Questions & Answers - 1 Solicitation2026-04-OPS-IT-02 - Housing Programs Application, Management and Compliance Software Buying OrganizationPennsylvania Housing Finance Agency NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q1 Question: Mapping cost-template modules to RFP programs RFP §2.9 Nature and Scope of the Project; Appendix B — Implementation and Support tab: The RFP narrative references multiple housing programs (including HEMAP/Act 91, PHARE, and the Multifamily/LIHTC programs), while the Appendix B cost template lists four configuration and training modules (LIHTC, Asset Management, NSPIRE, and Non-LIHTC Grant). How should the cost-template modules map to the programs identified in the RFP? Answer: HEMAP and PHARE are examples of "non-LIHTC" grant programs. LIHTC, Asset Management and NSPIRE compose the Multifamily/LIHTC programs. The pricing on the Non-LIHTC grant should reflect the licensing costs for a new program. This pricing can be shown as tiered if it is based on the number of licenses, number of applications, etc. The supplier should describe the pricing structure. As noted in the proposal, the implementation costs should be a not-to-exceed and there will be an opportunity to adjust the costs by program as long as the implementation costs do not exceed the amounts quoted in the rate card. 06/25/2026 Q2 Question: User counts and data volumes for other in-scope programs RFP §2.9 Nature and Scope of the Project: PHFA provided detailed user counts and master-data record volumes for the multi-family programs. Is this data available for the other programs within scope? Answer: Historical HEMAP data would include approximately 245, 000 application files, 4100 active loan files. User counts would be approximately 30 internal, external users would include all certified housing counselors (75), and all active loans (4,100) and yearly applicants (approximately 2,000 per year). PHARE currently has 1800 users, 6,330 applications and approximately 50,000 unique documents. 06/25/2026 Q3 Question: Estimated annual funding allocation per program RFP §2.9 Nature and Scope of the Project: What is the estimated annual funding allocation for each of the programs within scope? Answer: HEMAP - Approximately four to five million annually. PHARE - While each year can be vastly different, it appears that ~$75 million can be a good estimate. 06/25/2026 Q4 Question: Estimated applicant volume per program RFP §2.9 Nature and Scope of the Project: What is the estimated applicant volume/external users for each of the programs within scope? Answer: HEMAP - External estimated 2,000 applications annually, and 75 estimated housing counseling agents who submit applications. PHARE - In 2025, we had 1,200 applications and 9,333 documents posted for last funding round. 06/25/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q5 Question: Do internal users span multiple programs? RFP §2.9 Nature and Scope of the Project: Do any of the approximately 150 internal users work across multiple programs within scope, or are the user populations distinct by program? Answer: HEMAP - Most users are distinct by program but some overlap. PHARE - Most likely yes, but not known with 100% certainty. Since PHARE is a program to solicit grant funds, it’s very likely any new projects created with PHARE will interface with the other programs. 06/25/2026 Q6 Question: Data conversion and migration scope details RFP §2.9 Nature and Scope of the Project; Appendix B — Implementation and Support tab (Data Migration lines): Does PHFA have additional details on data-conversion and migration scope (source systems, formats, volumes, and any known data-quality issues) to support accurate scoping and pricing? Or will this be finalized in the implementation process? Answer: It will be finalized in the implementation process. 06/25/2026 Q7 Question: Definition of integration with financial systems Appendix A §8.2 Integration Capabilities & §7.5 Payment & Funding Tracking; RFP §2.10 Requirements and Tasks: Please clarify PHFA's definition and expectation of “integration” with financial systems such as Workday - for example, real-time API exchange, scheduled/SFTP file transfer, or another method. Answer: At a minimum, scheduled/SFTP file transfer. It will be finalized in the implementation process. 06/25/2026 Q8 Question: Data points and objectives for planned integrations RFP §2.9 Nature and Scope of the Project; Appendix A §8.2 Integration Capabilities: For the anticipated Workday interface and the planned document-management and data-warehouse interfaces, can PHFA share the specific data points to be exchanged and the objective of each integration? Please also confirm whether any protected health information (PHI) or other sensitive data would be exchanged. Answer: It will be finalized in the implementation process. 06/25/2026 Q9 Question: Will PHFA process payments or the system? RFP §2.10 Requirements and Tasks; Appendix A §7.5 Payment & Funding Tracking: Will PHFA process all program payments internally for all programs, or is the system expected to initiate or disburse payments? Answer: Payments and disbursements will be made via the Workday Financial System. 