ESBD_527431_1781541442997_Section 3_CAM_CP2001485_26PSS002_GroundwaterStudy.docx

SECTION 3 – REQUIREMENTS FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

Respondents shall carefully read the information contained in the following criteria and submit a complete statement of Qualifications to all questions in Section 3 formatted as directed in Section 5. Incomplete Qualifications will be considered non-responsive and subject to rejection.

Qualifications must present Respondent’s qualifications and understanding of the required services. Respondents must address all requirements and provide specific information requested for each evaluation criteria. Qualifications must be concise but thorough, and detailed to allow proper evaluation of Respondent’s capabilities to provide the required services.

General Information (all information must be completed):

Provide the following information for Respondent:

Legal name of the company as registered with the State of Texas:

Address of the office proposed to provide services:

Primary point of contact (name, title, phone number, email):

Number of years in business:

Type of operation (individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture, etc.):

Annual revenue for the past ten (10) years:

Describe the Respondent’s financial stability in general and confirm willingness to provide financial statements if requested:

Is Respondent currently for sale or involved in any transaction to expand or to become acquired by another business entity? If yes, please explain the impact both in organizational and directional terms. Yes No

Provide any details of all past or pending litigation or claims filed against Respondent that would affect performance under a contract with the Owner:

REV 03-11-26 EMS/SCN

Is Respondent currently in default on any loan agreement or financing agreement with any bank, financial institution, or other entity? If yes, specify date(s), details, circumstances, and prospects for resolution. Yes No

Does any relationship exist by relative, business associate, capital funding agreement, or any other such kinship between any member of the Respondent or any sub-consultant, to any Owner employee, officer or member of the University of Texas System Board of Regents? If so, please explain.

Provide a claims history under professional malpractice insurance for the past five (5) years for the Respondent and any team members proposed to provide professional services:

3.1 CRITERION ONE: RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND

AVAILABILITY TO UNDERTAKE THE PROJECT (Maximum points: 5) (Maximum of two (2) printed pages per subcriterion below)

3.1.1 Provide a statement of interest for the project including a narrative describing the Respondent and proposed Project Team’s unique qualifications as pertaining to this particular project.

3.1.2 Provide a statement on the availability and commitment of the Respondent and its principal(s) and assigned professionals to undertake the project.

3.1.3 Provide a brief history of the Respondent and each proposed sub-consultant proposed for the project.

3.1.4 Provide a graphic representation of the project team, identifying the Respondent and each consultant proposed for the project.

3.2 CRITERION TWO: PROJECT TEAM’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES (Maximum points:

15)

3.2.1 Describe, in graphic and written form, the proposed project assignments and lines of authority and communication for principals and key professional members of each consultant that will be involved in the project. Indicate the estimated percentage of time these individuals will be involved in the project.

3.2.2 Provide resumes giving the experience and expertise of the professional members for each consultant that will be involved in the project, including their experience with similar projects, the number of years with the firm, and their city of residence.

3.2.3 Clearly identify the members of the proposed project team who worked on the listed projects in Criteria 3.3 and 3.4 and describe their roles in those projects.

3.2.4 Describe the basis for the selection of the proposed consultants included in the project team and the role each is proposed to play in this project.

3.2.5 Describe the Respondent’s process in working with its consultants and the Owner’s consultants and integrating them into the design process.

3.3 CRITERION THREE: PERFORMANCE ON PAST REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS

(Maximum points: 30)

3.3.1 List a maximum of five (5) projects for which the Respondent has provided services that are MOST RELATED TO THIS PROJECT within the last ten (10) years. List the projects in order of priority, with the most relevant project listed first. Provide the following information for each project listed:

· Project name, location, client, and description

· Total Project Cost

· Project Timeline

· Describe the historical background that led to the project and how the objectives, goals, and needs of the client were defined.

· Detail the scope of professional services Respondent provided for the project.

· Elaborate on the methodology that was used to best determine and align the final scope of the project with the client’s objectives, goals, and needs, including how scope elements were included, excluded, and/or prioritized.

· List unique project challenges and how they were addressed.

· Name of Project Manager (individual responsible to the Owner for the overall success of the project)

· Consultants

· Any related project images that highlight the project’s scope and success (e.g., site conditions, mapping/GIS/database visuals, reporting deliverables, etc.)

References - for each project listed above, identify the following:

· The Owner’s name and representative who served as the day-to-day liaison during the design and construction phases of the project, including telephone number and email.

· Length of business relationship with the Owner.

References shall be considered relevant based on specific project participation and experience with the Respondent. The Owner may contact references during any part of this process. The Owner reserves the right to contact any other references at any time during the RFQ/P process.

3.4 CRITERION FOUR: PAST PERFORMANCE ON U.T. SYSTEM/COMPONENT INSTITUTIONS’ PROJECTS OR OTHER MAJOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROJECTS (Maximum points: 10)

3.4.1 Identify and describe the Respondent’s experience on University of Texas System or its component institutions’ projects within the last ten (10) years. Projects may repeat those in Section 3.3.

