Texas Register, Volume 25, Number 44, Pages 10833-11184, November 3, 2000 Page: 10,927
10833-11184 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
with a technical expertise in the field for which the services are sought,
and at least one from the management of the applicant. Each member
of the ranking team will independently rank each SOQ based on the
published criteria. The scores assigned to each SOQ will be accumu-
lated to achieve a single ranking for each SOQ.
(B) Based on the rankings, the applicant shall identify
the three consultants with the highest rankings, or short list.
(C) Upon completion of ranking and preparation of the
short list, if the applicant deems it necessary to interview firms in order
to determine the most qualified respondent, the applicant shall issue an
invitation to appear for an interview to each respondent on the approved
short list.
(D) Upon the issuance of invitations to appear, the ap-
plicant shall form an interview panel to interview each respondent on
the short list for the purpose of ascertaining qualifications of each in-
terviewee and ultimately selecting the most qualified respondent. At
the conclusion of the interviews or upon completion of the short list if
interviews are deemed unnecessary by the applicant, the applicant shall
identify the most qualified respondent, the second most qualified, and
the third most qualified.
(5) In orderto complete the procurement process, the appli-
cant shall negotiate the terms of a consulting services contract, includ-
ing a task budget, with the consultant receiving the highest ranking.
The contract shall be acceptable in form and substance to the execu-
tive administrator. In the event that the applicant cannot conclude an
acceptable contract with the highest ranked consultant, the applicant
shall negotiate the terms of a consulting services contract, including a
task budget, with the consultant receiving the second highest ranking.
In the event that the applicant cannot conclude an acceptable contract
with the second highest ranked consultant, the applicant shall negoti-
ate the terms of a consulting services contract, including a task budget,
with the consultant receiving the third highest ranking. If the applicant
cannot conclude an acceptable contract with the third highest ranked
consultant, the applicant shall be required to commence the process
over from the start.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on October 18,
2000.
TRD-200007325
Suzanne Schwartz
General Counsel
Texas Water Development Board
Effective date: November 7, 2000
Proposal publication date: September 1, 2000
For further information, please call: (512) 463-7981
CHAPTER 375. CLEAN WATER STATE
REVOLVING FUND
The Texas Water Development Board (the board) adopts amend-
ments to 31 TAC 375.2, 375.15, 375.17, and 375.221 con-
cerning the funding program for the Clean Water State Revolv-
ing Fund (CWSRF) without changes to the proposed text as pub-
lished in the September 1, 2000, issue of the Texas Register (25
TexReg 8602) and will not be republished. The amendments areadopted to update the rules, expand the scope of definitions, and
clarify administrative procedures.
Section 375.2, relating to Definitions of Terms, is amended to
add nonpoint source or estuary management to the types of
projects eligible for funding. Previously, the board has focused
on those activities that met the Clean Water Act (Act), section
212 definition of "treatment works". The board now intends to
broaden that focus to address the funding of all nonpoint source
and estuary management activities, as authorized in sections
601, 319 and 320 of the Act. Therefore, the broader meaning
of "project" is adopted to include sections 319 and 320 projects,
and the broader term "project" is substituted for the term "treat-
ment works" throughout the definition section.
The section is further amended to expand the definition of "build-
ing" to include the implementation of a project. The current def-
inition fits the erection, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, im-
provement or extension of a treatment works facility, but the ad-
ditional word "implementation" is a better description of activities
funded as nonpoint source or estuary management projects. Ad-
ditionally, the definition of "construction" is adopted for amend-
ment to eliminate the redundant listing of activities already in-
cluded in the definition of "building". Finally, the definition of "es-
tuary management project" is amended to allow funding of the
development of an estuary management plan, as authorized in
section 601 of the Act.
Section 375.15, relating to Criteria and Methods for Distribution
of Funds, is amended for consistency, to include the two new
types of projects (nonpoint source or estuary management) into
the eight categories of funding. The section is also amended to
extend a commitment deadline in limited circumstances where
an applicant has timely submitted an application, as defined in
the chapter rules, but additional information is deemed to be nec-
essary for consideration of a proposed project. The change will
allow the Executive Administrator to request additional informa-
tion from an applicant without causing the applicant to lose its
place on the funding list.
Section 375.17, relating to Intended Use Plan, is amended to
describe acceptable changes that may be made to a project af-
ter it has been listed on an adopted Intended Use Plan. These
changes include the applicant, itself; the number of participants
in a consolidated project; and the solution to an identified wa-
ter supply problem. The amendments allow the board to focus
on providing funding for solutions to the water supply needs of a
particular area, rather than focusing on a particular applicant or
project.
Section 375.221, relating to Pre-Design Funding Option, is
amended to delete the requirement that loans made under
this option must be closed within six months of the board
commitment. The purpose of the six-month time limitation was
to encourage timely closing so as to move the federal dollars
into immediate projects. Experience has shown that six months
is too short a time and that many of the commitments must
return to the board for time extensions. The remainder of the
subsections are renumbered accordingly.
There were no comments received on the proposed amend-
ments.
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
DIVISION 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
31 TAC 375.2ADOPTED RULES November 3, 2000 25 TexReg 10927
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 25, Number 44, Pages 10833-11184, November 3, 2000, periodical, November 3, 2000; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth113968/m1/98/: accessed May 21, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.