Ark-Tex Council of Governments
Request for Proposals
The Ark-Tex Council of Governments (ATCOG) is soliciting proposals for
the provision of Enhanced 9-1-1 Customer Premise Equipment.
The project completion date is December 1, 1999. The service delivery area
includes the following counties in Texas: Cass, Delta, Franklin, Hopkins,
Morris, Red River.
Potential respondents may obtain a copy of the request for proposal by
contacting John Basile or Janell Browning, Ark-Tex Council of Governments,
P.O. Box 5307, Texarkana, Texas, 75505-5307, or call (903) 832-8636.
The deadline for proposal submission is April 14, 1999, at 5:00 p.m.
TRD-9900915
James C. Fisher, Jr.
Executive Director
Ark-Tex Council of Governments
Filed: February 12, 1999
1999 Tax Charts
Pursuant to §154.061(b) of the Texas Family Code, the Attorney General
of Texas, as the Title IV-D agency, has promulgated the following tax charts
for 1999 to assist courts in establishing the amount of a child support order.
These tax charts are applicable to employed and self-employed persons in computing
net monthly income.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
To use these tables, first compute the obligor's annual gross income. Then
recompute to determine the obligor's average monthly gross income. These tables
provide a method for calculating "monthly net income" for child support purposes,
subtracting from monthly gross income the social security taxes and the federal
income tax withholding for a single person claiming one personal exemption
and the standard deduction.
Thereafter, in many cases the guidelines call for a number of additional
steps to complete the necessary calculations. For example, §154.061-154.068
provide for appropriate additions to "income" as that term is defined for
federal income tax purposes, and for certain subtractions from monthly net
income, in order to arrive at the net resources of the obligor available for
child support purposes. Computation of the obligee's net resources should
follow similar steps.
[Figure 1]
Footnotes to Employed Persons 1999 Tax Chart:
* An employed person not subject to the Old-age, Survivors and Disability
Insurance/Hospital (Medicare) Insurance taxes will be allowed the reductions
reflected in these columns, unless it is shown that such person has no similar
contributory plan such as teacher retirement, federal railroad retirement,
federal civil service retirement, etc.
** These amounts represent one-twelfth (1/12) of the annual Federal income
tax calculated for a single taxpayer claiming one personal exemption ($2,750.00,
subject to reduction in certain cases, as described in the next paragraph
of this footnote) and taking the standard deduction ($4,300.00).
For a single taxpayer with an adjusted gross income in excess of $126,600.00,
the deduction for the personal exemption is reduced by two percent (2%) for
each $2,500.00 or fraction thereof by which adjusted gross income exceeds
$126,600.00. The reduction is completed (i.e., the deduction for the personal
exemption is eliminated) for adjusted gross income in excess of $249,100.00.
In no case is the deduction for the personal exemption reduced by more than
100%. For example, monthly gross wages of $12,000.00 times 12 months equals
$144,000.00. The excess over $126,600.00 is $17,400.00. $17,400.00 divided
by $2,500.00 equals 6.96. The 6.96 amount is rounded up to 7. The reduction
percentage is 14% (7 x 2% = 14%). The $2,750.00 deduction for one personal
exemption is reduced by $385.00 ($2,750.00 x 14% = $385.00) to $2,365.00 ($2,750.00
- $385.00 = $2,365.00).
*** For annual gross wages above $72,600.00, this amount represents a monthly
average of the Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance tax based on the
1999 maximum Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance tax of $4,501.20
per person (6.2% of the first $72,600.00 of annual gross wages equals $4,501.20).
One-twelfth (1/12) of $4,501.20 equals $375.10. * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
References Relating to Employed Persons 1999 Tax
Chart:
1. Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Tax
(a)
Contribution
Base
(1) Social Security Administration's notice dated October 21, 1998, and
appearing in 63 Fed. Reg. 58,446 (October 30, 1998)
(2) Section 3121(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §3121(a))
(3) Section 230 of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. §430)
(b)
Tax Rate
(1) Section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §3101(a))
2. Hospital (Medicare) Insurance Tax
(a)
Contribution
Base
(1) Section 3121(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §3121(a))
(2) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66, §13207,
107 Stat. 312, 467-69 (1993)
(b)
Tax Rate
(1) Section 3101(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §3101(b))
3. Federal Income Tax
(a)
Inflation Adjusted
Tax Rate Table for 1999 for Single Taxpayers
(1) Revenue Procedure 98-61, Section 3.01, Table 3, which appears at pages
20-21 of Internal Revenue Bulletin 1998-52, dated December 28, 1998
(2) Section 1(c) and (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(26 U.S.C. §1(c) and (f))
(b)
Standard Deduction
(1) Revenue Procedure 98-61, Section 3.05(1), which appears at pages 21-22
of Internal Revenue Bulletin 1998-52, dated December 28, 1998
(2) Section 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §63(c))
(c)
Personal Exemption
(1) Revenue Procedure 98-61, Section 3.08, which appears at page 22 of
Internal Revenue Bulletin 1998-52, dated December 28, 1998
(2) Section 151(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §151(d))
[Figure 2]
Footnotes to Self-Employed Persons 1999 Tax Chart:
* Determined without regard to Section 1402(a)(12) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C.) (the "Code").
** In calculating each of the Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance
tax and the Hospital (Medicare) Insurance tax, net earnings from self-employment
are reduced by the deduction under Section 1402(a)(12) of the Code. The deduction
under Section 1402(a)(12) of the Code is equal to net earnings from self-employment
(determined without regard to Section 1402(a)(12) of the Code) multiplied
by one-half (1/2) of the sum of the Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance
tax rate (12.4%) and the Hospital (Medicare) Insurance tax rate (2.9%). The
sum of these rates is 15.3% (12.4% + 2.9% = 15.3%). One-half (1/2) of the
combined rate is 7.65% (15.3% x 1/2 = 7.65%). The deduction can be computed
by multiplying the net earnings from self-employment (determined without regard
to Section 1402(a)(12) of the Code) by 92.35%. This gives the same deduction
as multiplying the net earnings from self-employment (determined without regard
to Section 1402(a)(12) of the Code) by 7.65% and then subtracting the result.
For example, the Social Security taxes imposed on monthly net earnings
from self-employment (determined without regard to Section 1402(a)(12) of
the Code) of $2,500.00 are calculated as follows: (i) Old-Age, Survivors
and Disability Insurance Taxes: $2,500.00 x 92.35% x 12.4% = $286.29 (ii)
Hospital (Medicare) Insurance Taxes: $2,500.00 x 92.35% x 2.9% = $66.95
*** These amounts represent one-twelfth (1/12) of the annual Federal income
tax calculated for a single taxpayer claiming one personal exemption ($2,750.00,
subject to reduction in certain cases, as described below in this footnote)
and taking the standard deduction ($4,300.00).
In calculating the annual Federal income tax, gross income is reduced by
the deduction under Section 164(f) of the Code. The deduction under Section
164(f) of the Code is equal to one-half (1/2) of the self-employment taxes
imposed by Section 1401 of the Code for the taxable year. For example, monthly
net earnings from self-employment of $12,000.00 times 12 months equals $144,000.00.
The Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance taxes imposed by Section 1401
of the Code for the taxable year equal $9,002.40 ($72,600.00 x 12.4% = $9,002.40).
The Hospital (Medicare) Insurance taxes imposed by Section 1401 of the Code
for the taxable year equal $3,856.54 ($144,000.00 x .9235 x 2.9% = $3,856.54).
The sum of the taxes imposed by Section 1401 of the Code for the taxable year
equals $12,858.94 ($9,002.40 + $3,856.54 = $12,858.94). The deduction under
Section 164(f) of the Code is equal to one-half (1/2) of $12,858.94 or $6,429.47.
For a single taxpayer with an adjusted gross income in excess of $126,600.00,
the deduction for the personal exemption is reduced by two percent (2%) for
each $2,500.00 or fraction thereof by which adjusted gross income exceeds
$126,600.00. The reduction is completed (i.e., the deduction for the personal
exemption is eliminated) for adjusted gross income in excess of $249,100.00.
In no case is the deduction for the personal exemption reduced by more than
100%. For example, monthly net earnings from self-employment of $12,000.00
times 12 months equals $144,000.00. The $144,000.00 amount is reduced by $6,429.47
(i.e., the deduction under Section 164(f) of the Code -- see the immediately
preceding paragraph of this footnote for the computation) to arrive at adjusted
gross income of $137,570.53. The excess over $126,600.00 is $10,970.53. $10,970.53
divided by $2,500.00 equals 4.39. The 4.39 amount is rounded up to 5. The
reduction percentage is 10% (5 x 2% = 10%). The $2,750.00 deduction for one
personal exemption is reduced by $275.00 ($2,750.00 x 10% = $275.00) to $2,475.00
($2,750.00 - $275.00 = $2,475.00).
**** For annual net earnings from self-employment (determined with regard
to Section 1402(a)(12) of the Code) above $72,600.00, this amount represents
a monthly average of the Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance tax based
on the 1999 maximum Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance tax of $9,002.40
per person (12.4% of the first $72,600.00 of net earnings from self-employment
(determined with regard to Section 1402(a)(12) of the Code) equals $9,002.40).
One-twelfth (1/12) of $9,002.40 equals $750.20.
References Relating to Self-Employed Persons 1999
Tax Chart:
1. Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Tax
(a)
Contribution
Base
(1) Social Security Administration's notice dated October 21, 1998 and
appearing in 63 Fed. Reg. 58,446 (October 30, 1998)
(2) Section 1402(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §1402(b))
(3) Section 230 of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. §430)
(b)
Tax Rate
(1) Section 1401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §1401(a))
(c)
Deduction Under
Section 1402(a)(12)
(1) Section 1402(a)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(26 U.S.C. §1402(a)(12))
2. Hospital (Medicare) Insurance Tax
(a)
Contribution
Base
(1) Section 1402(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §1402(b))
(2) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66, §13207,
107 Stat. 312, 467-69 (1993)
(b)
Tax Rate
(1) Section 1401(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §1401(b))
(c)
Deduction Under
Section 1402(a)(12)
(1) Section 1402(a)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(26 U.S.C. §1402(a)(12))
3. Federal Income Tax
(a)
Inflation Adjusted
Tax Rate Table for 1999 for Single Taxpayers
(1) Revenue Procedure 98-61, Section 3.01, Table 3, which appears at pages
20-21 of Internal Revenue Bulletin 1998-52, dated December 28, 1998
(2) Section 1(c) and (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(26 U.S.C. §1(c) and (f))
(b)
Standard Deduction
(1) Revenue Procedure 98-61, Section 3.05(1), which appears at pages 21-22
of Internal Revenue Bulletin 1998-52, dated December 28, 1998
(2) Section 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §63(c))
(c)
Personal Exemption
(1) Revenue Procedure 98-61, Section 3.08, which appears at page 22 of
Internal Revenue Bulletin 1998-52, dated December 28, 1998
(2) Section 151(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §151(d))
(d)
Deduction Under
Section 164(f)
(1) Section 164(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26
U.S.C. §164(f))
TRD-9900962
Elizabeth Robinson
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Filed: February 16, 1999
This Request for Proposal is filed pursuant to Texas Government Code section
2254.021 et seq.
The Office of the Attorney General of Texas ("the OAG") requests that professional
consultants with documented expertise and experience in the field of indirect
cost recovery and cost allocation plans for governmental units submit proposals
to prepare Indirect Cost Plans for State Fiscal Years 1998 ("FY98") (based
on actual expenditures) and 2000 ("FY00") (based on budgeted expenditures)
and to analyze and update standardized billing rates for legal services provided
by the OAG. In accordance with Texas Government Code section 2254.029(b),
the OAG hereby discloses that similar services related to indirect cost plans
and legal billing rates covering earlier fiscal years have been previously
provided to the OAG by a consultant.
The OAG administers millions of dollars of federal funds for the Child
Support (Title IV-D) and Medicaid (Title XIX) programs. Currently, the OAG
is recouping its indirect costs from these federal programs based on rates
approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS").
The OAG also provides legal services to other state agencies. The consultant
selected will be responsible for analyzing the existing billing rates and
actual costs and then updating the legal services rates for use in FY00.
The consultant selected to prepare the Indirect Cost Plans and to develop
current, standardized legal billing rates must demonstrate the necessary qualifications
and experience listed in the "QUALIFICATIONS" section. The successful consultant
will also be required to perform the services and generate the reports listed
in the "SCOPE OF SERVICES" section. The acceptance of a proposal by the OAG,
made in response to this Request for Proposal, will be based on the OAG's
evaluation of the competence, knowledge, and qualifications of the consultant,
in addition to the reasonableness of the proposed fee for services. If other
considerations are equal, the OAG will give preference to a consultant whose
principal place of business is in Texas or who will manage the consulting
contract wholly from an office in Texas. The total contract award will not
exceed Fifty Thousand and NO/100 Dollars ($50,000.00).
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The successful consultant will be required to render the following services
and reports:
1. Prepare two (2) Indirect Cost Plans in accordance with OMB Circular
A-87 one based on FY98 actual expenditures and one based on FY00 budgeted
expenditures
* Identify the sources of financial information;
* Inventory all federal and other programs administered by the OAG;
* Classify all OAG divisions;
* Determine administrative divisions;
* Determine allocation bases for allotting services to benefiting divisions;
* Develop allocation data for each allocation base;
* Prepare allocation worksheets based upon actual FY98 expenditures and
budgeted FY00 expenditures;
* Summarize costs by benefiting division;
* Collect cost data for all of the programs included in the inventory of
federal and other programs administered by the OAG;
* Determine indirect cost rates throughout the OAG on an annual basis;
* Prepare and present draft Indirect Cost Plans to the OAG by June 1, 1999;
* Formalize the Actual FY98 and Budgeted FY00 Indirect Cost Plans and present
them to HHS by June 30, 1999; and
* Negotiate the Indirect Cost Plans' approval with HHS by August 31, 1999.
2. Develop standardized billing rates for legal services
* Review current criteria used by the OAG for charging various agencies;
* Determine the types of legal services provided to the agencies;
* Compile direct hours for each type of service;
* Determine effort reporting requirements;
* Re-examine billing rate options;
* Determine the actual cost of services;
* Analyze and confirm revenues and cost analyses;
* Prepare and present a draft Legal Services Billing Schedule to the OAG
by August 1, 1999; and
* Formalize a Legal Services Billing Schedule by August 31, 1999.
The selected consultant will accumulate and analyze all data that are required.
The OAG is not expected to provide any staff resources to the selected consultant.
The OAG will provide a liaison with staff within the OAG and with other state
agencies, as appropriate.
