Travis County Commissioners Court
May 2, 2006
Item 12
12. Consider and take appropriate action on recommendations from selection committee regarding next steps to select firms in response to rfq no. Q060056-mb, tccc design build project.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, cyd grimes Travis County purchasing agent. Last week I came before the Commissioners court to bring forth recommendations on our design build project. And just a little short introduction. This project is -- was approved by the voters, I believe the voters and the the court approved a little over $60 million to -- to provide or construct a new secured housing building in our correctional complex in del valle. It's the first time that we have used a design build project on this big of a project. We have done some minor design build but not to this extent. I came forward last week and explained that we had received four qualifications subpoena mitt talls on March -- submittals on March the 1st. One was clearly nonresponsive. The time that we opened the proposal and they were immediately notified. The three remaining proposals were submitted to the four voting members of the evaluation committee. And I informed the court last week, that included two professional architects and two professional engineers. Three from facilities management and one from the sheriff's office. You also had two non-voting members, marvin bryce from my office and also -- also our -- our designed build consultant, hok. In this process, the law required us to go out initially and hire an architect engineer to oversee the project. We did that. We have a consultant. Again hok. They are helping us through this process and are helping -- helping manage the process. When these submittals were submitted to the four voting members, they began voting. It became office that one of the firms did not provide all of the requested information. That information being material in the fact that we asked for a -- key personnel of their key or their major subcontractors, those major subcontractors being mechanical, electrical and detention equipment subcontractors. Because of our experience we know that this is an area that is critical, that we know that the firms that are doing that work are qualified because that's where about 40% of the work is done, that's where we have the majority of issues on design build issues, errors and omissions those kind of things. It is critical that we have that information. We have a prepropose in our request for qualifications. We line out our policies, our procedures, the rules to submit proposals. We -- we requested a preproposal conference, where representatives of all of the firms were there, questions were asked. Specifically the question was asked if we don't know who our major subcontractors are, can we submit who we normally use, who would be considered, who we would go out and get -- get competitive proposals from. We -- we answered yes and we made the point clear again that we felt it was critical that we knew who these major subcontractors were. Additionally, another reason we considered faulkner nonresponsive was that they failed to acknowledge the amendments. So based on those facts, we have recommended to the court or submitted to the court that faulkner u.s.a. Was nonresponsive to the rfq documents. So that is the decision before the court today. The second thing that we wanted to do and marvin has it is make clear what the next steps will be in the process. Depending on -- on your decision today, how we move forward. But these -- what marvin is passing out to you is our best interpretation, our best research on how this process should go. We have spent many hours with our attorneys, we have done some -- marvin and I did some research last week with folks in the community that were involved in the design build law. We all agree that the law is not specific as to how the process should go. So this is our attempt at looking at what other entities do on what we need to do. In the next step. So -- so to reiterate, it is our recommendation -- it is our contention that faulkner not be allowed to go into phase 2 because they are nonresponsive. And of course that is the decision for the court to make. And once that decision is made, then these next steps show you how we proceed with the process.
>> so your recommendation that you stated last week hasn't changed.
>> no, sir.
>> as of today?
>> no, sir. It has not.
>> stayed the same nothing -- I wanted to make sure that was clear. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> so if we -- if we would rather than go the nonresponsive route, if we simply scored all other responses, the three totals that you end up with are -- are on the next to the last page of what bry cultural entity.
>> on the memo that he passed out, gives the scores.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> they're not on the score sheets.
>> they're on the score sheets. I just summarized on the front of the memo the total points.
>> but if we added the scores on the score sheets, these are the totals we'd end up with?
>> yes, yes.
>> last week when you came before us I asked from the hok, ed --
>> ed spooner?
>> right.
