Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMDOC - TSEP ApplicationsM NTANA Department of Commerc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION CITY OF LAUREL May 27, 2004 Kenneth Olsen, Jr City of Laurel PO Box 10 Laurel, MT 59044 Dear Mr. Olsen: This letter is to acknowledge that the Montana Department of Commerce (MDOC) has received your application to the Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP). The program received 47 applications requesting approximately $18.8 million in TSEP grant funds to be awarded by the 2005 Legislature. I have enclosed a list of the applications received by the program and the amount each has requested. At this point, we are projecting that approximately $17 to $18 million will be available for grants. However, we will not know how many projects we will recommend for funding until we will receive the official projections by the Legislature's Revenue Oversight Committee in November. The Department has contracted with eight engineering firms to perform an evaluation of the preliminary engineering information included in the TSEP applications. I have enclosed a copy of the guidelines that provides direction to MDOC's consulting review engineers for evaluating and scoring the TSEP applications. We believe that the process that MDOC/TSEP uses to evaluate and score applications, keeps the process as fair and equitable as possible, and reduces to a negligible level any concerns regarding the appearance of conflict of interest. The attachments to the guidelines were not included because of the number of pages; however, any of the attachments will be provided upon request. Our consulting engineers will be evaluating the technical aspects of your application (the preliminary engineering) and preparing a report that will be used as the basis for scoring statutory priorities #1 and #-3. A draft report will be mailed to you on July 26th to provide you with an opportunity to point out any misinterpretations of the facts or to identify something that the review engineer may have overlooked. However, you will not be allowed to introduce any new matedal that was not previously submitted with the application. In addition, our staff engineer will also be reviewing each of the draft reports and may request that a review engineer take a second look at a project if it appears that the review engineer failed to adequately evaluate the application. If that occurs, the review engineer will be requested to submit a revised report in the least amount of time possible, and the revised draft report will be sent to you, Any comments that you may have on the draft report must be received by MDOC no later than Au,qust 16TM. You should ensure that your project engineer is available dudng this time period to review the report and provide comments. Your engineer's failure to be available to review the draft report will not be grounds for an extension of time. The MDOCFFSEP ranking team will meet between September 7th and 13th, to score statutory priorities #4 through #7. On September 14th, our consulting engineers and the MDOC staff Will meet as a group to score statutory priorities #1 and #3 for the bridge applications. All of the other t~pes of projects will have statutory priorities #1 and #3 scored on September 15th through the 17% All of these scoring sessions are open to public observation. However, absolutely no comments by the public will be permitted during the project discussion and scodng process. We encourage you, and especially your project engineer, to observe the scoring of statutory priorities #1 and #3. This is a good learning opportunity for engineers with regard to how to properly conduct a preliminary engineering study. The Department's recommendations will be presented to the Governor in October. Once the Governor approves the recommendations the results will be mailed to all applicants. The Governor's recommendations will be presented to the 2005 Legislature, where the final award decision will be determined. In the past, the Legislature has held a hearing on each application and applicants have had the opportunity to provide testimony on their project. We assume that the Legislature will continue with this practice and we recommend that you plan to attend and speak on behalf of your project. My compliments to you for the hard work and commitment, you have put into your TSEP application. If you have any questions about the TSEP ranking process, you can call m~ at 841- 2785 or email me at jedgcomb2state.mt.us. Sincerely, Treasure State Endowment Program c: Crystal Bennett Enclosures: List of TSEP Applications TSEP Technical Engineering Review Guidelines 2004 TREASURE STATE ENDOWMENT APPLICATIONS Bearcreek, Town of W $249,787 $496,575 Beaverhead County Bridge $84,886 ,$169,772 Big Horn County Bridge $142,500 $285.008 Bigfork County W&S Distdct WW $500,000 $729,000 ' Carbon County Bridge $97,100 $194,200 Carter Chouteau County W&S Dist W `$$500, 00O $1,246,600 Cascade, Town of W $500:000 $1,283,500 Chester WW $200,000 $4131950' Choteau, Town of W $500,000 $2,400,000 Circle, Town of WW $500,000 $1,574,150 City of Laurel WW $500,000 $1,033,000 Conrad, City of WW $500,000 $1,697,700 Crow Agency, Town of WW $500,000 $1,922,000 Custer Area-Yellowstone County W&S District WW $500,000 $1,359,816 Dodson VWV $427,500.00 $1,058,862 Ennis, Town of WW $204,894 $409,788 Fairfield, Town of WW $500,000 $I ,813,800 Glacier County Bridge $500,000 $1,880,418 Glasgow, City of WW. $500,000 $1,607,90C Havre, City of W $500,000 $1,150,000 Hill County Brid~e $450,750 $901,59F~ Hysham, Town of W $470,920 $924,719 Lewis & Clark County WW $299,802.41 $1,094,505.50 Libby, City of WW $500,00C $2,540,000 Madison County Bridge $179,911 $359,822 Malta Wastewater~l $500,000 $4,791,000 Miles City, City of £50~ r)on ~ ~-7 nnn Shelby, Town of W ,$500.000 $1.100,000 Sheridan, Town of W $5001000 $I ,56~ ,400 Spring Meadows County Water District W $500,000 ~1,024.700 St. ignatius,Town of WW $500.000 $3,919,000 Stiitwater County Bridge $399,853 $799,706 sun Prairie Village County W&S District W $500,000 $1.373.000 Sweet Grass County Brid~e $144,989 $289,978 Upper-Lower River Road W&S District (Phase 2) W/WW $500,000 $2,907,700 Valier, Town of .... WW __ $500,000~ · $1,919,O1}e Whitefi§h, City of W ~457,500 $915,000 Woods Bay Homesites Lake County W&S District W $500,000 $1,258,125 Yellowstone Co Bridge $187,800 $375,600 "I'OTALS $18,801,674 $62,681,042 GUIDELINES FOR THE TECHNICAL ENGINEERING REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS SUBNtII-I'ED TO THE TREASURE STATE ENDOWMENT PROGRAM (TSEP) AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) IN 2004 GENERAL GUIDANCE TO REVIEW ENGINEERS Failure to follow these guidelines may result in the Montana Department of Commerce (MDOC) not continuing to contract with your firm to review TSEP/CDBG applications. The technical review of the TSEP/CDBG applications is required to be performed by professional engineers (PE). This includes any repor[s prepared, or comments to be provided, by the engineering firm during the process. Engineering firms participating in the review 6f TSEP/CDBG applications will be pm~/ided a list of the applications. Each ~rm must review the list and provide information about potential conflicts of interest for each application. The engineer that is the liaison for the firm should ensure that the information provided to MDOC reflects the potential conflicts of interest for all persons employed by the firm, including those in other office~. The information provided to, and the work performed by, review engineers should be treated as confidential until the Go. mcr has approved the MDOC recommendations. The Department will disseminate any information about the engineering review or ranking process. Under no cimumstances, should the review engineers discuss the application or preliminar~ engineering report with anyone without pdor MDOC approval, except for the TSEP/CDBG staff, state or federal agencies that are being consulted about the project, or other individuals in the same engineering firm that are also involved in the review. In particular, review engineers should not contact the applicant, or other individuals or firms that may be involved with the project and speaking on behalf of the applicant, without prior approval of MDOC staff. If there appears to be key information missing (for example, information referenced in the analysis but not included in the appliqation) or information that needs to be clarified, the review engineer should consult with the TSEPICDBG staff as to whether it is appropriate to obtain additional information. Do not write any comments in the application since it ~ill be returned to MDOC upon completion of the review; applications are frequently loaned to communities as examples. Highlighting text is okay and comments can be written on sticky notes if attached so that they are visible without opening the document. Review engineers evaluating water, sewer, and solid waste projects must consult with the appropriate state, federal or other expert agencies (DEQ for example) to verify and clarify the seriousness of the problems presented in the application. The review engineer must include in the ~rftten report any comments provided by the agencies consulted. Review engineers evaluating bddge projects should perform a quick check of MDT's NBI inspection data base. Review engineers must review a project summary prepared by the TSEP/CDBG staff and correct as necessary. Attachment A is an example of the project summary that will be prepared by MDOC. 1 0. Review engineers must review the O&M practices of the applicant (for water and wastewater systems based on DEQ's records and staff comments, and for solid waste and bddge projects based on the review engineer's experience), and prepare an analysis of those practices. This information is for the purpose of MDOC scoring Statutory Priority ~u,. Attachment B is an example of the type of report on the O&M practices of the applicant to illustrate the level of detail required. Review