Request for Qualifications Project Management and Consultant Services

RFQ# 754-TXST-2027-520-PDC

SUBMITTAL DEADLINE: October 27, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. (C.T.)

Notice to All Respondents

The following is Addendum #1 to the Request for Qualification

RFQ# 754-TXST-2027-520-PDC which was posted on October 1,2026.

Prepared By:

Texas State University 151-2 E Sessom Dr San Marcos, TX 78666

512-245-2202

Addendum #1 Issued 10/15/2026

I. Questions and Answers

1. Contract Scope and Future Assignments: Reference: Sections 1.5, 1.6 and Sample Agreement Section 2(c) Is the University's intent to award a contract primarily for the operational efficiency review described in Section 5.2, or to establish a broader professional services agreement under which additional project management and consulting assignments may be issued? If additional assignments are anticipated, will the University negotiate their individual scopes, schedules, and compensation separately.

Answer: Sample Agreement Section 2(b) Completion of Work in Progress. The University has the option to extend the term of this agreement as necessary for the Provider to complete existing work on any project approved by the University prior to the expiration of the Agreement.

No additional assignments are anticipated.

2. Out of State Firms and Texas Tax Account Number: Reference: Section 5.6, Execution of Offer The Execution of Offer requires an 11-digit State of Texas Tax Account Number.

For a legally registered out-of-state limited liability company that does not currently maintain a Texas Tax Account Number, what alternative identification or registration procedure will the University accept? Must an out-of-state respondent obtain a Texas Tax Account Number before submitting its Statement of Qualifications?

Answer: Federal Employer Identification Number (EIN) will suffice.

3. Subcontracting Authorization: Reference: RFQ Section 2.4 and Sample Agreement Section 20 The solicitation requires a VetHUB Subcontracting Plan and permits the identification of professional consultants. However, Section 20 of the Sample Agreement contains restrictions on subcontracting and delegation. Please confirm whether subcontractors identified in the approved VetHUB Subcontracting Plan and accepted as part of the proposed qualifications team will be authorized to perform their designated services under the resulting agreement.

Answer: Subcontractors identified in the approved VetHUB Subcontracting Plan and accepted as part of the proposed qualifications team are authorized to perform their designated services under the resulting agreement.

For clarity, the restrictions in Section 20 of the Sample Agreement apply strictly to assigning, selling, or transferring the entire agreement to an unapproved third party. They do not restrict or prohibit the utilization of the approved subcontractors working directly for and under the management of the primary provider.

4. Cyber Liability Insurance: Reference: Sample Agreement, Section 13(c) The Sample Agreement identifies a potential cybersecurity liability insurance requirement of $10,000,000 per wrongful act when data privacy, network security, or information security risks are present. Will this coverage be required for the professional consulting services anticipated under this RFQ? If the consultant's role is limited to operational analysis, documentation review, and recommendations without direct system administration or integration, would the University consider alternative coverage limits proportionate to the actual scope and associated risks?

Answer: Cyber Liability Insurance is required for the professional consulting services anticipated under this RFQ.

Even though the consultant's scope is primarily limited to operational analysis, documentation review, and recommendations, the consultant will still have access to University data, systems, or sensitive information to perform these tasks.

Because data privacy and information security risks remain inherent to any project involving University systems and operations, the $10,000,000 per wrongful act coverage limit must be maintained, and the University will not consider alternative or reduced coverage limits for this scope of work.

5. Project Duration and Deliverables: Reference: Sections 5.2 and 5.5 Does the University have an anticipated duration for completing the comprehensive operational efficiency review? Will the selected consultant be expected to produce a single consolidated assessment addressing all three universities, or separate assessments and recommendations for each institution?

Answer: Texas State University has not established a fixed commencement date or completion date for this engagement at this time.

6. Scope of Software and Financial System Review: Reference: Section 5.2, Field-to-

Finance & Reporting Integration Is the selected consultant expected to perform an operational assessment of existing software systems, data workflows, and reporting practices, or does the scope include technical software development, system integration, and implementation of new technology? Additionally, will the University identify the principal software platforms currently utilized across the three universities?