QUALIFICATIONS
Each individual, company, or organization submitting a proposal pursuant
to this request, must present evidence or otherwise demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the OAG that such entity:
1. Has the experience to prepare and successfully negotiate the type of
Indirect Cost Plan described above;
2. Has a thorough understanding of cost allocation issues and preparation
of Indirect Cost Plans at the state agency level;
3. Has a thorough understanding of legal services billing procedures and
preparation of a Legal Services Billing Schedule; and
4. Can program and execute the Indirect Cost Plans and Legal Services Billing
Schedule within the required time frames specified in the "SCOPE OF SERVICES"
section.
Please provide evidence of the above qualifications and a proposal which
includes:
1. A detailed description of the plan of action to fulfill the requirements
described in the "SCOPE OF SERVICES" section;
2. Detailed information on the consultant staff to be assigned to the project;
and
3. The proposed fee amount for provision of the desired services.
A signed original and five (5) copies of the proposal must be received
in the OAG Purchasing Section, 300 West 15th Street, Third Floor, Austin,
Texas 78701, no later than 3:00 p.m., Central Standard Time, March 29, 1999.
Any proposal received after the specified time and date will not be given
consideration. Conditioned on the OAG's receipt of the requisite finding of
fact from the Governor's Budget and Planning Office pursuant to Texas Government
Code section 2245.028, the OAG anticipates entering into the resultant contract
on or about April 9, 1999.
A proposal must include all of the references and financial status information
as specified below at the time of opening or it will be disqualified. Proposals
should be sealed and clearly marked with the specified time and date and the
title, "Proposal for Consulting Services for an Indirect Cost Recovery/Cost
Allocation Plan and Legal Services Billing Schedule for the OAG."
REFERENCES AND FINANCIAL CONDITION
Prospective consultants will provide the names of at least three (3) different
references meeting the following criteria:
1. The reference company or entity must have engaged the prospective consultant
for the same or similar services as those to be provided in accordance with
the terms of this Request for Proposal;
2. The services must have been provided by the prospective consultant to
the reference company or entity within the five (5) years preceding the issuance
of this Request for Proposal;
3. The reference company or entity must not be affiliated with the prospective
consultant in any ownership or joint venture arrangement;
4. References must include the company or entity name, address, contact
name, and telephone number for each reference. The OAG may not be used as
a reference. The contact name must be the name of a senior representative
of the reference company or entity who was directly responsible for interacting
with the prospective consultant throughout the performance of the engagement
and who can address questions about the performance of the prospective consultant
from personal experience. References will accompany the proposal.
5. The prospective consultant will provide a signed release from liability
for each reference provided in response to this requirement. The release from
liability will absolve the specified reference company or entity from liability
for information provided to the OAG concerning the prospective consultant's
performance of its engagement with the reference.
6. The prospective consultant must disclose if and when it has filed for
bankruptcy within the last seven (7) years. For prospective consultants conducting
business as a corporation, partnership, limited liability partnership, or
other form of artificial person, the prospective consultant must disclose
whether any of its principals, partners, or officers have filed for bankruptcy
within the last seven (7) years.
7. As part of any proposal submission, the prospective consultant must
include information regarding financial condition, including income statements,
balance sheets, and any other information which accurately shows the prospective
consultant's current financial condition. The OAG reserves the right to request
such additional financial information as it deems necessary to evaluate the
prospective consultant, and by submission of a proposal, the prospective consultant
agrees to provide same.
DISCLOSURE
Any individual who provides a proposal for consulting services in response
to this Request for Proposal and who has been employed by the OAG or any other
state agency(ies) at any time during the two (2) years preceding the tendering
of the proposal will disclose in the proposal:
1. the nature of the previous employment with the OAG or any other state
agency(ies);
2. the date(s) the employment(s) terminated; and
3. the annual rate(s) of compensation for the employment(s) at the time(s)
of termination.
Each consultant that submits a proposal must certify to the following:
1. consultant has no unresolved audit exceptions(s) with the OAG. An unresolved
audit exception is an exception for which the consultant has exhausted all
administrative and/or judicial remedies and refuses to comply with any resulting
demand for payment.
2. consultant certifies that the consultant's staff or governing authority
has not participated in the development of specific criteria for award of
this contract, and will not participate in the selection of consultant(s)
awarded contracts.
3. consultant has not retained or promised to retain an agent or utilized
or promised to utilize a consultant who has participated in the development
of specific criteria for the award of contract, nor will participate in the
selection of any successful consultant.
4. consultant agrees to provide information necessary to validate any statements
made in consultant's response, if requested by the OAG. This may include,
but is not limited to, granting permission for the OAG to verify information
with third parties, and allowing inspection of consultant's records.
5. consultant understands that failure to substantiate any statements made
in the response when substantiation is requested by OAG may disqualify the
response, which could cause the consultant to fail to receive a contract or
to receive a contract for an amount less than that requested.
6. consultant certifies that the consultant's organization has not had
a contract terminated or been denied the renewal of any contract for non-compliance
with policies or regulation of any state or federal funded program within
the past five years nor is it currently prohibited from contracting with a
government agency.
7. If consultant plans to utilize a subcontractor, the subcontractor will
comply with the same terms as the consultant as contained in this solicitation
and other relevant OAG policy and procedure and the subcontractor must be
approved in advance by OAG.
8. consultant certifies that its Corporate Texas Franchise Tax payments
are current, or that it is exempt from or not subject to such tax.
9. The consultant has not given nor intends to give at any time hereafter
any economic opportunity, future employment, gift, loan, gratuity, special
discount, trip, favor, or service to a public servant in connection with the
submitted response.
10. Neither the consultant nor the firm, corporation, partnership or institution
represented by the consultant, anyone acting for such firm, corporation partnership
or institution has violated the antitrust laws of this State, the Federal
antitrust laws nor communicated directly or indirectly its response to any
competitor or any other person engaged in such line or business.
11. Under 231.006 Family Code (relating to child support), the consultant
certifies that the individual or business entity named in this response is
not ineligible to receive a specified payment and acknowledges that this contract
may be terminated and payment may be withheld if this certification is inaccurate.
12. If the consultant is an individual not residing in Texas or a business
entity not incorporated in or whose principal domicile is not in Texas, the
consultant certifies that it either: (a) holds a permit issued by the Texas
comptroller to collect or remit all state and local sales and use taxes that
become due and owing as a result of the consultant's business in Texas; or
(b) does not sell tangible personal property or services that are subject
to the state and local sales and use tax.
13. consultant certifies that if a Texas address is shown as the address
of the vendor, Vendor qualifies as a Texas Resident Bidder as defined in Rule
1 TAC 111.2.
14. consultant certifies that it has not received compensation for participation
in the preparation of the specifications for this solicitation.
PAYMENT
Payment for services will be made upon receipt of invoices presented to
the OAG in the form and manner specified by the OAG after certification of
acceptance of all deliverables.
PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND CONTRACTING EXPENSES
All proposals must be typed, double spaced, on 8 1/2" x 11" paper, clearly
legible, with all pages sequentially numbered and bound or stapled together.
The name of the prospective consultant must be typed at the top of each page.
Do not attach covers, binders, pamphlets, or other items not specifically
requested.
A Table of Contents must be included with respective page numbers opposite
each topic. The proposal must contain the following completed items in the
following sequence:
1. Transmittal Letter: A letter addressed to Ms. Julie Geeslin (address
at the end of this Request for Proposal) that identifies the person or entity
submitting the proposal and includes a commitment by that person or entity
to provide the services required by the OAG. The letter must state, "The proposal
enclosed is binding and valid at the discretion of the OAG." The letter must
specifically identify the project for this proposal. The letter must include
"full acceptance of the terms and conditions of the contract resulting from
this Request for Proposal." Any exceptions must be specifically noted in the
letter. However, any exceptions may disqualify the proposal from further consideration
at the OAG's discretion.
2. Executive Summary: A summary of the contents of the proposal, excluding
cost information. Address services that are offered beyond those specifically
requested as well as those offered within specified deliverables. Explain
any missing or other requirements not met, realizing that failure to provide
necessary information or offer required service deliverables may result in
disqualification of the proposal.
3. Project Proposal
4. Cost Proposal
5. Relevant Technical Skill Statement (with references and vitae)
6. Relevant Experience Statement (with references and vitae)
To be considered responsive, a proposal must set forth full, accurate,
and complete information as required by this request. A non-responsive proposal
will not be considered for further evaluation. If the requirement that is
not met is considered a minor irregularity or an inconsequential variation,
an exception may be made at the discretion of the OAG and the proposal may
be considered responsive.
A written request for withdrawal of a proposal is permitted any time prior
to the submission deadline and must be received by Ms. Julie Geeslin (address
at the end of this Request for Proposal). After the deadline, proposals will
be considered firm and binding offers at the option of the OAG.
Preliminary and final negotiations with top-ranked prospective consultants
may be held at the discretion of the OAG. The OAG may decide, at its sole
option and in its sole discretion, to negotiate with one, several, or none
of the prospective consultants submitting proposals pursuant to this request.
During the negotiation process, the OAG and any prospective consultant(s)
with whom the OAG chooses to negotiate, may adjust the scope of the services,
alter the method of providing the services, and/or alter the costs of the
services so long as the changes are mutually agreed upon and are in the best
interest of the OAG. Statements made by a prospective consultant in the proposal
packet or in other appropriate written form will be binding unless specifically
changed during final negotiations. A contract award may be made by the OAG
without negotiations if the OAG determines that such an award is in the OAG's
best interest.
All prospective consultants of record will be sent written notice of which,
if any, prospective consultant(s) is selected for the contract award on or
about April 12, 1999.
All proposals are considered to be public information subsequent to an
award of the contract. All information relating to proposals will be subject
to the Public Information Act, Texas Government Code Annotated, Chapter 552,
after the award of the contract. All documents will be presumed to be public
unless a specific exception in that Act applies. Prospective consultants are
requested to avoid providing information which is proprietary, but if it is
necessary to do so, proposals must specify the specific information which
the prospective consultant considers to be exempted from disclosure under
the Act and those pages or portions of pages which contain the protected information
must be clearly marked. The specific exemption which the prospective consultant
believes protects that information must be cited. The OAG will assume that
a proposal submitted to the OAG contains no proprietary or confidential information
if the prospective consultant has not marked or otherwise identified such
information in the proposal at the time of its submission to the OAG.
The OAG has sole discretion and the absolute right to reject any and all
offers, terminate this Request for Proposal, or amend or delay this Request
for Proposal. The OAG will not pay any cost incurred by a prospective consultant
in the preparation of a response to this Request for Proposal and such costs
will not be included in the budget of the prospective consultant submitted
pursuant to this Request for Proposal. The issuance of this Request for Proposal
does not constitute a commitment by the OAG to award any contract. This Request
for Proposal and any contract which may result from it are subject to appropriation
of State and Federal funds and the Request for Proposal and/or contract may
be terminated at any time if such funds are not available.
The OAG reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals submitted
in response to this request and to negotiate modifications necessary to improve
the quality or cost effectiveness of any proposal to the OAG. The OAG is under
no legal obligation to enter into a contract with any offeror of any proposal
on the basis of this request. The OAG intends any material provided in this
Request for Proposal only and solely as a means of identifying the scope of
services and qualifications sought.
The State of Texas assumes no responsibility for expenses incurred in the
preparation of responses to this Request for Proposal. All expenses associated
with the preparation of the proposal solicited by this Request for Proposal
will remain the sole responsibility of the prospective consultant. Further,
in the event that the prospective consultant is engaged to provide the services
contemplated by this Request for Proposal, any expenses incurred by the prospective
consultant associated with the negotiation and execution of the contract for
the engagement will remain the obligation of the consultant.
Please address responses to:
Ms. Julie Geeslin;
Budget and Purchasing Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas; 300
W. 15th Street, Third Floor, P.O. 12548; Austin, Texas 78711-2548; (Phone:
512-475-4495)
TRD-9900979
Elizabeth Robinson
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Filed: February 17, 1999
Request for Proposal
The Children's Trust Fund of Texas, a state agency, (hereinafter referred
to as CTF) is currently seeking proposals for a Family Resource Distribution
Center in Dallas, El Paso, Gregg, Jefferson, Potter/Randall, Travis and Webb
counties. The Family Resource Distribution Center (hereinafter referred to
as FRDC) will work in conjunction with the local CTF Family PRIDE Council
to develop, expand and coordinate a network of community-based, prevention
focused, family resource and support programs. The local Family PRIDE Council
reviews local application for CTF funding and makes recommendations to the
CTF Council. The functions of the FRDC are as follows:
Distribute Community-Based Family Resource and Support Program funds to
Community-Based Services Network agencies, and monitor providers for compliance
with CTF policies and program requirements
Provide technical assistance and support to the Family PRIDE Councils in
furthering the coordination of community child abuse and neglect prevention
activities
Assist the Family PRIDE Council to establish a Parent Advisory Committee
Distribute CTF developed or sponsored public education materials to community
agencies that provide services to parents with children birth to age four
years
Assist CTF and the Family PRIDE Councils in the funding application process
Coordinate or provide training and technical assistance related to child
abuse and neglect prevention to parents and providers
Participate in CTF community, regional and statewide training and informational
conferences
Build organizational capacity to administer non-CTF prevention funds for
the target population
Deadline:
Deadline for the submission of
proposals is April 16, 1999 at 5:00 pm.
Contract Period:
The contract period for
funding awarded in response to the Family Resource Distribution Center (FRDC)
Request for Proposal (RFP) is FY99 = June 1, 1999 - August 31, 1999 and FY00
= September 1, 1999 - August 31, 2000. Contracts may be renewed once for a
total contract period of two and one half years, as authorized by the CTF
Council. Renewal is not automatic and renewal applications will be requested.
Eligibility Criteria:
To be eligible to
apply for funding, an applicant must:
1. use the funds to:
Hire a coordinator to work with the Family PRIDE Council and carry out
the functions of the FRDC;
Provide training and technical assistance for parent advisory committee,
coordinator, Family PRIDE council members;
Provide administrative support related to the FRDC function, (10% of the
total awarded amount can be designated as administrative indirect);
Distribute CTF funds to providers selected through the PRIDE council process
and;
Manage and monitor contracts with CTF-funded providers.
2. be an organization in operation (i.e., registered with the Secretary
of State) for a minimum of two years
3. not be a state agency - "State Agency " is defined as a board, commission,
department, office or other state agency that:
(a) is in the executive branch of state government,
(b) was created by the constitution or a statute of this state, and
(c) has statewide jurisdiction.
4. applicant agencies/organizations must be located in the 7 Family PRIDE
communities listed above.
Amount of Contract Awards:
Contracts will
be awarded up to $75,000 for a fifteenth month period.
Evaluation and Selection:
A CTF Family PRIDE
Council in each site will review and select proposals to recommend to Children's
Trust Fund of Texas Council for funding. Applicants will be notified in May
of 1999 of the status of their request.
The RFP application packet includes complete instructions, application
requirements, deadline details, and hours that resource staff at the Children's
Trust Fund office will be available to answer questions.
To Request an RFP Application Packet:
If
potential applicants meet the eligibility criteria as outlined above, they
may request an RFP packet by telephone, mail, or in person: 512/303-5061 (automated
24 hour line for requesting RFP packets only); Children's Trust Fund of Texas,
1884 Highway 71 West, Cedar Creek, TX 78612-3412 (M-F, 8:00am - 5:00pm).
TRD-9900984
Janie D. Fields, MPA
Executive Director
Children's Trust Fund of Texas Council
Filed: February 17, 1999
Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Requests for Consistency Agreement/Concurrence under the Texas Coastal Management Program
On January 10, 1997, the State of Texas received federal approval of the
Coastal Management Program (CMP) (62 Federal Register pp. 1439-1440). Under
federal law, federal agency activities and actions affecting the Texas coastal
zone must be consistent with the CMP goals and policies identified in 31 TAC
Chapter 501. Requests for federal consistency review were received for the
following projects(s) during the period of February 5, 1999, through February
12, 1999:
FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS:
Applicant: Mariner Energy, Inc.; Location: The project is located in the
Galveston Anchorage Area, Galveston Area Block 144, approximately 12 miles
southeast of Galveston, offshore Texas, Gulf of Mexico; Project No.: 99-0047-F1;
Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to install by jetting
a 6-inch diameter natural gas pipeline. Approximately 183,600 cubic yards
of material will be temporarily sidecast. The trench will be backfilled naturally
be slumping and sedimentation. The line will be buried a minimum of 16.5 feet
below the mudline. Purpose of the work is to transport production from a proposed
platform to a subsea tie-in; Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit application
#21566 under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. 403).
Applicant: Jim Vratis; Location: The project is located in Stingaree Canal
at Stingaree Marina, 1296 Stingaree Road, Crystal Beach, Galveston County,
Texas. The site can be located on the U.S.G.S. Caplen, Texas Quadrangle map;
Project No.: 99-0048-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes
to set 6 new 12-inch diameter mooring pilings in line with an existing dock
for use by boats at the existing Stingaree Marina; Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E.
permit application #21488 under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 (33 U.S.C.A. 403).
Applicant: Oakmont Group, Inc.; Location: The project is an 88-acre tract
located northwest of the State Highway 3 and Beltway 8 intersection in Harris
County, Texas. The U.S.G.S. quad map is Friendswood. The mitigation site is
located northwest of the Longenbaugh Road and Katy Hockley Road intersection
in the Ley Lowlands Mitigation Area in Harris County, Texas. The U.S.G.S.
quad map for the mitigation site is Warren Lake; Project No.: 99-0049-F1;
Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to fill 5.95 acres
of wetlands, within an 88-acre tract proposed for commercial development.
Approximately 9,900 cubic yards of fill would be placed in the wetland areas.
As mitigation for the impacts to the wetlands, the applicant proposes to construct
5.95 acres of wetlands in a 12-acre area of the Ley Lowlands Wetland Mitigation
Area. In addition to the creation of the 5.95 acres of wetlands, another 0.28
acre of existing wetlands and 5.77 acres of upland buffer would be preserved
and enhanced. Construction of the mitigation area will begin prior to the
placement of fill material into the project site wetlands, and will be completed,
including seeding, within 12 months of the initiation of the mitigation area
construction. The mitigation site will be monitored on a quarterly basis for
the first year following completion of the mitigation site construction and
then annually on the approximate construction anniversary for four years.
The mitigation site will be considered to have met minimum success criteria
if for two consecutive years the mitigation site achieves 70% areal coverage
of vegetative species that are considered FAC or wetter. The mitigation area
will be re-seeded if 70% areal coverage is not achieved within three years
following the completion of construction; Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E.
permit application #21550 under §404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A.
§§125-1387).
Applicant: TDI-Halter, L.P.; Location: The project site is located on the
Sabine River, at 91 West Front Street, in Orange, Orange County, Texas; Project
No.: 99-0050-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant has revised
their project plans for the installation of approximately 3,000 feet of sheetpile
bulkhead. The original plans, coordinated by a public notice issued on September
25, 1998, depicted that the proposed bulkhead would be installed behind existing
wooden piers, and that all backfill would be placed above the mean high water
line. However, the applicant now proposes to place the bulkhead outside or
waterward of the existing wooden piers. Consequently, approximately 77,000
square feet of open water, consisting of 25,000 square feet in Area 1 and
52,000 square feet in Area 2, will be filled during the construction of the
bulkheads. Approximately 800 feet of bulkhead will be installed in Area 1
and 2,200 feet in Area 2. During the construction of the bulkheads, the existing
wooden piers will be removed. In addition to the proposed bulkhead construction,
the applicant continues to request authorization to perform periodic maintenance
dredging for a period of 10 years. Approximately 51,000 square feet of dock
space will be hydraulically dredged to a depth of -31 feet mean low tide.
Approximately 297,500 cubic yards of material will be dredged during the initial
maintenance dredging operation. The dredge material will be placed in Corps
of Engineers Placement Area Number 37, located on the east side of the Sabine
River, in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. No wetlands or shallow water habitat
will be impacted by the proposed work. The purpose of the proposed project
is to provide the necessary water depth to bring drilling rigs into the facility
for conversion and repair, and to stabilize specified portions of the existing
shoreline; Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit application #21428(revised)
under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. 403), and
§404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§125-1387).
FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES:
Applicant: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Project No.: 99-0046-F2;
Description of Proposed Activity: Pursuant to the Magnuson Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the applicant proposes Regulatory Amendment
to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan for Red Snapper Including Total Allowable
Catch, Bag Limits, Minimum Size Limits, and Seasons. The amendment includes
five (5) proposed actions for the proposed management alternatives for the
purpose of addressing problems with equitable allocation of the available
Red Snapper resource among the various commercial user groups, as well as
the recreational and for-hire sectors of the fishery. These alternatives also
attempt to address problems with quota overruns, derby fishing, short seasons,
and data collection.
Pursuant to §306(d)(14) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C.A. §§1451-1464), as amended, interested parties are invited
to submit comments on whether a proposed action is, or is not consistent with
the Texas Coastal Management Program goals and policies, and whether the action
should be referred to the Coastal Coordination Council for review. Further
information for the applications listed above may be obtained from Ms. Janet
Fatheree, Council Secretary, Coastal Coordination Council, 1700 North Congress
Avenue, Room 617, Austin, Texas 78701-1495, or janet.fatheree@glo.state.tx.us.
Persons are encouraged to submit written comments as soon as possible within
30 days of publication of this notice. Comments should be sent to Ms. Fatheree
at the above address or by fax at 512/475-0680.
TRD-9900976
Larry R. Soward
Chief Clerk, General Land Office
Coastal Coordination Council
Filed: February 17, 1999
NOTICE OF RATE CEILINGS
The Consumer Credit Commissioner of Texas has ascertained the following
rate ceilings by use of the formulas and methods described in Articles 1D.003
and 1D.009, Title 79, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, as amended (Articles
5069-1D.003 and 1D.009, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes).
The weekly ceiling as prescribed by Article 1D.003 and 1D.009 for the period
of February 15, 1999-February 21, 1999 is 18% for Consumer
1
/Agricultural/Commercial
2
/credit thru
$250,000.
The weekly ceiling as prescribed by Article 1D.003 and 1D.009 for the period
of February 15, 1999-February 21, 1999 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.
1
Credit for personal, family or household
use.
2
Credit for business, commercial, investment
or other similar purpose.
TRD-9900878
Leslie L. Pettijohn
Commissioner
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner
Filed: February 10, 1999
Applications to Expand Field of Membership
Notice is given that the following applications have been filed with the
Texas Credit Union Department and are under consideration:
An application was received from Amoco Chemicals Employees Credit Union,
Alvin, Texas to expand its field of membership. The proposal would permit
individuals who work under contract for any business or organization including
subsidiaries and affiliates that are included within this field of membership
to be eligible for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from United Heritage Credit Union, Austin,
Texas to expand its field of membership. The proposal would permit residents
of the Hunter's Glen Apartments, 2309 Berkley, Austin, Texas, to be eligible
for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from United Heritage Credit Union, Austin,
Texas to expand its field of membership. The proposal would permit residents
of the Georgetown Park Apartments, 209 Luther Drive, Georgetown, Texas, to
be eligible for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from Kraft America Credit Union, Garland, Texas
to expand its field of membership. The proposal would permit persons who live
or work in Rockwall County and in the cities of Garland, Rowlett, Wylie, and
Sachse, excluding persons primarily eligible for membership in any occupation
or association based credit union with less than 20,000 members as of the
date of this amendment (January 20, 1999) having an office within these areas
to be eligible for membership in the credit union.
Comments or a request for a meeting by any interested party relating to
an application must be submitted in writing within 30 days from the date of
this publication. Credit unions that wish to comment on any application must
also complete a Notice of Protest form. The form may be obtained by contacting
the Department at (512) 837-9236. Any written comments must provide all information
that the interested party wishes the Department to consider in evaluating
the application. All information received will be weighed during consideration
of the merits of an application. Comments or a request for a meeting should
be addressed to the Texas Credit Union Department, 914 East Anderson Lane,
Austin, Texas, 78752-1699.
TRD-9900987
Harold E. Feeney
Commissioner
Texas Credit Union Department
Filed: February 17, 1999
In accordance with the provisions of 7 TAC §91.103, the Texas Credit
Union Department provides notice of the final action taken on the following
applications:
Applications to Expand Field of Membership Approved
Community Credit Union, Plano, Texas--See
Texas
Register
issue dated August 28, 1998 (23 TexReg 8891).
Galena Park Schools Credit Union, Galena Park, Texas--See
Texas Register
issue dated October 30, 1998 (23 TexReg 11231).
Jefferson County Employees Credit Union, Beaumont, Texas--See
Texas Register
issue dated October 30, 1998 (23 TexReg 11231).
Wichita Falls Postal Credit Union, Wichita Falls, Texas--See
Texas Register
issue dated October 30, 1998 (23 TexReg 11231).
Denton Area Teachers Credit Union, Denton, Texas--See
Texas Register
issue dated November 27, 1998 (23 TexReg 11986).
First Educators Credit Union, Houston, Texas--See
Texas Register
issue dated November 27, 1998 (23 TexReg 11986).
Texans Credit Union, Richardson, Texas--See
Texas Register
issue dated November 27, 1998 (23 TexReg 11986).
Texans Credit Union, Richardson, Texas--See
Texas
Register
issue dated November 27, 1998 (23 TexReg 11986).
TRD-9900986
Harold E. Feeney
Commissioner
Texas Credit Union Department
Filed: February 17, 1999
Notice is given of the use of the following assumed name:
Mid-County Teachers Credit Union, with locations in Jefferson and Orange
Counties, Texas, is proposing to use the assumed name of MCT Credit Union
for its location in Orange County, Texas.
Comments by any interested party relating to this notification must be
submitted in writing within 30 days from the date of this publication. Any
written comments must provide all information that the interested party wishes
the Department to consider. Comments should be addressed to the Texas Credit
Union Department, 914 East Anderson Lane, Austin, Texas, 78752-1699.
TRD-9900988
Harold E. Feeney
Commissioner
Texas Credit Union Department
Filed: February 17, 1999
Request for Proposal
The Deep East Texas Local Workforce Development Board, Inc. is seeking
technical assistance for administrative staff and board members in the areas
of:
• overall organizational development
• board and staff roles and responsibilities
• program and fiscal monitoring
• program design and planning
• procurement and contracting
• development of program policies
• adult and youth competencies
• transition to the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act
as they relate to the Board's roles of policy, oversight, evaluation and
monitoring of the one-stop delivery system, targeting a universal population
of job-seekers and employers, including the JTPA, Choices, FSE&T, WtW
and Child Care.
Assistance is to be provided on site, by phone and by fax. The number and
duration of site visits are to be negotiated with the successful bidder based
on needs as determined by the Executive Director and/or Board Chairman and
on cost information provided by the bidder.
Interested persons should provide:
• A statement of capacity to perform the requested contracted services
• Documentation of past performance
• Minimum of three references, to include contact name, address and
phone number
• Qualifications and roles of staff to be involved, including at a
minimum, a resume for each
• Complete cost information in the following format:
• Hourly rate
• Travel and lodging expenses
• Detailed miscellaneous costs
Contracted services to begin no later than two weeks from date of acceptance
of the bid and lasting approximately six months.
Information may be obtained by contacting Charlene Meadows or Harry Green
at 409-639-8898
Proposals should be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. March 5, 1999 and
may be submitted by mail, fax, e-mail or in person.
Deep East Texas Local Workforce Development Board, Inc. P. O. Box 153504
346 N. John Redditt Drive Lufkin, TX 75915-3504 Phone: 409-639-8898 Fax: 409-633-7491
E-mail: charlene.meadows@twc.state.tx.us
TRD-9900874
Harry Green
Executive Director
Deep East Texas Workforce Development Board, Inc.
Filed: February 10, 1999
Invitation for Offers of Appraisal Services
The Texas General Land Office requires the services of state-certified
appraisers to provide professional appraisals on tracts/parcels of land located
in Ellis County, Texas and being part of the former Superconducting Super
Collider's West and East Campuses.
The scope of work includes appraisals on 50 tracts/parcels ranging in size
from 4.44 acres to 157.496 acres to be completed by May 14, 1999. Additionally,
the appraiser may be required to provide appraisals on individual tracts through
June 30, 1999. The contract requires complete appraisals under Standard 1
and a summary appraisal report under Standard 2 in conformance with the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and shall follow additional
specifications, requirements, terms and conditions as set forth in the Invitation
for Offers. The appraiser must meet the following qualifications:
1. Appraiser shall be a State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser.
Appraisers are to submit documentation of licensing and state certification.
A professional appraisal designation is preferred.
2. Any appraiser associated with this contract must not be involved in
proposed or pending litigation between a private landowner and the United
States Department of Energy or the Texas National Research Laboratory or the
Texas General Land Office.
3. Appraiser shall have a minimum of seven years of experience in the appraisal
of land, commercial, retail, and industrial properties.
4. Appraiser shall have actual appraisal experience; and extensive knowledge
of all market factors impacting the value and absorption trends of real estate
in Ellis County, Texas. It is preferred that the appraiser's principle place
of business be located in one of the surrounding counties.
5. Appraisers are to submit, along with bid response, a current company
resume chronologically identifying similar properties appraised listing location,
client name, company name, type of property, and size (square feet, acres,
etc.). Assignments conducted in Ellis County should be submitted in a separate
attachment.
