ESBD_470846_1764952244527_Brushy Creek MUD Parks and Recreation Assessment SOQ Q&A.pdf
PDF 106 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 202-1117-500
- Issued by
- Williamson County, San Antonio City, Texas
About this file
This is a Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) Vendor Questions & Answers document for Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District in Texas regarding a Parks and Recreation Assessment procurement. The district reissued the RFQ in November 2025 after an initial May 2025 release that resulted in three SOQ submissions but no award. The district opted to reissue to obtain more detailed scope information and to emphasize specific evaluation priorities. The revised procurement seeks consulting services to conduct a comprehensive operational and financial analysis of the district's parks and recreation facilities, including cost-recovery planning, financial sustainability assessment, staffing analysis, capital improvement funding strategies, and a five-year staffing plan with tiered pricing models. Written questions were due December 1, 2025, with SOQs required to be electronically submitted by 4 p.m. on December 15, 2025, to procurement@bcmud.org. The district anticipated vendor selection on February 12, 2026, with project completion targeted for the end of fiscal year 2026 (September 30, 2026) to support FY2026 capital planning.
The procurement budget allocation is $50,000 from the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) fund. The district strongly prefers single-firm submissions over teaming arrangements, offering 40 evaluation points for prime-only teams versus 25 points for primes using subconsultants. Key evaluation criteria prioritize Central Texas experience with comparable entities and demonstrated accomplishment with cost-recovery models. The district seeks a mix of engagement approaches, including digital surveys and in-person meetings with the committee and board. Follow-on implementation phases are anticipated, including implementation support, financial modeling, fee strategy execution, and grant funding assistance. The assessment should evaluate both operational efficiency and return on investment for maintaining, reducing, or expanding specific facilities such as aquatics, sports fields, and community centers. No incumbent vendor is identified, and this represents a new blank-slate selection process.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ESBD_470846_1763401790108_Parks and Recreation Assesment Services RFQ 11.17.25.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Brushy Creek MUD Parks and Recreation Assessment SOQ
Vendor Questions & Answers
Question - We noted that this RFQ was originally released in May 2025 with responses due in June 2025, and now it has been reissued in November 2025. Was the June solicitation awarded, cancelled, or postponed? If it was not awarded, could you please share the reasoning?
Answer - It was not awarded, in order to go back and firm up and provide more detail of what the District was looking to retain from this RFQ
Question - Were any Statements of Qualifications received during the original solicitation in June 2025?
If so, did any firms advance to negotiations or interviews?
Answer - Yes, 3. We did not conduct any interviews due to updating the scope.
Question - Did the District conduct interviews or negotiations with any firms during the initial release, and if so, what areas led to a decision to re-issue rather than award?
Answer - No interviews were conducted.
Question - Were there any specific gaps or weaknesses in the June 2025 responses (e.g., Central Texas experience, cost recovery expertise, CAPRA readiness, capital funding strategies) that respondents should be aware of as we prepare for the December submission?
Answer - Ideally the District would like to see an organizations accomplishment with Cost Recovery Models with previous companies.
Question - Is there anything materially different in your priorities, scope emphasis, or selection criteria between the June and December versions of this RFQ? If so, please advise.
Answer - See above
Question - What does the District hope to see differently or more clearly demonstrated in this second procurement cycle?
Answer - See above
Question - Were evaluation scores or debrief findings carried forward—or is this December RFQ considered a new process with a blank slate?
Answer - New, blank slate
Question - Regarding capital improvement funding strategies, what strategies has the District already considered?
Answer - Currently, it's just internal funding; the hope is to possibly seek bonds and grants in the future.
Question - Are you seeking in-person community engagement, or can surveys and stakeholder input be conducted digitally? If in-person, what level is expected (workshops, town halls, focus groups)?
Answer - A mix, surveys are great, but some in-person meetings with our committee and board.
Question - Do you anticipate follow-on phases including implementation support, financial modeling, fee strategy execution, or grant funding assistance?
Answer - Yes
Question - Is GIS-based mapping of facilities, usage, and catchment areas expected — given that ArcGIS file formats are listed as deliverables?
Answer - This would be a coordination with our GIS Specialist to utilize resources of the District to better understand the scope of this work
Question - In reviewing the Evaluation Criteria, we noted that 40 points are available when submitting as a prime-only team (versus 25 for primes using subconsultants). Does the District encourage single-firm submissions, or does it prefer specialized teaming structures?
Answer - Ideally single firm for this project.
Question - Under Consideration Item 6, the RFQ highlights Central Texas experience — can you clarify how this is considered/weighted in the evaluation criteria?
Answer - The District is seeking an organization that has experience with entities we are familiar with or comparable. We currently compare ourselves to local entities for the current pricing structure.
Question - Is there an anticipated budget range or funding allocation source for this assessment effort (General fund, Parks enterprise, CIP allocation)?
Answer - CIP allocation of $50K
Question - Is the Board prioritizing completion of this assessment to support upcoming FY26 capital planning or bond planning cycles?
Answer - Completion of this project in FY2026 (end of September) in order to move on to the next steps as a master plan.
Question - Does Brushy Creek MUD wish to understand the ROI or financial justification for maintaining, reducing, or expanding certain facilities (aquatics, sports fields, community center), or is the study primarily operational and planning-oriented?
Answer - Both
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .