10 TAC §§255.1, 255.9, 255.16
The Office of Rural Community Affairs (Office) proposes amendments
to §255.1, §255.9, and §255.16 concerning the allocation of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) non-entitlement area funds under
the Texas Community Development Program (TCDP).
The amendment to §255.1 is being proposed to define the area benefit
standards that apply to street paving activities. The amendments to §255.9
will change the colonia construction fund funding cycle from an annual competition
to a biennial competition and include new language for the past performance
scoring criteria. The amendments to §255.16 include new language for
the past performance scoring criteria.
Charles S. (Charlie) Stone, Executive Director of the Office, has determined
that for the first five-year period the sections are in effect there will
be no fiscal implications for state or local government as a result of enforcing
or administering the sections.
Charles S. (Charlie) Stone, Executive Director of the Office, also has
determined that for the period that the sections are in effect, the public
benefit as a result of enforcing the section will be the equitable allocation
of CDBG non-entitlement area funds to eligible units of general local government
in Texas. There will be an effect on small businesses or micro-businesses
as two new programs are being proposed to assist small businesses and micro-businesses.
There are no anticipated economic costs to persons who are required to comply
with the sections as proposed.
Comments on the proposal may be submitted to Jerry Hill, General Counsel,
Office of Rural Community Affairs, P.O. Box 12877, Austin, Texas 78711, telephone
: (512) 936-6701. Comments will be accepted for 30 days following the date
of publication of this proposal in the
Texas Register
.
The amendments are proposed under the §487.052 of the Government
Code, which provides the executive committee with the authority to adopt rules
concerning the implementation of the Office's responsibilities.
No other code, article, or statute is affected by the proposed amendments.
§255.1.General Provisions.
(a) - (u)
(No change.)
(v)
Street paving activities. Area
benefit can be used to qualify street paving activities. However, for street
paving activities with multiple and non-contiguous target areas, each target
area must separately meet the principally benefit low and moderate income
national program objective. At least 51% of the residents located in each
non-contiguous target area must be low and moderate income persons. A target
area that does not meet this requirement cannot be included in an application
for TCDP funds. The only exception to this requirement is street paving eligible
under the disaster relief fund.
§255.9.Colonia Fund.
(a) - (b)
(No change.)
(c)
Types of applications. Eligible applicants may submit one
application for the colonia construction fund and the colonia planning fund.
Eligible applicants may submit one application for the colonia EDAP fund,
unless the TCDP has an excess amount of colonia EDAP funds available in which
case an eligible applicant could submit more than one application for the
colonia EDAP fund. Eligible planning activities cannot be included in an application
for the colonia construction fund. Two separate fund categories are available
under the colonia planning fund. The colonia area planning fund is available
for eligible planning activities that are targeted to selected colonia areas.
The colonia comprehensive planning fund is available for countywide comprehensive
planning activities that include an assessment and profiles of a county's
colonia areas. Separate competitions are held for the colonia area planning
fund and colonia comprehensive planning fund allocations. A county that has
previously received a colonia comprehensive planning fund grant award from
the Office may not submit another application for colonia comprehensive planning
fund assistance. For a county to be eligible to submit an application for
the colonia area planning fund, the county must have previously completed
a colonia comprehensive plan that prioritizes problems and colonias for future
action. The colonia or colonias included in the colonia area planning fund
application must be colonias that were included in the colonia comprehensive
plan.
(d)
Funding cycle.
The colonia construction fund is allocated
to eligible county applicants on a biennial basis for the 2005 and 2006 program
years pursuant to a competition held for the 2005 program year applicants.
The [
colonia construction fund and the
] colonia planning
fund
is
[
are
] allocated on an annual basis to eligible
county applicants through competitions conducted during the program year.
Applications for funding must be received by the Office by the dates and times
specified in the most recent application guide for each separate colonia fund
category. The colonia self-help centers fund is allocated on an annual basis
to counties included in Subchapter Z, Chapter 2306, §2306.582, Government
Code, and/or counties designated as economically distressed areas under Chapter
17, Water Code. The colonia EDAP fund is allocated on an annual basis and
the funds are distributed on an as-needed basis.