An Invitation for Offer package, containing a list of tracts to be appraised,
maps depicting their locations, a detailed description of the scope of work
and appraisal requirements, can be obtained by contacting one of the following
individuals in the Appraisal Division: Buster Renfro, (512) 463-5072; Stephanie
Huerta; (512) 463-0531; Mark McAnally (512) 463-5231; Bob Glover, (512) 463-5079.
All offers to be considered must be submitted in written form and be received
by the Texas General Land Office, Appraisal Division, Room 735, Stephen F.
Austin Building, 1700 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas, 78701 (Fax Number-
512-475-1570), by close of business on March 11, 1999.
TRD-9900960
Larry R. Soward
Chief Clerk
General Land Office
Filed: February 16, 1999
Correction of Error
The Texas Department of Health adopted new 25 TAC §157.40. The rule
appeared in the January 29, 1999, issue of the
Texas
Register
(24 TexReg 571).
On page 574, §157.40(h)(4)(C), should read “achieve a passing
grade on the department's written examination or pass the National Registry
examination: however,” instead of “achieve a passing grade on
the National Registry examination: however,”.
The Texas Department of Health adopts amendments to 40 TAC §§601.2,
601.4, 601.6, 601.8, 601.10, 601.11, and 601.21. The rules were published
in the January 29, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 559).
On page 559, §601.8(a)(2)-(4) were not included in the publication
of the final rules and should have been included in the rule text as Ҥ601.8(a)(2)-(4)
(No change.)”
The Texas Department of Health proposed repeal to 25 TAC §1.111. The
rule appeared in the January 29, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 486).
On page 486, fifth paragraph of the preamble, the public benefits should
read “...the public benefit anticipated as a result of repeal of this
section would be to remove obsolete material from the rules of the Texas Department
of Health.” instead of “...the public benefits anticipated will
be the addition of health or allied health professionals to the list of professionals
with whom the department may issue a grant or with whom the department may
contract or otherwise engage. The method of selection of these health professionals
or individuals who practice allied health professions will be beneficial in
the quality of service or the cost of the service.”
Correction of Error
The Texas Department of Human Service submitted proposed repeal to 40 TAC
§§98.41-98.44, new §§98.41-98.43, and new
§§98.201-98.212. The rules were published in the January 29,
1999 issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg
525 and 539).
On page 525, §98.41(b)(4) should read:
“(4) for both new construction and additions or remodeling to existing
buildings, an overall plan of the entire building must be drawn or reduced
to fit on an 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch sheet; two reduced plans must be submitted
for file record. See subsection (d)(3) of this section.”
On page 527, §98.41(d)(3) should read:
“(3) Copies of reduced size floor plans on an 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch
sheet must be submitted in duplicate to DHS for record/file use and for the
facility's use and for facility's use for evacuation plan, fire alarm zone
identification, etc. The plan must contain basic legible information such
as scale, room usage names, actual bedroom numbers, doors, windows, and any
other pertinent information.”
On page 539, §98.201(b)(3)(H)(vi) should read:
“(vi) skin care-assistance with skin care including application of
lotions, observations, assessment, or treatment of skin conditions based on
physician's orders for prevention and healing decubiti and chronic skin conditions;
and”
On page 541, §98.208(d) should read:
“(d) The facility must verbally notify DHS by the next DHS workday
and in writing within seven days of verbal notification of the following changes
in facility operations:”
“(1) change in operation, telephone number, and location of administrative
office;”
“(2) change in hours of operation; and”
“(3) change in director, activities director, nurse, or membership
of governing board.”
Pursuant to Title 2, Chapters 22 and 32, of the Human Resources Code and
40 TAC §19.2324, in the March 31, 1995, issue of the
Texas Register
(20 TexReg 2443), the Texas Department of Human Services
(TDHS) is announcing an open solicitation period of 30 days, effective the
date of this public notice, for Kent #132, identified below, where Medicaid
contracted nursing facility occupancy rates exceed the threshold (90% occupancy)
in each of six months in the continuous, June 1998 thru November 1998 six-month
period: 90.5, 92.2, 97.6, 93.3, 93.6, 93.2.
Potential contractors seeking to contract for existing beds which are currently
licensed as nursing home beds or hospital beds in the counties identified
in this public notice must submit a written reply (as described in 40 TAC
§19.2324) to TDHS, to Joe D. Armstrong, Facility Enrollment Section,
Long Term Care-Regulatory, Mailcode E-342, Post Office Box 149030, Austin,
Texas 78714-9030. The written reply must be received by TDHS by
5 p.m. March 29, 1999,
the last day of the open solicitation period.
Potential contractors will be placed on a waiting list for the primary selection
process in the order that the beds which were being proposed for Medicaid
certification were initially licensed. The primary selection process will
be completed on April 8, 1999. If there are insufficient available beds after
the primary selection to reduce occupancy rates to less that 90%, TDHS will
place a public notice in the
Texas Register
announcing an additional open solicitation period for those individuals wishing
to construct a facility.
TRD-9900908
Paul Leche
Agency Liaison
Texas Department of Human Services
Filed: February 11, 1999
Pursuant to Title 2, Chapters 22 and 32, of the Human Resources Code and
40 TAC §19.2324, in the March 31, 1995, issue of the
Texas Register
(20 TexReg 2443), the Texas Department of Human Services
(TDHS) is announcing an open solicitation period of 30 days, effective the
date of this public notice, for San Jacinto #204, identified below, where
Medicaid contracted nursing facility occupancy rates exceed the threshold
(90% occupancy) in each of six months in the continuous, June 1998 thru November
1998 six-month period: 94.7, 98.2, 96.9, 96.6, 97.5.
Potential contractors seeking to contract for existing beds which are currently
licensed as nursing home beds or hospital beds in the counties identified
in this public notice must submit a written reply (as described in 40 TAC
§19.2324) to TDHS, to Joe D. Armstrong, Facility Enrollment Section,
Long Term Care-Regulatory, Mailcode E-342, Post Office Box 149030, Austin,
Texas 78714-9030. The written reply must be received by TDHS by
5 p.m. March 28, 1999,
the last day of the open solicitation period.
Potential contractors will be placed on a waiting list for the primary selection
process in the order that the beds which were being proposed for Medicaid
certification were initially licensed. The primary selection process will
be completed on April 8, 1999. If there are insufficient available beds after
the primary selection to reduce occupancy rates to less that 90%, TDHS will
place a public notice in the
Texas Register
announcing an additional open solicitation period for those individuals wishing
to construct a facility.
TRD-9900909
Paul Leche
Agency Liaison
Texas Department of Human Services
Filed: February 11, 1999
Insurer Services
The following applications have been filed with the Texas Department of
Insurance and are under consideration:
Application to use the assumed name of MSCH HEALTH PLANS by MEMORIAL SISTERS
OF CHARITY HMO, L.L.C. a domestic HMO. The home office is in Houston, Texas.
Application to use the assumed name of MSCH ALLIANCE HEALTH PROVIDERS by
MEMORIAL SISTERS OF CHARITY HMO, L.L.C., a domestic HMO. The home office is
in Houston, Texas.
Application to change the name of MERCANTILE & GENERAL LIFE REASSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA to SUN LIFE OF CANADA REINSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.), a foreign
life company. The home office is in Lansing, Michigan.
Application for admission to the State of Texas by PROFESSIONAL ADVOCATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign property and casualty company. The home office
is in Hunt Valley, Maryland.
Application to change the name of PLAINS INSURANCE COMPANY to HOMESITE
INDEMNITY COMPANY, a foreign property and casualty company. The home office
is in Topeka, Kansas.
Application to change the name of SAFR REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF THE U.S.
to PARTNER REINSURANCE COMPANY OF THE U.S., a foreign property and casualty
company. The home office is in New York, New York.
Any objections must be filed within 20 days after this notice was filed
with the Texas Department of Insurance, addressed to the attention of Kathy
Wilcox, 333 Guadalupe Street, M/C 305-2C, Austin, Texas 78701.
TRD-9900981
Bernice Ross
Deputy Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: February 17, 1999
The Commissioner of Insurance, at a public hearing under Docket No. 2402
scheduled for March 30, 1999 at 9:00 a.m., in Room 100 of the William P. Hobby
Jr. State Office Building, 333 Guadalupe Street in Austin, Texas, will consider
a proposal made in a staff petition. Staff's petition seeks amendment of the
Texas Automobile Rules and Rating Manual (the Manual), to adopt new and/or
adjusted 1998 and 1999 model Private Passenger Automobile Physical Damage
Rating Symbols and revised identification information. Staff's petition (Ref.
No. A-0299-01-I), was filed on February 11, 1999.
The new and/or adjusted symbols for the Manual's Symbols and Identification
Section reflect data compiled on damageability, repairability, and other relevant
loss factors for the listed 1998 and 1999 model vehicles.
A copy of the petition, including an exhibit with the full text of the
proposed amendments to the Manual is available for review in the office of
the Chief Clerk of the Texas Department of Insurance, 333 Guadalupe Street,
Austin, Texas. For further information or to request copies of the petition,
please contact Angie Arizpe at (512) 463-6326; refer to (Ref. No. A-0299-01-I).
Comments on the proposed changes must be submitted in writing within 30
days after publication of the proposal in the
Texas
Register
, to the Office of the Chief Clerk, Texas Department of Insurance,
P.O. Box 149104, MC 113-2A, Austin, Texas 78714-9104. An additional copy of
comments is to be submitted to David Durden, Deputy Commissioner, Automobile
and Homeowners Division, Texas Department of Insurance, P.O. Box 149104, MC
104-5A, Austin, Texas 78714-9104.
This notification is made pursuant to the Insurance Code, Article 5.96,
which exempts it from the requirements of the Government Code, Chapter 2001
(Administrative Procedure Act).
TRD-9900974
Bernice Ross
Deputy Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: February 16, 1999
Notice is hereby given that a hearing under Docket Number 454-99-0294.G
will be held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the State of Administrative
Hearings at 9:00 a.m. on April 27, 1999, and continuing thereafter at dates,
times and places designated by the ALJ until conclusion. The purpose of the
hearing is to establish benchmark rates for Residential Property, Homeowners
and Dwelling Insurance and the setting of rates for residential insurance
written by the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. The hearing will be
held at the State Office of Administrative Hearings, Suite 1100, of the Stephen
F. Austin State Office Building at 1700 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas
78701.
AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION and STATUTES and RULES
INVOLVED:
The hearing is being held under the statutory authority of
Article 5.101 of the Texas Insurance Code (Flexible Rating Program for Certain
Insurance Lines) and Article 21.49 of the Texas Insurance Code. Pursuant to
Article 1.33B(b) of the Texas Insurance Code, the State Office of Administrative
Hearings shall conduct the hearing. Statutes involved include Article 5.101,
Subchapter C of Chapter 5, and Article 21.49.
PROCEDURE:
The procedure of the hearing
will be governed by the Texas Insurance Code, Article 1.33B, the Rules of
Practice and Procedure For Industry-Wide Rate Cases before the department
(Texas Administrative Code, Title 28, Chapter 1, Subchapter L), the Rules
of Practice and Procedure before the department (Texas Administrative Code,
Title 28, Chapter 1, Subchapter A), the Memorandum of Understanding between
the department and the State Office of Administrative Hearings (Texas Administrative
Code, Title 28, Chapter 1, §1.90) and the Administrative Procedure Act
(Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001).
MATTERS to be CONSIDERED:
The commissioner will consider testimony presented and information filed
by insurers, the Office of Public Insurance Counsel and other interested parties
relating to the determination of benchmark rates for Residential Property,
Homeowners and Dwelling Insurance and the setting of rates for non-commercial
insurance written by the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. The commissioner
has the statutory authority and duty pursuant to Article 5.101 to promulgate
a benchmark rate for each line of insurance subject to Article 5.101, including
Residential Property, Homeowners and Dwelling Insurance, after notice and
hearing. The commissioner has the statutory authority and duty pursuant to
Article 21.49 to promulgate non-commercial rates, rating plans, and rate rules
for the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. Relevant data to be used in
the rate case are currently available from the department.
The commissioner shall set the benchmark rate for each subject line of
insurance to produce a range that promotes stability and produces rates that
are just, reasonable, adequate and not excessive for the risks to which they
apply, and not confiscatory. In determining the benchmark rate the commissioner
may give due consideration to the factors listed in Article 5.101, §3(c).
The rating factors for insurance written by the Texas Windstorm Insurance
Association are set out in Article 21.49, §8.
THE COMMISSIONER REQUESTS EVIDENCE on the FOLLOWING
ADDITIONAL MATTERS to be ADDUCED at the HEARING:
1. Factors other than actuarial rate indications which may be relevant
in the setting of benchmark rates including, but not limited to, the extent
and nature of competition in Texas residential property insurance markets;
the availability or lack of availability in Texas residential property insurance
markets; the level and range of rates and rate changes among insurers in Texas
residential property insurance markets; the extent of denials and restrictions
of coverage in Texas residential property insurance markets; and the number,
nature and impact of new entries, mergers and exits by insurers from Texas
residential property insurance markets.
2. Historical premiums written in rate-regulated, non-rate regulated and
surplus lines markets by coverage (for example, homeowners, tenants, dwelling,
extended coverage) from 1988 through 1997.
3. Analysis and recommendations for measures that promote access to insurance
for underserved areas.
4. Review of the actual historical rate of return of the property/casualty
insurance industry on both a statutory accounting principles (SAP) and generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) basis in comparison to prevailing short,
medium and long-term interest rates, actual return on investments earned by
investors in property/casualty insurance stock companies, actual GAAP return
on equity earned by other industries, and actual GAAP return on equity by
all industries combined. Provide the available data with any associated calculations
and analyses.
5. Review of historical underwriting profit results for Texas and countrywide
in the coverages for which underwriting profit provisions are recommended.
6. Review of the actual historical net investment income earned, including
interest and dividends earned, and realized and unrealized capital gains,
by the property/casualty insurance industry in comparison to prevailing short,
medium and long-term interest rates. Provide the available data with any associated
calculations and analyses.
7. Review of the historical premium to surplus and reserves to surplus
ratios of the property/casualty insurance industry.
8. Comparison of the recommended leverage ratios with those that would
result from an allocation of total property/casualty industry consolidated
surplus by line of insurance based upon the combination of net premiums earned
plus mean net reserves, plus the ratios which result from any additional adjustments
necessary for Texas-specific variations in countrywide relationships and/or
to reflect the effects of converting SAP surplus to GAAP net worth.
9. The relative risk of the property/casualty insurance industry in comparison
to other industries and all industries combined as viewed by an investor,
defined as either a purchaser of stock or some other contributor of capital
to the insurance enterprise.
