Travis County Commissioners Court
February 22, 2005
Item 38
38, consider it and take appropriate action on proposals for Travis County to increase contract opportunities with Travis County for historically underutilized businesses.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. I expect some of my staff to come down on this item. But we've met a couple of times and y'all wanted us to do a little bit more and come back and give you an update. This is a little bit of background for the public, if they're listening. Back in '04 we were approached by the city of Austin to participate in a second generation disparity study, along with several other entities. The cost of that exceeded what we anticipated, what you authorized. You had authorized $100,000 to be spent on the effort. Some of the other entities did not participate and the city has decided that they would do a revised disparity update. And there still is an opportunity for us to participate in the focus groups and the public hearings. And so we're working with collette and staff to make that happen. The other thing that we wanted to do was invest in some software to help us do our tracking and reporting and other information. And then also contract with collette holt to look at more narrowly tayloring other program. And basically the alternative that we brought to y'all we felt like that we would just get better results -- it would just be more useful to us than the $100,000 on a partial disparity study that really wouldn't get us that much further down the road. We've been in conversation with ms. Holt and she -- she did send us a proposal, but we need to work some of the details out and some of the -- the outcomes that we want her to do in that. But basically she's a known expert in this area. She's tried cases all over the united states and we feel like she's an expert on the programs and she can give us the best advice of anybody. She's also familiar with the type of software that we're looking at, and she's going to help us make some decisions on that. We wanted to review our contract language. One of the things that she specifically is doing in some of the other areas is helping look at bonding requirements and also payment efforts and unbundling of projects, which we will need to work real closely with mostly facilities on breaking up some of our contracts, but also some of the road projects we might could break up more. But those are some of the things that she's going to help us look at. As far as the focus groups, she believes that she would gain some valuable information from the focus groups and she's going to work -- this is one of the details we need to work out. We'd probably contract with her directly and have her include us in what the city is doing, and that might be easier for us to do this contract with her directly since she's doing it both for the city and would be doing it for us. And also she said that it could be useful to strengthen even our volunteer program, she feels like. We know a lot of the issues that the hub community is facing and we've tried to deal with it over the years, but we're hoping at this time that she can bring something new to the table that we can work on. And then on the software, we've been looking at a couple of programs, but we need to go through a formal process and see if there's anybody else out there that has programs that we like. We've looked at one that collette recommended. It is very good. Capital metro we found out using it, txdot is using it. And it's very well priced. However, there's always the issue of data conversion and interfacing with hte, so there's a lot of details that we need to work out. Basically that's a recap of where -- of where we've been and what we would like to do. I wanted to also introduce our new hub specialist, jerome.
>> jerome guerrero.
>> I remembered jerome. And he's a native Austinite. He's been here a long time. I think he's worked -- I think some of you know him and have seen him. And so he's in addition to our staff, so we're really looking forward to jerome being here with us.
>> good afternoon.
>> and y'all know betty. And sylvia. And so we provided y'all some backup, and we're ready to continue on and get the contract with collette, go through the r.f.p. Process for the software. And we got a notice last week, late last week, and we're not real sure if it's a meeting with the city council or if it's actually one of the first public information on the focus groups, so sylvia, betty and jerome will be there this Friday to sort of include us in whatever they're doing and not get behind. So we would like -- so I guess our request today is to move forward and spend the $100,000 on these three initiatives. And --
>> I guess my whole point in all of this, not that I don't support it, but I guess when can we really expect something back that we can kind of bite our teeth into? I know that there's a lot of things that are intertwined into this. There ought to be some kind of ballpark time line as far as when I can expect something back. I know we have to work with others and all these other things, but somewhere there ought to be some revealing point of all of this to let us know where they are, if we're going the right direction or what. And I guess that's basically what I'm trying to get down to. I know we have to take these steps first of all, the three basic steps here. Focus groups, the appropriate software, and lastly, the contract person with collette; however, there has to be something revealing after all of these things -- we put this out there and then hope for the best whatever. And that's not the position I want to be in. I want to make sure that what we're doing there is something that I can look at soon. And I mean, very soon. To make sure that we get something out of what we're doing and to make a difference as far as the disparity ispair as far as we're concerned, at least collecting some information to let us know that we are doing what we're supposed to be doing.
