Travis County Commssioners Court
August 26, 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 11
Number 11 is to discuss and take appropriate action on the use of a safety record questionnaire included in certain Travis County contract solicitations.
>> morning, sue grimes, purchasing agent. Back at the first of the year an item came -- a bid, we had a discussion about a particular bid and the issue of the safety questionnaire came up at the time. Commissioner Sonleitner, I believe, asked that we go back, the whole court asked us to go back and look at the safety questionnaire and bring it back to Commissioners court for y'all to give the purchasing agent some direction on when we should use it. What the law says, what the purchasing act says, is that the Commissioners court can use a safety questionnaire in eat valuation process to determine whether a bidder is a responsible bidder. And this safety questionnaire talks about osha regulations, safety, (indiscernible) and also addresses environmental issues. In your backup we have included a list of contacts that we certainly have the safety questionnaire in, and also all of our construction contracts include the safety questionnaire. The county attorney people, people from tnr and management in my office have worked on this over the last couple of months, and are bringing to you basically the same document. If we had tnrcc in here, we've changed their name, we've added some other agencies, but basically you still have three questions that we asked the contractors and looked at it to make a recommendation.
>> I'm just making sure since this was a matter of discussion for us that we just take a brief little pause here to have sid lay lay out what we're doing so that if somebody says I don't remember y'all doing that so it wouldn't be in a consent motion if she was laying it out. One question I have, and this has not come up on a bid, but on a contract and not necessarily run through purchasing. And that is that we do have certain bids that go out that relate to concessioniares and food kind of things and the question came up about asking questions related to their licensing, whether they had ever been on the channel 36 food for thought reported, those kinds of things in terms of cleanliness issues related, and that would not be with the department of health, that's actually something handled through our local health agency. Grant, that's just one very small thing, but we do have concession contracts related to food that do come through us. And it seemed like it would be a relevant --
>> right, to include that in the concession contracts.
>> right.
>> it does not look like from the list that we did include that in the concessionaire contracts. Unless someone from my office tells me different, but it doesn't look like. Is that one that you would like to have included in there?
>> to me it's appropriate that when you're doing concession contracts or contracts that would have to relate to food service that that would be a relevant question related to their records over at the local health department, that everything is fine, up to date and there aren't any citations that we need to know about there related to their --
>> I don't have any problem with it. The only thing that occurs to me is that there should be kind of a notice that says that we will be doing this in future contracts so that if they have a question of how do I -- how do I find out more information about how to improve my process, then they would have that opportunity.
>> this document has been our -- is in our bid solicitation, so they know that when they get the solicitation.
>> I know that, but I'm wondering if now there should be a notice that now we're going to be including these questions to give people an opportunity to prepare for them and not have it as a surprise.
>> we've been doing this the last 10 years that i've been at the county.
>> we've been having these three questions in there the last 10 years?
>> yes. In all construction contracts and a simpling of the other contracts that we feel like are appropriate to include it in.
>> why do we have this item on here then on the use of the safety record questionnaire.
>> we are cleaning it up. It was seriously out of date related to the names of agencies. And the question came up as to when is it part of sid's bidding documents, when is it not? It was just one of those things to bring it up here to kind of clean it up. And I think especially related to things with tceq and some sensitivities related to books, records over there, related to some of our contracts.
>> were the questions relevant to local area only, statewide or worldwide? And we clarified that, that it's any offense.
>> what would keep us from adding other questions as appropriate in a particular document?
>> as long as -- what the law says is that you will come up -- you will decide ahead of time what your criteria and what your questions will be. And as long as the court decides that and sets that out in the bid solicitation and the questionnaire, we can ask those questions I believe as long as they're relevant to occupational safety and health and environmental questions.
>> that's what I'm saying. So an r.f.p. For a concessionaire and I would think that we may well want to go beyond these three questions.
>> exactly because we're not asking them if they have problems with u.s. Fish and wildlife, it's a question of how they prepare the fish.
>> and I -- I don't know. Tom might know this, but I don't know if the health department review of food is included under osha or not or if that's a separate agency that does those sort of inspections.
>> we have a local health -- we have the health department, and they are the ones that are the keeper of the records related to food inspections and not only the surprise inspections, but the quarterly ones.
>> and in all of our r.f.p.'s, we ask relevant questions to that particular solicitation. This is a standard document that we put in that deals with just those three areas. So I think we are doing what you're referring to, judge.
>> I think you can address the food issue. You're talking about, Commissioner, the only requirement is under the statute you have to set out your criteria. So the next time one of those contracts came up, you would just need to adopt your criteria first before the invitation for bid went out.
>> to me it's a matter of disclose sthur that they're the ones delg telling us as opposed to the contract that I'm thinking of is it was by accident that somebody happened to see the name on there and said, hmm, we kind of know them in terms of their records over at the Travis County health department. So it seems like that ought to be something, but again, that is very narrowly focused thing, but I would certainly request that, that things that have to do with the delivery of food, the preparation of the food, the handling of food, that that would be a relevant question to ask in those kinds of solicitations up front. That is something that they need to disclose, that they've got their proper food handling permits from the local health department and same kind of criteria, three years back are there issues and self-disclose.
>> i'll go back and look at our concession contracts and see if we have any type of these requirements in there.
>> could we also have some handle -- because we also have handling of food and things out at the exposition center and also out at our parks. And it's one of the things that we need to can ask the question and raise the bar related to the handling of food. The raft thing I want to -- the last thing I want to see is a concessionaire of ours on the news as failing their inspection.
>> don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't ask questions. I guess the only thing where I'm coming from is to make sure that the -- they don't get something added on to their ability to do business with us or not. And I know that there are some other barriers. And I just don't want to -- if we're going to add them on, let's circulate it among the hubs especially so that they'll know what is coming up brnd bring is to their attention.
>> bottom line, we have active contracts out there that we deal with that handle food. And I guess those-- the contract for those particular persons that do not have any indication in there as far as what we expect of them when it comes to handling food, that's what I'm hearing this morning?
>> we're going to go back and look at those contracts and see exactly what we're requesting. I'm hoping that we have a statement in it that says that they will follow all local health rules and that sort of thing. And I believe from time to time that they do inspections on those, and that's how we find out. But I will go back and check and make sure that that's very clear. And we're not asking for health department permits -- if we're not asking for them, that we start doing that.
>> and we're already got existing contracts. This would be the next time these things come up. And to me it just the concession contracts. To ask them to have food handling permits, they ought to have them and that's making sure that there's a disclosure the same way somebody has to do with related to tceq and other things that relate to our local health department and the handling of food. That is a legitimate question to ask people because when you do fail an inspection, you get to come back in and they reinspect you I think within five days. And if you watch the channel 36 reports, most of the businesses do exactly as they are told and they are able to reopen within 24 hours with a clean bill of health. And that's the whole point, a clean bill of health.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> so follow-up action is needed to the other kinds of contracts. We just know that we need to take additional action in advance.
>> if we want to add anything to this safety questionnaire, we will need to come back and do it formal livment.
>> I'm fine with the questionnaire right now, but there's a very narrow group of things that when we come back, let's handle it.
>> are we prohibited from having more than one questionnaire?
>> I think you can tailer it to the tape of business and contract.
>> any more discussion?
>> I would like to ask sylvia to is circulate it among the hubs and to get some feedback from them.
>> if we need follow-up action, it will be back on the agenda? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 8:52 PM