Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 7, 2010,
Item 9
9 is a matter involving the 700 lavaca street item, and we talked with legal about a.
I move the following: that we stick to our decision to do architect and engineering work with an external firm on the basement floors 1 and 2, and that we get facilities management to do the architectural and engineering work on floors 3 through 15.
the second part of this would be that we authorize purchasing, legal and appropriate other county staff to put together an appropriate rfq for a facility -- for a project manager -- manager for the project and that we request facilities management to submit a proposal or qualifications.
and that we consider as part of that the price or fee for doing such work.
that that be one of the criteria that we consider, that it be set forth and that it be applied with -- with applied with as equal force as possible.
so that's a different little twist to what we normally do.
>> you said that's the rf...
>> I'm calling it rfq or r.f.p.
when we see it, we'll decide exactly what we need to do to land on it.
>> so either or.
>> right.
>> what I'm thinking is that when that draft language comes back to us, we will probably be in a better position to determine what to call it.
but the new twist is that we would consider cost or price.
or fee.
>> judge?
>> yes.
>> did you want to add to that the professional exemption from competition, but to get informal competition?
>> to notify intention to do that.
to informally compete should enable us to expedite it.
should enable us to give a local preference, if appropriate.
but that would case our intention to bypass the formal competitive process which in our view will probably take a whole lot longer and maybe attract a whole lot more submissions than we want.
>> judge, can you break your motion down?
the first would be that the external a and e for the basement 1 and 2 and facilities, the architect and engineering 3 through 15, and if you will make that just one part --
>> I think we've done it already.
so my motion was really for us to indicate our intention to stick to it.
and I can pull out the second part.
>> the purchasing?
>> the project management part.
do you want to do that, just the project management part?
>> yeah.
>> and then let's forget about architect and engineering part for the project, which I think we've approved already.
and just focus on the project management.
and this would be a.
and the intention there basically would be to informally compete for a project manager, but to indicate our preference or request for a submission from facilities management to do the work, and the different thing that we add to this is that we will consider price, fee, cost, figure out that appropriate wording.
the court will have an opportunity to look at specific language in a draft document in let's say two weeks.
that presumes that we will have appropriate county staff available to work on this, and if we need to get outside assistance, then so be it, meaning to put the documents together.
how is that?
so that gives an opportunity just to vote on the project management piece.
>> okay.
and again, I'll have to vote against that because I'm really, truly interested in having savings for our taxpayers.
I think we spent a good amount of time in the past putting together a facilities department that is professional and had all of the skills that we needed for some of these projects.
in addition to that, they have the experience as project managers to manage some 257 projects.
and so I think we're kind of double dipping.
we invested largely in our facilities management department in the past so that we would be able to interpret the kinds of things that architects and engineers come up with for some of the projects that we have -- that we have to do.
and so there's that investment.
and now we're kind of backing out and trying to hire someone externally to monitor our internal professionals?
it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense for me, and I mostly want to just keep in mind that our taxpayers have told me during the months that I was going door to door that they just couldn't figure out why, when we came up short, we're always raising their taxes so that we could get our things done, when they don't have that same opportunity.
they come up short and they just have to cut.
and so ilg I'm still -- I guess I'm still -- that message is still very clear in my mind, so for that reason I will not be able to support this.
>> okay.
if there is a way for us to quantify savings by virtue of facilities management managing the project, this is how we do it.
otherwise we don't have anything to compare in-house work to what it would cost if you do it outside.
so cost would be one figure, one factor, there would be other things that you would look at.
the other thing is what this motion does not say is exactly what all the selection criteria would be, but we would approve that at some point.
and it also doesn't indicate who would be on the selection committee, and I think that part of the challenge is getting a fair committee, which we would spend some time doing, and when we come back in two weeks, we would address those two issues too.
>> it's just that doesn't address the concern that taxpayers told me they had.
thank our spending is important, especially in these times and for the next two years when it's supposed to be a difficult time as well.
and I think in the past facilities has shown us savings, that we've been able to roll over into other projects.
so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to go this route.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> thank you, judge.
and as I've stated early on, I mean, in this process I think I've emphasized that I wanted facilities management to be the policing arm of the county, to be the -- meaning the project manager from 1 through 15.
of course external portion of the first and second floor, of course, is something I think that we need to look at.
but when it actually comes down to the professionals that we have here on staff right now, and I think they are very professional, and we have them in-house and we're already paying the folks a salary, it just appears to me that we should use that what we're already paying for because they do have the professional expertise to be project managers.
so it just kind of makes sense to me to get more bang out of the buck since we're already paying them -- and I'm saying internal staff, to be the project manager of floors 1 through 15 other than having to pay somebody else to do the same thing that we have capable staff of doing.
and so that is my concern right there is why compete when we already have the most professional expertise already in-house to be project manager for 1 through 15?
of course again allowing the external aspects of this particular project for floors 1 and 2 to be something that can go out and as you suggested in an rfq or an r.f.p.
and of course allowing the facilities management to also do the -- not only be the project manager for all the floors, but also do the a and e from floors 3 through 15.
I think that would be tremendous savings to the taxpayer.
I really do.
because we're already paying them.
it's not that we have to go out and do this again.
we're already paying these folks.
>> well, I think that there's no way to ignore comments that have been made over the last month.
we have been divided and we still are.
one way we get to the next step basically is to look at qualifications, including the cost, and make the comparison.
and I'm open enough to make that call based on fair and objective criteria that we will -- should adopt within a couple of weeks, and based on an objective and independent committee that helps us evaluate information that we receive.
if I didn't think I could do that, then this would not make sense.
but I don't know what we'll get.
we do know our in-house people, we don't know what kind of submission we'll get from outside firms or what they'll indicate in terms of cost.
so I'm willing to take that step.
