Travis County Commissioners Court
January 18, 2005
Item 25
Number 25 is to consider and take appropriate action on recommendation to award contract for peace officer compensation study, rfs number so 50021 ml to mgt of america.
>> judge, Commissioners, ydgrimes, county purchasing agent. As you know, the hr director and her had a team of folks, we put out an rfs and we received five proposals, which we opened at the end of December. The evaluation committee consists of representatives from human resources, our planning and budget office, the sheriff's office, and they have narrowed it down and would like to award a contract to mgt of america. The contract amount is $24,500. That's a firm, fixed price, which is well under what was budgeted. And ms. Moore -- linda Moore smith can give you the details that you need.
>> as you might remember, we, we meaning your team that was appointed, the planning and budget office, purchasing office, county attorney's office, the Travis County sheriff's office as well as hrmd, five department teams represented as a part of your evaluation committee. Our team met, of course developed the rfs, released the rfs to approximately 25 compensation experts around the country. We did not limit it at all to Texas. We did an expensive research to identify consultants nationwide. Based on what we understood the intent and the interest of the stakeholders as being, to move outside of Texas, but certainly not to exclude anyone from Texas from bidding. The proposals came in. We actually opened them December the 20th. Cyd indicated there were five bidders. Three that we chose to bring in for actual interviews. Interviews that were held on January the seventh. And of the three that we brought in for interviews, mgt of america, as indicated as the contractor that we're proposing. There were four very specific criteria that we had laid out in the rfs, which served as our guideline for evaluating on paper the five proposals as well as shaping interview questions of the three that we invited in. Those criteria included the completeness of the proposal relative to the rfs as well as the -- their ability to obtain the projected time line. The second criteria listed was that they had to have at least 10 years of work history in doing similar studies, demonstrated within their objectivity, fairness as well as inclusiveness, and that's objectivity, fairness and inclusiveness as it relates to multiple stakeholders. The third criteria had to do with the qualifications of the proposers. And that included not just having done the studies before, but it also included their education levels, their years of experience in doing these studies, as well as the quality of the type of references that they provided to us. And the fourth criteria, of course, was the cost. So it was type before criteria and our recommendation of mgt america indicates that the evaluation committee felt that that this particular vendor met all of that criteria. I can give you a little more specific on the company in particular. If I were to say what was the overriding factor that led the committee to recommend this particular vendor, I would say to you as a court that we were awfully impressed with the work of this company and market inside and outside of Texas that were really representative of progressive law enforcement, peace officer type operations and studies that they had conducted in the past. We were very fortunate with the tcs on representation that places like hillsborough county, florida was recognized as a very progressive law enforcement operation, and one that is really kind of held up at a very high level in terms of the type of the operations, the pay scales and everything else that's involved with what we wanted to come out of the study. We'll also know from that expertise that reno, nevada was a city or is a city that's really held up as having a progressive peace officers, law enforcement type operation, this particular vendor has worked with each of those as well as other entities that demonstrated their effectiveness in this area. One of the things, I listened to the tape where you gave us the guidance to go forward, and in that particular replay, I heard from the court that we're not just interested in the compensation and the market, the dollars, we're also interested in -- and this didn't only come from the court, but it also came from the stakeholders too. We have many issues that are beyond the basic dollars that we want to have considered within this study. Of the vendors again, this particular vendor was one who recognized the differences of what we were talking about in Travis County as the uniqueness of our particular peace officer operation. So with that, in addition to looking at the market, the comparisons, the out of state type markets and comparing us to that, they too were very focused on internal, external pay equity issues that have very much to do with working conditions, the licenses, the training, just looking at all of those intricacies that are outside of just comparing salary and dollars from one county, one city to the next. They're Austin-based, which lends itself to greater efficiencies in terms of collaborative efforts. They're committed to the time line. They're committed, as cyd indicated, to the budgeted amount of 24,400. But what a real plus to that, you will remember that you were charging hr to do the data collection. This particular company has offered to collaborate with us, but to take the lead on collecting the data, which takes that -- for the same price, which takes that, of course, away from hr and enhances, of course, we think, the total objectivity of the data collected as well as the analysis of that. So we're awfully pleased that we're here to you today on schedule for the time line that we submitted and under budget. So at this point under budget. With one caveat. Although the contract is proposed at 24,400, and as indicated it's a price, we would like for the court to consider leaving the balance of that in contingency just in case as we move through the study itself that there might be a need for meetings that might cost us a bit more to engage them in services beyond what's included in the actual contract. And i've probably given you much more than you would have wanted, but we've had meetings with the stakeholders, we met with them, made sure with the stakeholders that we were very much included and evidence of to them their issues and concerns in the rfs. We met with them last Friday, went through with them the same information that we're sharing with you now on our recommendation to you as the court.
>> which stakeholders were at that meeting?
>> the stakeholders at last week's meeting, the law enforcement association, the owe patty is in the audience? Would you help me identify them? I know the park rangers, the law enforcement association, the investigators, constables.
>> were corrections there?
>> corrections, was corrections there?
>> I'm not sure.
>> I don't believe that corrections were there.
>> did we invite all of the affected categories of employees to attend?
>> yes. They were all there. I have them as a group in my e-mail system. And they were all invited to that meeting.
>> so you told them basically who would be recommended?
>> yes, we did. And the e-mail that I sent to them announcing the meeting I did indicate that we were recommending mgt and that we would be in court today on this item if they had any questions that they wanted to raise.
>> okay. My final question is that on the scores by committee members, I see the average score by mgt of america and walters consulting group was 1, the differential was one, 82 to 81. Can you just tell me what factors led the committee to choose mgt of america over walters?
>> there were actually two. One primarily having to do with price, and the other having to do with mgt's work in the larger markets and targeted markets of expertise that we were focusing on.
>> is walters local? I'm not familiar with them.
>> walters is local o. -- waters is local, based out of dallas if I'm not mistaken, but a representative here in Austin.
>> you told them basically what recommendation we've made to the court today and they could comment?
>> frank holder indicated to me that he was sending letters to notify them.
>> anybody here from any of the consultants that submitted proposals for this? For this opportunity? Anything further from the court?
>> move approval of the recommendation to go with mgt for the firm price of 24,400, with a deliverable of we get the study no later than may 10th.
>> any words of wisdom?
>> I don't believe so. [ inaudible ].
>> how much money did we set aside?
>> the original earmark was $50,000, and 24,400 of that was appropriate as stated by you earlier, item 13 a-2.
>> for this contract?
>> for this contract.
>> any more discussion? All those in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much for your outstanding work and staying on time and coming in under budget.
>> thank you.
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, January 19, 2005 8:11 AM