ESBD_File_336622_Addendum #2 - clarifications, questions,responses.pdf

CAM Architectural PSP IDIQ RFQ CP577221 24PSP001 1062023 ADD2-1

October 6, 2023

ADDENDUM

To: All Interested Respondents

From: Trina Bickford, Assistant Director, Contracts

RE: Addendum No. 2 to Request for Qualifications for Ongoing Architectural Professional

Services Campus (CAM)

RFQ: 24PSP001 CP#577221

This addendum is incorporated into and shall become an integral part of Request for Qualifications 24PSP001, issued September 19, 2023. In the event information in this addendum differs from the original Request for Qualifications, this addendum shall take precedence. All other specifications, term and conditions not specifically addressed in this addendum remain unchanged. This addendum consists of pages ADD1-1–ADD1-6. Respondent must acknowledge this addendum in response to the Request for Qualifications.

I. GENERAL

None

II. SPECIFICATIONS

None

III. CLARIFICATIONS

The following requests for additional information or clarifications were received – questions may have been combined or edited for clarity.

Question #1: As the submittal must not include any subconsultants, should

Respondents complete the HSP following Option 1 for Self-Performing?

Response #1: Yes.

Question #2: If a firm is currently working to get their certification as a HUB, but will not have the certification before the due date for responses, can that firm update their status once certification as a HUB is received?

Response #2: The University welcomes the updated information and will include the HUB certification in our PSP directory if the firm receives award of a master agreement. Note: HUB status is not an evaluation criteria or a requirement for submission.

CAM Architectural PSP IDIQ RFQ CP577221 24PSP001 1062023 ADD1-2

Question #3: If a firm receives award of a master agreement and later, a project assignment totaling $100,000 or more, will the firm be able to specify subconsultant information in the project assignment HSP?

Response #3: Yes – the firm must provide an HSP specifically for the project assignment, which must detail the subcontracting information for that project.

Question #4: If a HUB certified firm receives award of a master agreement, and is assigned a contract totaling $100,000 or more, will the amount spent with the HUB certified firm count towards the 23.7% subcontracting goal?

Response #4: No. All firms are subject to the same HUB subcontracting requirements regardless of the prime firm’s HUB status and must provide information on subcontracting efforts.

Question #5: If a firm is awarded a master IDIQ agreement under this RFQ and subsequently receives a project assignment to provide small scopes of predesign services on a major project, will that firm still be eligible to submit a response and be considered for award of the design portion of a major project which is typically procured via a separate RFQ?

Response #5: Yes. Professional services are procured in accordance with the Texas Professional Services Procurement Act which requires the most qualified firm be selected to provide the required services. A firm providing minor predesign scopes of services for a major project may be selected as the most qualified firm to provide design services.

Question #6: Is there any benefit to waiting for the final round of the PSP RFQs, covering specialty professional services?

Response #6: Not a benefit exactly, but firms are encouraged to submit under the round that most closely matches their in-house capabilities as the evaluation committee will consider responses based on the described purpose of the RFQ. This particular RFQ covers architectural services, including landscape architectural services. Firms providing other types of professional services may wish to submit under the final round of the RFQs for specialty professional services if the firm does not have in-house resources to provide architectural services

Question #7: Is the University’s goal to select a landscape architectural firm or would the University prefer to contract with an architectural firm able to provide landscape architectural services?

Response #7: The University has no preference. Firms will be evaluated, and award determined, based on the quality of the responses along with the anticipated project load for the upcoming five years. As a reference, the University currently has several architectural firms that also provide landscape architectural services along with two firms specifically providing landscape architectural services.

CAM Architectural PSP IDIQ RFQ CP577221 24PSP001 1062023 ADD1-3

Question #8: How many firms will receive award of a master agreement? If a firm has received award of a master agreement under a previous round of the RFQs, must that firm also submit under this RFQ?

Response #8: As indicated in Section 2 of the RFQ, the University does not have a set minimum or maximum number of firms that will receive an award. The number of firms receiving award will be determined by the quantity and quality of the responses and the expected number and scopes of projects over the next five years.

Also as indicated in Section 2 of the RFQ, firms receiving award of a master agreement from a previous round of the RFQs may provide all types of services under that master agreement and need to resubmit under this RFQ. Only one master agreement is issued to a firm. In the event a firm receiving award of a master agreement wishes to provide descriptions of other professional services the firm provides, supplemental SOQs may be submitted. The supplemental information may be submitted at any time and will be made available to the PM teams.

Question #9: If a firm receives award of a master agreement from this RFQ, may that firm still pursue individual projects?

Response #9: Yes.

Question #10: If an architectural firm specializes in programming, planning and predesign services, but does not produce any construction documents, should that firm submit a response to this RFQ or submit later in response to the RFQ for specialty professional services?

Response #10: The University cannot advise on which round most close fits any firm’s qualifications. The firm would need to evaluate their in-house capabilities in light of the requirements of the RFQ. However, the University does have requirements for firms providing programming, planning and predesign services, and firms not receiving award of a master agreement under this RFQ may submit on the final round of the RFQs.

Question #11: Is there a way for Respondents to verify documents were uploaded successfully?

Response #11: After submitting documents, Respondents may email the point of contact in the RFQ to verify the documents are in the UT Box folder. Please note

– all that can be verified is that a document was received titled with the Respondent’s name. As this is a sealed submission, the files may not be opened until the due date and time.

