ESBD_369743_1723564726069_FPC-24-209 Addendum 1.pdf

THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Office of Procurement & HUB Program

ADDENDUM NO. 1

Date: August 13, 2024

RFP Due Date: August 22, 2024

RE: RFQ01 FPC-24-209 – Campus Master Planning Services

Respondents shall acknowledge receipt of addendum(s) on the Execution of Offer (Exhibit A).

Questions/Responses:

1. We routinely provide comprehensive master planning services and include specialty consultants within our project team based upon the specific project needs. Are we required to identify those consultants during this RFQ step or would it be more appropriate for those consultants to be identified concurrent with each master planning engagement?

Response: Listing consultants is not required; however, a firm may identify consultants on past projects to show experience with SMEs. Note that HUB requirements must be met as part of your proposal response as stated in Section 3.4 of the RFQ.

2. Should we provide a listing of the firms that we have worked with in the past to reflect the type of firms that we would expect would be considered in specific engagements?

Response: See response to question 1 above regarding listing of firms.

3. Is there a file size limit to the electronically via email submission to soprocurement@tamus.edu?

Response: Unknown. See response to question 4 below regarding alternate submission methods.

4. Should the file size limit be deemed low or result in a compromising of the resolution fidelity of the submission, will The Texas A&M University System (“A&M System”), Office of Facilities Planning & Construction (“FP&C”) accept a download link as part electronically via email submission to soprocurement@tamus.edu?

Response: Yes, a download link or file sharing tool may be used to submit the proposal response if large file sizes are a concern. If opting to submit with a file sharing tool it is recommended that Respondents send a test file prior to the RFQ due date to ensure the A&M System Procurement Office (soprocurement@tamus.edu) is able to successfully retrieve files by the method used.

5. Can you further define what you mean in 4.1.5.2 - Describe your approach to identifying options for alignment of scope, budget, and strategic planning. Is this referring to campus strategic plans?

Response: A key element for campus master planning is to identify and resolve critical issues. We are asking the firm to describe the methodology your firm uses to drive decisions from campus leadership regarding alignment of the campus physical growth and financial tools that support execution of a phased physical growth to achieve the campus strategic plan (projected growth in enrollment, academics, research, athletics, capital, etc.).

6. Regarding the RFQ, are teams allowed to submit together, for example two lead firms, one will be prime and the other is associate?

mailto:soprocurement@tamus.edu mailto:soprocurement@tamus.edu

Response: Yes, however this relationship must be fully described within your qualifications submission. It should also be reflected in your HUB plan submission.

7. Should we list all our sub-consultants or an organizational chart?

Response: Section 4.1.2.2 requests an organizational chart identifying key staff that will fulfill requirements under an agreement. It is acceptable to list sub-consultants in response to this question.

8. Can we respond with one or two campuses in mind or will we be deducted points?

Response: We will consider all submissions regardless of areas of availability and types of services a Respondent may provide. Refer to Exhibit C.

9. How will the scoring be weighted?

Response: No additional information will be provided regarding the evaluation process other than what is stated in Section 2.7 of the RFQ.

10. Please confirm that a Respondent may submit for one or more of the following five categories:

Comprehensive Master Plan (including within it as outlined on page 9: Campus Planning & Design Principles, Utilities Master Plan, Mobility and Safety, and Campus Environmental Stewardship), Campus Planning & Design Principles as a standalone strategic planning topic, Utilities Master Plan as a standalone strategic planning topic, Mobility and Safety as a standalone strategic planning topic, and Campus Environmental Stewardship as a standalone strategic planning topic.

Response: Yes, per Section 3.2 of the RFQ you may submit for only one or any combination of those five topics. Also note the response to question 11 in regards to submitting for multiple topics.

11. Page 9 of the RFQ states that Campus Planning & Design Principles, Utilities Master Plan, Mobility and Safety, and Campus Environmental Stewardship are components of the Comprehensive Campus Master Plan (CMP). If we are submitting qualifications for the all-inclusive Comprehensive Campus Master Plan described at the bottom of page 9, do we need to also provide additional qualifications for each of the other four “topics contained within a CMP” for which we want to be considered?

Response: By selecting “Comprehensive Campus Master Plan” in Exhibit C, a firm is indicating their interest and capability to provide service for all the components. Section 2.5, “Submittal Components” identifies a forty (40) page maximum for one service/component. The firm may submit up to five (5) additional pages as a response to section 4.1.3 for each service, resulting in a grand total of fifty-five (55) page maximum for the “Comprehensive Campus Master Plan” submittal.