>> I basically wanted to know what would be the difference, and I still haven't been able to capture that yet, and looking at all three firms, basically going into the r.f.p. Process, would the same information that is -- that is is available in this process, could that same information be made available in the r.f.p. -- in the rfq portion where I think the rubber meets the road? Now, I didn't get a firm enough answer to not convince me that that wouldn't be true, and true or untrue, I didn't have an affirmative answer. So I guess I値l going to have to pose the question again. Would the three firms involved in the r.f.p. Process, can the same criterion be employed in the r.f.p. Process such as we have here now. If my recollection serves right in going back to what we talked about, it was three basic components or elements that faulkner of course didn't comply with as far as what -- in other words, the three components, one of mechanical, electrical and then detention equipment. So I brought that up. But from what I heard, that was not something that could not be done, so I just need to get a clarification.
>> I understand.
>> are the components the same requirements as far as what you're trying to capture, will that same stuff be transported into the r.f.p. Process?
>> Commissioner Davis, so answer it real quickly, yes. And the way that we have interpreted the law is that what we do is we do carry the criteria from the rfq into the next phase and we expand upon it. The first phase was to determine whether they were qualified or not. The second phase carries that into the score and determines how they will do job specifics for our projects, why is it the best for Travis County? Those scores will carry forward. In the next phase. That's how we interpret the law. So we will be -- even on the two firms that we felt were responsive, we would look more into their qualifications, we will do some more research into issues that we think -- we didn't have time to cover in this phase. So yes, to answer your question, the scores will carry over. The issue for us is whether they were responsive or not. Faulkner, I don't want anybody to think that we're saying faulkner is not qualified. We've never said they were not qualified. What we said is they did not follow the rules, therefore they're nonresponsive and should not be allowed to go forward in the process. This is our normal process and this is how you set out rules to go by and you expect the potential bidders to go by those rules, and so it's material to us. It's something that we think should be taken into consideration.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> so how do you use these scores in the next round?
>> the next phase we'll put in an r.f.p. And in the r.f.p. We will request additional information based on those -- on what we asked for before. Additionally the law allows us at this time to start talking about cost methodology and pricing. We were not allowed to do that in phase one. So we will gather more information, we will sit down one on one with the firms and get a feel for their understanding of the project and how well the team works together and all those sort of issues.
>> but do you take the score in the next phase added to this score to get a total?
>> yes, sir, and to get a final ranking. What it says is that the design-build firm will be selected based on the proposal offering the best value to the county on the basis of the published selection criteria in both the rfq and the r.f.p. And on its ranking evaluation. So you do look at both scores in phase one and phase two.
>> but isn't it up to the Commissioners court to decide what weight to be given to round one?
>> if the court would like to make that decision, yes, they can make the decision. If y'all would like for us to bring the r.f.p. Back so that y'all can determine the evaluation factors and weights, I would say that legally -- as long as I知 supervising that process, yes, you can determine those weights.
>> I think that would be unbelievably important and I think appropriate because the first round really did not delve into who's got what and what they're bringing forward. So to give equal weight to what done in a preliminary jeaning of are you qualified or not and to give that equal weight with what will be very detailed information, I think is inappropriate. We ought to give it weight, but it should not have the same weight as what goes down in the r.f.p. Process. I mean, that's just one person's opinion here. And that would be like in the olympics what you did in your prelim technicals would count the same as what you did on performance night. They don't do it that way. It counts, but it's weighted. It is weighted to be one of free clearance versus what is really important. And what is important here is the final graded paper and not your original notes.
>> but I think your total score matters. I don't mind taking three forward, but I think your score in phase one should matter.
>> I agree. So if you scratch and --you don't get the place there. You get around that by taking your score into the next phase. We don't know what the scores will be in phase two, but we do know that there will be further evaluations and our goal is to ultimately choose the one that we think is best for this job. If you are 150 or so points behind, then you go into phase two, it seems to me, failing. Maybe you can fake make it up, maybe not. So I知 willing to wait and make that call, but I think our understanding should be that we don't act like phase one doesn't matter. We do that by taking the score forward and adding it to whatever score you get in phase two for a total, and that's fair to everybody.