10. A discussion of how capital market catastrophe risk transfers do change,
or may change, the riskiness of property insurance in the Texas property insurance
market, and how changes in the distribution of property exposures have affected
the riskiness of property insurance markets in Texas as compared to property
exposure distributions in past years.
11. The impact of the property/casualty insurance industry's debt to equity
ratio and liabilities to equity ratio currently and over time on the recommendation
for a target rate of return. If cost of capital considerations include reliance
upon a sample group of companies, such reliance should be supported with information
regarding:
(a) the extent to which the sample companies have incorporated debt into
their capital structures, and
(b) the relative leverage of the property/casualty operating companies
owned by the sample companies when compared with the property/casualty industry
as a whole, with leverage measured by the ratio of premiums plus reserves
(loss, loss adjustment, and unearned premium reserves) to consolidated policyholder
surplus.
12. A thorough review of the current assignment of counties to territories
to identify any inequities which should be corrected. Recommendations should
address both assignments of counties to territories, and any needed adjustments
to zone boundaries. This inquiry applies to the following coverages: Homeowners,
Extended Coverage, Additional Extended Coverage, and Physical Loss Form.
13. Analysis and recommendations for geographically-based rate relativities
including, but not limited to, territorial relativities, by coverage. Analysis
and recommendations for the appropriate weight for state, zone, and territory
experience in selecting geographically-based rate relativities.
14. An actuarial analysis of the use of internal residential property data
in loss trending given the volatility of the trend indications derived from
such data, including the possibility of trend analysis by cause of loss within
coverage, as well as an analysis of the use of frequency trends in conjunction
with external trend data.
15. An actuarial analysis of the trending of premiums, and the logical
consistency of the premium trending procedures that have been used in recent
benchmark proceedings with the use of external trend indices, changes in which
may bear little relationship with changes in the amounts of insurance purchased.
16. A review of the effect on internal loss trends of the changing mix
of deductibles purchased and the feasibility of adjusting all experience used
in ratemaking to the current 1% deductible base rate level or some other common
level(s).
17. An actuarial review of the reasonability of the current amount of insurance
rate relativity curves used for rating Homeowners Insurance policies.
18. An actuarial review of the current rating system for dwelling policies,
wherein premiums are directly proportional to the amount of insurance. The
study should include the effect of fixed expenses.
19. Recommendations for the appropriate charges for the various deductible
amounts less than the base 1% deductible for residential property insurance
other than Homeowners Insurance currently authorized in the Texas Personal
Lines Manual.
20. An actuarial analysis of procedures used to reflect catastrophes in
residential property ratemaking including both traditional ratemaking approaches
where all catastrophes are reflected in a single adjustment and approaches
where hurricane losses and other windstorm and hail losses are considered
separately, and the effect of such approaches at the zone and territory level.
21. An actuarial analysis of methodologies where the loss ratios in catastrophe
years used in ratemaking enter the ratemaking process at a level approximating
non-catastrophe experience rather than at a maximum loss ratio.
22. Commentary on the appropriate benchmark rate effective date to use
in adjusting premiums to current rate levels given that companies do not necessarily
implement the new benchmark rate on the effective date (i.e., rate regulated
insurers may implement the rates up to 90 days after effective date).
23. An Actuarial review of the calculation of the credit for HO Endorsement
140, Windstorm, Hurricane & Hail Exclusion Agreement, including the methodology
for calculating the credit and any rate off-balance a change would require.
Under the current procedure, the credit may exceed the total homeowners premium
in extreme cases.
MOTIONS for ADMISSION as a PARTY:
Anyone
who wishes to participate in the hearing as a party must file a motion for
admission as a party by 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 1999.
PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE:
An initial prehearing conference will be held before the ALJ at 9:00 a.m.
on March 17, 1999, at the State Office of Administrative Hearings, Suite 1100
of the Stephen F. Austin State Office Building at 1700 North Congress Avenue,
Austin, Texas 78701. The prehearing conference will be held for the following
purposes:
(1) ruling on the motions for admission of parties;
(2) setting the procedural deadlines for discovery, motions, and prefiled
testimony;
(3) such other matters as may aid in the simplification of the proceedings.
Additional prehearing conferences will be scheduled as the ALJ deems necessary
to rule on other matters as may aid in the simplification of the proceedings.
COMMISSIONER'S POLICIES:
Pursuant to Texas Government Code §2001.058(c), the commissioner is
required to provide the ALJ with a written statement of applicable rules and
policies. The applicable procedural rules are set out above. The commissioner's
policies regarding the setting of benchmark rates under Article 5.101 of the
Texas Insurance Code are set out below. The purpose of this policy statement
is to provide the ALJ and parties with notice regarding the types of evidence
parties should present in the hearing. This policy statement, however, is
not intended to limit the type of evidence a party may offer at the hearing.
The pertinent commissioner's policies are as follows:
1. It is the commissioner's policy to consider all relevant evidence and
issues in making a determination of rates. Detailed explanation of the commissioner's
policies as applied to previous homeowners benchmark rate cases are set out
in Order 95-0525 as amended nunc pro tunc by Order 95-0614 (1994 benchmark);
Order 96-0836 as amended nunc pro tunc by Order 96-1047 (1995 benchmark);
Order 97-0840 (1996 benchmark); and order 98-1314 (1997 benchmark). To assure
a complete record, the commissioner requests the ALJ to:
(a) take judicial notice of: i) 28 Texas Administrative Code §§5.14000-5.14011(frequently
referred to as the "Temporary Rate Reduction Rules"), as adopted by the commissioner;
ii) Commissioner's Order Number 95-0525, entitled "RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, HOMEOWNERS,
DWELLING, FARM & RANCH OWNERS AND CATASTROPHE PROPERTY INSURANCE BENCHMARK
RATES, RATES AND FLEXIBILITY BANDS", dated May 29, 1995, as amended nunc pro
tunc by Commissioner's Order Number 95-0614, entitled "RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY,
HOMEOWNERS, DWELLING, FARM & RANCH OWNERS AND CATASTROPHE PROPERTY INSURANCE
BENCHMARK RATES, RATES AND FLEXIBILITY BANDS", dated July 21, 1995; iii) Commissioner's
Order Number 96-0836, entitled, "RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, HOMEOWNERS, DWELLING,
FARM & RANCH, FARM & RANCH OWNERS AND RATES FOR CATASTROPHE PROPERTY
INSURANCE", and dated July 29, 1996, as amended nunc pro tunc by Commissioner's
Order Number 96-1047, entitled, "RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, HOMEOWNERS, DWELLING,
FARM & RANCH, FARM & RANCH OWNERS AND RATES FOR CATASTROPHE PROPERTY
INSURANCE", dated September 12, 1996; iv) Commissioner's Order Number 97-0840,
entitled, "BENCHMARK RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY: HOMEOWNERS, TENANTS,
DWELLING FIRE, EXTENDED COVERAGE, ADDITIONAL EXTENDED COVERAGE AND PHYSICAL
LOSS FORM", dated August 21, 1997; v) Commissioner's Order Number 98-1314,
entitled "BENCHMARK RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, HOMEOWNERS, TENANTS, DWELLING,
FIRE, EXTENDED COVERAGE, ADDITIONAL EXTENDED COVERAGE, AND PHYSICAL LOSS FORM,"
dated November 12, 1998; and
(b) ensure that exhibits accompanying testimony from the parties' witnesses
are submitted and are made available in both paper and electronic format.
The electronic format should be 3.5 inch high-density diskette in a DOS or
Windows spreadsheet or other format readable by a machine running DOS or Windows.
Parameters, assumptions and references to underlying data should be identifiable
in the electronic exhibits.
2. It is the commissioner's policy that the benchmark rate need not equal
the actuarial indication for any particular coverage, class and territory.
The actuarial indication is an important consideration, but other factors,
such as those specified in Article 5.101, may be used if such action better
achieves the goal of promoting stability and producing rates that are just,
reasonable, adequate, and not excessive for the risks to which they apply,
and not confiscatory.
3. It is the commissioner's policy that so-called "Fast Track" data reports
not be used directly in the rate development analysis. To the extent trend
analysis relies upon actual historical loss experience, such analysis should
rely upon trend data reported to the department and provided by the department
to the parties. Fast Track data are not intended for ratemaking and represent
only a portion of the industry's experience.
4. It is the commissioner's policy that if underwriting profit provisions
are calculated to reflect a target return on equity measured under GAAP, estimates
of future expense ratios, to the extent these estimates are based upon historical
expense experience, shall be based upon historical ratios of expenses to written
premiums. Alternatively, if estimates of future expenses are based upon historical
ratios of expenses to earned premium, then the underwriting profit provision
shall be adjusted in consideration of expected increases in prepaid expenses
which are recognized as an asset under GAAP.
5. It is the commissioner's policy that prospective premium and loss trends
should be of equal periods of time.
CONDUCT of the HEARING:
Each page of any exhibit offered in evidence at a hearing before the commissioner,
including prefiled testimony, must be numbered consecutively at the center
of the bottom margin, be on 8 1/2" by 11" paper, and must be three-hole-punched
along the left margin. The front page of each exhibit should indicate that
the exhibit would be part of the record of a public hearing before the Commissioner
of Insurance and should identify the subject of the hearing, the docket number,
the date of the hearings, and the party offering the exhibit. On the front
page, the party offering the exhibit should also describe the exhibit and
leave a space for numbering the exhibit.
For example:
Public Hearing before the Commissioner of Insurance
Subject of Hearing: Residential Property Insurance Benchmark Rate Setting
and Texas Windstorm Insurance Association Rate Setting
Docket Number ____________
Date: _____________
Exhibit Number __________
Description of Exhibit __________
PARTIES OFFERING EXHIBITS into EVIDENCE at the
HEARING SHOULD be PREPARED WITH SUFFICIENT COPIES of EACH PROPOSED EXHIBIT
to FURNISH the FOLLOWING:
1. the original exhibit, which will be tendered to the ALJ for marking
and retention for the official record, after which the attorneys shall use
an exact photocopy of such marked exhibit in the examination of the witness;
and
2. one copy each for every other party admitted to the hearing.
All deadlines in this notice are subject to change at the ALJ's discretion
to the extent permitted by statute and rule.
In contested cases, all parties are entitled to the assistance of their
counsel before administrative agencies.
TRD-9900869
Bernice Ross
Deputy Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: February 10, 1999
The following third party administrator (TPA) applications have been filed
with the Texas Department of Insurance and are under consideration:
Application for admission to Texas of Select Benefits Group, Inc., (doing
business under the assumed name of Dental Select America, Inc.), a foreign
third party administrator. The home office is Draper, Utah.
Any objections must be filed within 20 days after this notice was filed
with the Secretary of State, addressed to the attention of Charles M. Waits,
MC 107-5A, 333 Guadalupe, Austin, Texas 78714-9104.
TRD-9900955
Bernice Ross
Deputy Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: February 12, 1999
Notice of Amendment to Request for Proposals Relating to Consulting Services (Air/Water/Waste)
Contract Number 582-9-00731, Project 99-BPR
NOTICE
. This formal Notice to Amend a consulting
service contract is filed under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter
2254. In the November 13, 1998, issue of the
Texas
Register
(23 TexReg 11735), the Field Operations Division of the Office
of Compliance and Enforcement at the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) announced that it would be issuing a "Request for Proposals (RFP)
Relating to Consulting Services (Air/Water/Waste)" to qualified companies/organizations
to perform a strategic assessment and management review of the business systems
and procedures involved in the Site Inspection process of each of its program
areas. The Consultant will conduct a Current System Analysis to objectively
review current development efforts undertaken by the Agency. The Consultant
will then analyze business processes, benchmark best practices, identify efficiencies
and inefficiencies associated with the current structure, and evaluate opportunities
to improve p
erformance, and reduce redundancies. The Consultant
will make recommendations for changes in business practices and organizational
structure which will be utilized in the Agency's effort to construct a more
unified inspection process.
The TNRCC awarded the Contract to:
Information Engineering
Group, Inc. 1507 Osprey Ridge Loop, Lago Vista, Texas 78645
to perform
the consulting services described above. The total value of the Contract was
Major Amendment Number 1, signed
February 11, 1999
, will increase the Contract's value by
$12,000
for a total value of
$86,000.
The Contract
end date will be extended to
April 16, 1999,
with the final document presented to the agency
April
14, 1999
. The scope will be revised to include three (3) additional
tasks to integrate enforcement information into the current contract. The
additional tasks will consist of a Current System Analysis of the Enforcement
Division software system, a Joint Application Development (JAD) Session with
the Enforcement Division personnel and integration of both the Enforcement
and Field Operations findings into a single Data Model and Activity Hierarchy.
The purpose of this Contract is to perform a strategic assessment and management
review of the business systems and procedures involved in the Site Inspection
process of each of the five primary business areas conducted by the Field
Operations Division of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement. With Major
Amendment Number 1, the Contractor will also perform a strategic assessment
and management review of the business system and procedures involved in the
Enforcement Division. The program areas now consist of Air, Water, Waste,
Complaints and Emergency Response in the Field Operations Division and Air,
Water, Waste, Multi-Media and Occupational Certification in the Enforcement
Division. The Contractor will conduct a Current System Analysis to objectively
review current development efforts undertaken by the agency. The Contractor
will analyze the business processes, benchmark best practices, identify efficiencies
and inefficiencies associated with the current structure, and evaluate opportunities
to improve performance, reduce redundancy, and increase efficiency. In pursuing
these tasks, the contractor will interview, survey, and/or conduct focus groups
with appropriate TNRCC Field Operations and Enforcement staff, including regional
office staff, as required to gather the necessary background information for
this project.
The Consultant is required to present weekly time sheets to the agency
during the period from Contract signature to Contract termination. The final
findings Report is now due
April 14, 1999
(draft
due April 13, 1999). The Findings Report consists of findings from the Field
Operations Division software systems analysis (draft due January 26, 1999);
the findings from the Emergency Response and Complaints JAD sessions (draft
due February 2, 1999); the findings from the Water JAD sessions (draft due
February 2, 1999); the findings from the Air JAD sessions (draft due February
16, 1999); the findings from the Waste JAD sessions (draft due February 16,
1999); draft of the Data Model, Activity Hierarchy, and Unique Subject Area
list (draft due March 2, 1999); the findings from the Air, Water, Waste, Emergency
Response and Complaints sessions (draft due March 18, 1999); the findings
from the Enforcement software system analysis (draft due April 9, 1999); findings
from the Enforcement JAD session (draft due April 9, 1999); and draft of the
integrated Data Model, Activity Hierarchy, and Unique Area list (draft due
April 9, 1999).
In addition, the Contractor will make recommendations for changes in business
practices and organizational structure. The Contractor will produce a high
level Activity Hierarchy and high level Data Model as described in the Scope
of Work for Field Operations and Enforcement to utilize in their efforts to
construct a more unified inspection and enforcement process.
