Travis County Commissioners Court
May 3, 2005
Item 10
Number 10, approve contract award for professional consulting services, Travis County correctional complex design-build project, r.f.q. Number q 050047-mb to the highest qualified respondent, hellmuth, obata and kassabaum, otherwise known as h.o.k. And several things are working on this matter. The court approved a little bit more than 6 thupb thousand ke the agreed amount is about $100,000 more. I guess we need to understand why for that. I did see in the backup sort of broad categories of services and it would help me to know a little more specifically what we're getting. That was the e-mail I send to mr. Trumble last Thursday or Friday.
>> i'll talk briefly and let roger explain a little more. What happened is the contract was negotiated for a final amount of about $700,000. The court had approved $603,000, thereabouts, for the work on the pre-design planning work. And i'll let roger talk about kind of how we got to that number. But what we were looking at is there was some additional ways we can fund that amount. Based on the information that I have about that, there was a negotiation process where the -- the provider, bidder, proposed a scope of work that was a little beyond what we had proposed or what we had set out. And basically we came back to that scope of work. And based on the review of what we have finally, all the components of the scope of work we had laid out are being met and i'll let roger kind of expound on that a little bit.
>> thank you, michael. Roger with facilities management. We had an excellent negotiation with h.o.k. And we started the negotiation first. They started high because their fees were high and also, as any consultant comes to the table, they come to the table with a high number. But in addition to that also, they have the scope of work, the way they see it is different than what we advertised. So we the first set of negotiations we kind of tied the misunderstanding or the -- what they think about the scope of work and what we think about the scope of work and it turned out we came to about $825,000. And the second negotiation we [inaudible] and then we got down to the 700. Judge, I want to assure you that there's no reduction or cut of the scope of work as been approved by the court and was set in the r.f.q. Check the requests and qualifications from all other consultants t. Scope of work stayed as is, but we have expanded it, made it more detailed, and we had five phasing. The first is pre-plan and research analysis. The second is the architectural programming and planning. And architectural engineering document, this is what is equivalent to a schematic design. Then here's the part we usually we don't do before is the design-build document and design-build procurement. In a normal project and in a design-built bid, purchasing would take care of all of that. All this process. But there's a design-build, we would like to have the consultant to help us every step in the way of writing and assisting in the r.f.q. For the design-built project, also for the selection of the design-built team, who was going to design and construct. And also help us in that particular process. And that would add additional money in the -- but it's within the $700,000.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...what part of the scope of work would have contingency on the bond election in 2001 [sic] not 2001 but November of 2005.
>> what this would do --
>> what portion of this scope of service would be contingent on that? In other words if the voters say, well, we don't want to support this amount of money. Is that anything at all tied into that at all as far as this particular phase of it.
>> not to this particular project. What this would do is basically do a lot of the preplanning work up to where you would get in the design phase and indicate the design build phase for redevelopment of the -- of the jail site at del valle. So what it is going to do is work towards the scope of the c 2 concept that was discussed with the court. Now regardless of what the bond committee recommendations, ultimately, there may be, you know, some or all of that, but what this will lay out is basically a master plan for how we do develop out at the site, whether there's a component of that or how all of that's done, I think this is a discussion of what we had before.
>> I just want to make sure that that question is really answered correctly and properly because of -- of factors that -- questions that have been posed to me. Of course I want to make sure you all say what you are saying.
>> absolutely.
>> the year exactly what's going on because folks are aware that we are looking to put, you know --, you know, there's a certain amount of money that we are looking at for coming up in this November election as far as voter approval of funding on stuff.
>> if we do it to the scope of potentially what are all of needs out there, planning to that scope, that puts us in a much better position than if we said we are going to plan for the smaller piece, if something gets approved on bond that puts us in a bad situation of the we feel like this is the best way to approach us, do the planning work, have the master plan for all of the needs being met then union determine what happens after the fact what gets approved.
