Travis County Commissioners Court
November 21, 2006
Items 24 & 25
There is another big item we did not get to this morning. That's the 24. Forecast 24. Consider and take appropriate action on budget and contract issues. Regarding the keith ruiz building at 5555 airport boulevard: a. Funding to award and manage construction contract; Travis County Commissioners court - Tuesday, November 21, 2006 page 4. B. Contract award for interior renovations for Travis County offices, ifb. No. B060356-rv, to the low bidder, trimbuilt construction, inc.; and. C. Funding for its infrastructure improvements.
>> good afternoon. Judge and Commissioners, alicia pearz, executive manager for administrative operations. You have two items on -- judge, you read 5555 airport boulevard and he would like to take a, the funding to award and manage the construction contract within that the overview that we will provide will also include information on 5501 airport. Today we will not ask the court to award the contracts but would like to have the opportunity to discuss funding. 255 -- 2555 and 5501.
>> is number 25, 5501.
>> too I need to call that up is what I'm asking?
>> yes, sir.
>> let's discuss -- let's discuss 25 right along with 24 and 25 because the issues are similar, right.
>> yes, sir.
>> 25. Approve contract award for airport boulevard building renovations (phase. 2c), ifb no. B060358-jw, to the low bidder, brath, inc. Other items. -- that's really 5551. Renovations, phase 2 c, item b -- f 2c), ifb no. B060358-jw, to the low bidder, brath, inc.
>> yes, sir.
>> or brath.
>> what roger is passing out is information in your backup, just a bigger version of it. It's clear we are able to talk from it. The other two items that he's passing out is again for your information on the keith ruiz building, which is 5555, just an overview of -- of when the county bought the building, a -- overview of the calendar of events and then also what will be located in that building.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> that the original budget as you can tell on there, that's number 2, that was adopted in August of '05 and that was 1,603,000. During the budget process we asked the court to consider budgeting or funding escalation of 20% for all these projects, all seven of them. These are all the projects that were funded during fy 2007. We asked for escalation. Out of all seven projects, which is the gardner-betts phase one, has come in. We're not going to need any additional money. The other one are still to come in in the rest of the year and next year. We have on this sheet of paper the original budget, 20% escalation, the revised budget or revised estimate, estimated award date, estimated completion date, and then additional funds needed. So we'll go ahead and go to 5555 and kind of go over.
>> the building renovation, when we budgeted this back in August of 2005, we budget $1.6 million for design and construction only. And that was what appeared at that time. Then last budget cycle we presented to the court that our budget was short and we'd like to amend our budget for each project, each of those seven projects by 20%. And that's what the amount was $2,491,000 was placed in an fmd cost escalation reserve. Our understanding when it was approved at the budget that we have the next fy 2007 budget. And therefore we also presented to the court the estimated award date and estimated completion date for each of those projects. Now, on the keith ruiz building, we still on target if we can award on November '06 or still on target. Now, we receive a bid from -- there were about seven bidders. And we received a low bid -- the amount of the low bid was a 2 million #- thousand dollars. As you can see on this right column in red, it shows that I need for the keith ruiz building 156,464. That's broken down into five percent award the contract. So the low bid came about $96,284. And then you have 3.1 percent to manage the project, so the total number we're talk being is 8.1 percent above the fy 2007 revised budget. Now action we did all we can on the design of this project -- we did this project in March of '06. We did the schematic design and we finished it in June of 2006 and the services we outsourced. The contract was scheduled award was -- the award was scheduled to be in December of '06 and started in 2007. Our schedule was systematically one after another. Now, when we receive the bid, we look at the project right there, and we did some kind of a -- in the design, one of them is this. It's air conditioner unit. We're not placing the air conditioning rooftop and we're not getting new ones because when we bought the building we brought to the court at that time we have two issues with this building. One of them would be the roof project that we have to change and also the life of the rooftop unit supposed to be 15 years. Now they're only about 11 to 12 years. We still have three years of the air conditioning unit if we maintain them properly they might last a couple more years in addition to three years. Some area also inside the building we did not do a complete renovation. There's some about 2,000 square feet, an expansion space for the future, for the sheriff's office or fire marshal or disaster center. Also will reduce some dollar in that respect during the design. So we're anticipating this project will be a little bit -- is going to be higher than our budget, but not that much. You can see this came out with five percent of the project and 3.1 pes to manage. And for all practical purposes when we have a project that has to be plus or nigh nus five percent. The facility management, after fy '07 it's become obsolete. The budget is revied budget after you give us a 20% and that's what we're shooting for. And and I think we did everything we can to get this project going. And this project very important to us to award this project on schedule and to also to finish this project on schedule because the domino effect behind it. This is when a sheriff is going to move completely out of the buildings and they're going to go to (indiscernible) and we have the da moving from the third floor to the other thid floor and we have to renovate the third floor at vjc for the courtroom like we got in the budget process. And so those -- those are the mile cell phone we delay this project for any reason or what, everything got to be ada. So I -- the management really recommend to get additional 156,564 to move on with the project and finish the project on time.