>> I understand.
everybody -- I don't think nobody is mad at nobody up here.
we just got different views on stuff.
that's the way I see it.
maybe in the final end of things when these things do come in, maybe we'll suggest what we're talking about.
but I do know this, that we're paying our staff right now to do this and of course to go outside and pay folks something that we're already getting -- that we're already paying for now, and they're very qualified.
>> okay.
any more discussion?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> I would just like to make two comments.
firstful of all, I think we have very qualified staff in many areas.
with my professional real estate experience and particularly with hi-rise class a office buildings, I see flags that I want to be sure that we've dotted the I's and crossed the t's for.
and one of the concerns I have is the potential of a conflict if we have overall project management and then by facilities and then also them performing the work on part of the building.
while we've got outside work on other floors.
so I think this will help that clarity on that.
but then also it is a responsibility to taxpayers and taxpayer money.
I appreciate what you're saying, Commissioner Gomez.
I think the other -- another piece of that, though, that we can look at as we go through this rfq effort, is we have millions of dollars in income stream with our tenants in this building.
and the ability to manage renovations in a building with existing tenants is a very, very challenging project.
it's not like any of the projects we've done in the county any time in recent history.
and protecting those tenants, keeping those tenants is critical to taxpayer dollars.
so I think that that's another piece that we need to evaluate in selection of how we're going to project manage this overall facility.
and I think it's fair to put the competitive process down, the history of looking at the history of those who apply, and weigh all the pieces of it.
>> well, I don't know, Commissioner.
I hear what you're saying, and like I say, I'm not angry with nobody about this issue.
but it just doesn't make any sense to me to do what's being suggested here.
you're almost telling Travis County employees that they're not qualified to do certain things.
there are certain things we do have to contract out, but this is not one of them.
that's basically what we're doing here now, what we're suggesting is that Travis County don't have the professionals here on board that we're paying every week to do certain things and so we're going to contract it out to the private sector.
and of course, that is what -- that is not what we're about.
we do have capable engineers, we have professionals here on staff, we hire the folks because of their skill set.
and I just feel that they have enough skill set and professionalism to do an adequate job as project managers of this total project, of the 700 lavaca.
we can pick and selectively start choosing each department that we feel there are some positions and say we don't think you can do it anymore.
we'll contract that out.
who is going to be next?
and this is a precedent-setting type situation.
we have staff that can do the work, and since that's the case, let's let them do the work.
>> well, we do transportation projects all the time that we contract out to --
>> exactly, we do, judge.
>> but we have a transportation department with 2 or 300 staff, but they don't do all the transportation and drainage stuff in Travis County.
and we had outside consultants to build a -- to help us on the jail.
we provided some internal work on that, internal supervision, but we also had outside consultants doing the bulk of the work.
so historically we have done a whole lot of stuff inhowrks but we've also contracted out as the need arose.
and I think what this does, though, is give facilities an opportunity to show us the full picture, not only about what their experience has been, but their current professional, educational qualifications as well as what it would cost us to have them manage the project compared to what it would cost for us to get an external vendor to do it.
in the end if we come up with objective criteria, we list it, we make the comparisons and we make the call.
we do this all the time.
a lot depends on who is on the committee.
and I think that we ought to try to be as fair as possible to get a committee of people who can look at it with an open mind and help us make that determination at the appropriate time.
my greatest fear is not doing it, my greatest fear is expediting it so it doesn't take too long because we have real work that we need to go ahead and get done.
now, we've sort of been at an impasse on this for the last four to six weeks, and I think it's important for us to move to the next step as a team rather than threep versus two.
it may end up being three versus two anyway, but I would rather see the three versus two after we have given ourselves an opportunity to at least get additional information upon which we may make a decision.
so that's what's driving me more than anything else.
>> it sounds like there's an invitation in facilities management to turn in a proposal and to compare the internal with the external cost.
and I guess the --
>> and other factors, though, the other criteria that we vote on two weeks from now.
>> there was something that john sharp had, a process where the internal departments submitted proposals and they were compared with the external.
and I can't remember the title of that process, but --
>> if john sharp did it, it had to be good.
he was one of the best.
>> it would be everything that county government does.
>> I remember that now.
we did --
>> we don't do everything that -- we don't bid that out.
>> [ laughter ]
>> let's do a little piece of it.
>> so perhaps it's like Commissioner Davis is saying, this is a precedent then, huh?
>> yeah, it is.
>> item number 9 giving us a chance to have fun again.
any more discussion?
>> one thing on that point.
I think we talk often about critical county government functions as opposed to our administrative functions.
and just for instance hark harking back to something like the collections of fines and fees.
we had a philosophical debate over whether that was a critical governmental function or whether it was appropriate to bid that out.
the court choose to bid that out.
this, I think there is even less philosophical grounds to argue that project management for class a he -- renovation of class a office buildings is a governmental function.
I mean, if we're willing to contract out for the collection of fines and fees off of the jp's, but we find that this is a slippery slope, I find that curious.
>> some of my favorite architects and engineers work in our facilities management department.
they'll continue to be that way.
>> I think the thing on the fees, though, the fines and fees, we discovered that not everyone is able to pay those fines and fees, and it's not that they're keeping from paying or purposefully not paying them, they just can't afford them.
and I think we have a similar situation here where the taxpayers are going to be asked to foot the bill for the investment that we have, the internal investment, and then also the external money that we're going to spend on this effort.
so anyway --
>> I would say the consensus is in the industry that the project manager fees pay for themselves in the savings on the project.
>> well, that would be great.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against Commissioners Gomez and Davis.
that carries by a vote of 3-2.
in my view that does it for today, right?
>> move adjourn.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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, September 14, 2010, 2010 7:56 PM
