Travis County Commssioners Court
April 29, 2003
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.
Item 35
35
>> [indiscernible] to approve, purchase orders in excess of $25,000, issued against contracts for construction services and take appropriate action.
>> $25,000 right now f. We go beyond that, what will be the maximum? And my question is I don't want to give up any authority, I guess, as far as the money that's being sent. And I know you've got a minimum on that, but if that increases then of course I知 concerned about the amount of money that we don't have authority as far as looking at reviewing and we'e doing right now, so that is my concern. It's no big deal, but I think I would like to maybe have -- looks like I知 giving it some authority here.
>> Commissioner, we'll look at it as a subcommittee.
>> I know that.
>> yeah. We'll then give up any authority as a court?
>> well, I guess...
>> we awarded the contract already.
>> but it's the amount of the money within the contract.
>> but within her purview.
>> over $25,000, of course this is when it comes back to the court. Now that it's being compromised, it's greater than $25,000, even though it is imbedded in the contract, and my concern is that it appears to me, if we're going to increase that amount of money that's -- that we're looking at it as far as letting out contracts without us, the court approving it, that is in my opinion, subject to review, and so that's where I知 coming from so...
>> well, Commissioner Davis, when I -- when we started talking about this in committee, actually I think my staff was confused in putting this item on the agenda, because right now I have to bring back contract modifications in excess of $25,000. And in this particular situation we have a pool of 9 contractors. And what we have done is we've brought those contracts to the Commissioner's court for approval and you have approved those.
>> correct.
>> and then what we will be doing is issuing purchase orders against those contracts an of course we would verify that there was funding in those budgets before we did that. Really we probably shouldn't have put this on the agenda. The only thing I知 doing is issuing purchase orders against a contract that the Commissioner's court has already approved.
>> yeah.
>> so I apologize for the confusion.
>> ...
>> it's not a modification of the contract. It's sort of like a notice to proceed against that contract, so I really already have that authority and I think my staff and I signed off on it. We just didn't -- we were just kind of confused. It's not a modification of the contract. It's a notice to proceed against the contract that you as the Commissioner have already approved.
>> well... I don't see it like that. That's not the way the language is suggesting, even reads that way so... I知 going to have to hold off on this one.
>> that's okay.
>> and I did go back and look at what we have issued. The highest purchase order or the highest amount we've spent with one of these contractors was -- they were all about under -- we've spent about 78,000, that's the most we've spent with any of these contractors and we've -- that was issued in about 17 purchase orders, so most of the purchase orders that we've issued have been well under $25,000 anyway. I think my staff are just confused thinking this is a contract modification when it's not.
>> I move approval.
>> is that a motion to approve already?
>> I move to approve.
>> sorry for the confusion.
>> anymore discussion? Commissioner?
>> no, that's...
>> all in favor? Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, and son lightner voting the confusion.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 1:52 PM