>> are those numbers estimates or bids?
>> those are estimates.
>> this is the combination of the original and the 20% revised. Those added together give thaw. -- give you that.
>> I think those were estimates during the budget process of roger's total projects that were on the board. He estimated 20% as a potential cost overrun. I think pbo would like clarification from the court. Does that mean that when roger and facilities comes in on an overrun on any of these projects if it's under 20%, we just do an automatic budget adjustment and shove it to the project. I mean, essentially the presentation here shows that it is an automatic augmentation to the project. Or should facilities go in on any overrun, and as christian's e-mail indicated, try to identify possible project scope reductions or cost reduction strategies pry to the implementation of the 20% escalation. And we'll do it either way. If you've heard enough about 5555 airport boulevard to convince you that you want to go ahead and augment it not only the 20%, but the additional, take a roat and we'll transfer the money -- take a vote and we'll transfer the money because it's on the budget amendments and transfers. What we were attempting to do was lay a platform for a procedure for our analysts to review potential cost overruns and have the department address the court in full disclosure as to what exactly might be possible and let the court decide the options. That is essentially the essence of christian's e-mail and deanna's write-up on the request. If you will give us direction, we'll definitely proceed post haste.
>> is the answer also possibly it's not one or the other, it's both? I would presume that there's nothing automatic, that fng we would ask the department working with its client to basically say, is there something here that can be value engineered or not? And if the answer is yes, then that would be something that would be presented to us as we do the budget. And if the answer is not, then the reasons for not would be stated to us, and like we have to do on other project, you either go the path of making it fit or you go the path of we need to find more money and where would it come from. So to me I don't see anything here as being automatic. It's one that there needs to be as leroy said, full disclosure to the court. And for all options to be laid out to the Commissioner court as to how do you want to proceed? Cast votes and you move on from there.
>> and we would, as we do today, we won't know if we have exceeded the 20% or come in under the 20% until we get the bid from the contractor. As we get the bid and bring the contract awarder a week -- owe a week before we bring the contract award, discuss the financing by the court, then I think that provides an opportunity to discuss the whole project.
>> so we have not tried to value engineer other cost saving measures yet?
>> yes. We have. We have the hvac system for example, we're not replacing that. We knew that that was a savings which we implemented.
>> william, we were advise that had our estimates were greatly understated, that the market had changed and that a 20% escalation factor was reasonable and may be exceeded. That's why I supported the 20% escalation. So I think my view would be as the bids come in, they ought to be put on the court's agenda and we ought to see them. Some may come in under the 20, others slightly over it. My hope was that the 20% at least would be sufficient to cover all of the projects, but roger is now saying we may need to add another half million to that. We may not know it until the bids come in. What if our understanding is that the 20% escalation is there, but as each of these becomes final sort of based on the bid, we've got to see the contract anyway, then we would take a real good look at the money. And if there are reasonable ways to reduce the cost without gught the project, we may in some gais cases want to -- in some cases want to entertain it, some other cases not.
>> that's exactly pbo's position. We would like to see when the bids come to cowt for approval that there -- to the court for approval that there be this kind of approval behind it saying maybe there's no way to cut the project. If so, then facilities management would say there's no way to cut it. But in this case it would have been helpful to have everything that roger and his staff have done to try to re-engineer this 5555 because I think there's been some re-engineering on the lots. I mean, I don't see that in writing, but I think the original project included key access, didn't it? For the security on the building? And I think those have been engineered out, which is maybe a good thing. All I'm saying is our position is that whatever you define in original project you have estimated costs. And roger's not the only one in town that's running over budgets. Everybody in the construction business is running over. But the thing that we were emphasizing and I think we've been very adamant, when you have a cost 84 run, just take the time to lay out what may be possible and let the court decide the action to go forward or award the contract as he's asking today, the dollar amount.