(e)
Selection procedures.
(1)
On or before the application deadline, each eligible county
may submit one application for the colonia construction fund, for colonia
comprehensive planning, and for colonia area planning. Eligible applicants
for the colonia EDAP fund may submit one application after construction begins
on the water or sewer system financed by the Texas Water Development Board's
Economically Distressed Areas Program.
(2)
Upon receipt of an application, the Office staff performs
an initial review to determine whether the application is complete and whether
all proposed activities are eligible for funding. The results of this initial
review are provided to the applicant. If not subject to disqualification,
the applicant may correct any deficiencies identified within ten calendar
days of the date of the staff's notification.
(3)
Each regional review committee may, at its option, review
and comment on a colonia fund proposal from a jurisdiction within its state
planning region. These comments will become part of the application file,
provided such comments are received by the Office prior to scoring of the
applications.
(4)
The Office then scores the colonia construction fund and
colonia planning fund applications to determine rankings. Scores on the selection
factors are derived from standardized data from the Census Bureau, other federal
or state sources, and from information provided by the applicant. For colonia
EDAP fund applications, the Office evaluates information in each application
and other factors before the completion of a final technical review of each
application.
(5)
Following a final technical review, the Office staff
presents the funding recommendations for the 2005 and 2006 colonia construction
fund and the 2005 colonia planning fund to the executive director of the Office.
[
Following a final technical review, the Office staff makes funding
recommendations to the executive director of the Office.
]
(6)
The executive director of the Office reviews the
2005
final recommendations and except for awards exceeding $300,000
announces the contract awards. Awards exceeding $300,000 are submitted to
the Executive Committee for approval.
(7)
Upon announcement of
the 2005
contract awards,
the Office staff works with recipients to execute the contract agreements.
While the award must be based on the information provided in the application,
the Office may negotiate any element of the contract with the recipient as
long as the contract amount is not increased and the level of benefits described
in the application is not decreased. The level of benefits may be negotiated
only when the project is partially funded.
(8)
When the 2006 program year TCDP allocation
becomes available, the executive director of the Office reviews the 2006 program
year colonia construction fund final recommendations for project awards and
except for awards exceeding $300,000 announces the contract awards. Awards
exceeding $300,000 are submitted to the Executive Committee for approval.
(9)
Upon announcement of the 2006 program year
colonia construction fund contract awards, the Office staff works with recipients
to execute the contract agreements. While the award must be based on the information
provided in the application, the Office may negotiate any element of the contract
with the recipient as long as the contract amount is not increased and the
level of benefits described in the application is not decreased. The level
of benefits may be negotiated only when the project is partially funded with
the remainder of the target allocation within a region.
(f)
Selection criteria (colonia construction fund). The following
is an outline of the selection criteria used by the Office for scoring colonia
construction fund applications. [
For the 2004 program year, four hundred
twenty points are available based on the criteria included in paragraphs (1)
through (6) of this subsection.
] For the 2005 program year, four hundred
thirty points are available [
based on the criteria included in paragraphs
(1) through (7) of this subsection
]. [
For the 2005 program year,
the past performance scoring described in paragraph (5)(G) and paragraph (6)(G)
of this subsection will be replaced by the criteria described in paragraph
(7) of this subsection.
]
(1)
Community distress (total--40 points). All community distress
factor scores are based on the unincorporated population of the applicant.
An applicant that has 125% or more of the average of all applicants in the
competition of the rate on any community distress factor, except per capita
income, receives the maximum number of points available for that factor. An
applicant with less than 125% of the average of all applicants in the competition
on a factor will receive a proportionate share of the maximum points available
for that factor. An applicant that has 75% or less of the average of all applicants
in the competition on the per capita income factor will receive the maximum
number of points available for that factor. An applicant with greater than
75% of the average of all applicants in the competition on the per capita
income factor will receive a proportionate share of the maximum points available
for that factor.