Answer: The scope of this engagement is strictly limited to assessment, benchmarking, process redesign, and recommendations. The scope does not include technical software development, system integration, or the implementation of new technology.

7. Remote and Hybrid Performance: Reference: Section 5.2 Does the University anticipate that portions of the operational efficiency review, including document review, process mapping, stakeholder interviews, financial workflow analysis, and report preparation, may be performed remotely? If so, does the University anticipate a minimum on-site presence at Texas State University, Sam Houston State University, and Lamar University?

Answer: The University anticipates a hybrid delivery model for the operational efficiency review, though exact on-site requirements will be finalized during contract negotiations.

8. Acceptable Government and Institutional Experience: Will the University consider comparable project management and consulting experience involving federal agencies, state agencies, government facilities, and other large institutional organizations as relevant experience under Criterion Four? Specifically, can projects involving government construction programs, capital improvement management, procurement improvement, and organizational process reviews be submitted as comparable experience where higher education project experience is limited?

Answer: Yes. Comparable project management and consulting experience with federal, state, and institutional organizations is acceptable under Criterion Four.

Projects covering government construction, capital improvements, procurement, and process reviews may be submitted in lieu of or to supplement limited higher education experience.

9. Relevant Experience of Proposed Team Members: Reference: Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 Will Texas State University consider relevant project experience completed by proposed key personnel while employed by previous firms, provided their specific responsibilities, participation, and project references are clearly identified? Additionally, must representative projects have been performed under the proposing prime firm's contracts, or may the qualifications of its proposed professional team and consultants also be considered?

Answer: Yes. Relevant project experience completed by proposed key personnel at previous firms is acceptable, provided specific responsibilities, participation, and references are clearly identified. Qualifications and representative projects from the proposed professional team and consultants will be considered alongside the prime firm's contracts.

10. Supplier/Vendor Review: Is a teaming agreement needed for a supplier to respond in either a Prime or Partner / Subcontractor role if their firm is delivering O/CM and/or Organizational Effectiveness disciplines in concert with Project Management?

Answer: No. A teaming agreement is not required to respond as a Prime, Partner, or Subcontractor when delivering these combined disciplines. Proponents are only required to clearly outline their proposed team structure and subcontractor roles within the proposal.

11. Representative Projects: For representative projects, please clarify the distinction between the requested “Project Manager” and “consultant”/“consultant services”.

Sections 3.3 and 3.4 each request three to five representative projects and allow projects to repeat. Is the University's intent for respondents to provide two separate sets of project narratives, or may respondents cross-reference projects presented in Section 3.3 when responding to Section 3.4?

Answer: Respondents may cross-reference projects.

12. Criterion Page Limits: Is there a page limit for any of the Criterion sections that are to be uploaded?

Answer: There is no page limits enforced for any of the Criterion section uploads

13. TSUS Engagement: Please clarify the expected role of the Texas State University System administration in the engagement. Should respondents anticipate interviews, process reviews, and recommendations at both the System and Institutional levels?

Answer: Yes. Respondents should anticipate conducting interviews, process reviews, and strategic recommendations at both the Texas State University System (TSUS) administration level and the individual institutional levels.

14. Representative Projects: For representative projects, please clarify the distinction between the requested “Project Manager” and “consultant”/“consultant services”. Sections 3.3 and

3.4 each request three to five representative projects and allow projects to repeat. Is the University's intent for respondents to provide two separate sets of project narratives, or may respondents cross-reference projects presented in Section 3.3 when responding to Section 3.4?

15. Processes across TSUS: To the degree that it is known entering into this project, how similar or different are the processes at these institutions? Are they using the same software? If yes, do they have any shared practices/procedures or are they known to have differing practices/procedures?