>> so judge, in essence -- I知 trying to read exactly what my colleagues are saying here and also what staff is saying. I think if we decide to move forward with three, and that's why I think the same components from this process, the qualification process should be moved forward because of the situation where I believe that there were still components that maybe would not have gotten the scores that would be of value in the second round with the first. I知 still pointing to the mechanical and the electrical and also the detention because I kept asking how to. The how to, how to on these things. So if the applicant participates in the r.f.p. Process, does that mean that the dwirkt sis are -- deficiencies that were looked at as far as noncompliance, would they be evaluated equally as it should have been in the first round? And I guess I知 trying to isolate on that because what everybody is saying, they have to carry those points forward, however, if there were elements that were deficient as far as not being able to carry it because of certain things, that's why I have the question of would the same elements in the process would be portable to the r.f.p. Process? And I think you said yes. But the question then is would they have the same equal merit as far as assessment at that time.
>> Commissioner, we've scored them and you can see the scores. One is many points behind. Do we rescore those? And if we do, is it fair to the other two who followed the rules? And that is really the crux of the matter from on procurement standpoint. Now, it's your decision I think at this point. Does the court want to redo the scores, which is sending the wrong message or do you want us to add those scores as they are to the next phase and we'll have to look at their qualifications, even though they have zero, we have to go back and look at their qualifications, and especially of those major subcontractors, or we're not determining the best value for the county. So it's a difficult question because the law is not clear. We're trying to be fair in interpreting the laws and we think what's fair is what we've recommended that those scores are as they are as of today. We carry them forward and look at all that criteria again and add to those scores and then have a final score and a final ranking. And if the court would like to do something definitely, then we will follow your direction.
>> I think we're talking flexibility here and we're not talking about -- I certainly won't. Whatever vote I cast, I don't want it to be read as it's against staff and it's for this or against that. What I want is to get a good product on the ground out there, and just because we have -- how much money do we have set aside for this?
>> just because we have 60 million approved by the voters, I would still like to see the project coming in under budget and maybe a little ahead of time. I can set that as a goal and maybe that's the only inflection I believe thing that I were to look at, come in ahead of time and come in under budget. And then do it right the first time. And so that's what I want. And so that's the only thing that I will be inflection I believe about. -- inflexible about. And because we do have that flexibility, the Commissioners court has to flexibility to think about what we need to move on to the next step, then it makes sense to me to move the applicants in the rfq forward and then that's where the rubber meets the road. And we look at qualifications and see who can deliver what I want. I want a project done right the first time, under budget and ahead of time, period. And so I wanted to pass muster the first time, so I don't want to see change orders, I don't want to see anything come before the court that increases the budget on this process or that makes us take shortcuts on this project. I just don't want to see that scenario anymore through this Commissioners court, least not while I知 here.
>> and I知 not suggesting in any way that the numbers be thrown out from the first round. No. And they ought not be changed because somebody's got supplement at information. No. They ought to move forward. My point is this the detail we need out of the r.f.p. We ought to have, whether it's 1500 or 2,000 points that are possible, whatever. I just think it ought to be a much more rigorous and a much more detailed how somebody can earn points. And what that says is what happened in round one counts. What happened in round two counts more, but it ought to be the Commissioners court making the decision as to what are we putting in that matrix this time around, what values are we assigning and we ought to have some sort of say so when the numbers get crunched, number can say that's not my fault. Right now I don't feel like I致e had any input whatsoever in terms of the matrix of what's going to happen in round two. I don't know what it's going to be.
>>
>> we had the rfq to the Commissioners court before we put it out.
>> not the r.f.p.
>> we haven't done the r.f.p.
>> that's my point.
>> when I look at the last sheet that marvin gave us, do we give ourselves an opportunity to evaluate performance to other projects in the past?
>> yes, sir.
>> and where is that? Which one is that?
>> pft performance -- past performance is under a, qualifications, past performance to respondent's team, past performance as managers of the team. And just to talk to Commissioner Sonleitner's point --
>> can I finish mine? My point?
>> yes. So we should look at this to figure out what is in the r.f.p., this last page?
>> this last page just has how the next steps are going to be. It does not have the r.f.p. Criteria or evaluation factors. We intend on bringing, if you would like, bring that back to you before we issue it. That's what I知 hearing today is you want to see the r.f.p. Before it is issued.
>> not only that, but point I was trying to make is that I would make sure the firms understand that we do plan to look at projects that they have done in the past of a similar nature since this is new for us.