(A)
Percentage of persons living in poverty--15
(B)
Per capita income--15
(C)
Percentage of housing units without complete plumbing--10
(2)
Benefit to low and moderate income persons (total--30 points).
A formula is used to determine the percentage of TCDP funds benefiting low
to moderate income persons. The percentage of low to moderate income persons
benefiting from each construction, acquisition, and engineering activity is
multiplied by the TCDP funds requested for each corresponding construction,
acquisition, and engineering activity. Those calculations determine the amount
of TCDP benefiting low to moderate income person for each of those activities.
Then, the funds benefiting low to moderate income persons for each of those
activities are added together and divided by the TCDP funds requested minus
the TCDP funds requested for administration to determine the percentage of
TCDP funds benefiting low to moderate income persons. Points are then awarded
in accordance with the following scale:
(A)
100% to 90% of funds benefitting low to moderate income
persons--30
(B)
89.99% to 80% of funds benefitting low to moderate income
persons--25
(C)
79.99% to 70% of funds benefitting low to moderate income
persons--20
(D)
69.99% to 60% of funds benefitting low to moderate income
persons--15
(E)
Below 60% of funds benefitting low to moderate income persons--5
(3)
Project priorities (total--195 points) When necessary,
a weighted average is used to assign scores to applications which include
activities in the different project priority scoring levels. Using as a base
figure the TCDP funds requested minus the TCDP funds requested for engineering
and administration, a percentage of the total TCDP construction dollars for
each activity is calculated. The percentage of the total TCDP construction
dollars for each activity is then multiplied by the appropriate project priorities
point level. The sum of the calculations determines the composite project
priorities score. The different project priority scoring levels are:
(A)
activities (service lines, service connections, and/or
plumbing improvements) providing access to water and/or sewer systems funded
through the Texas Water Development Board Economically Distressed Area program--195
(B)
first time public water service activities (including yard
service lines)--145
(C)
first time public sewer service activities (including yard
service lines)--145
(D)
installation of approved residential on-site wastewater
disposal systems --145
(E)
housing activities--140
(F)
first time water and/or sewer service through a privately-owned
for profit utility--135
(G)
expansion or improvement of existing water and/or sewer
service--110
(H)
street paving and drainage activities--75
(I)
all other eligible activities--20
(4)
Matching funds (total--20 points). An applicant's matching
share may consist of one or more of the following contributions: cash; in-kind
services or equipment use; materials or supplies; or land. An applicant's
match is considered only if the contributions are used in the same target
areas for activities directly related to the activities proposed in its application;
if the applicant demonstrates that its matching share has been specifically
designated for use in the activities proposed in its application; and if the
applicant has used an acceptable and reasonable method of valuation. The population
category under which county applications are scored is dependent upon the
project type and the beneficiary population served. If the project is for
activities in the unincorporated area of the county with a target area of
beneficiaries, the population category is based on the unincorporated residents
for the entire county. For county applications addressing water and sewer
improvements in unincorporated areas, the population category is based on
the actual number of beneficiaries to be served by the project activities.
The population category under which multi-jurisdiction applications are scored
is based on the combined populations of the applicants according to the 2000
Census. Applications that include a housing rehabilitation and/or affordable
new permanent housing activity for low- and moderate-income persons as a part
of a multi-activity application do not have to provide any matching funds
for the housing activity. This exception is for housing activities only. The
TCDP does not consider sewer or water service lines and connections as housing
activities. The TCDP also does not consider on-site wastewater disposal systems
as housing activities. Demolition/clearance and code enforcement, when done
in the same target area in conjunction with a housing rehabilitation activity,
is counted as part of the housing activity. When demolition/clearance and
code enforcement are proposed activities, but are not part of a housing rehabilitation
activity, then the demolition/clearance and code enforcement are not considered
as housing activities. Any additional activities, other than related housing
activities, are scored based on the percentage of match provided for the additional
activities.
