Travis County Commissioners Court
October 26, 2004
Item 28
28, then we'll go back to 12. 28, consider and take appropriate action on
evaluation committee rankings of the architectural/engineering proposals submitted
for for r.f.q. Number q 040113 jj, professional engineering services for five
roadway design projects and request for authorization to commence contract
negotiations with the most highly qualified firms.
>> back in July, we received 61 proposals for these -- for
five different projects, mcgregor park, hippie hollow service road, serene
hills, front rock road extension, mckinney falls park way, howard lane, which
is the cameron to dessau, and then the fifth project is howard lane, cameron
road to sh 130, which is on hold. But I had an extensive evaluation of the
firms and we're recommending that we begin negotiations with five -- well,
right now four different firms for four of the projects, and we'll be coming
back later on the howard lane 2.
>> do we need to you read into the record the names of the
officials or how do we want to handle this?
>> I think we do.
>> for mcgregor park service road, it's axiom blare engineering.
Serene hills, it's earth tech. For mckinney falls park way, it's house associates.
And for howard lane 1, cameron to dessau is martinez, wright and mendez.
>> judge, I pulled this last week and got my question answered.
>> we have several individuals here. Would any of you like
to address the court on this item?
>> I would like to pass this out. I know that Commissioner
Sonleitner had some concerns about -- you all get a lot of calls from contractors
giving you information which is a waste from their perspective. We heard that
Commissioner Sonleitner had concerns and so we went through and pulled all
the a and e contracts we've had about the last two years. And from this list,
you'll see there are some that have received multiple awards, but you'll also
note there's about 26 different a and e firms all in tract that we have awarded
contracts to. And out of the 38, which is actually a little bit skewed because
some of them are counted twice, 26% of these firms are hub firms. So I think
we're doing very well in spreading the work in the community and among different
a and e firms. For some of your larger projects, it also follows reason that
the more highly skilled firms will win those contracts. So I just wanted to
give you this information to help alleviate some of the kefrpbs --concerns
you have and are getting from the constituents that we same to be going to
the same vendors all the time. I think this proves we are not doing that is
correct we're spreading it out and the minority community is getting a share
of the work.
>> cyd, you are presuming what questions I was asking. I
didn't have any conversations with you and my concerns were expressed to mr.
Geiselman and they were not what you just mentioned there. So I don't want
any implications that somehow I was questioning the firms that are getting
the work today. It was a question of a different sort. And you did not express
it. Because we didn't talk.
>> my concern that I had was just simply that looking through
here, the bonds were approved by the voters -- where is that information?
In --
>> 2001.
>> and we haven't delayed here at all, have we?
>> no, we're pretty much on schedule. This is the last group
of projects that are going out for design, so these are on schedule for going
out about this time. And once these are designed, then we'll put them under
construction. So we're getting toward the last half of the program, and typically
we look for five years to implement the c.i.p. Program in part due to amount
of debt we expect to issue in a year. We program out these projects over the
five-year period. So we're now coming into the last slug of projects in that
2001 bond program.
>> okay, so we we'll confident we'll have enough money to
complete the project.
>> so far all of our projects -- all of our projects have
been under budget. Everything has been under budget to this point.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, just to address your concern,
one of the things you all stressed is talk about communication break downs.
I’m not being communicated with directly on issues so I do get the story secondhand.
And these are issues and concerns that i've been hearing not just from you
indirectly, but from other people in the county. So I wanted to address this
issue and say that we believe we're doing a good job on spreading the wealth.
If that was your concern, I did not know because due not communicate with
me directly.
>> that is okay for to say in terms of a purchasing agent
but that is not the question I asked and I had my questions directly answered
by mr. Geiselman.
>> I apologized that I thought that was a concern. So I wanted
to communicate to you the situation as it actually is.
>> any more clarifying statements before we move on with
county business?
>> I would move approval of the firms for the projects as
listed in the t.n.r. Memo.
>> second.
>> those firms we try to negotiate a specific contract with,
right?
>> yes, sir.
>> this list is for design work. Architecture and engineering.
>> that's correct.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That
passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
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: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:26 PM