>> I know getting reports from the bond committee [indiscernible] have some questions about -- about getting too far out in front. I have always been a little uncomfortable with the fact that you spend three-quarters after million on -- quarters of a million on something that you are not yet fully committed, I mean I think this all of us know that eventually we are going to have to have space. So maybe that is really the answer to this thing. Because even if something happens where we don't pass the bonds or we come up with -- with some pretty drastic different ideas, with the bond committees, this -- this could be used as sort of a starting spot, if you will, inevitable, which is I think that we all know have to be something built. Do you -- do you share -- do you get any sort of a read from the advisory committee that there are some pretty good questions in there with regards to exactly where we are headed with this thing? Is there a presumption that, hey, we have got to do this, in this can he, and I haven't sat through one of these committees yet, so I guess by the end of this, I will be a little more comfortable with how you do this thing. Sometimes it kind of gets me confused because I think it's the cart before the horse so to speak. So can you address that?
>> sure. My sense is that the bond committee is doing an excellent job in asking, you know, good questions about the project and what are the needs for jail facilities, you know, now and in the future. And I think that -- that what we are trying to do is get this information in front of them or for the consideration. I do get the sense that they do -- there are needs and obviously there are some things that need to be addressed, obviously they have some tough decisions ahead of them. So I think right now they are definitely in the consideration process, in the review process, so I don't get the sense that they made any, you know, kind of one way or the other about the needs. I think they see their needs across the board. Not just in my area, but all of the things that even joe is talking about, too. So I think they are really solidly in the consideration process. Like I said, I think the planning work, this really lays out kind of a master plan for how we approach redevelopment out at the site, regardless of whether that's the full concept or, you know, or if it's just a piece of that, that gives us a guide for how we do that. Even if it is just a smaller component, you know, so -- that's kind of a similar to what we have, when we had the '96 plan. We did several projects out there that were based on has that plan -- what that plan laid out for us. We are looking at a revision of that plan, what we are looking at now from this point into the future how we are going to approach redevelopment of it.
>> I just want to make sure that this doesn't necessarily drive, I mean, the committee to come up with -- with solutions before we get all of those questions answered. I know that right now it's really early. I would suspect that anybody on the committee would -- would be solidly in a spot as to what they need to do because it's so early on. But it is -- you can see where it's a little confusing to do this process right now and yet not -- not have exactly what we think that the committee is going to weigh in on. The only thing that I am uncomfortable with is I think at some point in time we are going to have to embark on some facilities but I don't want the facilities to -- I don't want the committee to feel obligated about okay well we spent three-quarters of a million. I don't want somebody coming up saying why did you do that before you knew what we were actually going to do.
>> one thing that I tried to be pretty clear with the bond committee about, yes we are doing the preplanning work, it is just that. That's the -- where he made a -- we made a commitment what we need to do from a planning perspective, there are several considerations, big decisions that they need to make, considerations they need to make as they consider what recommendations they put back in front of Commissioners court. As much as I can, I will try to continue to be very clear about that.
>> okay. Let me try asking the question. In yet a third way because I think we are all kind of asking questions kind of focusing on the same thing. How much of this says we are absolutely locking in on the presumptions, assumptions, the plan related to c 2? What flex is still there, et cetera? Because you have to kind of get down to a certain amount of preplanning but I mean are we Marching down a path that we are not going to be able to retreat from? Michael this is no surprise to you because we've had long discussions of this.
>> the appears is no. We are not Marching down the path to where there is a point of no return. We would have to do modifications at some point based on our approach past the planning phase, roger and cyd correct me if I?m wrong, we would have to do modifications after the fact if we are taking a different direction than doing the full concept. But at this point a lot of it really is just the planning work, what's needed out there, really leading up to that brimming document that really -- bridging document that lays out the specifications for what is needed. We have to at some point come back and say, well, we are going to do a piece of this. Look at some modifications how we move forward working on the bridging document, working with any design build team based on what we come up with. Yes we would. At this point is this locking the court into running down a road, no it's not.
>> we have five phases here laid out in the memo that you have got here. At what point are there authorization stop points or time out points that things come back to the court for us to say yes, go to the next place. Because there could be places along the way that go you know what, this isn't working for us, we need to do a time out here. You wait for step 4 or step 5 to say oh, my goodness, we need to go in another direction, that's not a good thing.
>> [indiscernible] after phase number 2, also coming to the court they can on the bridge and document also. [indiscernible] come to the court twice.
>> would we also have a stop point getting into four and getting into five?