06/25/2026 Q10 Question: Consolidated list of anticipated integrations RFP §2.8 Objectives; Appendix B — Implementation and Support tab (Integration Development): Can PHFA provide a consolidated list of all anticipated third-party and internal system integrations so vendors can scope and price accurately? Or will this be part of the discovery effort in implementation? Answer: It will be finalized in the implementation process. 06/25/2026 Q11 Question: IRS MeF/FIRE: expected outcome and flat-file option Appendix A §8.2 Integration Capabilities (and §2.4 Tax Credit Allocation, Carryover & 8609 Issuance): Regarding IRS electronic transmission (e.g., MeF/FIRE): what outcome is PHFA seeking, and would a flat-file exchange process satisfy the requirement? Answer: It will be finalized in the implementation process. At this time, PHFA uses a third party for printing and submitting to the IRS. 06/25/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q12 Question: Conflicting uptime requirements (99.5% vs 99.9%) Appendix A §8.1 Technical Architecture & §10.2 Service Level Agreements: The RFP references a 99.5% uptime requirement (2.10) and a 99.9% uptime requirement (8.1 and 10.2). Can PHFA confirm which figure governs? Answer: Please provide your solution’s proposed SLA for PHFA review. 06/25/2026 Q13 Question: FedRAMP Moderate Authorization Appendix A §7.2 Data Security & Hosting Requirements & §11 Required Certifications & Attestations: Regarding FedRAMP Moderate Authorization, typically, hosting within a FedRAMP-authorized cloud environment (e.g., Microsoft Azure) meets this requirement. Can PHFA confirm that will satisfy the requirement? Answer: Please state what certifications and attestations you can provide. 06/25/2026 Q14 Question: Labeling roadmap items Appendix A §11 Required Certifications & Attestations: For the certification "The proposed solution is production-ready; not a prototype, beta, or roadmap item unless explicitly labeled as such,” where and how should the vendor explicitly label any roadmap items? Answer: Specific roadmap items can be identified in the technical response at the individual requirement level. The overall attestation is intended to demonstrate the existence of a comprehensive solution covering the majority of the specified functionality. This process ensures that the solution being proposed is already available for use and is not an entirely custom-built option that remains undeveloped. 06/25/2026 Q15 Question: Disclosing roadmap features Appendix A §11 Required Certifications & Attestations: For the certification “All LIHTC, NSPIRE, and compliance features described are available in the current generally available release,” if any of the features described by the vendor are in committed product roadmap, where and how should we disclose that information? Answer: See response to question 14 06/25/2026 Q16 Question: Target go-live dates and phased rollout plans RFP §2.10 Requirements and Tasks & §5 Criteria for Selection; Appendix A §9 Implementation Approach & Timeline: Does PHFA have target go-live dates or internal milestones for each program, and does it intend a phased rollout? If so, can these be shared to inform the proposed implementation plan? Answer: The intent is a phased rollout. The current priority is the LIHTC 9% application first, the PHARE program second, and then HEMAP and the rest of multifamily (additional LIHTC applications, asset management and nSpire) 06/25/2026 Q17 Question: Expectations for user documentation and manuals RFP §2.10 Requirements and Tasks: Please clarify PHFA's expectations for user documentation and manuals (scope, audiences, and formats) so vendors can scope and price appropriately. Answer: PHFA will have a resource dedicated to creating training documentation. It is expected that the supplier will provide the subject matter experts needed for documentation content review and provide the initial user training. 06/25/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q18 Question: Implementation milestone table flexibility Appendix A §9.3 Proposed Implementation Milestones: For the milestone table, may vendors reorder the milestones to reflect the vendor's proposed implementation sequence? Answer: Yes, vendors may reorder to reflect the proposed implementation sequence. However, the actual schedule will be determined as part of the project plan deliverable that should be completed within the first 90 days after execution. 06/25/2026 Q19 Question: Agenda for software demo and oral presentation RFP §2.7 Product Demonstration/Proposal Presentation & §1.8 Oral Presentation, Demonstration and Sample Work Products: Does PHFA have a specific agenda or required topics for the software demonstration and oral presentation beyond what is covered in the Technical Proposal? If so, can it be shared in advance? Answer: Suppliers should be prepared to demonstrate the functionality listed in the technical proposal requirements. A more specific script will be shared with the down-selected vendors at least one week prior to the scheduled demonstration. 