(A)
Applicants with populations equal to or less than 1,500
according to the 2000 census:
(i)
match equal to or greater than 5.0% of grant request--20;
(ii)
match at least 2.0% but less than 5.0% of grant request--10;
(iii)
match less than 2.0% of grant request--0.
(B)
Applicants with populations equal to or less than 3,000
but over 1,500 according to the 2000 census:
(i)
match equal to or greater than 10% of grant request--20;
(ii)
match at least 2.5% but less than 10% of grant request--10;
(iii)
match less than 2.5% of grant request-0.
(C)
Applicants with populations equal to or less than 5,000
but over 3,000 according to the 2000 census:
(i)
match equal to or greater than 15% of grant request--20;
(ii)
match at least 3.5% but less than 15% of grant request--10;
(iii)
match less than 3.5% of grant request--0.
(D)
Applicants with populations over 5,000 according to the
2000 census:
(i)
match equal to or greater than 20% of grant request--20;
(ii)
match at least 5.0% but less than 20% of grant request--10;
(iii)
match less than 5.0% of grant request--0.
(5)
Project design (total--135 points). Each application is
scored based on how the proposed project resolves the identified need and
the severity of need within the applying jurisdiction. A more detailed description
on the assignment of points under the project design scoring is included in
the application guide for this fund and in paragraph (6) of this subsection.
Each application is scored by a committee composed of TCDP staff using the
following information submitted in the application:
(A)
the severity of need within the colonia area(s) and how
the proposed project resolves the identified need (additional consideration
is given to water activities addressing impacts from drought conditions);
(B)
the TCDP cost per low to moderate income beneficiary;
(C)
the applicant's past efforts, especially the applicant's
most recent efforts, to address water, sewer, and housing needs in colonia
areas through applications submitted under the TCDP community development
fund or through community development block grant entitlement funds;
(D)
the projected water and/or sewer rates after completion
of the project based on 3,000 gallons, 5,000 gallons, and 10,000 gallons of
usage;
(E)
the ability of the applicant to utilize the grant funds
in a timely manner;
(F)
the availability of grant funds to the applicant for project
financing from other sources;
[
(G)
the applicant's past performance on prior
TCDP contracts;
]
(G)
[
(H)
] whether the applicant, or the
service provider, has waived the payment of water or sewer service assessments,
capital recovery fees, and other access fees for the proposed low and moderate
income project beneficiaries;
(H)
[
(I)
] whether the applicant's proposed
use of TCDP funds is to provide water or sewer connections/yardlines and/or
plumbing improvements that provide access to water/sewer systems financed
through the Texas Water Development Board Economically Distressed Areas Program;
[
(J)
whether the applicant provides any local
matching funds for project activities;
]
(I)
[
(K)
] whether the applicant has already
met its basic water and wastewater needs if the application is for activities
other than water or wastewater; and
(J)
[
(L)
] whether the project has provided
for future funding necessary to sustain the project.
(6)
Project design scoring guidelines. Project design scores
are assigned by Office staff using guidelines that first consider the severity
of the need for each application activity and how the project resolves the
need described in the application. The severity of need and resolution of
the need determine the maximum project design score that can be assigned to
an application. After the maximum project design score has been established,
points are then deducted from this maximum score through the evaluation of
the other project design evaluation factors until the maximum score and the
point deductions from that maximum score determine the final assigned project
design score. When necessary, a weighted average is used to set the maximum
project design score to applications that include activities in the different
severity of the need/project resolution maximum scoring levels. Using as a
base figure the TCDP funds requested minus the TCDP funds requested for engineering
and administration, a percentage of the total TCDP construction dollars for
each activity is calculated. The percentage of the total TCDP construction
dollars for each activity is then multiplied by the appropriate maximum project
design point level. The sum of the calculations determines the maximum project
design score that the applicant can be assigned before points are deducted
based on the evaluation of the other project design factors.