>> I took a quick peek back because there's a related item here related to the budget amendments and transfers. An easy way to make that happen is if it's within the 20%, 20% or less, it's put on as an amendment because it is what is amendment and we move on to fund the project. But if it's over the 20% it become a d item, a discussion item which basically is the head's up to the court in the same way that we've had on familiar si items. You all trigger discussion items with the court all the time through thru the use of the d to let us know something here you need talk about, its funding source, funding challenge, whatever. But to me it's like don't put them on as a's, it goes on the d. To me d means discussion. We're all here to --
>> I think that would be a good exercise to go through. We ought to look at it and make sure what we're not on bid for is exactly what we need. Do you see what I'm saying? After we do that and we just have to absorb, I guess, whatever additional costs there is up to the 20%. Hopefully some will come in less than 20% over, and the reality is some may come in over that 20%.
>> we need to get the farmer's market sold.
>> and gardner-betts came in below 20%.
>> in the back of our minds we have the 448 figure that you have there, but luckily we also have that 20% in the budget that gives us flexibility. If there's a little exercise where we kind of look at the bid, sort of confirm our notion of the project, whether it's reasonable to make some reductions if we can, and we address those issues, then I'm happy.
>> we're dealing with the same thing, right, realistically? It's going to blow past the 20 --
>> it depends on what it is.
>> yeah. We have been seeing escalation up to 30%. Everything from copper to steal to labor. So for me to sit here and tell you that we're probably going to see lower, I don't know that I can say that.
>> no. I don't think anybody would believe you if you did say it was going to be lower.
>> 20% is conservative.
>> we reefned that and we found that 20% is an average that's reasonable. And I believe that the research in the budget process also, they say the market out there is about that percentage. And that's what we came from, the 20%.
>> to answer the question, if the project is going to go above, really I cannot tell at this time until I get right to the end of the project and run our final cost estimate to see how that fits with the cost. So in other words, if you look at the tnr east side service center where we're going to go ahead and put it on a bid for phase one next month and would probably get some cien of an answer back in early January. So we'll see how much the change on that big project. Because as you look at that, the 20% on that project is a million dollars. It might not exceed that -- might not be that high, so that's what we're working on as we see that number on the design as we speak. We're workogany cost reduction, anything we can do to reduce the cost before we go to bid. And that's really the best way to do it is to go before you go to bid, not after.
>> if I were to look for where we have built in presumebly on any of these projects, the contingency budget, is that the percentage to manage or where would I find those dollars imbedded.
>> if you look at the backup memo, I have a spreadsheet like this. And it shows the number right here.
>> it is to manage.
>> it's in there.
>> I guess what I'm trying to get to is you have already put a contingency amount for all of these projects, so that's also something that not only will we have the base award of knowing with certainty what something costs, but as you complete projects and they roll off, whether there may be as I call them, pennies in the couch related to con continueient si that's left over as well that we set aside and planned for because we thought we might need it and you will know with certainty whether you needed all of it, part of it or none of it.
>> but in your original budgets, you already have contingencies in the original budget. Then you have put an escalator on it of 20%. So you are really ratchetting up -- if you really were to look at the prices that we are most likely dealing with in this thing, you very easily can get to that 35. You can get to the 40% mark pretty quick if you go back to the original budget, which is really the reason we were talking a little bit about what we were talk being this morning, about somebody has to have an idea as to what this thing -- what these things are going to cost.
>> anything forward from fy 2007 in our budget, including what we think is a new cost based on the market, so that does not ask for any additional fund. I think we're there. But this is back -- some of them are back in before this market increase and we added the 20% escalation. Now to manage, some of them like three percent of them, eight percent, there's a contingency of three percent. It's very tight contingency. We're going to manage that within that contingency. Simply because some projects are complicated and need more contingency, some projects don't need it, they need less contingency. But on airport boulevard building phase two, as you can see it is about 8.3 percent and there is a cost involved for the carpeting, flooring. We tried to get a cost reduction on that in a way we did not put it with the contractor. We can do it ourselves, our service contractor because these will save us 15% markup from general construction and 15% from the general cngs.
>> could you repeat that?
>> yes.
>> just kidding you.
>> [ laughter ]
>> okay. So we seem to be headed to -- if you go over the original budget up to 20%, we do a contract amendment, we also do an explanation that shows we try to reduce the cost as much as possible f you exceed 20% then baifbly we need a discussion towm court's agenda and we wouldn't want to delve into it a bit more deeply than if you go just over 20%.
>> I guess from pbo's standpoint, just to make it perfectly clear, if facilities bri brings project in within 20%, are you okay with that? Do we want to continue to push on facilities to try to identify cost saving?
>> the amendment plus facilities explanation of why going up to that amount is justified under the circumstance.
