, Inc. (LNWA)

  1. Please clarify the location and number of the scatted site properties referenced in the RFQ. Page1, Section 1.3 refers to a mix of 10 duplexes and 18 scattered site units. Page 24, the Appendix references 20 scattered site properties with no mention of the duplex mix.
    NHA apologizes for the confusion. The existing site includes 18 scattered site properties. The reference to 20 existing scattered site properties on pg. 24 is incorrect.
  2. As is noted in the RFQ, HUD will only approve a Streamlined Voluntary Conversion (SVC) application if it covers all the remaining public housing units at the PHA. As part of the approval, the PHA must commit to closing out its public housing program by following the guidance in PIH Notice 2019-13. Please clarify the future operational strategy of the scatted site units if they are located outside of the primary redevelopment footprint.
    The Streamlined Voluntary Conversion process permits PHA’s to demolish property that meet the applicable HUD requirements for demolition and replace those units with new units. Therefore, as part of the Streamlined Voluntary Conversion NHA will seek HUD approval to demolish or dispose of the existing scattered site properties and the replacement units will be included in the total units referenced on the Site Plan.
  3. For appropriate construction budgeting, please provide a Phase 1 environmental assessment executive summary, if available.
    A copy of the Phase I Environmental Assessment Executive Summary is not available.
  4. Does the authority have a preference to designate a portion of the redevelopment for senior specific use?
    Yes, the plan is inclusive of 36 1-bedroom units that will have preferences for seniors. Of the 36 units, NHA and its selected developer partner will need to address requirements under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 24 CFR Part 8 to have at least 5% of the units be accessible to persons with mobility impairments as well as have at least 2% of the units be accessible to persons with sensory impairments. The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) is the standard against which residential and non-residential spaces are judged to be accessible.
  5. The 30-day HA review mandate prior to Delaware LIHTC submission makes a complete and accurate application to the Delaware State Housing Authority prohibitive in April of 2020. Please confirm the expectation of NHA is for a 2021 tax credit application if the Low Income Housing Tax Credit is utilized.
    NHA’s current timeline does not target a submission date to the Delaware State Housing Authority for consideration in receiving Low Income Housing Tax Credits for 2020. However if the timing permits for an application to be submitted, NHA is open to a submittal. However, NHA anticipates submitting an application in April of 2021.
Posted in