Travis County Commissioners Court
January 17, 2006
Item 18
18. Approve, discuss approve and give staff direction regarding the issuance of request for qualifications, a number q 060056-mv. -- no. Q060056-mb, design build services for additions and alterations to the Travis County correctional complex. We had a work session on this item. Previously. Any additional questions, comments? Anything from staff? The recommendation during the work session and I guess today is that which of the rfqs do we try to short list down to -- to a number with which we would have further discussions and then do an r.f.p., right?
>> you said -- cyd would you mind -- I have asked martin in my office to do this, would you all make this just the one sheet that shows here's how long the rfq -- it ends when we anticipate the time line, with how much time we will take to look at it, then the r.f.p., just one paining so that if somebody asks, we will be able to pull that one page up and have the exact --
>> in the backup, at the work session, that long thing, we will take out just the procurement part of it.
>> exactly.
>> and get that to y'all. Do that.
>> we have something later on, john hilly on our agenda, related to getting updated on some new things to ethics disclosure that really are related to contract issues thanks to the state legislature. Do we have a good sense what we have got going on here is absolutely consistent with anything that may or may not need to be put out there? Because it seemed like we needed to be kind of triggering -- people getting feedback, you are kind of dependent on other people saying something as opposed to there's a disclosure on our end.
>> right.
>> we might have to add something to this. A one statement as you know the attorneys are going to brief us today. We think that we have an easy solution. So it will just -- might have to add that they have to comply with that new ethics commission's law. We probably will be adding that statement in.
>> data requested in that, isn't the same the as the one usually signed with the auditor's office saying is there any relationship with any vendor?
>> well, the law is much more -- the language is confusing, anyone who intends on doing business with us would have to disclose any relationship that they have with any of the elected officials, appear pointed officials who have a stake in the procurement and it would be for gifts over 250 -- $250. So it's --
>> personal and business relationships?
>> [multiple voices]
>> deals with an accounting requirement and this is a -- as Commissioner Sonleitner just intimated is a legislative change, the dollar amounts are different as well. We will give you a full briefing.
>> yeah. I was real concerned this was just going to be a nightmare. But we have kind of been discussing, we think that we have an easy solution where we will be in compliance, the contractors will be in compliance and we will have the information.
>> that information will be given to -- to firms who show up for the prebidding conferences, all of that.
>> well, these -- part of the law on this ethics commission is that these questionnaires that the contractors or vendor have to fill out, that the county, if it's over 800,000 population, which we are, has to post it. So we are going to be working with the county clerk and its, we have like a seven day period where -- where once we get that questionnaire, we have to -- to have it up on our website. Anybody will be able to go up and view. Sort of like the campaign questionnaire. Just another --
>> the only thing about a website is kind of like media. You know. People -- some people will see it, some will not. So you will almost have to give it to people in their hand when they come for a prebid conference for instance.
>> oh, right.
>> because then I really would like to prevent anyone saying well -- we probably --
>> I didn't see it on the web it.
>> one thing that we could do is add the statement, the actual attachment. A two page questionnaire add it as part of our contracts, our solicitations.
>> prebid conferences.
>> also explain the new law in the prebid conference.
>> anybody wanting to bid.
>> we believe that law will come into play on this project at what stage?
>> January the 1st of this year is when the law was in effect. Anything that we do from this day forward it applies to.
>> this is not in play down. But it will come in play when we do the r.f.p.?
>> I think it's now.
>> yeah. We should include it now. I believe.
>> we are looking at the backup, is it in the backup?
>> no, sir, we did not add it.
>> we worked up the language the tail end of last week.
>> where is it in here? It's not, we are going to have to add that. We will add that to this document.
>> it says a sentence or two.
>> then we will attach that two page questionnaire. And then it's -- it's their responsibility to --
>> when do you get court approval on that?
>> we would ask that you -- that you allow to us add that today when you approve --
>> the conclusion of that.
>> any other changes that you all might have. We thought you needed a full briefing.
>> take the lawyers [multiple voices]
>> we will discuss it this afternoon. So I guess there's nothing to keep us from bringing it back, approving this before us now, then bringing that back up to add language. After we have that discussion.
>> uh-huh.
>> if our legislature put it in place, I know it's very important.
>> doesn't make any sense.
>> we will discuss it and try to figure out how to add it to this. Those who have questions about this, can just call us and get clarifications, right?
>> call marvin.
>> when I looked through it. I had some questions. But I’m thinking that those really that are in this business probably know a whole lot more about this than the average layman who does not.
>> well, I guess that I’m going to linger on what Commissioner Gomez she, to make sure that they understand what's required as far as the legislature is concerned that that information be given to them in the end or in the packet, I think that's very important, there won't be no excuse, for anyone to say well I never did see the information or I never did hear about it, blah blah blah blah, so that's where I am looking, that's the direction that I’m going. I don't feel comfortable I’m not going to feel comfortable until all of those things are adhered to. I want to thank you all.
>> move approval of the pogue rfq with the understanding that we will bring this item back up after our executive session discussion. Hopefully to figure out the exact wording that we will have regarding the new ethics requirement. Okay?
>> thanks, judge.
>> discussion? All in favor? Pars 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, January 18, 2006 8:13 AM