>> I think we're in agreement on what procedure to go forward. Because the project at number seven on here I can tell you -- you can come back and quote me, that there's not going to be enough to do that project by the time we get to December of '07. I mean, if costs continue to escalate as they are, as we sit here, if in fact we don't cut back the copy or do something different on all of these projects above it, then we're going to be short and I guess we'll have to issue more debtor fund it through the next budget cycle.
>> it's not number 7 that we need to be concerned about, it's number 4 and 5, because the award dates on those are the latest, which is April of 2007. We'll know where the tnr east side service center is. These are the completion dates. And boy, do we need to sell the farmer's market because that will help.
>> if there's disagreement about the explanation and whether or not there's been serious, diligent consideration of cost reduction efforts, bring it to the court's attention.
>> and that's what I hear the court saying is continue to have the department identify any type cost savings or change in scope that may be reasonable, and include --
>> or changes we have already made in order to prepare it. You don't want to identify those at the time that you're ready to award. You really want to maybe thuk before.
>> I understand. I'm just saying that I would hope and our position would be that the department would identify for the court and pbo any cost saving that's reasonable and that that's the basis that we analyze it and we bring it to court for approval.
>> and I think the other thing that is helpful is as you all move the purchasing process is that as we have on number 25, which is the 5501 project, you all did some bid alternates. And in this particular case you're not recommending that one of the bid alternates be awarded because it's like, we would like to go ahead and have that priced, but we're not going to do it at this time. So I think creatively and strategically looking at bid alternates, that way then you can also kind of do some value engineering and some choices being made before you even go through the bidding process to say can we do without it? If the number's good you can probably get it in. If the number's a deal breaker, then you've lr got it laid out as a bid alternate to say it's optional and you've already made some of those prechoices but still respecting the purchasing process.
>> to the extent that --
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> it appears that we still aren't hight the mark the owe aren't hitting the mark the way we should be on the escalating costs the way we should. But there was a situation that we looked at during the budget cycle with a cost estimator. I guess I'm trying to see where we are on that, and if, when or whenever that person is going to be able to come on board to help a little bit. Because these escalating costs can really get us into a situation where you not only have contingency, but you also may not even project the escalation costs as far as what's out in the market, as far as material. So I'm trying to get my am wrapped around all this stuff so it can be a little bit precise. I think when it come before the court on where we are on certain projects that's costing us money, we don't really have enough set aside at the time and we've kind of taken a walk to the dock, two ship passing by each other at night maybe --
>> the cost estimator, Commissioner, we're working with human resources and they put a functional requirement on all of that stuff so we can go ahead and advertise for it as soon as we can.
>> I think that would help out a lot. Because right now we are just kind of giving it our best shot and putting our best foot forward. Sometimes it's not as accurate as we can get it. I'm having some real strong concerns about this, and especially if we have a shortcoming as far as monies are concerned for these projects, especially with escalation of costs beyond contingency.
>> leroy, please don't apply for that cost estimator's job.
>> [ laughter ]
>> when do we expect that person to be on board? That's what I'm trying to get to. That's the bottom line.
>> first we need to put the vacancy out, human resource working on that at this time. They are reviewing all the functional requirement and it's going to be advertised for a couple of weeks and we'll see what the response are.
>> okay.
>> hopefully we estimated the salary correctly.
>> deanna, take us back to a more serious note.
>> [ laughter ]
>> what I'd like the court to do is you're already approving the reimbursement and that way facilities can then enter the regs into the system this week and then our office can it verify that there are indeed funds encumbered and next week you can award the contract.
>> sound fine to me. Any problem with that?
>> if the court is convinced that all of the value engineering and the scope, potential scope modifications have been looked at by facilities and you're comfortable with that, I'd say approve the budget transfers and move on.
>> we're saying a little more than that. We're saying the project would be like a written explanation and that facilities has in fact dhawn.
>> I'm saying the project that are on the book today, 5555 airport, 5501 airport, a those they have submitted the amount on the budget transfers, if you are convinced that those projects have been cost engineered and any is scope mod in a indication engineered by facilities, then it's time to move on.
>> have you received a written explanation?
>> no, sir. And there in --
>> that's the motion. It's pretticism if we do it, but does require a little additional work. Hopefully not so much additional work that we delay the project. These costs are not going down.
>> they're not.
>> it may be matter of reducing the thoughts that a person on the project would have anyway.
>> I think that may very well be the case.
>> what we're saying is that 20% or less is troaferg the reason. It's not like the court is going to know any better. Do you see what I'm saying? Over 20%, though, we probably ought to look at more closely, so have that as a discussion point on the budget transfers for us. There's a little bit more work involved than just rubber stamping the new amount. Even as long as it's under 20%.