>> absolutely. Number 4 and 5, every time we have to move from one place to another has to be approved. When it comes to the court, it has to be approved by the court to move to the second step.
>> with my own members of the -- of the bond committee as well, there are some questions being thrown about, I think very good ones, in terms we have good function on this committee about our relationship with jail standards. And there has been some great debate over at the state capitol when people have testified related to revenue caps et cetera as to whether we are voluntarily giving up our variance beds or voluntary is not a very good word if you are being threatened with a mandatory remedial action. And I don't think that I have gotten clarity as to what is the situation. Because that is the term that is being used over at the state capitol when it's being brought up in testimony that, well, we are being forced because of jail standards to give up our variance beds, we are getting feedback, front door, back door channels saying, no, you voluntarily gave those up and it's like, well, what's voluntarily if -- is voluntary truly voluntary, if you are threatened with remedial action, that doesn't feel very voluntary. I don't think that I have gotten clarification as to what is the situation. Because it's a big deal if our voluntary really is voluntary and we have got a little bit more time to get to drawing some conclusions.
>> I have had some discussions with jail standards, just to try to get some of that clarification. And, you know, again I know a lot of it is based on some of the interactions that we've had with jail standards. I know that in 2001 there was a letter that they had, you know, we go through an annual review process of the variances that we have approved from them and we've had variances with them for about 13 years now, we have to apply for those variances, those get approved every year. I know in 2001 we received a letter from them saying, you know, we are extending the variances for another year, contingent upon your coming up a plan to remove your need for them. Based on that, we did develop, you know, some steps, sheriff frasier and the court I think san antonio letter to them talking about some steps that would be taken and then that was followed up with, you know, the additional review and approval on a year to year basis up to last year where we kind of gave them here are the results of the jail operation study that we did, this is what some of the information that we had found. So as far as I know, I mean, that's generally has there been a hard and fast, you know, mandate handed down? I think that would be stretching it to say that. But has there been a plan, an interaction with them to say there should be a plan in place to remove those variance beds the answer is yes.
>> I know that I have contributed to some of the angst by saying gee don't ask a question that you are not prepared for whatever the answer is. The other question is, if you have three very distinct things, variance beds, expansion beds and then we've got the i'll call them the management bed. Just that, you know, that campus thing of tent buildings that were never intended to last this long. Have we raised the question with them, especially since we've had those variance beds for as long as we have, of jail standards gave us a -- a priority listing of what should go in what order, do they think the most important thing that we get rid of is variance beds or do they want us to have the expanded capacity beds being number one on their list of things for Travis County to do? Or do they think that there are safety issues and management issues, serious one, raised by this campus of tent buildings that keep having to be brought up, brought down depending on what kinds of issues major balagia has got, have we asked that question if we stedge this, what do we work on first, do we have a definitive answer that they say it's the variance beds? Or the -- are the number one sense of craziness with us? Because that raises some questions of beds that they have been authorizing us rise to the top and that may seem contrary to some other things we get related to, you know, surprise inspections, and simple lack of capacity. Manager, help? Hi, how are you all. Major balagia, sheriff's office. I don't pretend to be able to speak for jail standards, but I believe if we ask them your question, the answer would be the variance beds. Because those absolutely are 100% totally under their control. Now you make an excellent point related to the condition of some of the buildings that have -- you know, are really past their useful life, but as long as we can -- illustrate to them that we monitor those, very closely, we do, and that we maintain them in a safe and sanitary condition, they will allow us to -- of course to keep them open. That's what me do really -- what they do really during their annual inspection of us, that's exactly what they are looking for. So we have satisfied them through the years, including this year, that those facilities are in good shape and it's not a safety or security or health issue, that they are fine to occupy. So the sheriff's office officially becomes at what point did you say we are spending more money to keep them, you know, going and -- and operated that really is a good -- isn't a good use of resources. That's really where we are. It's not a jail standards issue. Every document that I have seen from them, seems like an order to me. They are not asking us, they are saying very explicitly in their letters to us throughout the years if you go out and do the history of those chronological order receiving those letters, they say you've got to get rid of these at some time. But they are not saying that to us. They are saying that to every county in the state of Texas that have variance beds, there's a -- there's a number of counties that have -- that have voluntarily removed their variance beds and then some that of course as we know had them taken away. I think that is their priority.