Answer: Yes. While all component institutions within the Texas State University System (TSUS) operate under unified system-wide governance, policies, and IT guidelines, their internal operational practices, configurations, and procedures vary based on individual institutional needs

16. Scope Clarification: Can TXST please clarify the third bullet point within the scope of work in Section 5.2, specifically regarding the Procurement Schedule – Is this intended to be the process timeline for the deliverables or is this the process timeline for this RFQ?

Answer: Texas State University (TXST) clarifies that the third bullet point within the Scope of Work (Section 5.2) regarding the 'Procurement Schedule' refers strictly to the process timeline for this RFQ

17. RFI 01: Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 – Key Personnel: For evaluation of the qualifications and representative project experience required under Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, may a respondent include projects completed by proposed key personnel while employed by other firms, provided the respondent clearly identifies the individual's role, the employer or contracting entity, and the relevant project references? Will such experience be evaluated toward the representative project requirements?

Answer: Yes. Respondents may include project experience completed by proposed key personnel while employed by other firms, and this experience will be evaluated toward the representative project requirements

18. RFI 02: Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 – Comparable: For the representative project and problem-resolution requirements, will Texas State consider comparable federal, state, municipal, tribal government, and major private institutional construction-management projects where the proposed team performed similar governance, procurement, process improvement, or program management functions, in lieu of university or higher-education projects?

Answer: Yes. Texas State University will consider comparable project experience from federal, state, municipal, tribal government, and major private institutional sectors in lieu of higher education projects.

19. RFI 03: Sections 3.3 and 3.4 – Representative: Do the requirements for three to five representative projects in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 require distinct projects for each criterion, or may the same qualifying projects be used in both sections? If a respondent has fewer than three higher-education projects within the last five years, will comparable institutional projects satisfy the minimum?

20. RFI 04: Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 – Proposed Team: May the respondent propose independent consultants or subcontracted subject-matter experts as members of its core delivery team, and may their relevant project experience be included in the evaluation?

Also, should the percentage-of-time commitments requested under Section 3.2.4 be based on the operational efficiency review rather than construction, closeout, and warranty phases?

Answer: Yes. Respondents may propose independent consultants or subcontracted subject-matter experts as members of their core delivery team, and their qualifications and representative projects will be considered alongside the prime firm's contracts.

21. RFI 05: Sections 2.4 and Attachement B – VETHUB Req: For a respondent proposing a mix of direct employees and independent consulting personnel, please confirm that independent 1099 consultants are treated as subcontractors for purposes of the required VetHUB Subcontracting Plan. Is the good-faith outreach deadline of October 15, 2026, at 5:00 PM Central applicable to each proposed subcontracting opportunity?

Answer: Independent consulting personnel who are not employees of the Respondent and are contracted to perform work under the resulting contract should be treated as subcontractors for purposes of the VetHUB Subcontracting Plan. The State’s definition excludes employees but includes contracted workers.

The October 15, 2026, at 5:00 PM Central good-faith outreach deadline applies to each subcontracting opportunity identified in the initial plan. The plan may also be amended during the term of the project as subcontracting needs change. Any changes, including adding or replacing subcontractors or adding new subcontracting opportunities, must be submitted to Texas State for review and approval before the change is implemented. Please let me know if you need assistance reviewing your plan or identifying applicable VetHUB vendors. I can be reached at HUB@txstate.edu mailto:HUB@txstate.edu

22. RFI 06: Sections 5.2 and 5.4 – Scope and Project: Please clarify the expected number and approximate size of representative construction projects to be examined at each of the three TSUS universities, the historical period to be reviewed, and whether the selected consultant will receive access to existing process maps, project schedules, procurement records, financial reports, and digital-system documentation.

Answer: The exact number, size, and historical period of the representative construction projects to be examined at each of the three universities are unknown at this time; however, the awarded respondent will have access to all necessary documentation.

23. RFI 07: Sections 3.5 and 5.2 – Deliverables: Is the intended engagement limited to assessment, benchmarking, process redesign, and recommendations, or is the selected consultant also expected to implement new procedures, configure or integrate software systems, train personnel, and support change management? Please identify any mandatory final deliverables and expected implementation support.