>> but I want to be clear because what pbo has asked us to do is come in with bid alternates to change and see how the scope can be reduced. And on some of these, the hvac replacement system, that's tough to go in there and change unless you are going to get less expensive systems, at which time there's not value yirng. You will -- engineering. You will end up paying for that in efficiency savings for the long time. So what they're requiring is much more. We don't mind discussing the issues before court, we welcome it. But they want a list of 20 items for us to be able to cut. With some of these projects --
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> I think we're asking you to look at what you got on the potential bid award, and since some of those things are probably going to be made up of certain kinds of line items to say does that look reasonable or does it not. And if it looks reasonable it moves on. If it doesn't or you go do you know what, maybe we can do that carpeting with our in-house contract as opposed to having it include within the bid. And again, that's why the idea of bid alternates at the beginning, not after the fact, but at the beginning of laying it out there in term of we're going to think about this ahead of time. If we have some things where we might have some issues and challenge on budget, maybe there's some things that could be on the cusp in terms of whether it makes it or not. You might be actually pleasantly surprised on some of those numbers and sometimes you might go, oh, darn, we're not going to do x in terms of an alternate. But that is before we get into the procurement process, not afterward. And afterward seems like cjc and we value engineered that saying, well, I'll just leave it at that.
>> and that's the deal with the bid alternates. Do you want us to do deduct alternates? That is what christian said to me, that he thought we should do deduct alternates. That's a whole different arena.
>> what we want is what we have said today. I'm now putting it in the form of a motion. If we're going to do it. I don't know if we're making all out progress, but if we see the written explanations, we will know it's there. If they generate more questions than they answer, hopefully we'll know that too and ask more questions. And press for more answers. Some of this really -- it's not like if the bid comes in over our original budget we are real surprised. Because during the budget process we were cien of told to expect it. And I think we did. And the amount asked for probably exceeded 20% because I remember us sort of taking the low number, hoping really that the low number would be sufficient, but realizing it might not. When the specific bids come in I think we ought to respond to them, look at it and figure out whether or not we need what we've asked for. And if we conclude that we do, then we have to pay up to 20% that amount and do a budget amendment to cover it. Over 20% we look at more closely because the amount of money involved is greater. I sort of understand, I think, what we are saying we think we want to see done. It may take a real project to kind of do it. The reason I won't do these today is if we have not done it, then at least give ourselves a week to do it or a few more days. Yes, sir?
>> looking at clarification, we have done -- the best -- we do lots of the value engineering supposed to come early on. Doesn't come at the end. We've done those in the design, from schematic design to the design development and to construction document. So that's the way we do it. At the time end it's going to be more towards scope reduction whvment you open the bid and you do value engineer, but it's very minimum, but most would be scope reduction and we're not looking at the scope reduction at that time. We did all we could on the value engineering. Just like the two examples I mentioned to you before about air conditioning system. We hook at some area that's not needed now. We she willed it out. These kind of thing we took care of it during the process. It's good one time when we know it's a project that's going to exceed, so we put a bid alternate and then we say the base bid and have you the bid alternate one and then bid alternate two. Really the contractor out there didn't like too many bid alternative. They like two at the most. Because if you start getting morbid alternate, that mean that what will happen is the owner will start choosing from base bid plus alternative one and base bid plus alternative two or something. Then the change in the low bid system, the change because of the low bid of the based on the base bid issue. So you've got to limit how many alternatives you do, one osh two at the time at the most. And that's what come when we know that the project is really -- we need that particular equipment, but we know it's going to be exceeding our estimate or exceeding what we think the low bid is going to come. We put a bid alternate. That's how we do it. And that is clarification, judge, that's all.
>> no matter when did you the scope reduction possibilities, if it becomes higher than the budget what I have in mine is a similar explanation that says we've considered reducing the scope in these ways and we will recommend against that for these reasons right here.
>> sure. We'll do that.
>> I don't know that when you did that it matters that much. Before you asked for a certain kind of air can being system, you -- air conditioning system, you go through certain due diligence considerations, don't you?
>> absolutely.
>> and this is not a home size hvac system, this is fwown the whole courthouse. And lord knows we've had our number of headaches over there. So what we've asked for, the question would really be we had this much money, the bid came in right here under the 20%. Here's why we think we should go ahead and spend this much to get this system in here. Another weigh to ask that, we have considered these scope reductions and decided to recommend against them for these reasons right here. So I don't have in mind an elaborate memo, but I do have in mind sharing with us thought processes. Considerations that you would go through if we're sort of landing on what is more than our estimate. That's what we're saying, isn't it?
>> let's not dlaivment I don't want any more delays.