>> if that were the case, why would there not be a single variance bed in the state of Texas within the next three years? Because in terms of following the actions out of jail standards, them getting direct with the county, seems to be more tied to a total disregard, disrespect, dis add the word of people to come there saying we just can't get it together, we don't have a plan, we don't have a vision, everybody is kind of at odds with each other. Because we are cooperatively working together, we say we have issues, we are not going to just ignore them and think la, la, la, la, if I just ignore them I can continue to do what I?m doing. I think that we saw that in terms of bexar county versus Travis County the very same day. So again there are counties in this state who have been allowed longer than we have, to have variance beds and they are not being told that they have got an expiration date and by god we are going to shut down every variance bed in the state of Texas. It just isn't true.
>> well, just to kind of add to what major balagia had said, based on some minor actions with jail standards in recent weeks, I did get verification that there were 10 counties that received an emergency variance back in '93. We were one of them. As several large counties, dallas, tarrant, harris, taylor. Nueces county. We are one of two counties that has them, that still has them or does not have a plan of commitment in place to remove those. All of the other counties either removed them, had them removed or currently right now on are in the process of removing, either through jail construction or already done the preplanning design work, moving into the next phase. So us and dallas. We are the last two counties basically that really are looking at we have these emergency variance beds, what are we going to do with them. Major balagia mentioned some of the interaction. I don't want to overstate it. But that's my understanding of what the situation is. The other thing is that jail standards does their review and basically their whole approach is to -- what they were set up to do was to really protect the jails against a lot of the legal liabilities but, you know, there have been several court cases, several lawsuits that have occurred, jail standards are really set up to provide some common standards to really kind of add for protection against those. As it was explained to me, if there's a situation where they let variances go for an extended amount of time, there really isn't a plan to deal with them, something happens in a facility for example that has twice as many people as it's built to have, there might be a legal liability issue. There may be a legal liability issue for them as well because they are the ones that approved those variances for several years. So again I know that's again I don't want to overstate what the situation is, but that's what I understand kind of the situation to be. Those are the things that they factor in when they do their annual review, if you have anything else to add, major, but that's my understanding of it.
>> the lult irony here is that jail standards does not apply to the state of Texas within the walls of the Texas department of criminal justice. This is something that is imposed upon 254 counties and yet if it's good enough for the 254 counties who are an extension of the state of Texas, why is it that the same situation is not good enough for the jail cells at the department of criminal justice. When they get in a jam, they basically tell the major hi, sorry, we are not going to accept your prisoners. They get backed up in our cells who then have issues, you know '93, things backed up in county jails, this vicious cycle. I actually have two more questions, that's it. Related to double bunking. Is there a way to conjunction with jail standards double bunk in a legal way. Michael you and I have gone through this. It the idea if you try to double bunk my assistants office it's hard to put two desks in that small of an office. But it's not that big of a deal to double desk my office. And are we making assumption that's single occupancy is the way to go or that single occupancy is the preferred route?
>> you can -- you can design and build with multiple occupancy cells. Of course that's -- that's allowed within the standards. But the areas where we are double bunked to the short answer to your question is no. There's just no way to do it because every cell requires x amount of square foot, it's 40 for the first prisoner, 18 for every person thereafter. And so the cell is the size of the cell.
>> right.
>> without knocking out walls and doing reconstruction and adding showers and toilets and square footage, the answer is no.
>> I?m not questioning that. I?m questioning whether in the design of the new space we are making assumptions that we have to go 40, 40, 40, 40 as opposed to 58, 58, 58 so you can double up and there may be some savings related to two people sharing a toilet, two people sharing whatever.
>> yeah, that's not a problem. You can -- we have multiple occupancy cells in the health services building. We have no variance beds in the health services building. So, yes, absolutely. You can have designated areas depending on your custody classification where it's multiple occupancy. You still have to have, though, the square footage, whether it's a single cell or dormitory or whatever it may be. And you have to have the -- you know the one -- the one toilet per eight and one shower per 12 and you still have to maintain those standards. But it doesn't have to be single cell.
