Travis County Commssioners Court
June 8, 2004
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 4
Anybody here on 4-a and b. It is to approve contract awards for medical and surgical supplies, ifb number b 0400960 j to medical express incorporated as primary supplier, and 4-b is quadmed incorporated as secondary supplier. What are our issues here?
>> I want to give you just a little brief history. We went out for bid on that back in March. We had seven bids at that time: we had two bidders with no bids, four bidders that were nonresponsive. One bidder who was responsive who at the time was southwest surgical systems. In looking at the bid, the way that the bid was formatted, we called for a list price for total estimated quantities and then a bidder's price for estimated quantities. Basically what we wanted was unit prices. So there was confusion and it was hard to see who really was the low bidder. So we came to court in April, asked you to reject all those bids and we changed our specifications to make it clear that we wanted a unit price and an estimated total amount. Mr. Trotten was the only bidder that was -- the first round. Molly jones, the buyer, she called mr. Trotten and talked to him, explained the situation and told him we were going to revise the specs and put it out. When we did put it back out and the bids came in, everyone understood that and did it correctly except for southwest surgical this time. And since this is a bid we could not let him correct his quantities. And so our recommendation is that we reject his bid as nonresponsive and award it to the two lowest bidders. We apologized to mr. Trotten about this and the inconvenience it has caused him. You have the option to reject it all again and do it again or award the bids according to the bids at that time. And mr. Trotten is here to present his side of the issue.
>> how are you doing?
>> I'm fine. Those are basically the facts. All I'm asking today is to be able to reformat my seconded by so that the numbers -- so we're comparing apples to apples. The numbers I have put forth were like today case quantity and several box quantity. So I gave a price, say, for a dozen eggs instead of just one egg. Otherwise if I can't reformat it, i'd like to have all the bids thrown out. Or if we can't do that, I think we should go back to March 22nd when I did provide the bid as asked and was the only company to provide a correct bid. Our company has been doing business with Travis County for over a dozen years. And we have a good relationship with you. We've worked at del valle, we've worked at the jail, medical examiners, garner bets -- gardner-betts. So I just would like the court to reconsider this matter and see what really they could provide us. Thank you.
>> so I take it in March we believe that the confusion was caused by the way we had issued the solicitation? And then the number of firms that misinterpreted that came to the conclusion that -- (indiscernible).
>> that's correct. We had seven bids the first time and southwest surgical was the only company that submitted the bid correctly. Of the six, two were no bids and the other four were nonresponsive because of the way the schedule was shown. So I told him what our recommendation to the court would be, and he agreed and he said that was no problem. So on April -- April 26th when the court rejected all the bids of the first solicitation, we issued that second solicitation, which mr. Trotten got a copy of, and it resulted that this time around that out of the nine bidders, he was the only company that didn't hit schmidt a correct bid. -- didn't submit a screkt correct bid.
>> what was the product.
>> we've gone to unit pricing. This is what we got from everyone except southwest.
>> so like mr. Trotten said, instead of a price per unit, he gave a price per dozen?
>> correct. And because of that, we can't go back and clarify that. We can just reject the bids again and go back again and hope that everyone gets it right this time.
>> so what's the price difference between mr. Trotten's bid and the bid that won?
>> it was quite a bit because his bid result was well over I think a million dollars because of the way he priced his items.
>> we couldn't go through and try to assume what his unit prices would be from the way it was bid.
>> he did it the right way the first time around. Can we look at that and see what it would have been.
>> those are not unit prices. Those were total estimated quantity prices. We did not have the unit prices the first go round.
>> and as a matter of fact, the bids that -- the bid prices he gave us on his first solicitation was the same on his second solicitation. So we didn't change any.
>> why were the specs changed?
>> again, because of the estimated quantities, the way that we showed the first solicitation, we're asking for total estimated quantity when we should have been asking for unit price per item. And that was what happened with all the bidders the first time. That's why we recommended to the court that we reject those bids.
>> my question was why wasn't -- why was it changed? In other words, you go from unit price now --
>> to be able to compare apples to apples. Unit price to unit price, not a box of five and a box of 10. That's what we had. We had like a box of five or a box of 10. We needed to know what each unit in the box cost to do a cost comparison.
>> well, I think we created the confusion, so is it fair to throw them all out again and have you go through the exercise? It seems like we ought to have it down what it is that we really need.
>> I mean, I would be comfortable if the court made the decision to reject these bids and do it one more time for mr. Trotten's benefit basically.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> I think the thing that's compelling for me is normally I would say the rules are the rules are the rules, but one of the biggest consumers of this particular bid item is Travis County sheriff's office. And I thought that was extraordinarily compelling that the folks that have been dealing with this particular item say that they understand that they submitted an incorrect bid. The company would have been my primary choice because of the availability of supplies and the excellent service provided to us for several years. Reliable vendors are difficult to find. That's what's compelling to me. That's almost the kind of thing that drives people crazy about government, the rules don't encourage. And I think that's the kind of thing we need to encourage in terms of good vendors and good vendor relationship. The rule is the rule is the rule.
>> I usually go to john helly and he assigns it.
>> and that is chapter 29 11:30.
>> you have the option of doing this again.
>> specifically, let's call this item up in executive session today. I'd like to have discussion.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 9, 2004 7:25 AM