Any requests for additional information should be directed to: Robert Villarreal,
MC-174, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin,
Texas 78711-3087, telefax: (512) 239-0404, phone: (512) 239-1933.
TRD-9900982
Margaret Hoffman
Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: February 17, 1999
The State Office Administrative Hearing has issued Proposal for Decision
and Order to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission on February
4, 1999 in the matter of an Enforcement Action Against Jimmy Smith, Respondent;
SOAH Docket No. 582-98-1699; TNRCC Docket No. 97-0963-PST-E. This posting
is Notice of Opportunity to comment on Proposal for Decision and Order. Comment
period will end 30 days from date of publication.
TRD-9900983
Douglas A. Kitts
Agenda Coordinator
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: February 17, 1999
Request for Proposals
CONSULTANT PROPOSAL REQUEST
This request by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
for consultant services is filed under the provisions of Government Code,
Chapter 2254.
NCTCOG intends to select a consultant firm to evaluate the use of alternative
fuel vehicles at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. The project
will consist of developing fueling infrastructure, quantifying demand for
fueling by airport tenants and other nearby fleets, developing strategies
to implement the use of alternative fuel vehicles and creating a public awareness
campaign.
DUE DATE
Proposals must be submitted no later than 5 p.m. Central Time on Friday,
March 5, 1999, to Lynn Hayes, Principal Transportation Planner, North Central
Texas Council of Governments, 616 Six Flags Drive, P.O. Box 5888, Arlington,
Texas 76005-5888. For more information and copies of the Request for Proposals,
contact Lynn Hayes, (817) 695-9240.
CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURES
The firm selected to perform this study will be recommended by a Project
Review Committee. The PRC will use evaluation criteria and methodology consistent
with the scope of services contained in the Request for Proposals. The NCTCOG
Executive Board will review the PRC's recommendations and, if found acceptable,
will issue a contract award.
REGULATIONS
NCTCOG, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78
Statute 252, 41 United States Code 2000d to 2000d-4; and Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the
Secretary, Part 1, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the
Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such act, hereby notifies
all proposers that it will affirmatively assure that in regard to any contract
entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises
will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals in response to this
invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color,
sex, age, national origin, or disability in consideration of an award.
TRD-9900947
R. Michael Eastland
Executive Director
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Filed: February 12, 1999
Notices of Application filed for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Provider Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.147
Notice is given to the public of an application filed with the Public Utility
Commission of Texas on January 28, 1999 for designation as an eligible telecommunications
provider pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.147.
Project Title and Number: Application of XIT Telecommunications & Technology,
Inc. for designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Provider Pursuant to
P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.147. Project Number 20385.
The Application: XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Inc. (XTT) filed
an application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas for designation
as an eligible telecommunications provider (ETP) pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.147. XTT is requesting ETP designation in order to be eligible
to receive support from the Texas Universal Service Fund.
Persons who wish to comment on this application should notify the Public
Utility Commission of Texas by March 18, 1999. Requests for further information
should be mailed to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, PO Box 13326,
Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or you may call the Public Utility Commission's
Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 or (888) 782-8477. Hearing-
and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the
commission at (512) 936-7136 or use Relay Texas (800) 735-2989 to reach the
commission's toll free number (888) 782-8477.
TRD-9900969
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 16, 1999
Notice is given to the public of an application filed with the Public Utility
Commission of Texas on January 28, 1999 for designation as an eligible telecommunications
provider pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.147.
Project Title and Number: Application of W.T. Services, Inc. for Designation
as an Eligible Telecommunications Provider Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.147. Project Number 20386.
The Application: W.T. Services, Inc. (WTS) filed an application with the
Public Utility Commission of Texas for designation as an eligible telecommunications
provider (ETP) pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.147. WTS is requesting
ETP designation in order to be eligible to receive support from the Texas
Universal Service Fund.
Persons who wish to comment on this application should notify the Public
Utility Commission of Texas by March 18, 1999. Requests for further information
should be mailed to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326,
Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or you may call the Public Utility Commission's
Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 or (888) 782-8477. Hearing-
and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the
commission at (512) 936-7136 or use Relay Texas (800) 735-2989 to reach the
commission's toll free number (888) 782-8477.
TRD-9900970
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 16, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) an application on February 4, 1999, pursuant to P.U.C.
Substantive Rule §23.103 for approval of an intraLATA equal access implementation
plan.
Project Number: Application of NEXTLINK Texas, Inc. for Approval of IntraLATA
Equal Access Implementation Plan Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103.
Project Number 20451.
The Application: NEXTLINK Texas, Inc.'s (NEXTLINK) plan provides a proposal
that upon implementation, would provide customers with the ability to route
intraLATA toll calls automatically, without the use of access codes, to the
telecommunications services provider of their designation. NEXTLINK's intraLATA
equal access implementation plan will adopt a two- PIC methodology which will
allow a telephone subscriber to select one primary interexchange carrier (PIC)
for all 1+ and 0+ interLATA toll calls and either the same carrier or a different
carrier for all 1+ and 0+ intraLATA toll calls. NEXTLINK began offering dialing
parity for intraLATA toll calls simultaneously with local service on December
14, 1998.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas, 78711-3326,
or call the Public Utility Commission Office of Customer Protection at (512)
936-7120 on or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals
with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All
comments should reference project number 20451.
TRD-9900920
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 12, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) an application on February 8, 1999, pursuant to P.U.C.
Substantive Rule §23.103 for approval of an intraLATA equal access implementation
plan.
Project Number: Application of Intermedia Communications, Inc. for Approval
of IntraLATA Equal Access Implementation Plan Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103. Project Number 20461.
The Application: Intermedia Communications, Inc.'s (Intermedia) plan provides
a proposal that upon implementation would provide customers with the ability
to route intraLATA toll calls automatically, without the use of access codes,
to the telecommunications services provider of their designation. Intermedia
intends to offer dialing parity for intraLATA toll calls at the time that
the commission approves its implementation plan. Intermedia's intraLATA equal
access implementation plan will adopt a two-PIC methodology which will allow
a telephone subscriber to select one primary interexchange carrier (PIC) for
all 1+ and 0+ interLATA toll calls and either the same carrier or a different
carrier for all 1+ and 0+ intraLATA toll calls.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas, 78711-3326,
or call the Public Utility Commission Office of Customer Protection at (512)
936-7120 on or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals
with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All
comments should reference project number 20461.
TRD-9900921
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 12, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in Public Utility Commission Substantive
Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Kerrville Telephone Company for
Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline Contained in Public Utility Commission
Substantive Rule §23.103(f). Project Number 20429.
The Application: Kerrville Telephone Company (Kerrville) requests a waiver
and extension of the filing deadline contained in Public Utility Commission
Substantive Rule §23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications
utility (DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated
with the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a
DCTU must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application
for approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
Kerrville maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur
until February 2, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. Kerrville asserts that it incurred intraLATA
equal access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under Public Utility Commission
Substantive Rule §23.103(f). However, due to the lack of actual data,
Kerrville requests the commission extend the filing deadline for its application
under Public Utility Commission Substantive Rule §23.103(f) from February
15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual cost data
to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between Kerrville
and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20429.
TRD-9900881
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 10, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Community Telephone Company, Inc.
for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f). Project Number 20431.
The Application: Community Telephone Company, Inc. (Community) requests
a waiver and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications
utility (DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated
with the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a
DCTU must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application
for approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
Community maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur
until February 1, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. Community asserts that it incurred intraLATA
equal access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f). However, due to the lack of actual data, Community requests
the commission extend the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C.
Substantive Rule §23.103(f) from February 15, 1999 until September 15,
1999, in order to accumulate actual cost data to compute a proper division
of the implementation costs between Community and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20431.
TRD-9900889
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Industry Telephone Company for
Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Number 20432.
The Application: Industry Telephone Company (Industry) requests a waiver
and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility
(DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with
the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU
must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application for
approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
Industry maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur
until January 8, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. Industry asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, Industry requests the commission
extend the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f) from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order
to accumulate actual cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation
costs between Industry and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20432.
TRD-9900890
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Border to Border Communications
for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f). Project Number 20433.
The Application: Border to Border Communications (BTB) requests a waiver
and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility
(DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with
the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU
must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application for
approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
BTB maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 8, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. BTB asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, BTB requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
BTB and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20433.
TRD-9900891
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Hill Country Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f). Project Number 20434.
The Application: Hill Country Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (HCTC) requests
a waiver and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications
utility (DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated
with the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a
DCTU must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application
for approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
HCTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 6, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. HCTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, HCTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
HCTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20434.
TRD-9900892
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Cameron Telephone Company for
Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Number 20435.
The Application: Cameron Telephone Company (CTC) requests a waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
which allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility (DCTU) to impose
an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with the implementation
of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU must file with the
commission by February 15 of each year an application for approval of a tariff
imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge is computed using a formula
based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
CTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
February 7, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. CTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, CTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
CTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20435.
TRD-9900893
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Coleman County Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f). Project Number 20436.
The Application: Coleman County Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (CCTC) requests
a waiver and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications
utility (DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated
with the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a
DCTU must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application
for approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
CCTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 19, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. CCTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, CCTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
CCTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20436.
TRD-9900894
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f). Project Number 20437.
The Application: Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (PLTC) requests
a waiver and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications
utility (DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated
with the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a
DCTU must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application
for approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
PLTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 1, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. PLTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, PLTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
PLTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20437.
TRD-9900895
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Valley Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f). Project Number 20438.
The Application: Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (VTC) requests a waiver
and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility
(DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with
the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU
must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application for
approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
VTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 1, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. VTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, VTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
VTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20438.
TRD-9900896
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Southwest Texas Telephone Company
for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f). Project Number 20439.
The Application: Southwest Texas Telephone Company (SWTX) requests a waiver
and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility
(DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with
the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU
must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application for
approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
SWTX maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 1, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. SWTX asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, SWTX requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
SWTX and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20439.
TRD-9900897
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Fort Bend Telephone Company for
Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Number 20440.
The Application: Fort Bend Telephone Company (FBTC) requests a waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
which allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility (DCTU) to impose
an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with the implementation
of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU must file with the
commission by February 15 of each year an application for approval of a tariff
imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge is computed using a formula
based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
FBTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 1, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. FBTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, FBTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
FBTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20440.
TRD-9900898
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Central Texas Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f). Project Number 20441.
The Application: Central Texas Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (CTTC) requests
a waiver and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications
utility (DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated
with the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a
DCTU must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application
for approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
CTTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 1, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. CTTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, CTTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
CTTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20441.
TRD-9900899
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Brazoria Telephone Company for
Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Number 20442.
The Application: Brazoria Telephone Company (BTC) requests a waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
which allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility (DCTU) to impose
an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with the implementation
of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU must file with the
commission by February 15 of each year an application for approval of a tariff
imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge is computed using a formula
based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
BTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 1, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. BTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, BTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
BTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20442.
TRD-9900900
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Taylor Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f). Project Number 20443.
The Application: Taylor Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (TTC) requests a waiver
and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility
(DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with
the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU
must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application for
approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
TTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
February 7, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. TTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, TTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
TTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the Commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20443.
TRD-9900901
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f). Project Number 20444.
The Application: Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (GVTC) requests
a waiver and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications
utility (DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated
with the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a
DCTU must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application
for approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
GVTC maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
February 8, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. GVTC asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, GVTC requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
GVTC and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20444.
TRD-9900902
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 3, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Etex Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f). Project Number 20445.
The Application: Etex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (ETEX) requests a waiver
and extension of the filing deadline contained in P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility
(DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with
the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU
must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application for
approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
ETEX maintains that since implementation of intraLATA did not occur until
January 6, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated on estimated
intraLATA usage information. ETEX asserts that it incurred intraLATA equal
access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f).
However, due to the lack of actual data, ETEX requests the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order to accumulate actual
cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation costs between
ETEX and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20445.
TRD-9900903
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 4, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in Public Utility Commission Substantive
Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of CenturyTel of San Marcos, Inc.,
CenturyTel of Port Aransas, Inc., and CenturyTel of Lake Dallas, Inc. for
Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline Contained in Public Utility Commission
Substantive Rule §23.103(f). Project Number 20448.
The Application: CenturyTel of San Marcos, Inc., CenturyTel of Port Aransas,
Inc., and CenturyTel of Lake Dallas, Inc. (Century Companies) request a waiver
and extension of the filing deadline contained in Public Utility Commission
Substantive Rule §23.103(f) which allows a dominant certified telecommunications
utility (DCTU) to impose an annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated
with the implementation of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a
DCTU must file with the commission by February 15 of each year an application
for approval of a tariff imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge
is computed using a formula based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
The Century Companies maintain that since implementation of intraLATA did
not occur until January 1, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated
on estimated intraLATA usage information. The Century Companies assert that
they incurred intraLATA equal access costs in 1998 which are recoverable under
Public Utility Commission Substantive Rule §23.103(f). However, due to
the lack of actual data, the Century Companies request the commission extend
the filing deadline for its application under Public Utility Commission Substantive
Rule §23.103(f) from February 15, 1999 until September 15, 1999, in order
to accumulate actual cost data to compute a proper division of the implementation
costs between the Century Companies and the intraLATA toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20448.
TRD-9900880
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 10, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on February 4, 1999, for waiver and
extension of the filing deadline contained in Public Utility Commission Substantive
Rule §23.103(f).
Project Title and Number: Application of Sugar Land Telephone Company and
Texas Alltel, Inc. for Waiver and Extension of the Filing Deadline Contained
in Public Utility Commission Substantive Rule §23.103(f). Project Number
20449.
The Application: Sugar Land Telephone Company and Texas Alltel, Inc. (Sugar
Land and Texas Alltel) request a waiver and extension of the filing deadline
contained in Public Utility Commission Substantive Rule §23.103(f) which
allows a dominant certified telecommunications utility (DCTU) to impose an
annual surcharge to recover certain costs associated with the implementation
of intraLATA equal access. To impose a surcharge a DCTU must file with the
commission by February 15 of each year an application for approval of a tariff
imposing this surcharge. The amount of the surcharge is computed using a formula
based on the total intraLATA toll minutes of use.
Sugar Land and Texas Alltel maintain that since implementation of intraLATA
did not occur until January 1, 1999, any cost data would, at best, be calculated
on estimated intraLATA usage information. Sugar Land and Texas Alltel assert
that they incurred intraLATA equal access costs in 1998 which are recoverable
under Public Utility Commission Substantive Rule §23.103(f). However,
due to the lack of actual data, Sugar Land and Texas Alltel request the commission
extend the filing deadline for its application under Public Utility Commission
Substantive Rule §23.103(f) from February 15, 1999 until September 15,
1999, in order to accumulate actual cost data to compute a proper division
of the implementation costs between Sugar Land and Texas Alltel and the intraLATA
toll providers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before March 5, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Project Number 20449.
TRD-9900879
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 10, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) an application on February 5, 1999, pursuant to P.U.C.
Substantive Rule §23.94 for approval of a rate change.
Tariff Title and Number: Application of Lake Livingston Telephone Company,
Inc. for Approval to Offer New Optional Services Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.94. Tariff Control Number 20456.
The Application: Lake Livingston Telephone Company, Inc. (Lake Livingston
or the company) seeks approval to offer new optional Custom Calling Service
features. The following features are referenced in this application and will
be available to all residential and business customers: anonymous call rejection,
automatic callback, automatic recall, call forwarding, calling name delivery,
calling number delivery, cancel call waiting, call waiting, customer originated
trace, distinctive ringing, do not disturb, selective call acceptance, selective
call forwarding, selective call rejection, speed calling, 8 & 30 code,
teen service, three-way calling and warm line. Lake Livingston proposes an
effective date of June 1, 1999. The company estimates the proposed new services
will result in an increase of $31,817 in intrastate gross annual revenues.
Subscribers of Lake Livingston have a right to petition the commission
for review of this proposed increase by filing a protest with the commission.
The protest must be signed by a minimum of 5%, or 53 affected local service
customers, and must be received by the commission no later than April 30,
1999.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas, 78711-3326,
or call the Public Utility Commission Office of Customer Protection at (512)
936-7120 on or before April 30, 1999. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals
with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please
reference Tariff Control Number 20456.
TRD-9900971
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 16, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas of an application on February 1, 1999, to amend a certificate of
convenience and necessity pursuant to §§14.001, 32.001, 36.001,
37.051, and 37.054, 37.056, 37.057, 37.058 of the Public Utility Regulatory
Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated (Vernon 1998) (PURA). A summary of the
application follows.
Docket Title and Number: Application of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative,
Inc. to Amend a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Proposed
Transmission Line within Cooke County, Docket Number 20422 before the Public
Utility Commission of Texas.
The Application: In Docket Number 20422, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative,
Inc. (Brazos) requests approval to construct 5.2 miles of 138-kV (to be initially
operated at 69-kV) transmission line, to be known as Mountain Springs transmission
line, and the proposed Mountain Springs substation within Cooke County. The
proposed project is being constructed to improve service and reliability in
the area of the Mountain Springs community, which has experienced considerable
growth and development. Currently, this area of Brazos' electrical system
is served over long feeder lines from the Salem substation.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 within
15 days of this notice. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-9900882
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 10, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the intent to file with the Public Utility
Commission of Texas an application pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.27
for an addition to the existing PLEXAR-Custom service for SBC Communications
in San Antonio, Texas
Tariff Title and Number: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's Notice of
Intent to File an Application for an Addition to the existing PLEXAR-Custom
service for SBC Communications in San Antonio, Texas Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §23.27. Tariff Control Number 20466.
The Application: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company is requesting approval
of its application for an addition to the existing PLEXAR-Custom service for
SBC Communications in San Antonio, Texas. PLEXAR-Custom service is a central
office-based PBX-type serving arrangement designed to meet the specific needs
of customers who have communication system requirements of 75 or more station
lines. The designated exchange for this service is the San Antonio exchange,
and the geographic market for this specific PLEXAR-Custom service is the San
Antonio LATA.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120.
Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact
the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-9900888
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 11, 1999
Notice is given to the public of the intent to file with the Public Utility
Commission of Texas an application pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.27
for an addition to the existing PLEXAR-Custom service for Nations Bank in
Austin, Texas.
Tariff Title and Number: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's Notice of
Intent to File an Application for an Addition to the existing PLEXAR-Custom
service for Nations Bank in Austin, Texas Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule
§23.27. Tariff Control Number 20484.
The Application: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company is requesting approval
of its application for an addition to the existing PLEXAR-Custom service for
Nations Bank in Austin, Texas. PLEXAR-Custom service is a central office-based
PBX-type serving arrangement designed to meet the specific needs of customers
who have communication system requirements of 75 or more station lines. The
designated exchange for this service is the Austin exchange, and the geographic
market for this specific PLEXAR-Custom service is the Austin LATA.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120.
Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact
the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-9900972
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 16, 1999
The Public Utility Commission of Texas will conduct a public hearing in
rulemaking Project Number 19865,
Review of Substantive
Rule §23.23 as it Relates to Electric Service Providers Including Modifications
and Movement to Chapter 25
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure
Act, Texas Government Code §2001.029, at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March
9, 1999. This public hearing will be conducted in Hearing Room Gee located
on the seventh floor of the William B. Travis Building, 1701 North Congress
Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701.
The public hearing will focus on proposed new rule §§25.243 relating
to Rate Design; 25.235 relating to Fuel Costs - General; 25.236 relating to
Recovery of Fuel Costs; 25.237 relating to Fuel Factors; and 25.238 relating
to Purchased Power Cost Recovery Factors as published in the December 25,
1999 issue of the
Texas Register
(23 TexReg
12980).
The hearing will begin with a panel discussion of the first three questions
published in the preamble in the December 25, 1999 issue of the
Texas Register
(23 TexReg 12981) relating to the sharing of margins
from off-system energy sales. Any party wishing to participate in the panel
should contact Christopher Green, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Regulatory
Affairs-Legal Division, at (512) 936-7278. Parties may then briefly respond
to other parties' comments filed in rulemaking Project Number 19865.
If you have any questions in regards to this proceeding, contact Christopher
Green, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Regulatory Affairs-Legal Division,
at (512) 936-7278.
TRD-9900968
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 16, 1999
The following is a schedule for the implementation of the full switchover
option pursuant to §25.27 relating to Retail Electric Service Switchovers.
For this purpose compliance tariffs are in effect upon approval of the compliance
tariffs by the regulatory authority or, in the case of cooperatives deregulated
pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) Chapter 36, Subchapter
F, upon the commission's completion of its review of the compliance tariffs
for compliance with this section, pursuant to PURA §36.254.
First, Central Power and Light Company (CPL), Southwestern Electric Power
Company (SWEPCO), West Texas Utilities Company (WTU), and all cooperatives
that have the right to serve areas for which CPL, SWEPCO, or WTU also have
the right to serve shall make compliance filings on March 26, 1999. Second,
Texas-New Mexico Power Co. (TNP), Texas Utilities Electric Co. (TU), Southwestern
Electric Service Company (SESCO), and all cooperatives that have the right
to serve areas for which TNP, TU, or SESCO also have the right to serve shall
make compliance filings on April 23, 1999. Third, Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
(EGS), Houston Lighting & Power Co. (HL&P), and Southwestern Public
Service Co. (SPS) and all cooperatives that have the right to serve areas
for which EGS, HL&P, or SPS also have the right to serve shall make compliance
filings by May 21, 1999. Fourth, all electric utilities not covered by the
above three groupings and that have the right to serve areas for which another
electric or municipally owned utility has the right to serve shall make compliance
filings by June 18, 1999. If an electric utility has the right to serve in
areas contained in more than one of the above groupings, then it shall make
its filing in the first grouping. For example, if a cooperative serves in
an area served by SWEPCO and also serves in an area served by TU, it will
make its compliance filing at the same time as SWEPCO. The utilities in the
first grouping will be considered in the same docket. The utilities in the
second grouping will be considered in a single docket separate from the utilities
in the first grouping. EGS, HL&P, and SPS will each have a separate docket,
which will include the associated cooperatives.
Within two calendar days of making the compliance filing described above,
each electric utility shall serve written notice of its compliance filing
to municipalities within which it serves areas that other utilities also have
a right to provide retail electric service. The notice shall include the intervention
date, which will be 21 days after the compliance filing is made, and the docket
number. The electric utility does not need to provide any other notice of
the compliance filing. The compliance filing will include the proposed tariff
provision and the testimony that explains how the base charge and base charge
adder were calculated, along with all supporting workpapers.
If you have any questions in regards to this notice of implementation schedule,
contact Mr. Keith Rogas, assistant general counsel, Office of Regulatory Affairs-Legal
Division, at (512) 936-7277.
TRD-9900870
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 10, 1999
On February 8, 1999, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and MGC Communications,
Inc., collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for
approval of an existing interconnection agreement under §252(i) of the
federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104, 110 Statute
56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United States
Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated
§§11.001-63.063 (Vernon 1998) (PURA). The joint application has
been designated Docket Number 20462. The joint application and the underlying
interconnection agreement are available for public inspection at the commission's
offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the interconnection
agreement. Any interested person may file written comments on the joint application
by filing 13 copies of the comments with the commission's filing clerk. Additionally,
a copy of the comments should be served on each of the applicants. The comments
should specifically refer to Docket Number 20462. As a part of the comments,
an interested person may request that a public hearing be conducted. The comments,
including any request for public hearing, shall be filed by March 11, 1999,
and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to Public Utility Commission Procedural Rule §22.202.
The commission may identify issues raised by the joint application and comments
and establish a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission
of evidence by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument.
The commission may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments
are not entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call
the Public Utility Commission Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120.
Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact
the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket
Number 20462.
TRD-9900883
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 10, 1999
On February 8, 1999, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and ATS Telecommunications
Systems, Inc. collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application
for approval of an existing interconnection agreement under §252(i) of
the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104, 110
Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated §§11.001-63.063 (Vernon 1998) (PURA). The joint application
has been designated Docket Number 20464. The joint application and the underlying
interconnection agreement are available for public inspection at the commission's
offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the interconnection
agreement. Any interested person may file written comments on the joint application
by filing 13 copies of the comments with the commission's filing clerk. Additionally,
a copy of the comments should be served on each of the applicants. The comments
should specifically refer to Docket Number 20464. As a part of the comments,
an interested person may request that a public hearing be conducted. The comments,
including any request for public hearing, shall be filed by March 11, 1999,
and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call
the Public Utility Commission Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120.
Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact
the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket
Number 20464.
TRD-9900884
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: February 10, 1999
Award of Consulting Contract
Texas Tech University has awarded a consulting contract to the following
firm: Hammer, Siler, George Associates; 8601 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1010; Silver
Spring, Maryland 20910.
Description: The consultants will assist the University in preparing a
strategy for economic growth initiatives which will utilize the resources
of the South Plains area and foster growth in several areas.
Term and amount of contract: The term will extend no longer than 17 weeks
upon contract execution and be for $46,300.
The reports produced by the consultants are due to the University immediately
upon completion of the contract term.
TRD-9900964
James L. Crowson
Secretary to the Board of Regents
Texas Tech University
Filed: February 16, 1999
Consultant Proposal Request
The University of Texas System for the Selection of A Consultant To Assist
the U. T. System Common Data Warehouse Task Force in the Conceptual Design
and Procurement of a Data Warehouse System
1. Statement of Purpose
The University of Texas System is planning to develop and implement a data
warehouse that will be used to meet the reporting and management analysis
requirements of the System and its nine general academic and six medical component
institutions. This Common Data Warehouse (CDW) project is being managed under
the auspices of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Telecommunications and
Information Technology. A CDW Task Force has been appointed to guide and direct
the CDW project and is comprised of members from several U. T. System component
institutions and the Vice Chancellor's office.
The CDW Task Force seeks a knowledgeable consultant to assist in the formulation,
development and initial implementation phases of this large and important
project.
2. Background
2.1. Brief overview of U. T. System
The University of Texas System consists of the administrative offices that
oversees the fifteen components that make up this educational network. There
are nine academic components and six medical institutions.
Academic Institutions
The University of Texas at Arlington
The University of Texas at Austin
The University of Texas at Brownsville
The University of Texas at Dallas
The University of Texas at El Paso
The University of Texas - Pan American
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
The University of Texas at San Antonio
The University of Texas at Tyler
Health Institutions
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler
2.2. Overview of Andersen Report
In 1996 Andersen Consulting conducted a six month study of the entire University
of Texas System to determine what areas in telecommunications and information
technology should be developed Systemwide. The overall goal of the U. T. Information
Technology Initiative project was to identify Systemwide information technology
strategies so that the components could more effectively compete in the 21st
century. These strategies provide the opportunity to use information technologies
to improve the way U. T. components achieve their basic missions. Eleven key
strategies were identified, and the Common Data Warehouse was one of these
initiatives.
2.3. Brief review of CDW Initiative.
Common Data Warehouse -- Facilitate reporting and information sharing among
U. T. System component institutions by developing a common repository to integrate
financial, human resources and student data from all components.
2.4. CDW Vision Statement
VISION
The University of Texas System seeks to facilitate reporting and information
sharing among U. T. System component institutions by developing a strategic
resource: a common repository to integrate a variety of data categories including
general (e.g., financial, human resources, and student) and specific (e.g.,
size, nature, and capacity of buildings; number of patient visits) data from
all components.
The repository, to be accessible through a variety of mechanisms that will
emphasize Web-based access, will be administered by a central group that acts
on behalf of the entire System and is responsible for producing standard and
ad hoc reports for various oversight agencies and designated representatives
from throughout the U. T. System. After initial implementations, an Executive
Information System/ Decision Support System (EIS/DSS), will be added to provide
a standard series of reports for monitoring key performance indicators.
BENEFITS
The U. T. System Common Data Warehouse will be based on a standard set
of data definitions to ensure consistent information. Warehouse data will
be collected from operational and transactional systems on a regular basis.
Access will be limited to authorized users.
Anticipated benefits from the U. T. System Common Data Warehouse include
the following:
Provides more timely access to management information.
Provides a single, reliable source of U. T. System information.
Provides standard definitions and more consistent data across all components.
Reduces workload on components by centralizing reporting responsibility.
Eliminates redundant reports.
PHASE ONE
Although it is envisioned that the U. T. System Common Data Warehouse will
eventually serve as a repository for a variety of data categories, the implementation
process will proceed in phases, with Phase 1 devoted to Human Resource information.
Among the immediate benefits of the Phase 1 implementation will be (1) to
provide better information for the annual budget cycle, and (2) to improve
the allocation of human resources to the basic missions of the U. T. System.
Of significance here are the following observations:
Approximately 80% of System expenditures are for salaries, wages, and benefits.
Because human resource activities-for example, teaching, research, patient
care-frequently overlap, the allocation of human resources to each of these
activities is often not precise.
More information is needed to determine the correlation between expenditures
and outcomes.
3. Scope of Project
The CDW Task Force is seeking a knowledgeable consultant for assistance
in the development and initial phases of this large and important project.
The consultant will assist in the gathering of information, development of
technical and managerial designs, development of budgets and project time
lines, and the development and execution of the RFP and monitoring the implementation
for the first application.
3.1. Market survey
The consultant will conduct a market survey of vendors of hardware, software
and services that are appropriate for the CDW project. The results of this
market survey will be used to prepare a short list of vendors for later consideration.
(See the Deliverables section, below.)
3.2. Environmental scan
The consultant will review the scope and status of similar data warehouse
projects, especially in higher education. The results of this scan will be
used to advise the CDW Task Force on specific issues and directions of the
project.
3.3. Needs assessment
Conduct a comprehensive review of the HR reporting requirements of the
U.T. System and all of its component institutions. Included in this review
will be all appropriate HR reports and data elements, schedule and distribution
lists. The results of this assessment will be used in the creation of the
data model for the CDW HR application.
3.4. CDW Project proposal and plan
The consultant will assist the CDW Task Force in the development of a CDW
project proposal to be used in seeking funding and approval to proceed with
execution of the project. The consultant will also develop specific project
plans, budgets and timelines.
3.5. RFP development and execution
The consultant will develop an RFP for the procurement of the necessary
hardware, software and services for the first application. In addition, the
consultant will assist in the execution of the RFP, vendor selection and contract
negotiations with the selected vendor.
3.6. Implementation assistance
The consultant will monitor the progress of implementing the first application
and assist and advise the CDW Task Force in dealing with any problems that
arise.
4. Current Environment
4.1. CDW Project Governance
The Andersen Report recommended the establishment of the U. T. System Office
of Information Technology led by a Chief Information Officer (CIO) reporting
to the Chancellor, and this was done by creating the position of Vice Chancellor
for Telecommunications and Information Technology. The primary responsibility
of the U. T. System CIO is to provide leadership and foster collaboration
among the components regarding the strategic use of information technology.
The CIO oversees the planning and implementation of cross-component information
technology initiatives, promotes the effective use of information technologies
across the components, and monitors the overall progress of enterprise-wide
IT initiatives. The CIO works closely with the Executive Vice Chancellors
and Presidents regarding implementation of Systemwide IT strategies and chairs
the IT Strategic Leadership Council. Two governance councils have been formed;
the IT Strategic Leadership Council and the IT Technical Management Council.
The Strategic Leadership Council is responsible for setting policies and providing
direction on the strategic use of IT while the Technical Management Council
(reformulated Information Technology Council) should focus on the technical
implementation aspects such as establishment of appropriate IT standards.
4.2. CDW Task Force
Another recommendation of the Andersen Report was the use of task forces
to determine actions on each of the identified initiatives. A task force has
been created by the Vice Chancellor for Telecommunications and Information
Technology. This task force has met several times via conference call and
actual meetings. The task force is made up of the following members:
Jeffrey Noyes, U. T. San Antonio, Chair
Barbara Craig, U. T. System
Margaret Drake, U. T. Health Science Center - San Antonio
Steve Lynch, U. T. Health Science Center - San Antonio
Miguel Soldi, U. T. Health Science Center - Houston
Jerry York, U. T. Health Science Center - San Antonio
Marta Hubbard, U. T. System
Mario Gonzalez, U. T. System
4.3. The U. T. System
A detailed list of U. T. System Component Institutions including enrollment,
staff, and other vital information can be found at the following URL: http://www.utsystem.edu/MIS/
Academic Institutions
The University of Texas at Arlington
The University of Texas at Austin
The University of Texas at Brownsville
The University of Texas at Dallas
The University of Texas at El Paso
The University of Texas - Pan American
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
The University of Texas at San Antonio
The University of Texas at Tyler
Health Institutions
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler
5. Project Deliverables
5.1. CDW Project Technical Details
The Consultant will develop technical details for the CDW Project, including
the following.
5.1.1. Conceptual data architecture. It will be necessary to develop an
overall conceptual architecture for the entire CDW project, including all
proposed applications - human resources, financial, student, and alumni.
5.1.2. Conceptual technical architecture. The technical architecture will
also be developed by the consultant. This will include generic hardware configurations
and lists of system, application, and support tool software.
5.1.3. Hardware and software vendor and product shortlists. From the results
of the Market Survey, the consultant will develop lists of the prominent vendors
of appropriate hardware and software in the data warehouse arena.
5.2. Project Management and Planning
The consultant will develop project management and planning tools for the
CDW project, including the following.
5.2.1. Resource requirements. Develop a staffing plan for both the implementation
and production support phases of the CDW.
5.2.2. Project Organization. Develop a proposed CDW project organization
that best leverages the U. T. System organization and resources.
5.2.3. Budget. Develop budget-level estimates for the implementation and
support costs.
5.2.4. Implementation Plan. Develop an overall, phased implementation plan
for the entire CDW project. Include appropriate milestones, reports and deliverables.
5.2.5. Key Success Indicators. Identify appropriate key success factors
and indicators.
5.2.6. Risk Management Plan. Develop a risk management plan that identifies
areas of most significant risk to the project and appropriate contingencies.
5.3. CDW Procurement
Once the CDW Project has been developed and approved, the consultant will
assist the CDW Task Force in the procurement process for the first CDW application
(HR). This assistance will include the following.
5.3.1. RFP. Develop an RFP for the procurement of the CDW. This RFP will
include all necessary hardware, software and services.
5.3.2. Bidding Process. The consultant will advise the CDW Task Force during
the bidding process, which will be conducted under appropriate Texas purchasing
laws. (The Phase I consultant will not be eligible to bid on the second phase
RFP.)
5.3.3. Evaluation and selection. The consultant will assist in the evaluation
of the RFP responses and advise the CDW Task Force in vendor selection.
5.3.4. Contract negotiations. The consultant will assist the CDW and U.
T. System Office of General Counsel in contract negotiations with the successful
vendor.
5.3.5. Implementation support. The Phase One consultant will review progress
periodically and advise the CDW Task Force on progress through implementation
of first application (HR).
6. Consultant Approach and Fit
6.1. Methodology
What is your (the consultant's) methodology for this project? A resource-loaded
work plan should be presented that shows critical milestones.
6.2. Quality
How will you assure quality on this project?
6.3. Communication
How do you plan to communicate with the U. T. System CDW Task Force?
6.4. Project Success
How will you ensure that this project is as successful as possible? How
will you measure the success of this project?
6.5. Outside Resources
Do you have access to resources outside of your local office including
knowledge tools, specialized skilled personnel, and access to personnel on
similar projects?
6.6. Additional Services
What is the range of your services? What other services can you provide?
6.7. Performance of Work
How will the work be performed? On-site interviews, phone interviews, industry
research, competitor research, questionnaires, etc.
6.8. Vendor Team Members
What are the roles and responsibilities of each vendor team member? How
will the project team be organized? Who will be assigned to this project that
will do the day to day work? Include resumes.
6.9. Key Success Indicators
What are the keys to the success of this project?
6.10. Vendor Experience
How many successful projects has your firm done like this? How many have
dealt with higher education? List names and contact information.
6.11. Recommended Deliverables
What deliverables/tasks, in addition to the ones described above, do you
recommend?
7. Fees
7.1. Estimated Fees
What are your estimated fees for this project?
7.2. Fee Calculation
How are you establishing fees for this project (fixed fee vs. time and
materials)? If you are basing your fees on fixed fee, how do you handle change
orders?
7.3. Contingency Plan
Is there contingency built into your fees?
8. Vendor Response Format
8.1. The Need
Briefly describe your understanding of this RFP.
8.2. The Solution
Briefly state your solution to meeting the requirements of this RFP.
8.3. Your Proposed Approach
Describe in necessary detail your approach to meeting the requirements
of this RFP. Specifically, in this section include answers to each question
in Section 6, above. Identify each question and its answer.
8.4. Deliverables
List and describe all deliverables that you will provide.
8.5. Benefits of Your Approach
Describe the benefits to U. T. System of using your proposed approach to
this project.
8.6. Your Team
Describe the principal individuals who bring strength to your team and
approach to this project. It is not necessary to list again any specific project
team members listed in response to Section 6.8.
8.7. How Your Solution is Different
Describe how your proposed solution is different from those that might
be proposed by other vendors.
8.8. Fees & Schedules (including answers to section 7 above)
List all applicable fees and rate schedules that will apply to this project.
Specifically, in this section include answers to each question in Section
7, above. Identify each question and its answer.
9. Instructions to Bidders
9.1 Specifications:
In addition to responding to the items in Sections 5-8, any consultant
submitting an offer in response to this Invitation must provide the following:
(1) consultant's legal name, including type of entity (individual, partnership,
corporation, etc.) and address; (2) background information regarding the consultant,
including the number of years in business and the number of employees; (3)
information regarding the qualifications, education, and experience of the
team members proposed to conduct the requested services; (4) the hourly rate
to be charged for each team member providing services; (5) the earliest date
by which the consultant could begin providing the services; (6) a list of
five (5) client references, including any complex institutions or systems
of higher education for which consultant has provided similar consulting services;
(7) a statement of consultant's approach to the project; any unique benefits
consultant offers The University of Texas System, and any other information
consultant desires The University of Texas System to consider in connection
with consultant's offer; (8) information to assist The University of Texas
System in assessing consultant's demonstrated competence and experience providing
consulting services similar to the services requested in this Invitation;
(9) information to assist The University of Texas System in assessing the
consultant's experience performing the requested services for other complex
institutions or systems of higher education; (10) information to assist The
University of Texas System in assessing whether the consultant will have any
conflicts of interest in performing the requested services; (11) information
to assist The University of Texas System in assessing the overall cost to
The University of Texas System for the requested services to be performed;
and (12) information to assist The University of Texas System in assessing
consultant's capability and financial resources to perform the requested services.
9.2 Selection Process:
Selection of the Successful Offer (defined below) submitted in response
to this Invitation by the Submittal Deadline (defined below) will be made
using the competitive process described below. After the opening of the offers
and upon completion of the initial review and evaluation of the offers submitted,
selected consultants may be invited to participate in oral presentations.
The selection of the Successful Offer may be made by The University of Texas
System on the basis of the offers initially submitted, without discussion,
clarification or modification. In the alternative, selection of the Successful
Offer may be made by The University of Texas System on the basis of negotiation
with any of the consultants. At The University of Texas System's sole option
and discretion, it may discuss and negotiate all elements of the offers submitted
by selected consultants within a specified competitive range. For purposes
of negotiation, a competitive range of acceptable or potentially acceptable
offers may be established comprising the highest rated offers. The University
of Texas System will provide each consultant within the competitive range
with an equal opportunity for discussion and revision of its offer. The University
of Texas System will not disclose any information derived from the offers
submitted by competing consultants in conducting such discussions. Further
action on offers not included within the competitive range will be deferred
pending the selection of the Successful Offer; however, The University of
Texas System reserves the right to include additional offers in the competitive
range if deemed to be in its best interest. After the submission of offers
but before final selection of the Successful Offer is made, The University
of Texas System may permit a consultant to revise its offer in order to obtain
the consultant's best final offer. The University of Texas System is not bound
to accept the lowest priced offer if that offer is not in its best interest,
as determined by The University of Texas System. The University of Texas System
reserves the right to (a) enter into agreements or other contractual arrangements
for all or any portion of the work set forth in this Invitation with one or
more consultants, (b) reject any and all offers and re-solicit offers or (c)
reject any and all offers and temporarily or permanently abandon this procurement,
if deemed to be in the best interest of The University of Texas System.
9.3 Criteria for Selection:
The successful offer (Successful Offer), submitted in response to this
Invitation by the Submittal Deadline, will be the most advantageous to The
University of Texas System. Offers will be evaluated by University of Texas
personnel. The evaluation of offers and the selection of the Successful Offer
will be based on the information provided to The University of Texas System
in response to the Specifications section of this Invitation. Consideration
may also be given to any additional information and comments if such information
or comments increase the benefits to The University of Texas System. The successful
consultant will be required to enter into a contract acceptable to The University
of Texas System.
9.4 Consultant's Acceptance of Offer Evaluation Methodology:
Submission of an offer by a consultant indicates: (1) consultant's acceptance
of (a) the Offer Selection Process, (b) the Criteria for Selection, and (c)
all other requirements and specifications set forth in this Invitation; and
(2) consultant's recognition that some subjective judgments must be made by
The University of Texas System during this Invitation process.
9.5 Submittal Deadline:
To respond to this Invitation, consultants must submit the information
requested in the Specification section of this Invitation and any other relevant
information, in a clear and concise written format to: Marta E. Hubbard, Director
of Strategic Initiatives, The University of Texas System, 201 West Seventh
Street, Room 418, Austin, Texas 78701. Offers must be submitted in an envelope
or other appropriate container. "Invitation No. OTIT-01_99" and the Submittal
Deadline must be clearly shown in the lower left-hand corner on the top surface
of such envelope or container. In addition, the name and return address of
the consultant must be clearly visible and ten copies must be received. All
offers must be received at the above address no later than 5:00 p.m., CST
March 15, 1999 (Submittal Deadline). Submissions received after the Submittal
Deadline will not be considered.
9.6 Questions:
Questions concerning this Invitation should be directed to Marta E. Hubbard,
Director of Strategic Initiatives, The University of Texas System, 201 West
Seventh Street, Room 418, Austin, Texas 78701, 512/499-4207. The University
of Texas System may in its sole discretion respond in writing to questions
concerning this Invitation. Only The University of Texas System's responses
made by formal written addenda to this Invitation shall be binding. Verbal
and other written interpretations or clarifications shall be without legal
effect.
TRD-9900963
Francie A. Frederick
Executive Secretary to the Board of Regents
The University of Texas System
Filed: February 16, 1999
Office of the Attorney General
Request for Proposal
Children's Trust Fund of Texas Council
Coastal Coordination Council
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner
Texas Credit Union Department
Notice of Final Action Taken
Notification of Use of an Assumed Name
Deep East Texas Workforce Development Board, Inc.
General Land Office
Texas Department of Health
Texas Department of Human Services
Open Solicitation for Kent County
Open Solicitation for San Jacinto County
Texas Department of Insurance
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Hearing for Residential Property Insurance Benchmark Rate Setting and Windstorm Insurance Association Rate Setting
Third Party Administrator Applications
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Proposal for Decision
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Notices of Application for Approval of IntraLATA Equal Access Implementation Plan Pursuant to Public Utility Commission Substantive Rule §23.103
Notices of Application for Waiver and Extension of Filing Deadline Under Public Utility Commission Substantive Rule §23.103(f)
Notice of Application Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.94
Notice of Application to Amend Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
Notices of Intent to File Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §23.27
Notice of Public Hearing relating to Rate Design, Fuel Costs, Fuel Factors, and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Factors
Public Notice of Implementation Schedule for Full Switchover Option Pursuant to §25.27
Public Notices of Interconnection Agreements
Public Notice of Interconnection Agreement
Texas Tech University
The University of Texas System
Texas Workforce Commission