(A)
Maximum project design score that can be assigned based
on the severity of the need and resolution of the problem.
(i)
Activities providing first-time sewer service to the area--maximum
score 135 points.
(ii)
Activities providing first-time water service to the area--maximum
score 135 points.
(iii)
Installation of approved residential on-site wastewater
disposal systems--maximum score 135 points.
(iv)
Housing rehabilitation and eligible new housing construction--maximum
score 130 points.
(v)
Water activities addressing and resolving water supply
shortage from drought conditions--maximum score 130 points.
(vi)
Water or sewer activities expanding or improving existing
water or sewer system--maximum score 120 points.
(vii)
Street paving activities providing first time surface
pavement to the area--maximum score 100 points.
(viii)
Installation of designed drainage structures providing
first time designed drainage system to the area--maximum score 100 points.
(ix)
Reconstruction of streets with existing surface pavement--maximum
score 90 points.
(x)
Installation of improvements or drainage structures to
a designed drainage system--maximum score 90 points.
(xi)
All other eligible activities--maximum score 80 points.
(B)
TCDP cost per low to moderate income beneficiary. The total
amount of TCDP funds requested by the applicant is divided by the total number
of low to moderate income persons benefitting from the application activities
to determine the TCDP cost per beneficiary.
(i)
Cost per low to moderate income beneficiary is equal to
or less than $2,000. Deduct zero points from the set maximum project design
score.
(ii)
Cost per low to moderate income beneficiary is greater
than $2,000 but equal to or less than $4,000. Deduct 1 point from the set
maximum project design score.
(iii)
Cost per low to moderate income beneficiary is greater
than $4,000 but equal to or less than $6,000. Deduct 2 points from the set
maximum project design score.
(iv)
Cost per low to moderate income beneficiary is greater
than $6,000 but equal to or less than $8,000. Deduct 3 points from the set
maximum project design score.
(v)
Cost per low to moderate income beneficiary is greater
than $8,000 but equal to or less than $10,000. Deduct 4 points from the set
maximum project design score.
(vi)
Cost per low to moderate income beneficiary is greater
than $10,000. Deduct 5 points from the set maximum project design score.
(C)
The applicant's past efforts, especially the applicant's
most recent efforts, to address water, sewer, and housing needs in colonia
areas through applications submitted under the TCDP community development
fund or through community development block grant entitlement funds.
(i)
The nonentitlement county submitted an application under
the TCDP community development fund 2003/2004 biennial competition that was
not addressing water, sewer, and housing needs in colonia areas. Deduct 3
points from the set maximum project design score.
(ii)
The nonentitlement county submitted an application under
the TCDP community development fund 2001/2002 biennial competition that was
not addressing water, sewer, and housing needs in colonia areas. Deduct 3
points from the set maximum project design score.
(iii)
The entitlement county did not use 2003 CDBG entitlement
funds to address water, sewer, and housing needs in colonia areas. Deduct
3 points from the set maximum project design score.
(iv)
The entitlement county did not use 2002 CDBG entitlement
funds to address water, sewer, and housing needs in colonia areas. Deduct
3 points from the set maximum project design score.
(D)
The projected water and/or sewer rates after completion
of the project based on 3,000 gallons, 5,000 gallons, and 10,000 gallons of
usage.
(i)
The projected water and/or sewer rates may be too high
for the application beneficiaries. Deduct 1 point from the set maximum project
design score.
(ii)
The projected water and/or sewer rates are too low to
discourage water conservation by the application beneficiaries. Deduct 1 point
from the set maximum project design score.
(E)
The ability of the applicant to utilize the grant funds
in a timely manner.
(i)
The application includes the acquisition of real property,
easements or rights-of-way. Deduct 1 point from the set maximum project design
score.
(ii)
The application includes matching funds that have not
been secured by the applicant. Deduct 1 point from the set maximum project
design score.
(iii)
The proposed application target area is not located in
an area where a service provider already has the certificate of convenience
and necessity (CCN) needed to provide service to the application beneficiaries.