engineers must prepare a detailed technical review report that discusses the deficiencies of the system as presented in the preliminary engineering report (PER), and an analysis of the quality of the PER itself and whether it provides the required information. In preparing the report, the review engineen should look not only at the PER itself, but also at any response that the applicant provided to TSEP's Statutory Prfodty #1 / CDBG's Cdtedon #2 - Need for Project and TSEP's Statutory Priodty #3 / CDBG's Criterion #3 - Project Concept and Technical Design. The technical review report should describe any information that was not included in the PER and the reason it is required in the opinion of the review engineer. Attachment C and D are examples of technical review reports to illustrate the level of detail expected. The department will provide the blank report format. Once the review team has scored the applications at the meeting in September, the review engineer will add concluding paragraphs for each of the two cdteda being scored that summarizes the seriousness of the deficiencies and the quality of the PER, and add the score level assigned by the review team. 12. A draft of the technical review report of an applicant's PER will be provided to the applicant by MDOC for their review and comments late in July, prior to being scored. There should not be any reference on the draft as to the name of the review engineer or the firm that drafted the review. The review engineer should provide the concluding paragraph, in the draft report, for TSEP's Statutory Priority #1 for bddqe proiects only, and only if the score is based upon a sufficiency rating. In the draft reporL rather than stating "Based on TSEP Scodng Criteria for Bridges, the b~dge is scored at," state instead "Based on TSEP Scodng Criteria for Bddges, the bddge should be scored aL" Also, in TSEP's Statutory Priodty #1 for water and wastewater proiects, and for bridge projects that are not scored based on a sufficiency rating, the review engineer should respond tQ the first sentence of the Summary Standard Paragraph which reads.' There are various deficiencies that could affect the public's health and safety, including: __ (briefly summarize the types of deficiencies). Do not include any further language from the standard paragraphs until after the review team has scored the applications at the meeting in September. 13. The applicant will not be allowed to introduce any information not previously provided in the preliminary engineering report submitted with the application, but maypoint out information apparently missed or misunderstood. Review engineers will be expected to revise their report in order to take into account the comments ofthe applicant, or include within the report, where appropriate, why the review engineer did not make changes because he/she disagrees with the comments submitted bythe applicant. Any explanations of why comments were mot changed should be italicized. Review engineers will distribute the revised draft report to MDOC and all of the other review engineers pdor to the meeting in Septembe~ 14. Any engineering review of a project that will address more than one type of eligible project (for example, water and wastewater, or multiple bridges) will require that TSEP Statutory Priority #1 / CDBG Criterion #2 - Need for Project, be reviewed as separate projects using a single review form. In otherwords, each distinctly different project will need to have specific comments explaining the scope of the problem. 15. The review engineer will not assign a score pdor to the scorfng process, but should have a verbal recommendation ready for the scoring process. The recommendation must be based on the defined scoring levels. Attachment E p~ovides some guidance for the scoring of TSEP Statutory Pdority #3 / CDBG's Criterion #3 - Project Concept and Technical Design by describing a model PER. 16. 17. Follow the format style for paragraphs, indents, etc. as show in the technical review report examples. Use Arial 11 font. Do not bold comments. Use bullets instead of numbers when making a list. Use the standard paragraphs for summaries as found in the technical review report examples. Select the appropriate summary for the score level assigned and modify as necessary. Remember, the summary will not be added to the report until after a score level has been assigned at the meeting in September 18. Upon completion of the scodng of applications in September, review engineers will revise their report in order to reflect the discussion of the project at the meeting and the score level assigned by the group. Review engineers must submit an etectrenic copy to MDOC, either on a computer disk or sent by Emair, of the final wdtten report. PARTICIPATION IN THE SCORING PROCESS The scoring process that will take place at the meeting in Septemberis open to public observation. Applicants, along with their consultants, will be invited to observe. However, no one except for MDOC staff and the review engineers will