Answer: The scope of this engagement is strictly limited to assessment, benchmarking, process redesign, and recommendations.

24. RFI 08: Sections 5.2, 5.4 and Attachment A – Budget: Please clarify whether Texas State has an anticipated budget range or level of effort for this engagement; whether respondents should propose a fixed fee, hourly rates, or both at the qualifications stage;

and whether onsite attendance is required at all three campuses, including any anticipated minimum frequency.

Answer: Texas State University does not have an anticipated budget range or level of effort to disclose for this engagement. Schedule of visits will be determined and finalized during the contract negotiation phase with the selected vendor.

25. Question #1: Schedule: Does the University have a target commencement date and desired completion date for the engagement, including any key milestones respondents should incorporate into the proposed schedule?

Answer: Texas State University has not established a fixed commencement date or completion date for this engagement at this time. The final project schedule, including target start and end dates as well as key operational milestones, will be collaborative and determined during the contract negotiation phase with the selected vendor.

26. Question #2: Component Sequencing: Does the University expect work across Texas State University, Sam Houston State University, and Lamar University to occur concurrently or sequentially, and are there any scheduling constraints respondents should consider?

Answer: Texas State University clarifies that the sequencing of work across Texas State University, Sam Houston State University, and Lamar University—whether concurrent or sequential—will be approached collaboratively and finalized during the contract negotiation phase with the selected vendor.

27. Question #3: Budget: Has the University established an anticipated budget, budget range, or not-to-exceed amount for this engagement that respondents should consider when developing the proposed approach and level of effort?

Answer: Texas State University does not have an anticipated budget range, budget range, or level of effort to disclose for this engagement.

28. Question #4: Representative Projects: Does the University have an anticipated number or range of representative construction projects to be reviewed across the three Components, and will those projects be selected by the University or collaboratively with the selected firm?

Answer: No specific list of representative projects has been predetermined for this review; Texas State University and the system components will identify and select the specific projects for the sample.

29. Question #5: Scope and Standardization: To what extent does the University envision standardizing construction management processes, governance, technology, and reporting across the three Components versus maintaining Component-specific practices where appropriate?

Answer: The desired extent of process and technology standardization across the three component institutions is currently unknown at this time.

30. HKA RFQ Questions: Criterion 3.2.4 requires Respondents to indicate the estimated percentage of time proposed team members will be involved in the Project for 'Construction, Close Out, and Warranty services.' Given that the stated Scope of Work is an operational efficiency review and process redesign, please clarify whether Respondents should provide percentages by the operational-efficiency-review workstreams or phases instead, or whether Construction, Close Out, and Warranty represent specific phases the University expects the consultant to support.

Answer: Yes. Respondents should provide percentage-of-time commitments based on the operational efficiency review workstreams or phases, rather than the construction, closeout, and warranty phases.

31. HKA RFQ Questions: For the Governance & Planning requirement to benchmark against peers and best practices, does the University have specific peer institutions, university systems, or other public-sector capital programs it expects the selected consultant to include, or should Respondents propose an appropriate peer group as part of their methodology?

Answer: Texas State University does not have a predetermined list of peer institutions for benchmarking. Respondents should propose an appropriate peer group as part of their proposed methodology.

32. HKA RFQ Questions: Will the selected consultant be provided access to the underlying project and financial records necessary to perform the review, including contracts, procurement records, schedules, change orders, pay applications, cost data, closeout documentation, policies and procedures, system reports, and other relevant project records? Additionally, should Respondents assume direct system access or University-provided data extracts?

Answer: Yes. The selected consultant will be provided access to the underlying project and financial records necessary to perform the comprehensive review.

33. HKA RFQ Questions: For the Field-to-Finance & Reporting Integration scope, can the University identify the primary construction management, financial/ERP, procurement, project controls, document management, payment, and reporting systems currently used by each Component that are expected to be included in the review?

Answer: The specific technical landscapes, software platforms, and systems used by each component institution will be disclosed and discussed during the contract engagement phase with the selected respondent.