>> judge, one follow-up on this issue. Pbo, we're always concerned with when the costs are higher, but we're also concerned that the costs are right. And one thing that I know roger is going to talk to you in a little bit about is vie on the i.t. Related costs that were not included in the original scope of the project, the phone switch, phone changes, that kind of thing. That's another $200,000 beyond what's on here. There's another issue that I'm not sure about which I think might come up later in the process once the building is finished and ready to be occupied. And I don't know if it's security for the ruiz building. I'm not sure that's ever been part of the programming or not, but another part -- another concern of pbo is we just want to make sthawrt pricing is right whether it's higher or lower, that we're in the ballpark and all the right thing are being included, especially when it's the sheriff's office facility that the right security measures are included up front rather than after the fact and have you to go back.
>> I understand. I think what you're saying is a very valid point. When we go through the budget process and we come up with the funding for whatever project that we have out there, I think everybody is doing the best therks but every once in awhile there are things that -- I think that avoid that we need to work closely with the departments and all those involved in the projects, make sure they have put everything on the table as far as cost is concerned. You brought autopsy couple of points, i.t.s., sheriff, security, maybe that was not included when they first came to the Commissioners court during the budget when we looked for monies and stuff like that to approve a certain project. I think it would be imperative that all departments supply the necessary things whereby pbo of course won't be looked at -- they get all nervous and wheferg things are out of the budget as far as what we have set aside on some stuff. So I can understand that also. So it's very important in my opinion that you have to work together as a team on this. I'm really concerned about the missing links and the missing parts to a project when it costs us money. I'm very concerned about that. I just think we can do better. I really do.
>> I would like to address the securityish. In the past we asked for a security assessment after the building is constructed so they can go ahead and look at the buildings and stel tell us they need cameras here, they need the push-button here, they need some kind of equipment. And it's not a major -- you have to update the building because of those equipment. They can be added later on. So we don't know early on just like the furniture, we don't know early on what might be needed in the building. They can do it over the plan or they could do it physically after the construction is done. In the past we do it after the construction is done because that's what we had to go over, all those facility and get the security assessment and come to the court and say here the cost and we implement the security as the court approve. I was talking to the security committee yesterday about different process. Let's go ahead and do it when we finish the plan and we'll know what's going to be at the building. We know what the offices are. We know what need to be security. At that time they can probably bring it early on than later in the budget process. But as we see it right now, as we've done it before, because all those -- for instance, precinct 3 office building, they run a security assessment about two weeks ago. So we need to bring this forward to the court either in the fy 2008 budget or midyear, but we prefer to be in the fy 2008 budget. So again, also, the security for the keith ruiz building, after we construct it we're going to look at the security assessment and see what's going to be there. There's also precinct 2 office building renovation. That surt assessment has to come before the design. It cannot be early on. We can put the number, but it's dangerous to put the numbers, just like we went through the process of ff and e. We put $350,000 for the ff and e for the haferty building, which is the keith ruiz building because we don't know what doesn't is going to be. After we know what the design is going to be, the physical assessment to the existing furnish churp and the new one, we found out that it would only cost us about 60 to $70,000, and you gave us 300 for both projects. That's throos a savings right there.
>> roger, wait a minute. If somebody is listening to this, this really seems counter intuitive with of what you would think needs to be done in order to come up with a full price of something that you are going to do. It is -- nobody understands, well, we're going do this and then we're going to find out what that costs, versus signaturing down and saying no, we're going to get theaferb has anything to -- get everybody that has anything to do with any kind of construction, and that's everything from the dispensener the restroom to the security, whatever. It doesn't make sense. It is odd for me to hear that we really didn't know what we were going to do with the security and we really didn't know what we were going to do with that, especially when we had all these teams set up that were supposedly part of this where everybody signs their initials, all these kinds of things, this exhaustive study that we seem to -- or at least I think most of us think that we're getting signed off on. So it's not easy for me to sit here and go, oh, wow. We don't really know about the phone system. We don't really know about this now. That's not acceptable to me. Which is the reason why you are so important. I have never thought that pbo could come in and second-guess or really question roger o'curry. You are the one that has all of the initials. And the education do do all those things, roger. When push comes to shove, I don't really look for pbo. I come to you and you've always been very good about those kind of thing. You are I consider to be an extraordinarily good manager. Now, escalation of prices and this and that, I have no issue whatsoever with what we're dealing with today because the market is all over the board, but I don't think people ought to be listening and going, wow, it kind of sound like that there's a whole lot of planning -- a whole lot of thing going on before all the total planning has been done. And that's the thing that's frightening to know. We've got just seven projects on this one sheet that we've got to get done. And I'm going to be really not very happy if I think that there have been a number of these thing on number of these projects that haven't been put into the evaluation whenever we came up with the pricing because I tell you if that's the case, we need to have a whole lot bigger fenced off area for dollars as opposed to spending the one time moneyed and putting this amount money because we're fixing to find ourselves in some?i real going after some reserve accounts. But it just kind of seems odd to me to sit and listen to you explain that we don't really have that and I can't give you that because I didn't know this. As far as I'm concerned, if you've got to plan something six months further than what we have planned it, then let's have the ample amount of planning before we try to put a price on something. I think that that's the only chance that we have of really getting to where we're comfortable about what we're going to sign off on. Maybe I'm the only one that feels that way, but I'm a little uncomfortable with that that we didn't plan some of these things.