be allowed to participate in the scodng process. At the meeting, review engineers (PE) must be prepared to explain and discuss the eng?eedng review(s) prepared by them. At a minimum, there must be at least one engineer (PE) from each engineering firm that will be present throughout the entire process to provide comments. This is to ensure consistency in the process. Only one engineer from each firm will be allowed to provide comments on any particular application. Review engineers that are only in attendance to explain their review should limit their comments to explaining the review of their assigned application(s) and answering questions about the review or project. Each firm is expected to ask appropriate questions and provide comments on each application, in order to preclude one or two engineers from wielding an excessive amount of influence on the scoring process, and to ensure that diverse opinions are being voiced. 3 After the review engineers and MDOC staff finishes discussing the application, an MDOC staff member will recommend a score level based upon the discussion. The review engineers will then either agree or disagree with MDOC's conclusion. If the review engineers disagree, they will need to justify why they disagree with MDOC's conclusion and the score level will be discussed until there is a consensus of the group. Ultimately, MDOC is responsible for the final scores that are assigned to applications, and therefore, reserves the dght to adjust these scores based on any additional factors that may need to be taken into account. 7. If a participating review engineer has prepared the applicant's preliminary engineering report that is being discussed, that review engineer, and any other review engineers employed by the same firm, will not be permitted to speak on behalf of their work or the applicant, or participate in the discussion orscodng of the project. This requirement ensures that every application is treated equally, since applicants not represented bya review.engineer have no~pportunity to provide additional input in order to cladfy issues. It is cdtical for MDOC to be able to ensure all applicants, that the applications and/or preliminary engineering report prepared by review engineers participating in the scoring process are not given any additional advantage in the process. If the engineer, or any other engineer from that firm, attempts to interject their comments, they will first be reminded of the policy, and if they persist, will be asked to leave the room for the remainder of the discussion on that application. The review team should only consider the information provided in the application, and should not analyze a particular issue based on personal experience or knowledge of a particular project. 9. The review team should be careful about establishing standards or expectations beyond what is typically required in a PER. 10. The scodng of TSEP's Statutory Priority #1 / CDBG's Cdtedon #2 - Need for Project on applications that will address more than one type of eligible project (for example, water and wastewater, or multiple bddges) will be based on health and safety problems of the individual projects (or bridges). If the quality of the engineering analysis differs for the different projects, TSEP's Statutory Priority #3 / CDt3G's Cdtedon #3 - Project Concept and Technical Design will also be scored separately for each project. The final score assigned will be an average of the individual scores considering the proportional cost that each project represents of~he total project cost~ 11. The entire meeting will be recorded. THE TECHNICAL REVIEW TIMETABLE Engineering firms will be provided a list of TSEP applications by May 14, 2004. The list must be reviewed for potential conflicts of interest and returned to MDOC no later than M~y 19. Engineering firms must meet with TSEP/CDBG staff on May 26 to review MDOC's requirements and be assigned TSEP applications for review. 4 Engineering firms will be provided a list of CDBG applications, not already assigned during the earlier process, by June 4. -Fne list must be reviewed for potentiaI conflicts of interest and retumed to MDOC no later than June 9. "]-ne additional CDBG applications will be sent to engineers by June 16. MDOC will provide a project summary to the review engineers by July 9, and it must be returned to MDOC, with any corrections, no later than July 23. Review engineers must provide a description of the applicant's O&M practices to MDOC no later than July 23. 6. Review engineers must provide a copy of the draft engineering review to MDOC no later than July 23. 7. Comments fi-om the applicant will be returned to the review eng neers on Au~t~.~t~:~Z~ 8. The revised draft must be distributed to MDOC and the other review engineers no later than August 30. 9. Engineers reviewing bridqe applications will meet on September 14 to score projects. All other projects will be scored September 15 through 17. 10. Review engineers must submit theirfinal reports no later than September 30, 2004.