06/25/2026 Q20 Question: Pricing if scope changes materially after award Appendix B — Summary tab; RFP §4 Cost Information Instructions: The cost template notes that software costs and service rates must remain unchanged after submission. How should vendors handle pricing if project scope changes materially after award? Answer: Suppliers will work with PHFA to develop a project plan within 90 days after award which will be added to the contract. If it is determined that there are material changes as part of that discussion, a change order can be mutually developed as part of that amendment. 06/25/2026 Q21 Question: Subcontractor and supplier diversity scoring impact RFP §1.14 Supplier Diversity; §5 Criteria for Selection: Please clarify whether the use of subcontractors or partners - or the supplier diversity provisions referenced in the RFP - has any impact on evaluation scoring. Answer: Diverse suppliers are encouraged to participate. While their inclusion is valued, it does not directly impact the evaluation scoring. The scoring is based on the quality and expertise of the resources that are proposed. 06/25/2026 Q22 Question: Redlining T&Cs vs. completing Appendix C RFP §1.3 Type of Contract and Contract Terms; Appendix C — Acknowledgement/Redlines for Terms and Conditions: RFP §1.3 instructs suppliers who dispute any terms to submit a "redlined" version of the terms or conditions, while Appendix C provides an acknowledgement form with a table for listing requested modifications. Should vendors submit a redlined version of the full Commonwealth Terms and Conditions document in addition to completing Appendix C, or does completing the Appendix C form satisfy this requirement? Answer: Completing Appendix C satisfies the requirement. Please note that changes to terms and conditions has an impact on evaluation scoring and that Commonwealth of PA non-permissible changes could deem a supplier non-responsive. 06/25/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q23 Question: Letterhead, response detail, and column widths Appendix A — Technical Proposal: For completing the Technical Proposal template, may vendors apply their own letterhead or branding to the document? What level of detail does PHFA expect in the "Supplier Response" column of the requirement tables - for example, a yes/no, a brief confirmation of compliance, or a fuller narrative? And may vendors adjust the table column widths to allow more room for their responses? Answer: Vendors may apply their own branding to the document. However, all of the requested content must be provided. Do not mark any of the pages "confidential". If a supplier believes any of the information is proprietary, that must be specified in a separate letter (refer to instructions in the proposal). The Supplier Response of the requirement table should include at a minimum the yes/no response and either a brief confirmation of compliance or an explanation of non-compliance. If it is not available yet but is a roadmap item, designate "no" but explain what is in the roadmap and the expected release date. Vendors may adjust the table columns to allow room for response. 06/25/2026 Q24 Question: Use of graphics, illustrations, and tables Appendix A — Technical Proposal: May vendors incorporate graphics, illustrations, or supporting tables within the Technical Proposal, or should responses remain text-based within the provided response fields? Answer: Additional content or illustrative content may be provided as long as all of the requested information is included. The system is set up to allow for additional documents as attachments but please ensure any attachments are relevant to the proposal and not just promotional/marketing material. 06/25/2026 Q25 Question: Key personnel availability interpretation Appendix A §11 Required Certifications & Attestations; §1.4 Key Personnel: The Section 11 certification states that "Key personnel named in Section 1.4 are available and committed for the duration of the implementation." Vendors may anticipate that core roles such as project management, implementation, and client success/support would be actively engaged throughout, while specialized advisory roles such as a subject matter expert would be available on an as-needed basis rather than fully dedicated, which helps control cost without compromising availability. Can PHFA confirm this interpretation is acceptable - i.e., that "available and committed" does not require every named role to be full-time or fully dedicated? Answer: Available and committed does not require every named role to be full-time or fully dedicated to only this project but it does mean that they are fully available to complete tasks assigned to them in the designated timeframes of the project plan. 06/25/2026 Q26 Question: Section 1.4 roles Appendix A §1.4 Key Personnel: Are the roles listed in Section 1.4 firm requirements or illustrative examples? May vendors modify or combine role titles, propose an alternative team structure, or add Key Personnel roles? Can the named Key Personnel in a vendor's proposal be limited to those involved in software implementation, client success, and client support? Answer: The roles listed are illustrative examples. Vendors may modify or combine role titles or propose an alternative team structure. However, the supplier must demonstrate that the composition of those roles will meet the implementation and client support needs and that the personnel in those roles are qualified for the work. 06/25/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q27 Question: Scope of LIHTC SME and NSPIRE specialist roles Appendix A §1.4 Key Personnel: Section 1.4 includes a LIHTC / Compliance Subject Matter Expert and an NSPIRE / Physical Inspection Specialist among the Key Personnel. Could PHFA provide additional detail on the expected scope and level of involvement for these roles? Answer: See response to question 26. 06/25/2026 Q28 Question: Narrative summaries before requirements tables Appendix A — Technical Proposal: Some sections include a narrative prompt in addition to the requirement tables (for example, §2.2 asks vendors to "Describe the platform's underwriting tools, proforma modeling capabilities... In addition, respond to the requirements listed below"), while other sections do not. Does PHFA want vendors to provide a narrative description or summary preceding every requirement table, or only where a narrative prompt is explicitly stated? Answer: A response must be provided for the sections that have the narrative prompt. It is not required for the sections that don't but the vendor must respond to the individual requirements. Vendors may also add a narrative description if they believe it supports their response. 06/25/2026 Q29 Question: Required vs. preferred integrations Appendix A §8.2 Integration Capabilities: Section 8.2 lists 11 example integrations and notes that "not all of these are required." Which of the listed integrations does PHFA require at launch/go-live, and which are considered preferred, optional, or future state? Answer: It will be finalized in the implementation process. 06/25/2026 Q30 Question: Digital signatures & initials Appendix A §11 Required Certifications & Attestations & §11.2 Final Authorization: Section 11 requires the authorized representative to initial each certification item and provide a final signature in §11.2. Can PHFA confirm that digital signatures and initials are acceptable for the certifications, and for any other location in the proposal where a vendor signature is required? Answer: Digital signatures are acceptable. 06/25/2026 Q31 Question: Mobile inspection app Appendix A §4.1 Mobile Inspection Application: Section 4.1 requires a native or hybrid mobile app for offline inspections. Is this a required architecture, or will PHFA accept any solution that meets the stated offline-capture and auto-sync performance and reliability requirements? Answer: PHFA will consider a solution that meets the requirements. 06/26/2026 Q32 Question: Recapture risk indicators and alerting Appendix A §2.5 Long-Term LIHTC Compliance Monitoring: Section 2.5 requires recapture risk monitoring with automatic flagging of at-risk projects and a recapture event calculation/IRS notification workflow. What conditions or events does PHFA consider indicators of recapture risk, and how does PHFA want to be alerted to and act on them? Answer: The biggest recapture risks are failure to meet minimum set-aside and/or the applicable fraction. We note these in our letters of noncompliance, and if the owner/agent is unable to correct the issues, we would issue IRS 8823s. 06/26/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q33 Question: Supportive-services reporting scope and recipients Appendix A §7.3 Reporting & Analytics & §2.5 Long-Term LIHTC Compliance Monitoring: Section 7.3 (with §2.5) requires supportive-services reporting, including service data collection, impact analysis, source of funds, hours tracking, and cross-referencing of 3-Year Compliance Plans. Which supportive- services programs and outcomes does PHFA need to track and report, to which oversight bodies, and how often? Answer: Supportive services programs implemented at properties with a service commitment are designed to connect residents to needed community supports, offer case management as appropriate, and promote the overall wellness of the resident population. Currently, information is tracked through: • Original Plan of Services / LIHTC Application Tab 11 •Frequency: One-time (with LIHTC application) •Oversight: Assigned HSR (reviews Tab 11 only) •Tracked Data: oEvidence that appropriate services will be provided for all residents through the compliance period oProgram elements unique to the development, including scope of services, delivery (hours/week), and program goals oProof of sufficient funding, including source (Operating Budget, Escrow, Other) and annual breakdown (salary, benefits, supplies) oEvidence of an experienced service provider • Updated Plan of Services / 3-Year Plan •Frequency: Every 3 years during the compliance period •Oversight: Assigned HSR •Tracked Data: oPopulation description and resident needs oResident survey results oCommunity and online resources oCurrent and proposed services, programs, and activities oProposed outcomes oSupportive services budget details • Annual Report •Frequency: Annually •Oversight: Assigned HSR •Tracked Data: oType of service provided (e.g., Adult Activities, Health Services, Job Training, Youth Activities, etc.) oService provider and specific service delivered oSource of support (Donated, Escrow, Operating Budget, Other) oHours of service, number of unduplicated residents served oOutcomes (e.g., improved health/social interaction, increased mobility, improved quality of life, increased income, educational gains, reduced crime, cost savings to management, community partnerships, access to homeownership programs, etc.) 06/26/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q34 Question: HMIS integration goal, scope, and data exchange Appendix A §8.2 Integration Capabilities: Section 8.2 lists an HMIS (homeless management) integration. What is PHFA's goal for the HMIS connection, which HMIS is in scope, and what data should be exchanged, in which direction(s) and how often? Are there data-sharing or consent constraints? Answer: This was an example integration and is not required. 06/26/2026 Q35 Question: Scope of 'PHFA data systems' integration Appendix A §8.2 Integration Capabilities: Section 8.2 lists a "PHFA data systems" integration to be defined during discovery. Which existing PHFA systems must the solution exchange data with, and for each: its purpose, whether it stays or is replaced, the data that must move, and any required integration standards? Answer: It will be finalized in the implementation process. 06/26/2026 Q36 Question: Defining and enforcing scoring-panel quorum Appendix A §6.2 Configurable Scoring & Committee Management: Regarding the "set quorum requirements" capability under committee panel management, how does PHFA define quorum for scoring panels, and how should the system enforce or track it within the review process? Answer: Quorum isn’t tied to a specific number of people but instead quorum refers to the need of having all key manager and director level staff present (the Process Map has the list of scorers on it – the Director of Development, the Manager of Multifamily Coordination, Director Housing Management, Supervisor of Multifamily Operations, Director of Technical Services, Manager of Housing Services, Manager of Tax Credit Compliance). 06/26/2026 Q37 Question: How review panels operate and aggregate scores Appendix A §6.2 Configurable Scoring & Committee Management; RFP §2.10 Requirements and Tasks: Regarding the "panel review workflows (preferred)" capability, how does PHFA envision review panels operating, including how reviewers are organized, how scoring progresses across reviewers or panels, and how individual scores are aggregated into a result? Answer: Ultimately, we would want the system to take all the scores and put them into a spreadsheet log and have each division score their sections individually. 06/26/2026 Q38 Question: Maximum File Upload Size Appendix A §2.1 LIHTC Application Intake & Eligibility: Please confirm the maximum file-upload size the platform should support (the "minimum 500 MB per submission" reference). Is this measured per individual file or per application submission, and does it apply to all upload types or only specific document categories? For context, SaaS document platforms commonly support single-file direct uploads up to 100 MB and handle larger files through chunked, multipart, or resumable upload paths rather than a single monolithic upload. Given that reliably supporting files at or above 500 MB generally relies on this kind of approach, is there flexibility in the stated threshold and in the upload method PHFA will accept? Answer: At a per file basis. If there is a limitation, a solution would need to be provided for large files like construction plans and architectural drawings. 06/26/2026 Q39 Question: Integration details and resources Appendix A §8.2 Integration Capabilities: For the required integrations, will PHFA be able to provide API documentation, test endpoints, and a technical point of contact during implementation? Answer: Yes, PHFA will provide these items. 06/26/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q40 Question: Panel review workflows Appendix A §6.2 Configurable Scoring & Committee Management; RFP §2.10 Requirements and Tasks: Please clarify the "panel review workflows (preferred)" requirement - does this contemplate multiple sequential rounds or panels of scoring, or multiple reviewers scoring within a single panel? Answer: No this does not contemplate multiple sequential rounds, or multiple reviewers scoring within a single panel. We want multiple people to be able to use the system to score their portions at the same time (simultaneously). 06/26/2026 Q41 Question: Set quorum requirements Appendix A §6.2 Configurable Scoring & Committee Management: Please clarify the "set quorum requirements" language under panel/committee scoring - does this refer to establishing the total number of scorers per application, or to additional quorum logic? Answer: Quorum isn’t tied to a specific number of people but instead quorum refers to the need of having all key manager and director level staff present (the Process Map has the list of scorers on it – the Director of Development, the Manager of Multifamily Coordination, Director Housing Management, Supervisor of Multifamily Operations, Director of Technical Services, Manager of Housing Services, Manager of Tax Credit Compliance). 