Amend CSHB 2702 by striking SECTION 27 of the bill (page 20, 
lines 3-21), and substitute the following:
	SECTION 27.  Section 361.3022, Transportation Code, is 
amended by adding Subsections (e-1) and (e-2) and amending 
Subsections (f), (i), and (j) to read as follows:
	(e-1)  Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, the 
department may prequalify a private entity to submit a detailed 
proposal to provide services under a design-build contract.  The 
department is not required to publish a request under Subsection 
(c) for a design-build contract, and may enter into a design-build 
contract based solely on an evaluation of detailed proposals 
submitted in response to a request under Subsection (f) by 
prequalified private entities.  The commission shall adopt rules 
establishing criteria for the prequalification of a private entity 
that include the precertification requirements applicable to 
providers of engineering services and the qualification 
requirements for bidders on highway construction contracts.  Rules 
for design-build projects adopted pursuant to this subsection shall 
also provide for an expedited selection process less costly to 
proposers, reasonable bonding requirements, appropriate sharing of 
risks, and incentives for proposers to develop innovative ideas.
	(e-2)  In this section, "design-build contract" means a 
comprehensive development agreement that includes the design and 
construction of a turnpike project, does not include the financing 
of a turnpike project, and may include the acquisition, 
maintenance, or operation of a turnpike project.
	(f)  The department shall issue a request for detailed 
proposals from all private entities qualified under Subsection (e) 
or (e-1) if the department proceeds with the further evaluation of a 
proposed project.  A request under this subsection may require 
additional information relating to:
		(1)  the private entity's qualifications and 
demonstrated technical competence;
		(2)  the feasibility of developing the project as 
		(3)  detailed engineering or architectural designs;                           
		(4)  the private entity's ability to meet schedules;                          
		(5)  costing methodology; or                                                  
		(6)  any other information the department considers 
relevant or necessary.  
	(i)  The department may enter into negotiations [discussions] 
with the private entity whose proposal offers the apparent best 
value for the purpose of establishing the final terms of a 
comprehensive development agreement.  [The discussions shall be 
limited to:
		[(1)  incorporation of aspects of other proposals for 
the purpose of achieving the overall best value for the department;
		[(2)  clarifications and minor adjustments in 
scheduling, cash flow, and similar items; and
		[(3)  matters that have arisen since the submission of 
the proposal.]
	(j)  If at any point in negotiations [discussions] under 
Subsection (i) [,] it appears to the department that the highest 
ranking proposal will not provide the department with the overall 
best value, the department may enter into negotiations 
[discussions] with the private entity submitting the next-highest 
ranking proposal.