34. HKA RFQ Questions: The RFQ requires a strategy for structured stakeholder interviews and focus groups across decentralized Components. Does the University have an anticipated number or categories of stakeholders to be interviewed at Texas State University, Sam Houston State University, Lamar University, and/or the TSUS system level?

Answer: The exact number and specific categories of stakeholders to be interviewed across the decentralized component institutions and the system level are unknown at this time.

35. HKA RFQ Questions: Regarding the Organizational Structure scope item, please clarify whether the University expects the selected consultant to develop detailed staffing and organizational recommendations, including roles, responsibilities, organizational structure, staffing levels, and resource allocation, or whether the intent is limited to documenting and assessing the existing organization.

Answer: The intent of the organizational structure scope item is limited to documenting and assessing the existing organization.

36. HKA RFQ Questions: Please clarify the University's expectations for final deliverables.

In addition to a final report, should Respondents anticipate providing current-state process maps, future-state process maps, benchmarking results, technology and integration recommendations, organizational recommendations, an implementation roadmap, prioritized initiatives, or other specific deliverables?

Answer: The exact format, structure, and comprehensive list of final deliverables will be collaborative and finalized during contract negotiations with the selected respondent.

37. HKA RFQ Questions: The RFQ requests that Respondents include an optimal timeframe for completion of the work, while the Target Substantial Completion and Target Final Completion dates are listed as TBD. Does the University have a preferred or maximum duration for completing the operational efficiency review and process redesign?

Answer: Texas State University has not established a fixed commencement date or completion date for this engagement at this time. The final project schedule, including target start and end dates as well as key operational milestones, will be collaborative and determined during the contract negotiation phase with the selected vendor.

38. HKA RFQ Questions: . The Scope of Work requires an in-depth review of real projects and current practices across Texas State University, Sam Houston State University, and Lamar University. Please clarify the anticipated number of projects to be reviewed at each Component and whether the University will identify the projects or expects the selected consultant to recommend the project sample.

Answer: The exact number of real projects to be reviewed at each component institution is currently unknown; however, Texas State University and the system components will identify and select the specific projects for the sample.

39. Email: Is there a specific list of representative projects from your published CIP reports that you anticipate being reviewed or incorporated into this project?

Answer: No specific list of representative projects from the published Capital Improvement Program (CIP) reports has been predetermined for this review;

Texas State University and the system components will identify and select the specific projects for the sample.

40. Email: Section 5.2 – Bullet 3 - Please clarify “Procurement Schedule: Target three-month maximum from RFQ initiation to signed contract. Respondents to include optimal timeframe for completion of work in proposal.” Is 3 months intended to be the typical procurement target for A/E or CM?

Answer: Texas State University (TXST) clarifies that the third bullet point within the Scope of Work (Section 5.2) regarding the 'Procurement Schedule' refers strictly to the process timeline for this RFQ

41. Email: Section 5.2, Bullet 4 - What access to Board, System Office, procurement, finance, IT, legal, audit, and Component-level stakeholders is expected to be provided for this project?

Answer: Yes. The selected consultant will be provided access to the underlying project and financial records necessary to perform the comprehensive review.

42. Execution of Offer Form Reference: Section 3.7.1 references Section 5.5 as the location of the Execution of Offer form; however, Section 5.5 is titled "Timeline of RFQ Events."

Please confirm that respondents should complete and submit the Execution of Offer form contained in Section 5.6 (pages 16–19) to satisfy this requirement.

Answer: Confirmed. Respondents must complete and submit the Execution of Offer form located in Section 5.6 to satisfy the requirements of Section 3.7.1.

43. Requested Capital Projects: Can Texas State University provide the approximate number of active, planned, completed, and historical capital projects anticipated to be included in the review across Texas State University, Sam Houston State University, and Lamar

University? This information will help respondents better understand the anticipated scope of effort and develop an appropriate approach and schedule.

Answer: The exact number, size, and historical period of the representative construction projects to be examined at each of the three universities are unknown at this time; however, the awarded respondent will have access to all necessary documentation.

