ESBD_504450_1776714445876_802-26-76418_Addendum_01.pdf

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road

Austin, Texas 78744

ADDENDUM

Addendum Number: 01 Date: 4/20/2026 Solicitation Number: 802-26-70672 Solicitation Title: Internal Audit Services Due Date/Deadline: April 23, 2026; 2:00PM Purchaser: Allye Potter

PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM: CLARIFICATIONS

Except as provided herein, all Terms and Conditions of the document referenced herein, remain unchanged and in full force and effect. The following are specifications to this solicitation. This Addendum may be attached to and form a part of the referenced solicitation document and any resulting awarded contract and may be considered in your response.

Questions and Answers

1. Question: Can TPWD provide more detail on the current structure and maturity of the JOC and Minor Repair

Programs?

Answer: Minor Repair program has a dedicated funding source through the State Parks Division has been around for many years. JOC program was implemented by and is overseen by the Infrastructure Division with the first contracts being awarded in September 2024.

2. Question: Are there specific risk areas or concerns already identified in the FY26 audit plan that should be prioritized?

Answer: This audit is the only one in the audit plan approved by the SAO to be outsourced.

3. Question: Will the audit include site visits or field inspections, or is it primarily document-based?

Answer: Primarily document based

4. Question: What systems (e.g., Teammate+, procurement systems, project tracking tools) will be accessible to the auditor?

Answer: Teammate +, reports with requested data will be pulled from the agency’s financial system and provided to auditors

5. Question: Will TPWD provide historical data (pre- and post-JOC implementation) for cost and schedule comparisons?

Answer: yes

6. Question: Are there any data limitations or known gaps we should account for?

Answer: Yes, because the JOC program is relatively new, there is limited data available. Additionally, the Infrastructure Divisions is in final stages of transitioning to a new project management system software resulting in data availability challenges.

7. Question: Who are the primary stakeholders involved (beyond the Chief Auditor and Infrastructure Division)?

Answer: You may need to discuss with Legal and Purchasing/Contracting, and State Parks Division, and any other division that has had a project run through the JOC Program.

RFP 802-18-42902

Addendum 01

8. Question: Is there a budget range or not-to-exceed amount for this engagement (even though pricing is submitted later)?

Answer: TPWD will not be providing that information at this time.

9. Question: Are there any known compliance challenges with Texas Government Code (Ch. 2269, etc.) that should be examined closely?

Answer: None known

10. Question: Have there been any prior audits, reviews, or external assessments of related programs? If so, can TPWD provide the results and any associated budgets or fees for those engagements?

Answer: None known

11. Question: Will the selected firm be required to work directly within TPWD’s Teammate+ system, or can workpapers be maintained externally and uploaded?

Answer: As long as the workpapers are in a Teammate+ file /program, they can be provided at the end. The Chief Auditor (CA) would like to look at the wps by phase during the project. For example, prior to approving the fieldwork program, the CA would like to see the planning wps and that they have been reviewed prior to FW commencing.

12. Question: Will TPWD consider extending the due date given the questions may not be answered until near the proposal due date?

Answer: Vendors may request an extension with justification for TPWD consideration after the Q&A addendum has been posted.

13. Question: Is the JOC program a state funded program, or is it a federally funded program or is it receiving matching federal funds? Further, For the required pre- and post-JOC comparison of project cost and timing, can TPWD confirm the period of review, expected project population (all projects versus a defined sample), and any thresholds or exclusions to be applied?

Answer: State appropriations are used to fund the JOC Program. If a division has a project eligible for federal funding and/or matching funding, that division may choose to utilize that funding. State and federal funding may be mixed in some projects. Population for the JOC Program is limited because it has only been in existence for 2 years. The population chosen should be a comparable population to the JOC sample chosen for testing. For example, if the sample tested is all the JOC minor repair projects for the past 2 years within dollar ranges X-X;

a good comparison might be all minor repair projects between dollar ranges X-X for the two years prior to the JOC program commencing. Scope might further be limited by specific minor repair type. The CA is open to ideas on how best to analyze this.

14. Question: Will TPWD and the Chief Auditor keep authority and final approval of the risk assessment and fieldwork program materials? This may be necessary to maintain the work as an "independent" internal auditor.

Answer: Yes – TPWD will keep a copy of the wps, but would be performed by an external auditor. The intent of the CA is not to compromise the independence of the external auditor, but for QAR purposes. Although we are outsourcing, we are still responsible that the audit takes place in compliance with the standards (Red book, Yellow book, TGC 2102). We will also need the details to be able to follow-up on any recommendations to ensure any medium or high rated issues are remediated.

15. Question: The RFQ references assurance engagements under the Global Internal Audit Standards and GAGAS. Can TPWD clarify which standards will govern this engagement, and whether the audit is intended to be a performance audit, compliance audit, or a hybrid?