06/26/2026 Q42 Question: Prior Procurement Context We understand the Agency conducted a related procurement for housing program software issued in approximately 2023. To help us tailor our response to the Agency's current needs and lessons learned, could the Agency share any context it considers appropriate, for example whether the current RFP reflects a change in scope, requirements, or direction relative to that prior effort, and whether the resulting solution is currently in use? Understanding what has and has not met the Agency's needs to date would help us propose the most relevant solution. Answer: This is a separate request for proposal that lists the current requirements. The previous RFP is not relevant. 06/26/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q43 Question: Solution Maturity, Configuration, and Requirements Development The RFP states that PHFA is not seeking a custom-built solution, that the key functionality of the solution must already exist in a production system with the ability to perform basic configurations to accommodate PHFA-specific processes, and that the proposed software must have at least one year of production use. We support this standard and offer a platform that has been in production use with housing finance agencies for several years. To help all vendors respond precisely, we respectfully request clarification on the following related points. •Given the breadth and specificity of the requirements across LIHTC, asset management, NSPIRE inspections, grant programs, security, and infrastructure, does the Agency anticipate that a single solution exists today that satisfies every individual requirement fully in production, or does the Agency expect that responsive proposals may satisfy the requirements through a combination of existing production functionality, configuration to PHFA's processes, integrations, and, where applicable, planned enhancements on a committed timeline? •For any individual requirements that may exceed the capabilities of any current production system, how does the Agency wish vendors to address them, for example through the exceptions process, so that vendors can respond transparently rather than overstate compliance? •To ensure consistent interpretation, can the Agency confirm that configuring an existing production platform to PHFA's programs, rules, forms, checklists, scoring, and reporting, as part of standard implementation, is considered basic configuration rather than customization under the RFP? •To help us tailor our response, could the Agency share any context it considers appropriate on how the requirements were developed, for example whether they reflect current Agency workflows, existing systems, anticipated future needs, or a combination? Answer: The RFP states that the Agency has the option to issue this as a single award or a multi- award and that decision will based on the proposed solutions we receive. If there is a requirement listed that is not in the current system, designate no but also provide an explanation of why and if it is a roadmap item, specify the proposed release date. Configuration of an existing platform to PHFA's programs is considered part of configuration and not customization--however, PHFA encourages suppliers to discuss best demonstrated practices rather than just configure to all existing processes. The requirements stated are a combination of current workflows and desired process/technology enhancements. 06/26/2026 Q45 Question: Parent-Child Bundle Deals (Section 2.1.7) Section 2.1.7 requests the ability for projects to be bundled under a parent project. To map our capabilities accurately and demonstrate the most relevant functionality, could the Agency elaborate on the intended use case and the structure it has in mind? For example, does this refer to: •a single development comprising multiple buildings or scattered sites managed under one project record; •multiple distinct project deals grouped under a parent program or entity for consolidated reporting and oversight; or •a parent funding facility or guidance line, such as a master line of credit, under which individual projects are originated and draw against a shared commitment. It would also help to understand the primary outcomes the Agency expects from this capability, such as consolidated reporting across the bundle, shared documentation, or tracking of allocations or draws against a parent. Answer: Yes, multiple distinct project deals grouped under a parent program or entity for consolidated reporting and oversight. We would actually say, one new deal comprised of multiple prior developments. 06/26/2026 NoQuestion/AnswerQuestion Date Q47 Question: Closing Date Will PHFA consider extending the RFP Closing Date to 7/17/2026? Answer: The RFP closing date will be extended to 7/15/26 06/26/2026