>> that's why you're a good manager when it come to budget matters, not facilities.
>> I understand. Here's where I see it. We're pushing to have as many of the identified or to be determined blocks put in to the original project. If there's an estimate on security, then put the estimate in, put a question mark by it to be determined. But we want to see, we normally look for the worst case scenario. And if in fact a project comes in over that budget, then we would ask for an explanation alternatives. And twhoos all of this is about.
>> the only other thing I would like to throw in on this lovely discussion is that some of these things appropriately are discussions related to car as opposed to the co because the co is something we are financing over a 20 year period and therefore you presume the life-span that have is going to be 20 years. So some of that i.t. Stuff may or may not be in that category depending on the kind of hardware being talked about. But some of this stuff, like a security camera, some of these other things, the furniture, that's going to be a car discussion, not a c.o. Discussion. So as much as possible the c.o. Needs to be right sized and we have a good sense of what the costs are going to be. And then jessica is always there in terms of we have a car reserve. Some of these things you truly can't know. Do we need five card readers or four or is it six. Sometimes you have to actually get into the building and get a sense of that looked good on paper, but you know we'll have to add one more or one less. You add one more camera positions or less camera positions. You have to kind of get into the building and figure out did we hit it. And that's when discussions come back related to car and the car reserve because those are generally small ticket items. 200,000 for i.t. Is not one, but I would also presume lovely discussions with mr. Harlow about where he's got some flex within his budget in term of other project totally unrelated to these buildings that come in less than was anticipated. And he too has dollars that he can contribute. I certainly would expect on the east side service center that if there are some things where don wheeler says, do you know what, we can do that little piece of it, but there are pieces of it that they can say we can help and we can contribute. I don't see this as being only facilities problem and only facilities to come up with solutions. Are. .
>> I wanted to make sure that it is not that we leaf its and security off of all the project. We don't. This is an opportunity for pbo to point this out to you, but it is not the norm. On this particular project -- perhaps we do need to look at the process because the process now is that we do design, for example, haverty's. We design and construct it and the security assessment is done. That is the process. At which time we would not come back to you until next year to fund all these security issues. That doesn't mean it doesn't have locks, it has all basics, but in terms of the full assessment, we would come back. Perhaps we need to take a look at that process.
>> but alicia, the reason that sounds again counter intuitive to me is sometimes if you go and build something, then all of a sudden you say, okay, now we have got to retrofit the security around what we've built versus had we designed it right to say, do you know what, with the security in mind, maybe we wouldn't have put that wall there. But we've gut putt that wall there --
>> this is additional security. This is not your basic security. The sheriff is going there. He approved the design and the layout and the security in terms of what they have now, the basic security. This would be gent assessment of the -- would be again the assessment of the facility. We'll go back to the which i, have them look at the process. Maybe they can take a look at the buildings during design.
>> at the end of the design, yes.
>> at the end of the design.
>> what action do we need to take today?
>> but that is after you have approved the budgets for it.
>> what action do we need to take today if any?
>>
>> before your budget amendments and transfers that include the total cost escalation of these projects that have been identified for facilities. If you're ready to move forward I would suggest you approve those budget amendments and transfers, including the three --
>> we have information that the court has been discussing. The court hasn't seen it.
>> that's what the bids came in at and whatever is needed for the management. That's the dollar that is needed to not only award the contract, but to have the money left over for the management of the contract. So that's the budget amendment that's been requested in each of those cases.
>> are these over the original budget? Do they go up to the 20% escalation.
>> the 30%, aren't they, over the original budget.
>> one is 30% over and one is 32% over the original budget.
>> we got some sort of original explanation from the department to pbo to access basically the 20% escalation.
>> that is provided. That was in a memorandum to christian.
>> pbo has issues with what's contained there?