>> and they're in the rfq and those factors, like we decided that will be carried forward and looked at. But I can't leave the discussion without making the point that we believe strongly that we have a set of rules and processes based on best practices, they're based on model procurement codes put out by the american bar associations, and it all plays into the process, and so once again I can't not do my job of saying we feel strongly, but faulkner is nonresponsive to this solicitation, didn't follow the rules and should not go forward.
>> but why is it that you think that a low score of 694 compared to 866 and 908 is not a just sanction for not providing information?
>> well, the definition of responsive used in procurement says that they have complied with all material aspects of the solicitation document, including submission of all required documents, and they didn't do that. And it's a set of rules that we go by to have order and conformity and fairness to all. So it's just if y'all make this decision, then the next phase we go forward and go through the process that we've outlined and use those scores and move forward.
>> I guess I知 thinking that if -- if I were on the committee and I would think I致e been fair to the feel. Instead of sort of finding nonresponsive and kicking the firm out, I think it's fairer to just take the score. They have scored them. It's not like we didn't score the submission of submittal, but we scored it and we took off for what we thought was lacking.
>> but is it fair to the other firms that submitted all the information and the compliance. Does it give the third firm some sort of fair advantage over the first two?
>> I would compare this to two stiewngts in a class, they each have to turn in homework, so these are the scores. How is it unfair to include the third student with the other two? They all have the opportunity to turn in the paper.
>> if you get caught cheating on a test, you get a f.
>> but this isn't cheating on a test.
>> 694 may not be an f, but it's certainly not an a.
>> I agree.
>> if 900 is an a, 694 is not. I guess it's a matter of perspective. I知 looking at it as we have punished faulkner for failing to provide information that we think they should have given us. Should there be some sort of sanction? The sanction is a lower score that you can't afford. Now, we don't doubt our ability to carry it forward, then you add another question. That's why I was asking my question about don't you add the score for phase two to the score for aiz one, get a total and consider other factors, I guess, and then make a recommendation to the Commissioners court to decide.
>> faulkner could have lost 50 points elsewhere in the matrix and I would still go and look at the number and say, are they qualified or not? And the answer is yeah, they are. Now, cyd, you used the language yourself. You said responsive and that is not really where my head is at in terms of what this was supposed to do. We have already culled it down from four to three. They're going to have to live with the scores. It is not fair to the other two firms because they already know they're already way ahead from day one in terms of we got higher scores. So I知 ready to move on with three, and I think the taxpayers are better served with three proposals, not two. And let's process this.
>> when we first looked into this, the more people applied, the more the merrier, especially when it comes to this kind of work. Goodness gracious, this is not easy stuff. So you do have some legitimate firms that are applying, and again, the more the merrier. Was there any cutoff point? In other words, cutoff point. If he makes the cutoff -- are we going to make the top three firms or the top four firms, and I guess the maximum -- what's the minimum?
>> what the law says, Commissioner, is you put out the rfq and that you will evaluate those and you will select a maximum of five. So they wanted a maximum of five.
>> five is the max.
>> what I知 saying is that three comes up in the criteria of firms. So it just appears to me that, as I stated before, the r.f.p. Is the estimate that will be employed to ensure that we get into a whole lot of other things that I don't think we got into in the first phase of the process. So it seems to me that the three firms ought to go forward. I feel very strongly toward that, and of course what Commissioner Gomez said earlier, and the person that was on this court that went through some situations where we had change orders, a whole lot of other stuff. When we're dealing with the jail here, we had to make tough decisions. I don't want to go through it anymore.
>> we don't either.
>> I know you don't want to go through it anymore.
>> so let's get the best of the three, and whoever can come up with the best I want to move forward on.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> have you been contacted by anybody from the other firms about potentially dropping out of this?
>> I had a conversation with -- I initiated the phone call yesterday to both firms and they are waiting for the court's decision today to decide if they're going to move fard or not. There are -- forward or not. There are concerns that we are not following our process. I have a very good reputation in this community of being fair, following the process and having the court stand behind the staff recommendations, and I will -- I知 just being frank with you, there has been that concern that they might pull out. But I begged them not to, but we would continue on on and the rest of the process would be fair and I壇 hope that they would stay in.
