Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 17, 2010,
Item 11
Number 11, approval contract award and modification for number 1 for water treatment systems, ifb number b 1181 nb, to the sole responsive bidder.
>> good morning. County purchasing agent. This is for water treatment services for the county. We are -- we had two bids, one of the bidders quantified his bid, added things that we did not request. So he was considered nonresponsive. The other bidder met our requirements; however, we wanted to delete items 36 and 37. This was for testing the well at manchaca and the facilities closed so facilities didn't feel like we needed to have that done regularly. The other was we wanted to add back services for the correctional complex.
>> my question was regarding deleting items 36 and 37. It is closed. I believe, though, that we do still have a license agreement with the cowboy church. Are they still meeting out there?
>> they are meeting there, but they are not drinking the water so it's not required to do the testing of the well on a monthly basis.
>> well, do we know that? If they are using the restrooms that are associated with that?
>> they are using the restrooms, yes, ma'am, but they are not drinking the water and we will make sure the pastor understands that, but he's aware of that.
>> the other question i have is -- and we will be getting an update on the fire hall shortly as an agenda item. Is that how long does it take to reinstate these items 36 and 37 if we delete them because i can see a situation where we might have some proposal to lease the pavilion out there and may indeed need potable water on the site.
>> it would be just a modification. It's not a lot of money. It's probably --
>> it's like $137 or something.
>> it's not a lot of money so it's something we could just mod back into contract.
>> so facilities is confident -- i'm just concerned that if anybody is meeting out there and they drink water -- fill their glass out of the faucet in the restroom that they may be drinking the water that we're responsible for being sure is potable.
>> we'll stress that to them again, commissioner, and make sure that they fully understand that the water is not drinkable at this point. Make sure they are aware of that.
>> i think i'm going to have to say as long as we have people meeting out there that we have a license agreement with that i can't comfortably support deleting those items.
>> you would like to add that back in and have that service continued? I don't believe it's a lot of money. I don't have an exact amount here, but i'm assuming --
>> what's being requested?
>> we have -- historically we are responsible for the well that's out at the manchaca fire hall and there has been some historical concerns particularly and in relationship with tceq on the water quality monitoring out of that well. And the county has the responsibility for that water quality monitoring. And this -- what this proposal is is to not do that monitoring because the place is closed. Well, the place is closed, but we still do have an entity meeting out there. And since it's not a high cost item, or perhaps we could talk with them about covering the cost of this actually.
>> clarify, the cost is somewhat significant, as i recall it's about $150 a month just for the testing of the well. Then if we follow through with submitting the test results to tceq, which we're currently not required to do, that's also another $125. So you are talking about $275 a month thereabouts.
>> is there any problem with postponing this a week? Because maybe what we should do is talk to the parties that are meeting out there and get some resolution on it and figure our course of action.
>> certainly.
>> there's no problem with postponing it a week at all.
>> it might be -- the time might be right for an update on what the -- what the long-range plan is for the manchaca fire hall because it's an asset that we own. It's just sitting there that i'm concerned about that. It's never a good idea to have assets owned by the taxpayers that are just sitting there.
>> that's what i was referencing earlier. That we've been delayed in the report because the team leader for the community out there has had some serious health issues that have caused delays.
>> we are beyond 60 days.
>> yes.
>> we've doubled or tripled. We'll have it on next week. Is next week soon enough?
>> our contract doesn't expire for a couple of weeks.
>> will we be ready for an update next week also?
>> we can do that. I'll put pressure out there.
>> we'll need a and b. We'll have it back on next week. Thank you much. August 24th.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 2010 2:30 PM