Answer: Red book and Yellow-book (Performance Audit), with compliance component to ensure the SOPs and actual operations are in compliance with all purchasing/contracting state rules and regs.

16. Question: With respect to the Minor Repair Program, can TPWD clarify the expected depth of testing- full-program coverage versus targeted or analytical testing focused specifically on JOC impacts?

Answer: targeted or analytical testing focused specifically on JOC impacts

17. Question: Can TPWD confirm which data sources will be available for the audit (e.g., JOC pricing catalogs, coefficient data, job orders, MRP work orders, invoices, project closeout data), and the systems and formats in which those data reside?

Answer: Documents which could be provided are JOC Price Book, solicitation responses and contracts with coefficient data, Requests for Job Order Contracts, and pay applications.

18. Question: Given the requirement to use TPWD’s Teammate+ system and TPWD-approved issue and audit rating methodologies, can TPWD confirm how system access will be provided, whether standard templates and rating criteria will be supplied, and any known timing dependencies (e.g., anticipated Notice to Proceed, blackout periods, or expected review turnaround times)? Additionally, is Teammate developed up to TPWD standards? If not, would advisory support on leading practices/deployment be needed and/or in-scope?

Answer: Teammate is fully developed. We use standard planning and reporting programs/procedures easily followed by an experienced staff auditor and senior auditor. The FW program will be developed by the selected auditor. The CA will only be reviewing the RA and fieldwork program (after the planning phase) and then reviewing all evidence for any findings, to ensure a prudent reasonable auditor would come to the same conclusion (and be able to follow-up). The CA will also want to have input on the wording of the report, not to change the meaning, just to ensure content is well received and understood by all stakeholders. The CA does have an audit and issue rating methodology document that the chosen auditor can use in assigning ratings. We can also discuss/collaborate together on the ratings at the conclusion of the engagement as well. This will ensure consistency to all stakeholders consuming TPWD’s audit reports.

19. Question: We understand this audit was approved by the FY26 Audit Plan. Can you share the particular areas of risk or prior findings that are impacting the Department which may have influenced this selection?

Answer: It’s just a new program that has never been reviewed before. That’s the only reason.

20. Question: Have the JOC and MRP Programs been audited for this agency, or for others? If yes, can you provide the following:

Answer: MRP may have been audited over a decade ago. JOC has never been audited.

21. Question: If the Internal Audit Services were performed by an outsourced firm previously, please describe what went well, and what you would like to improve regarding the process.

Answer: N/A

22. Question: Is the current organizational structure for the Department(s) related to policies and procedures centralized or decentralized?

Answer: Both.

23. Question: Are the policies and procedures formalized in writing?

Answer: Infrastructure Division has developed written processes for the JOC program.

24. Question: If the policies and procedures are in writing, when were they last updated?

Answer: The processes were drafted prior to advertising the solicitation in 2024 and continue to be updated as adjustments to the program necessitate.

25. Question: What are the greatest challenges TPWD’s JOC and MRP programs have had?

Answer: The JOC program is a new program; thus the main challenge is learning how to best utilize this method effectively. The novelty of the JOC program is also the greatest challenge for the MRP related to JOC.

The implementation of the MRP has a level of complexity due to the bifurcated nature of the program between State Parks Division’s Minor Repair Program (a dedicated funding stream to State Parks in the agency bill pattern) and the Infrastructure Division’s involvement on only a portion of the MRP projects identified by State Parks. In large part, the JOC program was implemented to reduce the amount of time and staff resources spent in the construction contracting phase of a project. Both the State Parks team and the Infrastructure team are learning how to best implement the new JOC process and apply it to the MRP while still actively managing the ongoing MRP. The challenges are centered around “growing pains” to realize the most efficient deployment of the JOC program as one tool to make the implementation of the MRP more efficient.

26. Question: Have there been any significant findings including material weaknesses, non-compliance, or fraud, waste, or abuse in the last three years related to the JOC and MRP Programs? If yes, will you provide that detail and information on the steps that have been put in place to mitigate those issues?

Answer: No, not audited

27. Question: Does TPWD anticipate the Internal Audit Services will be performed remotely, in-person, or in a hybrid format?

Answer: Services may be performed remotely.

28. Question: Upon award for new client engagement, our firm protocol requires a Master Service Agreement (MSA) with a Scope of Work attachment to be signed. Would School be amenable to signing that? Should we include a copy of our MSA in our response for your reference at this time?

Answer: The TPWD service agreement will take precedent and will include the SOW and any pricing negotiated with the awarded Contractor.

Respondents are to acknowledge receipt of the Addendum and return a signed copy with proposal submission.

I acknowledge receipt of the Addendum.

Respondent’s Authorized Signature Date

Company Name