Deduct 1 point from the set maximum project design score.
(F)
The availability of grant funds to the applicant for project
financing from other sources. Grant funds for any activity included in the
application are available from another source. Deduct 1 point from the set
maximum project design score.
[
(G)
The applicant's past performance on prior
TCDP contracts. The applicant's score will primarily be based on an assessment
of the applicant's performance on the applicant's two (2) most recent TCDP
contracts that have reached the end of the original contract period stipulated
in the contract. TCDP staff may also assess the applicant's performance on
existing TCDP contracts that have not reached the end of the original contract
period. An applicant that has never received a TCDP grant award does not have
any points deducted from the project design final score.
]
[
(i)
The applicant did not complete the previous
TCDP contract activities within the original contract period. Deduct 1 point
from the set maximum project design score for each occurrence (maximum of
2 points deducted from the set maximum project design score).
]
[
(ii)
The applicant did not submit the required
close-out documents for the previous TCDP contracts within the period prescribed
for such submission. Deduct 1 point from the set maximum project design score
for each occurrence (maximum of 2 points deducted from the set maximum project
design score).
]
[
(iii)
The applicant did not provide a timely
response to monitoring findings on previous TCDP contracts. Deduct 1 point
from the set maximum project design score (maximum of 1 point deducted from
the set maximum project design score).
]
[
(iv)
The applicant did not provide a timely
response to audit findings on previous TCDP contracts. Deduct 1 point from
the set maximum project design score (maximum of 1 point deducted from the
set maximum project design score).
]
(G)
[
(H)
] The applicant, or the service
provider, has not waived the payment of water or sewer service assessments,
capital recovery fees, and other access fees for the proposed low and moderate
income project beneficiaries.
(i)
Assessments and fees budgeted in the application are equal
to or less that $100 per low and moderate income household. Deduct 2 points
from the set maximum project design score.
(ii)
Assessments and fees budgeted in the application are greater
than $100 but equal to or less that $200 per low and moderate income household.
Deduct 4 points from the set maximum project design score.
(iii)
Assessments and fees budgeted in the application are
greater than $200 but equal to or less that $300 per low and moderate income
household. Deduct 6 points from the set maximum project design score.
(iv)
Assessments and fees budgeted in the application are greater
than $300 but equal to or less that $500 per low and moderate income household.
Deduct 8 points from the set maximum project design score.
(v)
Assessments and fees budgeted in the application are greater
than $500 per low and moderate income household. Deduct 10 points from the
set maximum project design score.
(H)
[
(I)
] Applicant's proposed use of
TCDP funds does not provide water or sewer connections/yardlines and/or plumbing
improvements that provide access to water/sewer systems financed through the
Texas Water Development Board Economically Distressed Areas Program. Deduct
2 points from the set maximum project design score.
(I)
[
(J)
] The application is for activities
other than water or wastewater and the applicant has not already met its basic
water and wastewater needs. Deduct 3 points from the set maximum project design
score,
(J)
[
(K)
] The applicant has not documented
that future funding necessary to sustain the project is available. Deduct
3 points from the set maximum project design score,
(7)
Past performance. An applicant receives from zero to ten
(10) points based on the applicant's past performance on previously awarded
TCDP contracts. The applicant's score will primarily be based on an assessment
of the applicant's performance on the applicant's two (2) most recent TCDP
contracts that have reached the end of the original contract period stipulated
in the contract. TCDP staff may also assess the applicant's performance on
existing TCDP contracts that have not reached the end of the original contract
period. An applicant that has never received a TCDP grant award will automatically
receive these points. TCDP staff will assess the applicant's performance on
TCDP contracts up to the application deadline date. The applicant's performance
on TCDP contracts after the application deadline date will not be evaluated
in this assessment. The evaluation of an applicant's past performance will
include, but is not necessarily limited to the following:
(A)
The applicant's completion of the previous contract activities
within the original contract period.
Deduct 2 points from the maximum
past performance score for each occurrence where the applicant did not complete
contract activities within the original contract period (maximum of 4 points
deducted from the maximum past performance score).
(B)
The applicant's submission of the required close-out documents
within the period prescribed for such submission.
Deduct 1 point from
the maximum past performance score for each occurrence where the applicant
did not submit the required close-out documents within the period prescribed
for such submission (maximum of 2 points deducted from the maximum past performance
score).
(C)
The applicant's timely response to monitoring findings
on previous TCDP contracts especially any instances when the monitoring findings
included disallowed costs.
Deduct 1 point from the maximum past performance
score for any occurrence where the applicant did not provide a timely response
to monitoring findings (maximum of 1 point deducted from the maximum past
performance score).
(D)
The applicant's timely response to audit findings on previous
TCDP contracts.
Deduct 1 point from the maximum past performance score
for any occurrence where the applicant did not provide a timely response to
audit findings (maximum of 1 point deducted from the maximum past performance
score).
(E)
The applicant's submission of all contract reporting requirements
such as quarterly progress reports, certificates of expenditures, and project
completion reports.
Deduct 1 point from the maximum past performance
score for each occurrence where the applicant did not submit contract reporting
documents (maximum of 2 points deducted from the maximum past performance
score).
(g) - (j)
(No change.)
§255.16.Non-Border Colonia Fund.
(a) - (c)
(No change.)
(d)
Selection criteria (non-border colonia fund). The following
is an outline of the selection criteria used by the Office for scoring colonia
construction fund applications. Four hundred thirty points are available.
(1) - (6)
(No change.)
(7)
Past performance. An applicant receives from zero to ten
(10) points based on the applicant's past performance on previously awarded
TCDP contracts. The applicant's score will primarily be based on an assessment
of the applicant's performance on the applicant's two (2) most recent TCDP
contracts that have reached the end of the original contract period stipulated
in the contract. TCDP staff may also assess the applicant's performance on
existing TCDP contracts that have not reached the end of the original contract
period. An applicant that has never received a TCDP grant award will automatically
receive these points. TCDP staff will assess the applicant's performance on
TCDP contracts up to the application deadline date. The applicant's performance
on TCDP contracts after the application deadline date will not be evaluated
in this assessment. The evaluation of an applicant's past performance will
include, but is not necessarily limited to the following:
(A)
The applicant's completion of the previous contract activities
within the original contract period.
Deduct 2 points from the maximum
past performance score for each occurrence where the applicant did not complete
contract activities within the original contract period (maximum of 4 points
deducted from the maximum past performance score).
(B)
The applicant's submission of the required close-out documents
within the period prescribed for such submission.
Deduct 1 point from
the maximum past performance score for each occurrence where the applicant
did not submit the required close-out documents within the period prescribed
for such submission (maximum of 2 points deducted from the maximum past performance
score).
(C)
The applicant's timely response to monitoring findings
on previous TCDP contracts especially any instances when the monitoring findings
included disallowed costs.
Deduct 1 point from the maximum past performance
score for any occurrence where the applicant did not provide a timely response
to monitoring findings (maximum of 1 point deducted from the maximum past
performance score).
(D)
The applicant's timely response to audit findings on previous
TCDP contracts.
Deduct 1 point from the maximum past performance score
for any occurrence where the applicant did not provide a timely response to
audit findings (maximum of 1 point deducted from the maximum past performance
score).
(E)
The applicant's submission of all contract reporting requirements
such as quarterly progress reports, certificates of expenditures, and project
completion reports.
Deduct 1 point from the maximum past performance
score for each occurrence where the applicant did not submit contract reporting
documents (maximum of 2 points deducted from the maximum past performance
score).
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal
has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal
authority to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on April 4, 2005.
TRD-200501389
Charles S. (Charlie) Stone
Executive Director
Office of Rural Community Affairs
Earliest possible date of adoption: May 15, 2005
For further information, please call: (512) 936-6710