44. Addendum acknowledgement – REVISED ESBD announcement: We note the REVISED ESBD announcement posted for this solicitation, which corrected the solicitation number from 754-TXST-2026-520-PDC to 754-TXST-2027-520-PDC, with no other substantive changes identified. Should Respondents acknowledge this revised announcement as "Addendum No. 1" in the Execution of Offer, or is there a separately numbered addendum we should reference? Are any further addenda anticipated before the submission deadline?

Answer: No. Respondents do not need to acknowledge the corrected ESBD solicitation number announcement as 'Addendum No. 1' in their Execution of Offer. At this time, it is unknown if any further addenda will be issued before the submission deadline.

45. Funding appropriation: Our firm has pursued similar engagements with other Texas flagship institutions. We were shortlisted and had a successful interview, only to learn the solicitation was canceled due to inadequate budget appropriation. Please share the funding amount appropriated for this engagement.

Answer: Texas State University has not disclosed a specific appropriated funding amount for this engagement.

46. Criterion 4 – definition of “similar major intuitions”: Criterion 4 (Experience with

Institutions of Higher Education and/or Similar Major Institutions) references experience with "major institutions." For evaluation purposes, how does the University define a "similar major institution"? Specifically, do state agencies, public school districts, or other public entities with comparable capital construction programs and governance structures qualify under this criterion?

Answer: Yes. Texas State University will consider comparable project experience from state agencies, public school, or other public entities in lieu of higher education projects.

47. Criterion 4 – flexibility on project data complete: Section 4.1.2 asks Respondents to describe higher education/similar institutional projects in a specified format (owner name, owner representative, point of contact, original cost, final cost). For Respondent-provided project experience, will the University accept projects where some of these data points are unavailable or restricted by client confidentiality, provided the Respondent documents the reason? In such cases, what alternative documentation would best support evaluation?

Answer: Yes, the University will typically accept projects with restricted data points, provided the Respondent clearly documents the valid reasons for the omission (e.g., legal non-disclosure agreements or institutional privacy policies).

48. VETHUB Subcontracting Plan – expected detail level: The VetHUB Subcontracting Plan (HSP) is a required gate item. For a Respondent that is a small business without current VA Verified Veteran Enterprise (VVE) status, what level of detail is expected in the HSP?

Specifically, is a good-faith plan describing the Respondent's approach to meeting VetHUB subcontracting goals acceptable, or are specific commitments to identified veteran-owned subcontractors required at time of submittal?

Answer: A Respondent does not need to be a Texas-certified VetHUB or VA-verified veteran-owned business to submit a compliant plan. If the Respondent will self-perform the entire contract, it may indicate that on the VetHUB Subcontracting Plan; subcontracting is not required. If the Respondent plans to subcontract, a general statement of future intent is not sufficient. The plan should identify the anticipated subcontracting opportunities and document the required good-faith outreach to Texas-certified VetHUB firms before proposal submission.

The Respondent is not required to select a VetHUB subcontractor and may choose the subcontractor that best fits the work after completing the required outreach.

Please reach out to me at HUB@txstate.edu if you have any further questions related to the subcontracting plan. I attached the guide in my response.

49. Contract start date – November 28, 2026: The solicitation's key dates indicate contract execution on November 17, 2026, with services beginning November 28, 2026. Is the November 28 start date firm, or is there flexibility in the anticipated start date? This affects the availability commitments we present for key personnel.

Answer: The anticipated contract start date of November 28, 2026, remains the baseline schedule for planning purposes; however, the University retains full discretion to modify these dates based on project needs.

50. Section 5.2 Scope of Work includes the following: Digital Ecosystem: Explain how respondents can describe this within TSUS? Are you seeking digital ecosystem recommendations based on experience at other higher education institutions?

Answer: The University seeks strategic recommendations regarding the digital ecosystem based on higher education best practices; however, the engagement strictly excludes implementation services.

mailto:HUB@txstate.edu