>> I think I have that reputation as well, so we all just have different roles here and I知 very appreciative of the work that y'all have done, but I want to minimize the job that you have done. I知 fully appreciative. In the interest of fairness and like I said, I don't want the vote or the position to be taken as we're against staff and we're for this, we're for that. If we can leave that part of it out of the decision making, which is tough enough, let's not make it a for or against type of situation.
>> it's what the cost is.
>> everybody has their own stance and everybody is strong about that stance and that's appreciated. That doesn't go by the way side with me. It's know cause to say well, we shouldn't try hard again next time for the next process. We have a lot of business to conduct in this community and I think we all -- we'll all give it our best effort. And so in the qualifications and in the r.f.p. We do have something that says our expectations, that this project will be built and we don't want any cost overruns and no delays. We will have that as a goal.
>> that is our goal. We all have the same goal in mind. We all agree on that.
>> if we had to start over, I don't want two people in this deal. I can see where somebody is bothered by it. I mean, I would think that you could get over it given the fact that you've either got a 908 or an 766 versus a 694. But I知 going to have a much different opinion about this if I guess somebody started dropping out. I知 going to want to go and put everybody back in the pot and say, let's go again. The little bit of time I don't care with a 60-million-dollar deal, but I would think that somebody would want to move forward when you know that the scores are being taken to the next step and that -- whichever one you are, that you've got at least a couple of rounds in the last leg, unless your horse just stumbles, you know you've got a pretty good shot at proving to this court what you can do. Because we all know the three firms that are -- that at least that we are thinking about at this stage can all do the work. Now, to me if it were the rfq I would feel differently with this thing. But now that you can move forward and that you've got these scores. I would really be dismayed over somebody dropping out of this thing at this stage. But I will say that it is going to affect how I want to move forward if somebody drops out, if we vote to allow faulkner to move forward. I think it's pretty obvious that the court wants to find a way to move the three people forward, but I知 -- what can we do? What happens if we vote for this thing and faulkner stays in it and then we do have somebody that drops out, what does the court have the ability to do at that juncture with regards to going to two? Do we just have the ability, judge --
>> the law allows that the court can have any qualification statement. So we would start over and reject all and start the process over.
>> but in order to do that, we need to know how many people are in and how many are out. So we need to know that. And then we can take what action.
>> well, my motion then, judge, would be to move this thing forward with faulkner staying in this, carrying this score forward. There's no movement of these scores. You've got a 908, a 966 and an 764. That's what moves into the second face.
>> so hensel phelps, gilbane, hes and company u.s.a. Were the three scores set forth in the memo dated may 2nd, 2006 from purchasing. That's the motion.
>> it's part of the gilbane.
>> in carrying the same scores that were dictated in the rfq process, is that correct?
>> absolutely.
>> okay.
>> the indication there is that the scores of phase one will matter here after. Susan?
>> a clarification. I asked the county attorney because our concern, of course, is is this a violation of the purchasing act, and he told me it was not. So I think what -- just to clarify, the issue that you're talking about is there was an omission, is it material or not to the process. And y'all seemed to think it was not material to the process. The purchasing agent is right, it didn't follow the process, but to take that a step further on a 60-million-dollar project, you're saying yeah, we recognize that it was an omission and it wasn't a good thing, and they got a lower score, but we the court feel that in the scope of everything that we're looking at that is not a material error although the impact of that error will be carried forward. Is that what you're saying?
>> not only that, but it's an omission that will cost many points. So the score -- the score is taken into account. And we did get a legal briefing last Tuesday.
>> and I quoted you correctly, did I not? [ laughter ]
>> with my motion, I also want the caveat to stand, and that is that I知 going to feel much differently about this and probably personally will want to start over in the event that we go back and we also have two responses.
>> that's not part of the motion?
>> no.
>> we will deal with the facts as they unfold basically. I don't know that it would help me to call the firms and tell them not to be interested in the project. Or anybody at the county. It seems to me if I were number one, I would want to be there two firms, not three, but if I were number two, I would want to know if my statement was better, my score would be better. No firm has the right to be the only respondentin this thing. Any more discussion of the motion?