>> we're hoping that these focus groups are going to happen pretty quick with the city of Austin. This Friday is the first one, and we're already starting the focus group input. The r.f.p. For the software is probably going to take three months, so we've got to draft that. And then collette, she said four to five months in reviewing all of our documents, working with all of our information, she's projecting four or five months on her part of it. So within six months we should have our software in place, we should have our contracts rewritten, any information or improvements to the hub program she should be able to make all these recommendations. So in six months hopefully I can come back and give you an update on, okay, here's where we're at, this is what we've done, and any new ideas that come to us.
>> let me ask you, you stated in a statement earlier when we talked about some of the problems that I know some of the vendor may be having is that bonding requirement. The city of Austin some time ago made an in-depth, I guess, attempt -- maybe they've had some success. I really don't know. In looking at ways where persons could increase their capability of dealing with contracts because of whatever the situation they set up over there to deal with the bonding requirement issues. Is there any way possible that that information -- in other words, if the wheel has been invented, why do it again? Is it possible that the information could be referred to as far as what you're trying to do here? I know that these come up as far as the conversations with bonding.
>> if you'll recall, Commissioner, what the city did is basically was to hire a bonding and technical services contractor -- I believe how many million dollars? It was several -- it was an 8-million-dollar contract over five years. And they basically were providing training and providing some bonding. I'm not exactly sure how they did that. But it was a very expensive endeavor for the city of Austin. And I'm not sure that it worked out real well.
>> but they underwrote the bonding need. The bottom line is what they did.
>> they did.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. It was similar to the criminal justice center construction where the county would step in and cover the insurance costs for the bonding.
>> with those particular points, I know we've been wrestling with this. And again, I don't have any opposition to what we're doing, I just wanted to get some type of earmark as far as time line in my head as to when I could expect something back. I have no problem with this. I'd like to move approval of 38. I know there's probably more discussion.
>> my only concern -- and I think we can do it. Based on collette's costs, we're looking at 40,000 between her and the city study. That leaves us about 60,000 for the software. I'm confident that we can get it for that, but that's my only concern is that it might come in more than 60,000.
>> is that because of the fact that you state that had the software that's available right now that she recommended, there may be another software either that need to be completed with it?
>> the proposal that he gave us was very reasonable, well under $25,000, but when you read the proposal, and i've learned this through experience at the county, there's always some hidden cost in data conversion and importing and all that. Before I jump off and say it's going to be 15 or $20,000 I need to make sure that he's could covered everything in his proposal, and I know that he hasn't. This will have an internet capability, so we need i.t. Involved. I think we should go through a formal process and make sure that we're not leaving anybody else out that might have something better. We obviously like this one. Capital metro has it, txdot, both have it. It is a hub firm that's providing the software. But we just feel like we should go through the process and make sure. Then that way we can make sure that its is involved and everybody else that needs to be and not leave anything out.
>> well, I'm ready to make the motion.
>> can I ask a question? It's your opinion we ought do this?
>> yes, sir.
>> then I'm really not going to be happy if we get in and this software stuff ends up costing us more money. And especially for integration and all -- and all of this kind of stuff ievment going to -- I'm going to really feel like that we were sold something and I'm going to -- i'll vote for it, but I won't be happy about that.
>> it will come back.
>> I know it will. But what happens when you get to the part --
>> $25,000 is the bottom line?
>> right now that's what you've budgeted for us to spend on the other, and we're asking to spend it to this. And I'm very confident that I can get it here for 60,000, but I just wanted to make you aware that that could be an issue. The alternative to being integrated with the hge system is we would have to enter the data ourselves and we don't want to do that. But we would be thorough and we'll make sure that we're getting what we're supposed to be getting. In sh software package. We did talk about the focus groups, whether that was truly needed or not, but it's all of our opinions that that would be something that we should do and eventually if it gets to where we need to do a full blown disparity study, then we have that part of it done already. We just feel like this is a much better use of our money.
>> the other thing that we wanted to be sure about is under the contract would be that three from the bottom about the contractor is supposed to petition and enable us to address the issue where before they substitute a subcontractor they need to communicate with us.
>> right. They have to get approval. We're hoping they can strengthen our -- she can strengthen our contract to the legal limit where we can make sure that --
>> that would be a good thing.
>> it's a long time coming. Long time coming. Nirks more discussion on this item? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, February 23, 2005 7:23 AM