Every Appraisal report managed by RSDS, LLC undergoes a Quality Control check prior to delivery to the Client.  RSDS, LLC has three proficiency levels in our QC team.  The depth of experience enables escalation at any point, and thereby reflects a risk-focused QC approach.  Management is specific that the person performing the Quality Control Analysis must have the necessary education, expertise, and competence appropriate with the complexity of the appraisal assignment, property type, market, geographical area, intended use, and analytical methods. Or must escalate the report to the next higher level of a more experienced QC Team.

Level I   Performs an administrative review for client-specific non-material related deficiencies, such as correct spelling of borrower’s name, correct spelling of property address, typos, incomplete address, product type ordered, missing sketch, location map, inadequate photos, use of comparable sales over 12 months per FNMA/FHLMC guidelines and or client requirements. In addition, check for possible red flags issues, such as line-item adjustments, net and gross adjustments per underwriting guidelines, the reasonableness of distance of comparable sales, large acreage, declining market areas, etc.

Level II  Performs a technical appraisal review, escalated to this Level from Level I. Typical concerns such as complex appraisals, severely rapidly changing markets, lack of support in the appraiser’s opinions and conclusions are reviewed at this level.

Level III Escalated critical concern to Senior Management. The escalation process is flexible to the assignment conditions and elements and can occur at any time during the QC process, meaning it does not need to go through all levels to get to Senior Management. An appraisal report can be escalated from Level I to III, directly to the Senior Management.

Escalation Process

Once the file is escalated from Level I to II or III, the QC Team will properly communicate with the appraiser, who will then formulate a response that addresses the specifics in the communication received.

Ensure that the completed report is run through alamode application software and all the rules results that need fixing are fixed.

• Verify typical secondary market standards and guidelines, such as sales date within one year, net and gross adjustment within guidelines, subject’s past three years analyzed in the report.
• Evaluate the reasonableness of the report including support, methods, assumptions, and data sources in the context of the intended use.
• Unacceptable deficiencies would require the QC Team to send the report back for revision.
• Any exclusion of the approaches to value (cost, income, and sales comparison) that is necessary to the assignment and no disclosed rationale in the report for the omission of that approach to value.
• Did the appraiser analyze and reconcile the information from the approaches to arrive at the estimated market value?
• Reflect an opinion as to the highest and best use of the property.
• Reporting whether or not the subject property was inspected and whether anyone provided significant assistance to the appraiser signing the appraisal report.
• Incorrect Subject Information
• Closer in proximity
• Similar features/view/amenities/size/age/quality features
• Have a routine audit at times BEFORE the report goes to the client
•  Systems in place where the trainee signed reports get more audits or scrutiny

• The address is USPS standard for Subject and Comparables
• Address City is accurately reported
• Proximity to the Subject is 1 mile or less, if not explanation is provided
• Data Source(s) provided
• Only Arm’s Length sales were used for Comps 1-3
• Sale/Financing adjustments were applied to seller paid closing cost if needed
• Sale/Financing was accurately reported “FHA”, “VA”, “Conv”, etc.
• Sale/Financing was avoided if reported as “Other” or “Owner Finance”
• Time adjustments were made accordingly and are consistent and explanations were made in summary
• Location adjustments were made as needed i.e.: “busy street”, “golf”, “water”, etc.
• Only Fee Simple homes were considered
• Site/Lot adjustments are supported
• View adjustments were made as needed i.e.: “mountain”, “water”, “woods”, etc.
• Design Styles are accurately reported: “Detached,” “Attached,” “Semi-Detached”
• Design Styles are consistently labeled across the board
• Condition and Quality adjustments are consistent
• Explanation in the summary for differences in Condition and Quality adjustments
• Age adjustments were made if needed, or support why there were not needed
• Appraiser bracketed the BR and BA counts
• The appraiser bracketed the GLA
• Basement adjustments were made and were consistent i.e.: “walkout vs interior only”
• Consistent below-grade room count adjustments for baths and beds
• 0 sf was used for homes with no basement
• Energy Adjustments: Double-check accuracy for “Solar” or “Geothermal” and other green features
• Garage adjustments are consistent
• Accurate and consistent Porch/Patio/Deck adjustments
• Provide support for pool and outbuilding adjustments
• Consistent adjustments or explanations on why they are inconsistent
• “0” are used for lines that vary from the subject but did not require an adjustment
• At least one Sale Price is above and one below your opinion of value
• At least one Adjusted Sale Price is above and one below your opinion of value
• The Sale price range is Greater than the Adjusted Sale price range
• Single line adjustments don’t exceed 10% or an explanation was made
• Net adjustments don’t exceed 15% or an explanation was made
• Gross adjustments don’t exceed 25% or an explanation was made
• A transfer in the past 3 years was indicated for the subject; the Price of Prior Sale/Transfer must be provided
• A transfer in the past 1 year was indicated for a comparable sale/listing; the Price of Prior Sale/Transfer must be provided