>> do you want to take a comment?
>> yes, sir, come forward.
>> your honor, terry scarborough on behalf of faulkner. I want to set the record straight here even though it appears that the court is inclined to let faulkner go forward, but I cannot let this record stand with some of the comments that have been made by ms. Grimes, when I met this morning for the first time who I believe is in error. She said is that fair to the two firms that complied? And for the record, one of those two firms did not comply. I have supplied counsel with the requirement of 7.5 of your rfq that says shall. They shall file within seven days. Hensel phelps filed it eight days. The rfq has 7.5, which hencely pointed out to me, that says that you can change it. And so there's a legal argument that you can change that requirement. But he's never answered this question, but ask your lawyer. The (indiscernible) which requires the conflict of interest questionnaire became effective January 1st of this year. It has no exceptions. So the record is wrong to say that two firms complied. They did not. They did not. And what's most distressing about all of this is that the errors, the mistakes, whatever you want to call them, from faulkner u.s.a. Were discretionary. They were discretionary. But the mistake that hensel phelps made was not discretionary. The language of the rfq, 7.5, says shall file it and the statute has no exceptions. So I would suggest that this record must be clear because it appears to me that staff is setting up the argument that will effectively kill faulkner's chances at getting this while moving forward with this scoring system, and to say that two firms complied is absolutely and fundamentally I don't think. Don't take my word for it. Ask your lawyer in executive session where you can give you an answer, not one here on the record. 7.5 has an exception, 7.8, but there is no exception applicable to the statute effective January first of this year. That conflict of interest questionnaire has to be filed and it was filed and I gave john hilly a copy of it eight days out. They missed the deadline.
>> anybody else with comments today?
>> I知 not a lawyer and I know better than to sit here and argue with one. [ laughter ]
>> I have a comment, judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> I知 a Travis County sheriff's office engineer. I致e been in --
>> can you give your name.
>> mark stepheno, professional engineer. I致e worked in facilities and maintenance for many years, 30. I致e only been with the county a short time, and of course I知 on the committee that we have three members here today that worked on this. And let's say I agree most of what I heard today. My concern is that when I start dealing with anybody that's building something for me as an engineer, they must listen to me and follow my instructions. Also, there are many, many other instructions that need to be followed in the way of codes. And that causes some of the problems that Commissioner Gomez mentioned, change orders, cost overruns, etcetera. The thing that concerned me when we were scoring this was should we even be scoring it at all. That was the thing that concerned me. And we decided through the help of everybody else that we would score these people. I think that I shouldn't have because it still concerns me that I知 putting a company up front for a 60-million-dollar job that has already demonstrated to me that they don't care what I ask for. And I致e asked for it and writing, and they've shown me they don't care for it when I致e asked for it in writing. Now, there are probably other companies that have done the same thing according to the lawyer, and I can't argue that. I am just concerned that with so many things that aren't always in writing that right out of the gate we've got a company that says, these are the requirements, we're not going to do it and we're going to tell you so right up front. I知 concerned from that from an engineering point of view because I致e been in situations and even with Travis County for my short time wrrks that has had adverse effects on projects. I just ask that my observations be part of this.
>> thank you. Any comments from anybody else?
>> one thing I want to add. I know the court is concerned about what moves forward with the decision today, and from my understanding this is not a typical procurement or bidding process like we're used to on other project. As the firms move forward and we receive the r.f.p.'s and begin working up a proposal for this, I致e heard that this will cost each firm at least $100,000 or more to put together this proposal for us. That's not a cost they're going to take light lie. And that's probably why they give cyd the answer they did. I hate to speak for them, but I知 just anticipating that that's part of the thought process. For any of these firms to move forward and work up a proposal for us, and that's at least $100,000, they're going to want a good level of comfort that their proposal will be taken seriously, will be given every objective evaluation, and that the best technical recommendation will be made at the end of the day and that the team who has truly given us their best proposal and is often the best value to Travis County will be the team selected to do our project for us.