If the Respondent has not previously provided services for The University of Texas System or any of its component institutions, then identify and describe the Respondent’s past performance on projects for “major” institutions of higher education (or similar) within the last ten (10) years. Projects at the University of Texas System or University of Texas System component institutions are preferred.

In either case above, provide the following information, as applicable, for each project listed:

· Project name, location, client, and description

· Total Project Cost Final project size in gross square feet

· Project Timeline

· Detail the scope of the project

· Elaborate on what made the project a success

· List unique project challenges and how they were addressed

· Name of Project Manager (individual responsible to the Owner for the overall success of the project)

· Name of Project Architect (individual responsible for coordinating the day-to-day work)

· Name of Project Designer (individual responsible for design concepts)

· Name of Project Engineers

· Name of Project Contractor

· Other Consultants

· Any related project images that highlight the project’s scope and success

3.5 CRITERION FIVE: RESPONDENT’S PLANNING CAPABILITIES (Maximum points: 20)

3.5.1 State Respondent’s experience with site planning.

3.5.2 Describe Respondent’s planning processes and unique tools Respondent may provide to make this study successful.

3.5.3 Describe Respondent’s use of Owner involvement for making key decisions.

3.5.4 Describe Respondent’s initial perceptions of Section 2.4 Owner’s Project Requirements as it relates to addressing and informing the historical issues described in Section 2.1 and the objective described in Section 2.2. What methodologies and strategies are proposed for use to implement the scope and/or suggest refinements to make the study most successful and cost effective for the Owner?

3.6 CRITERION SIX: RESPONDENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF BEST PRACTICES (Maximum points:

10)

3.6.1 Describe the way in which Respondent develops and maintains work schedules to coordinate with the Owner’s project schedule. For any combination of three (3) projects listed in response to Criteria 3.3 and 3.4, provide examples of how these techniques were used.

3.6.2 Describe the types of records, reports, monitoring systems, databases, graphical tools, and information management systems, which your firm used in the management of the projects listed above. Describe how you used these systems for any combination of three (3) projects listed in response to Criteria 3.3 and 3.4.

3.6.3 Describe Respondent’s and project team’s demonstrated technical competence and management qualifications with institutional projects, particularly those for higher education.

3.6.4 Describe Respondent's proposed plan for ensuring continuity of project objectives.

3.6.5 Describe Respondent’s quality assurance program explaining the method used and how the firm maintains quality control. . Provide specific examples of how these techniques or procedures were used for any combination of three (3) projects listed in response to Criteria

3.3 and 3.4.

3.6.6 This project requires familiarity with and understanding of local soil and hydrological conditions and is anticipated to require significant field work. Describe local presence for proposed project team and resources available to support on site activities. If applicable, describe Respondent’s strategy for overcoming travel or project management logistics if Respondent’s or any other project team members are not located in the Central Texas region of Texas. How will on site visits and meetings be coordinated if key personnel is not in the Central Texas region? How will virtual resources be used? How will Respondent best manage the project if there is minimal or no local presence?

3.6.7 Provide current trends regarding geological and hydrogeological analysis, study, design, best practices and construction practices Respondent utilizes. Note: design and construction are outside of this project scope; this criterion is focused on Respondent’s understanding of current trends and practices.

3.6.8 Describe the project team’s experience in sustainable design.

3.6.9 Describe the Respondent’s experience in managing and mitigating geological and hydrogeological impacts.

3.6.10 Describe the Respondent’s experience with existing or new infrastructure projects (e.g., utility distribution networks, water redistribution and/or reuse, etc.) as related to groundwater, Elaborating on how this experience with the interconnectivity between infrastructure and groundwater was involved in the projects referenced in 3.4 and 3.5, or highlighting ow this experience contributes to the Respondent’s qualifications to provide services on this project. Has Respondent previously studied/designed infrastructure systems to mitigate groundwater? Has Respondent mitigated groundwater impacts affecting below ground infrastructure systems?

3.6.11 Describe how Respondent tracks Owner input and review comments on submittals to confirm that comments have been addressed. Provide examples of reports/logs used for tracking response to and closure on Owner comments.

3.7 CRITERION SEVEN: RESPONDENT’S ABILITY TO IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE

PROBLEMS (Maximum points: 10)

3.7.1 What does Respondent perceive are the critical issues for this project?

3.7.2 Describe the project team’s approach to assuring timely completion of this project, including methods proposed for schedule recovery if necessary.

3.7.3 Describe Respondent’s ability and processes to create common ground between Project stakeholders with diverging interests.

3.7.4 For any combination of three (3) projects listed in response to Criteria 3.3 and 3.4, describe how Respondent collaborated on creative solutions to cost, scope efficiencies, and schedule.