Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/216825
MHARR VIEWPOINT HUD's Assault on the MHCC Continues BY DANNY GHORBANI Quite clearly, the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) is one of the three centerpiece reforms of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 -- together with an appointed non-career program administrator and expanded federal preemption. All three are central to achieving the law's overriding goal of completing the transition of manufactured homes to legitimate housing and ensuring their parity with other types of residential dwellings. Therefore, not surprisingly – and as has been increasingly obvious in recent years -all three have been the target of efforts by HUD regulators to thwart the 2000 reform law by undermining, minimizing, obstructing and distorting their full and proper implementation. And now, the core functionality of the MHCC is under further assault by HUD. Based on 1994 recommendations by the National Commission on Manufactured Housing, the MHCC was designed by Congress to function not only as a conventional consensus committee, like those used to develop and maintain codes and standards for all other types of housing, but also as an independent check and balance on the power of HUD regulators, and a transparent forum to ensure HUD compliance with all relevant aspects of the law. From nearly day-one, though, HUD regulators have worked overtime to undermine the central role of the MHCC -- initially through efforts to limit its authority, and later by attempts to subvert its independence through manipulation of its procedures and composition, including the exclusion of collective industry representatives. Now, though, those efforts have shifted to new ground, leaving the MHCC dormant through virtually all of 2013 (and potentially beyond) due to the absence of an MHCC Administering Organization (AO). DECEMBER 2013 14 THE JOURNAL Well aware that the MHCC would be the linchpin of the reformed federal program structure established by the 2000 law – and critical to the credibility and acceptance of that structure by program stakeholders – Congress carefully crafted the law to ensure that the MHCC AO would be a qualified, legitimate and independent national construction code development organization. The 2000 law thus states that the AO must be a "recognized, voluntary, private sector, consensus standards body with specific experience in developing model residential building codes and standards involving all disciplines regarding construction and safety that administers the consensus standards through a development process." The statutory definition, therefore, establishes a three-part litmus test for any potential AO. To comply, the AO (and AO candidates) must be: (1) a "recognized" consensus standards organization; with (2) "specific experience" in developing model residential building codes; that (3) involve "all disciplines" of construction and safety. In other words, the AO, in addition to being a recognized code development organization, cannot be a "one-note Johnny," focused on only one or two issues involved in the construction process. Instead, the AO must have specific code development experience covering all aspects of residential construction and safety. In accordance with these strict criteria, HUD, in 2002, correctly selected the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to be the first AO of the newly-established MHCC. And NFPA, to its credit, has managed the activities of the MHCC in a professional, credible and even-handed manner, even when confronted with interference and obstructions by HUD. Now, though, the NFPA contract has expired and that organization has made it clear that it has no interest in serving another term. While the reason or reasons for this decision have not been disclosed, it would not be surprising at all if it were related to HUD efforts to undermine the role, independence and authority of the MHCC, capped-off by delayed contract payments that led NFPA to unilaterally suspend AO services for more than two months during 2012 -- and required direct intervention by MHARR and others to restore any kind of MHCC operations. Consequently, since July of this year, HUD has been seeking a new AO, and it is in the context of this activity that a whole new round of mischief has been playing out. A bid solicitation for a new AO contract was published by HUD on the FedBizOpps.com website on July 16, 2013, with the deadline for responsive bids listed as July 23, 2013 – a mere seven days later. This, in itself, raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the solicitation and the entire bid process. But that is only the start. The solicitation included a list of "interested vendors," that was publicly accessible at the time, but now requires a password to view. Other than Washington, D.C. attorneys and agents who routinely register on such sites, the only "interested vendor" for the AO contract listed (at the time) was a New York-based "research" organization that in the past has received financial 21 \