>> do you think our committee is capable of evaluating response to the r.f.p.? When it's in place? The committee that's in place?
>> I believe we are. And also we have hok, our consultant, will be helping us there, will they'll be evaluating each of the proposals in terms of how well they meet our design criteria that will be issued with the r.f.p. Also at facilities management we have other staff we can bring on board to do a peer review. We have a lot of staff, but it would be not just the selection committee, but other county staff will be brought to bear in evaluating the proposals to make sure that what's in, what's out, what each one is offering and who is offering the best value.
>> judge, I think it's very crucial for me to know that I知 going to have an objective evaluation. And an objective recommendation of the proposal -- of the evaluation of the proposals. I need to make a very serious call on this project, and I -- I don't want to make the assumption, but I need to use common sense to say that the firms who are going to bid on this project are going to be very serious about their proposals. I知 going to be fair about the vote that I cast. And very serious about the project that I知 going to finally accept some day. And that it fulfills the needs of Travis County and the voters. Gee, you know --
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is tim garber, I addressed the court last week. I would like to frame my remarks in the context of two points. Communication and the concept of a conflict of interest that we've established, we believe, with the selection committee. First of all, mr. Stepheno's remarks are well taken. Thank you very much for pointing that out. What I壇 like to say is that I simply -- by simply acknowledging that communication is the fundamental aspect of delivering a project, on time, on budget, with no change orders, speaks to what we believe was a judgment made by the selection committee in not communicating with our team at the time when they had the discretion to do so. There was a lot of substitution both in front of the court and offline about the selection committee's discretion of reaching out to our time at this rfq stage when we've established that it is a qualification stage and not a proposal stage. In the context of his remarks, there's a lot of give and take and a lot of discussion back and forth. We have a reputation established here locally that demonstrates that we deliver on that promise of open and full communication, a record of no contractor initiated change orders, a record of on time delivery, on budget. In fact, I would point to our friends in Williamson county at the Williamson county jail, a county jail that we finished recently, an award winning jail by the way whereby I know a lot of the Commissioners have visited that facility and we have a facilities director at Williamson county who has expressed to me and I note to some of the Commissioners a willingness to be engaged in the process so that the Travis County selection committee and the Travis County court can learn from that experience in Travis County -- in Williamson county. So I want to frame this discussion about communication, and I think that's mr. Stepheno's remark, to make a leap from a discussion that was rationalized and logic was expressed as to why we feel it isn't critical to engage in a discussion of subcontractors at this point, although we clearly should have and would have with a phone call. I don't believe it's fair to use that as an example of our unwillingness to deal with the county at a future date. The second thing that I did want to mention speaks to the discussion of a fair selection process moving forward. And I知 not going to get into a discussion about whether or not there is a conflict of interest with a member of the selection committee, only that there is a perceived conflict of interest that I know has been discussed, and I want to make sure that that is on the record as well as acknowledge mr. Scarborough's comment about the other team that did not follow a mandated part of the rfq process. Now, that's open for discussion apparently, but it's pretty clear from our perspective that that was a mistake and was either overlooked or they were allowed to submit that document at a later date.
>> what I知 really trying to -- when I知 listening to all of this here this morning, it's very important for everybody to understand the significance, the -- I think getting right down to the type of due diligence and all those other things that can produce something that will not allow us the court and the sit citizens to go through another scenario as the community justice center with their own admission the cost overrun, a lot of things that we ended up dealing with, change orders, meetings and meetings and meetings and meetings on trying to come up with the finished product. Commissioner baxter and I came in on the tail end and there was a fire that had to be put out, and this court did it, but it was -- we paid a severe pain for that, meaning that it was (indiscernible). So by doing what we're doing, I知 just trying to -- I think Commissioner Gomez is eloquent as you can be in stating what we're doing here. We want to make sure that we get folks on board, intact, in place where we can move forward without all those contingencies, those things attached to it. We don't want to go through the heart burn and the hardship of a repeat performance. There's basically what we need to do to go through the process, the one that will give us the least of this. So I just want to put that on the table because that's very important. It's very important to what we're talking about here. And I mean, all of us together we have to play a vital role to ensure that we don't have a repeat performance of the same thing that we experienced in the past. I hear you, I hear you.