>> on the presumption that's we are turning over to hok, is the presumption that we are going with single cells for every one of those replacement cells or that we are going to do something that is kind of like the -- the add-on that is absolutely allowable by jail standards that could drop the -- drop this square footage requirements and other kinds of things that go with a presumption of the legal way to double bunk as opposed to the -- to the stretching it way that we are double bunking, we get to both places, we get rid of our variance beds, but we don't have to go with the doubled size of every single cell simply because we are making an assumption that everybody gets a single cell.
>> I think that's, you know, the good points. I think that's the process that we are going to go through and -- it's preplanned design work. One of the requirements for bringing anybody on was their knowledge and experience working with jail standard. Part of the process is some flushing out of concept, a review of what we have to this point, but then also taking that to the next step and you are working with jail standards, what is allowable, what isn't allowable, what's possible, what isn't possible as far as how we lay out any potential facilities. So I think that's built into the process that we have is to have that type of back and forth with jail standards. As we go through fleshing out the concepts, basically.
>> my last question, I swear it is: are we making any kind of assumptions that we are land locked with our current footprint out at dill valley? Out at del valle, or are there ways we can talk about land swap, so that the square footage doesn't change, it may mean that you can build here, give up here so that the square footage, the footprint stays the same, it just would allow you to have some flexibility related to having a green field area for construction to occur and you not disrupt the existing jail versus we are making assumptions that we have have to have a live construction site and as we all know from doing highways, it costs three times as much to keep lanes open and add to more lanes as opposed to the blow and go, invite us to the ribbon cutting on highways that are going through an area where you do not have traffic already. What assumptions are we making there? Because that could impact a lot of things related to costs and just staging of this related to -- to the site.
>> I believe at this time we are going within the footprint of the jail perimeters at this time. We can go ahead and explore that with our new planners, in that's okay. We can go [indiscernible]
>> okay. I swore that was my last question.
>> okay. Jail standards require a minimum size cell?
>> yes, sir.
>> > if hok is awarded this contract, it will be disqualified from the design build contract?
>> yes.
>> so the contract covers five phases.
>> that's correct.
>> these faces are pretty general.
>> uh-huh.
>> but in the design architect community, these phases mean a whole lot more than the words that appear in this short memo.
>> that's correct. The scope of work is already, it has an explanation for each one of them, like preplanning research analysis, it has explanation and detail about each subphase, you know, and it is in the scope of work. It's in the rfq, also.
>> in the contract.
>> that's correct, it's attached to the professional services agreement as exhibit 11. About a 15 page detailed scope of services that outlines each phase in very much detail.
>> this contract would only cover the 572 beds.
>> no -- this planning process here, it goes all the way up to 1,688.
>> okay. Now, so the deliverables from -- from hok, if this contract is approved, would be handed to the design team.
>> that's correct.
>> design build team.
>> uh-huh.
>> and that consultant would be expected basically to bid and design et cetera based on hok's product.
>> based on that hok and the county approval of the product, yes.
>> okay. So if the design team has questions about the product, the contract obligates hok to respond.
>> clarification, yes.
>> and so if the design team finds that the product to be deficient, hok's responsibility is to try to help out in every --
>> that's correct.
>> mediate --
>> that's correct.
>> any other questions or comments.
>> judge, I would like to commend staff on the really good job they did bringing this $1.5 million bid down to 700,000. I actually got a call from hok commending staff on what a good job. They were tough but did a good job. Also we would like to recognize hok for using almost 30% h.u.b. Participation locally on this project.
>> this work needs to be done, period. And we may argue about whether it needs to be done today or tomorrow or for that matter 24 months down the road, but at some point it has to be done just based on the situation at del valle.
>> yes.
>> that's what I?m understanding.
>> yes, sir, yes, sir.
>> all right. Okay. Anything further? All in favor? Do we have a motion.
>> there wasn't a motion.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners -- Gomez, Davis, daughterty, yours truly voting in favor.
>> abstaining judge.
>> abstaining Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> now, thank you all for your dedicated, very hard persistent work on this matter.
>> judge, we need to get the budget items so they have this thing covered [indiscernible]
>> well, we need to go to legislation. Them we'll come back to that.
>> okay.
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, May 4, 2005 10:33 AM