12. If we are submitting for the all-inclusive Comprehensive Campus Master Plan and the four “topics contained within a CMP”, do we need to provide relevant experience for each of the “topics contained within a CMP” in addition to the experience we are providing for the Comprehensive CMP? If so, do we receive 5 additional pages for each of the “topics contained within a CMP”? If we need to show relevant experience for each of the standalone "topics contained within a CMP", may that experience be provided by a proposed subconsultant team member?

Response: See response to question 11.

13. Page 6 states: “Qualification Statement shall be a MAXIMUM of forty (40) pages for one service.

The respondent may choose to submit qualifications for multiple services. For each service selected, the respondent may submit an additional five (5) pages as response to Section 4.1.3.”

Should we be submitting a Qualification Statement (40 pages) per service (ie 40 pages for Comprehensive Master Plan, 40 pages for Utilities Master Plan, 40 Pages for Campus Planning &

Design Principles, etc.) or should we submit a 40-page Qualification Statement for Comprehensive Campus Master Plan with 5 additional pages for each of the four “topics contained within a CMP”?

Response: See response to question 11.

14. Please confirm that resumes are required only of key personnel who will negotiate for the firm and manage the agreement.

Response: Please include resumes for key personnel who will negotiate for the firm, manage the agreement, and key production staff within your firm (persons likely to be assigned to a Master Planning effort).

15. We did notice that campus housing is a sub-focus of your request. Would you entertain a submittal of qualifications specific to your residential master planning needs?

Response: See response to question 10 above. The firm must select one or more of the five topics for the submittal. Select the most appropriate topic according to the firms interest and experience.

16. Under the Utilities Master Planning scope under Section 3.2, does this include mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and technology utilities planning?

Response: Yes.

17. Under the Campus Planning & Design Principles scope under Section 3.2, does this include mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and technology utilities planning?

Response: Qualifications for campus master planning of Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and Technology may be submitted to the topic “Utilities Master Plan”.

18. Can you provide further explanation on the scope you are looking for in regards to Campus Environmental Stewardship?

Response: Campus Environmental Stewardship is a reference to the A&M System Policy 34.01.03 (http://policies.tamus.edu/34-01-03.pdf), which states “It is the objective of The Texas A&M University System (A&M System) that its operations and persons associated with its operations cultivate environmental performance and model good practices wherever its facilities and activities interface with the natural and built environments.”

19. Will there be facility condition assessments of existing buildings associated with the Campus Planning & Design Principles scope under Section 3.2?

Response: Facility condition assessments could be considered as tool for decision making while in the process of developing the Campus Master Plan. See response to question 15.

20. Is a link to HSP forms to be used intended as part of first sentence? Link does not appear to be functioning. Can a link to current forms to be utilized be provided to ensure correct forms are submitted?

Response: Below is the link. Within that page scroll down until you see the System Offices HUB Subcontracting Plan (HSP) Forms link.

https://www.tamus.edu/business/hub-procurement/hub-programs-3/

21. For the HUB plan, can we utilize a good faith effort self performing approach at this stage with the assumption we will complete separate HSPs once we understand the scope of the specific projects?

Response: No, assuming you know that you may need to utilize sub-consultants on specific projects. You may complete a HUBA Plan instead of the HSP as described in Section 3.4 of the

RFQ.

http://policies.tamus.edu/34-01-03.pdf https://www.tamus.edu/business/hub-procurement/hub-programs-3/ https://www.tamus.edu/business/hub-procurement/hub-programs-3/ https://www.tamus.edu/business/hub-procurement/hub-programs-3/

22. Can we submit multiple consultants for each discipline based on different campus locations?

Response: See response to question 23 below.

23. Regarding our consultants – do you want us to select an overall consultant team or a different consultant team per campus? We are committed to achieving your HUB goals for the TAMU System, but we know that HUB consultant availability varies around each campus.

Response: I would suggest that you provide a team based on your business needs within each area. Keep in mind that the plan you submit is not meant to be a fixed plan that would always apply to each project. Revisions may be needed for each project regarding specific consultants and we understand that each project will be different with scope and availability. This is why Section 3.4 of the RFQ allows for submission of a HUBA plan instead of an HSP. It is also important to note the last paragraph in that section (If Awarded) which states you may be required by the campus to complete a new HSP to meet the requirements of a specific project.

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1