Travis County Commissioners Court
May 23, 2006
Item 30
Number 30 is to approve sole source exemption and purchase of an external rescue hoist from the goodrich corporation.
>> judge, the issue here is not whether we should do it because the answer most certainly ought to be yes, but the question is we have two helicopters, and this is also talking about doing one hoist. And I think there are some operational issues that I would like to them to cover that the consequences of us only doing one now of what that will mean, but also of the potential that this hoist may not be available when we decide to do this in the next budget year because there are some operational issues going on with the ec 45 that I want the court to be aware of.
>> morning, judge and Commissioners. Program manager. Bonnie floyd with purchasing and roy cull berson, director of aviation. As you know when we purchased the ec 45, one of our plans was there were substantial savings by pulling the hoists from the contract and purchasing them separately. And we thought there would be additional money leftover from the ec 135 trade-in allowance. And we did get additional monies for the ev 135, but it was insufficient to cover both hoists. Part of that was due to additional flight time penalties we paid because of additional e.m.s. Work we have done, which will result in the additional revenue for that e.m.s. Work. So we now are talking about purchasing the hoists. We have the sufficient funds for one, but not for the second. It's currently in our budget request, but there are several items that we think the court needed to be aware of, including the u.s. Army is currently considering the purchase of up to 350 ec 145's for their light utility helicopter program. Many of those will be hoist equipped, so our concern, besides the operational issues, which mr. Culverson can talk about, is getting behind the army behind those hoist purchases that may significantly delay our getting that equipment. And I値l let willie talk about the operational impact of one hoist.
>> morning. On the operational side, the impact it could have on one hoist is if we had one hoist would be on the in-service aircraft. If that aircraft was to go in for simple maintenance procedure or something, the hoist in essence would be in also. It would entail -- it would require a mechanic to come over and change the hoist from one aircraft to the other, which would play dlai putting the other aircraft in service. The other one is on off duty hours it would cause the mechanic to come in, which would delay the hoist changeover and it could delay the mission it was on. So it's not a very good operational stance to have one aircraft equipped with a hoist and the other aircraft with the same capabilities not equipped with the hoist, which would severely decrease our ability to respond if we needed to use the second aircraft. In the event of a flood situation, flash floods when we would have both aircraft in service, we would have one with a hoist and one without, and that would not be a desirable situation because of limited capabilities on the second aircraft.
>> so how much does a hoist cost?
>> 67,000.
>> do you suggest that we address this issue before we buy one?
>> I知 suggesting that we buy two right now and to call up reserve to cover it. This would go in as a pbo. This should be a no brainer in terms of pbo putting it in the preliminary budget, but delaying could have severe operational issues for us, and I知 just raising the issue now about whether we should be buying two, not one.
>> I知 glad you did. The backup doesn't refer to it.
>> I know. That's why I pulled it.
>> how much is it?
>> about 110,000 for the second hoist?
>> why don't we postpone this item and address both next week. Get with pbo and if we're 110,000 short, the question is whether we want to try to come up with it and buy two. What you said today tells me we ought to go ahead and buy two. We need a second one anyway, right?
>> right.
>> either we buy it now or later. And you're saying buying it later may create problems because the military is about to buy quite a few. Will waiting one week harm us?
>> no, sir.
>> why don't we let pbo have the whole deal before us and move on.
>> I知 confused. When we were looking at the helicopter and I came out and we did discuss those hoists at the same time, I thought I suggested that -- you knew we needed one, but then again I thought I suggested that it would be best to come and propose two. And I thought that's what I indicated because I know we needed this one here, but then again, I didn't know that we were in contention with the military as far as -- I知 kind of confused. I was hoping that you would come up with two requests other than one. And I thought that's what -- I thought that's what we were going to do.
>> we'll have it on next week. How is that?
>> we'll fix it.
>> it's a funding issue, Commissioner Davis. We only have funding currently right now for one. And until you direct pbo to find the extra money, we can't come forward with the purchase for two because we don't have funding for two.
>> I understand. We can find money. But I知 just saying -- okay. Let's move it to next week.
>> better to do it now and look them over. We need a second one and why wait a few months to get it.
>> I understand. Thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 23, 2006 1:12 PM