Question #12: Are members of the evaluation committee reviewing responses on a screen (computer or tablet)?

CAM Architectural PSP IDIQ RFQ CP577221 24PSP001 1062023 ADD1-4

Response #12: The electronic responses received from Respondents are provided to the committee in that same format. Committee members are free to print as much of the response as needed to complete their evaluation.

Question #13: Must responses be on a specific page format such as 8.5” x 11” portrait?

Or may responses be in a landscape format of 11” x 8.5”?

Response #13: The RFQ does not require a particular page format; however, Respondents should keep in mind that the evaluation committee may have several responses to review. Formatting should be clear and easy to follow, without making an evaluator search for - and possibly miss -key information.

Question #14: Should Respondents submit a single SOQ for all of their areas of expertise? Or submit separate responses for each area?

Response #14: Generally, Respondents submit a single response covering all areas of expertise. The RFQ does not, however, restrict firms from submitting multiple responses.

Question #15: Some sections of the RFQ seem to request the same or similar information – how should Respondents format their SOQs to adequately respond while keeping the SOQ concise?

Response #15: Although the requested information in some sections may appear the same/similar to other sections, Respondents should consider the particular evaluation criteria the request falls under and tailor their response to provide information in support of their qualifications with regard to that evaluation criteria.

Question #16: (Reference Section 4.5.6 – 4.5.8) Regarding the sections of the RFQ covering the CMR delivery method – landscape architectural services are typically under the direction of the prime PSP, with the landscape architect serving as a subconsultant. How should a firm submitting their qualifications as a landscape architect respond to those sections?

Response #16: The goal of the RFQ is to evaluate Respondents’ in-house capabilities, recognizing their roles on specific projects will vary. Respondents should describe their experience and capabilities accurately and may note “None” if appropriate.

Question #17: (Reference Section 4.1.4) An org chart is requested but no page limit is included – should the org chart be a single page? Should the org chart include only the architectural team, no subconsultants?

Response #17: If the RFQ does not include a specific page limit, there is none. However, keep in mind the evaluation committee will be reviewing multiple submissions and responses should be clear and concise. As indicted in the RFQ, this solicitation is to receive SOQs for in-house capabilities only;

subconsultants should not be included.

CAM Architectural PSP IDIQ RFQ CP577221 24PSP001 1062023 ADD1-5

Question #18: (Reference Section 4.3.1) Is the University looking for similar IDIQ experience or projects under $10 million as opposed to larger educational experience?

Response #18: The project contemplated under this RFQ are primarily minor projects, under $10 million. Respondents may choose to include larger projects that clearly describe their experience as related the types of minor projects described in the RFQ.

Question #19: (Reference Sections 4.1.5, 4.2.3, 4.3.1) May the response to Section 4.2.3 include team members from responses to Sections 4.1.5 as well as 4.3.1?

Response #19: Possibly, but the intent of the two sections is different. In Section 4.1.5, the University is looking to understand the Respondent’s experience and capabilities in handling project located a distance away from the Respondent’s location, detailing how logistics, communication, client interactions, etc. are handled. These projects may or may not be the best projects to list in response to 4.3.1 which focuses on performance on past relevant projects. Section 4.2.3 requests information to understand which of the proposed team members worked on the projects listed as most relevant.

Question #20: Is the University interested in details of experience near some of the remote campuses, outside of the Austin area?

Response #20: The University is interested in experience as it pertains to the descriptions in the RFQ and as it demonstrates the Respondent’s experience and capabilities. That experience may be at a remote campus associated with the University of Texas at Austin or another University of Texas component institution, or not connected with the University of Texas at all. Generally prior experience with the University of Texas at Austin is favorable as that would indicate familiarity with the campus, procedures, design standards, etc. But other experience will also be taken into consideration as it pertains to the Respondent’s qualifications.

Question #21: When “recent” experience is requested, how is recent defined in terms of years?

Response #21: Generally “recent” is within the past five years. Respondents may have experience that is somewhat outside of that guideline but that best demonstrates the Respondent’s capabilities and experience, and the Respondent may choose to include that project. Respondents should keep in mind that past projects using a team that is not included as part of the SOQ response may not be considered favorably.

Question #22: If an architecture firm does not have in-house landscape architectural services, and would need to bring in a subconsultant to provide those services, is that architecture firm disqualified from submitting a response?

CAM Architectural PSP IDIQ RFQ CP577221 24PSP001 1062023 ADD1-6

Response #22: No. This RFQ covers all types of architectural services including landscape architecture. The University currently has master agreements with architectural firms, some that are able to provide landscape architectural services, as well as master agreements with firms that only provide landscape architectural services.

Question #23: If a firm includes a project still under construction as a past relevant project, will the project be considered in the evaluation in the same manner as a completed project? Or will points be deducted during evaluation for projects still in construction?

Response #23: A project that is still under construction would be considered to the extent the services provided to date demonstrate the firm’s capabilities.

Points would not automatically be deducted, but a project still under construction may not demonstrate the firm’s ability to provide services to a successful conclusion.

Question #24: Would a Respondent be evaluated less favorably if the firms was a subconsultant/associate architect on a project as opposed to serving as the prime architect or architect of record?

Response #24: How the response is evaluated would depend on the services provided in the firm’s capacity on the project, and how well the project demonstrates the firm’s capabilities on project similar to those described in the RFQ.