>> thank you.
>> any other comments on item number 12?
>> anything new and different?
>> yes. A verification and confirmation about, yes, as a selection committee we are very qualified to do what we're going to be doing, and we're going to be professional as always to bring you the best course and best value and recommend to you the best value for your approval. What I知 saying is whatever decision we make today, we always follow and make our religious, and we'll treat this the same.
>> once the committee makes its recommendation and gives us the reason, I think you've done the county a good service. When we put a committee in place, I don't think we ever imply that whatever you decide is what we'll do.
>> I understand.
>> we will hear your recommendation and the reasons, and I think most of the time we defer to it, but there is plenty of gray area in most of the recommendations that come. I mean, the work -- being on a committee is not an easy job and serving on this court is not either. There are a whole lot of issues to be considered action facts to be weighed, so we have to keep trying to work together and do what's in the best interest of the county. And I have an opinion on almost everything we do. That doesn't mean that my opinion is right on all of it. New and different.
>> actually, judge, I want to address a comment made by mr. Garber. A comment he said regarding communications as to why we didn't reach out to them, which I feel would have fallen under my responsibility. That is not my practice to call the firm and tell them where they are deficient, especially when other firms have complied with the rules and requirements of the rfq. Basically it explicitly stated what the requirements were. My question would be why then if they planned on deviating from the requirements of it did he not give me a call? I have been in contact with other members from hensel phelps during this process. They never once asked or brought to my attention that they did not plan to give us the information that was requested. There was an opportunity to do so in a preproposal conference. They didn't bring it then. Simply chose to ignore, and maybe ignore is the wrong word, but not comply with requirements of the rfq. I just wanted to make that comment because it speaks to my responsibilities in this process, and as I said, it's not my practice to contact firms and let them know where they're deficient because it unlevels the playing field. The other two firms comply with the rules, provided their information as required in the time allotted.
>> y'all get to make the decision.
>> anything else from the court? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. We will see an r.f.p. Soon and bring back the -- I think we ought to look at the --
>> we will start the number one -- start with number one, we'll start doing our interviews while the r.f.p. Is being finished, then we will bring an r.f.p. Back to you before we issue it.
>> it's the middle step that I知 not -- what's the middle step you just mentioned?
>> the first step is we're going to go ahead and have meetings with each firm to talk about the intent of the r.f.p., discuss and gather any additional information that we need to and provide additional details that might be relevant. We want to sit down and have a face to face with them. Then while we're doing that office, hok is going to be finishing up the r.f.p. We'll bring that to you to either comment on and we will issue it, and then we will probably have some more individual interviews with each team to go through the process again. And then after we do that, we will score them and we will come back to court with those final rankings and tell you who we're going to begin our negotiations with. So we'll be back to court two times. And then of course we'll come back for contract award.
>> when do you expect to come to court with the r.f.p.?
>> do we know where ed is on the r.f.p.?
>> about.
>> around June time frame.
>> about a month?
>> we're in the process of developing the evaluation criteria, finishing off the design criteria documents and putting the final touches on the r.f.p. Itself.
>> I think if we have any evaluations criteria formulated already that we ought to just copy the court.
>> okay.
>> so they can start thinking about how they want points assigned.
>> so you want to give them half of it or would you prefer we give it all to them at once when complete?
>> either way is fine with me. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> your honor, according to the record, I致e been asked by mr. Hilly to provide him with written confirmation of what I had told him orally last week. And I知 concerned about the process just described because this committee, which we believe a non-voting member has the appearance of a conflict, if not a real conflict of interest, is going to get started, and the horse is going to get out of the barn. I知 going to provide that written information that would suggest there's a conflict of interest with one of the non-voting members of the committee and provide it to mr. Hilly today and I would suggest that in light of that this court should consider the process that was just described and whether you want that to go forward while you're resolve ght the question of whether there is or is not a conflict or the appearance of a conflict by a non-voting member of that committee.
>> (indiscernible). We'll proceed accordingly.
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 3, 2006 11:17 AM