Proposal Evaluation Form COC PR -502 2016 - New Projects- RRH

PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM COC PR-502 2016 NEW PROJECTS- RRH

Name of Organization:______

Name of Project:______

EVALUATION CRITERIA

CRITERIA SCORE SCORE AWARDED COMMENTS 1. Delivery of Letter YES, go to the next question. By not submitting the of Intent for Letter of Intent on Proposals on or the time established before the date NO, proposal is rejected. on the Public Notice, set by the COC. the proposal will be rejected automatically. 2. Submitted the YES, go to the next question. proposal on ESNAPS on time or before the date NO, proposal is rejected. set by the COC. 3. Submitted the Submitted certifications (5 points) HUD 2880, HUD required 50070, Certificate of certification on Consistency, "Good NOFA Did not submit certifications (0 points) Standing" as a Nonprofit Entity. 4. Monitoring or If the organization has no (5 points) audit findings monitoring or audit findings.

If the organization has a (3 points) corrective plan for monitoring or audit findings

Has monitoring or audit (0 points) findings without a corrective plan. 5. The type of Demonstrates priority for (5 points) project gives homeless families with priority to homless children or unaccompanied families with youth. children or (0 points ) unaccompanied Does not prioritize these youth. populations. 6. The Project uses a Meets all the criteria of the (5 points) Housing First Housing First model. Model as established by Does not meet all the criteria HUD. of the Housing First model. (0 points)

Aproved by CoC PR-502: August 12, 2016 PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM COC PR-502 2016 NEW PROJECTS- RRH

EVALUATION CRITERIA

CRITERIA SCORE SCORE AWARDED COMMENTS 7. Geographical The municipality where the (5 points) location according project is located reflects the to the need need, according to the PIT and reflected in the HIC count. (0 points) The municipality reflects very little or no need. 8. From where they From the street, emergency (5 points) will receive the shelters or safe havens. participants Other (0 points) 9. Project ability to If the project can be (5 points) start immediately, implemented in a period of 6 once HUD months or less approves it. If the project requires more (0 points) than 6 months for the start of services. 10. Cost Evaluation vs Most cost effective project (5 points) Divide the annual Housing Units amount requested by Not cost effective (0 points) the number of beds. 11. Matching Funds Demonstrates a 25% matching (5 points) of the total funds requested.

Does not demonstrate a 25% (0 points) of matching of the total funds requested. 12. Servicios de apoyo Provides two (2) or more (5 points) support services, such as case management, counseling, life skills, and child care.

Provides only one (1) support (3 points) service such as case management.

Does not provide support (0 points) services 13. Mainstream Facilitates participants obtain (5 points) benefis and benefits to which they are services eligible such as SNAP, SS, Health Insurance. Does not indicate that they coordinate mainstream (0 points) benefits for clients. 14. Positive history of Has satisfactory experience of (5 points) Unsatisfactory history the organization 4 years or more in project record includes

Aproved by CoC PR-502: August 12, 2016 PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM COC PR-502 2016 NEW PROJECTS- RRH

EVALUATION CRITERIA

CRITERIA SCORE SCORE AWARDED COMMENTS working with the management for PSH with organizations with homeless. federal funds. negative findings during monitoring or Has satisfactory experience of (3 points) unresolved audits or 2 to 3 years with 11 months in who have lost a project management for PSH previous project with federal funds. funds.

Has less than 2 years of (0 points) experience or unsatisfactory history. 15. Applicants Demonstrates a 100 % or more (5 points) experience leveraging resources. leveraging other Federal, State, Demonstrates less than 100% (0 points) local, and private of leveraging resources. sector funds.

Maximum score for each question: (5) points; a lower score may be given as deemed by the Evaluation Committee.

Evaluation Committee Evaluation Committee Evaluation Committee

Date Date Date

Aproved by CoC PR-502: August 12, 2016