>> the only thing we wanted to do was make sure you understood what's in the program, what's out of the program, what is included in the additional dollars that they're requested.
>> we have been talking original budget, 20% escalation, over 20% and the amount of money need. We have been talking money generally. My understanding earlier was based on the comments made today we would take these and either come up with the written explanation or not, next week the agenda really ought to -- the aekd agenda should be on each of these items. We're talking about big dollars. So the question really is we haven't act odd it, but we have been saying, I thought, roughly the same thing. So my motion would be to apply that. I tried to do that 30 minutes ago. If there's another motion we ought to hear, we ought to hear it and vote on it. But these dollars are so big that we ought to go through the exercise. And roger is saying we go through this exercise, we just write it and give it to pbo. We ought to do that. It ought to be give tone the court as part of the backup for budget amendments and transfers. What I'm thinking is we'll treat it as an amendment if the justification is there in writing and it does not exceed the 20% escalation. If it exceeds that 20%, we ought to treat it like a more serious discussion item. But the same justification ought to be there.
>> I'll second that.
>> that's what we've been saying for the last 30, 40 minutes.
>> and the contractor award --
>> that's my motion again. Commissioner Davis seconds it. Now discussion. Ms. Perez.
>> the contract awards then would not be on for next week. They would wait another week. Because we have to take care of the financing first before we award the contract.
>> but the little old justification be I have in mind is roger can probably sit down this afternoon in an hour generate four or five memos like this. Mr. Nellis would be reasonable that he reviews them, but if something stands out as not being sincere and reasonable, somebody ought to let the court know. We're talking more than tens of thousands of dollars here. We're talking hundreds. These are major projects. The longer we delay them, the more they will probably cost us, yes? The reality of the situation is these will go up before they go down.
>> and the 448, which is really what we're talking about, that is the justification that pbo is basically needing, right? It's the 448. Because that's the -- those are the amounts that are beyond the 20% escalation. So the 448 is -- isn't that right, leroy? Isn't the 448 what y'all -- that's the justification.
>> what I had understood earlier when Commissioner Sonleitner was discussing the process was that the sort of review would be done on all projects; however, if it was less than 20%, then it would be posted as an amendment. If it was more than 20% like these two are, they would be posted as a scug. What I'm understanding from the judge if I'm not mistaken is we would pull a 5 and a 6 and post them as discussion item 1 and two for next week. Alicia's point is correct, then the contracts would have to be delayed a week so the funding is there first.
>> that's what the judge is saying.
>> if these are ready, there's no reason why a cannot be the contract and b cannot be the funning, is there?
>> yes, sir.
>> yeah, there is.
>> I'm sorry, not a to the contract. If we approve basically the amount, then we need -- then we need the money. Let me ask this then. What if we take this 20% and put it in a facilities reserve. Where is it now?
>> the car reserve.
>> what if we transfer it from the car troferb a facilities reserve? And then the source of funding will be for everything to -- you've got the original budget, plus they have the facilities reserve. And the facilities reserve would be close to two million dollars, wouldn't it?
>> it's 2.4.
>> 2.$4 million. So let's say the original budget is $350,000 short. Then they would identify the facilities reserve as a place to take the $350,000 from.
>> what we need to have a requisition, and I haven't seen it on the little schedules here, but that whatever contract you're approving, that there has to be a requisition in the system that encumbers that amount of money, whatever that is. So it needs to be in the specific line item account wherever you're going to be paying that from.
>> okay. Could it be in two line items? See, the reserve would be just one facility line item, the $2.4 million in there. But they may tap it for multiple projects. As the time is necessary. Do you see what I'm saying?
>> but the contract -- whatever you're going to spend this year.
>> do you need to explain more in detail?
>> even if it's in a facilities reserve, there will still have to be a budget transfer into that introoferb the appropriate line item to fund the contracts. So whether it's in a car thraferb gets put into the right line item or the facilities reserve that gets put into the right line item, it will still have to come to the Commissioners court.
>> I'm trying to do it in one week instead of two. All I'm saying is so it's not like we're hunting for money because it's in the facilities rfb. The only question is whether we approve the contract in an amend that exceeds the original amount that would tap the escalation reserve.
>> one question. When we verify funding, we're verifying the line items that that contract has been obligated to. A reserve line item is not an object la dwaition for that contract. It can be multiple line items, but not a reserve accountment.
>> pbo comes with that amendment, they're anticipating the court would approve it because of roger's memo. And so they say in the amendment we move from the facilities rferk, where the reserve is right now, car reserve, x amount of noun fund this project in full. And when the court approves the budget amendments that day after approving the contract, is that sufficient or do we do a separate phase?
>> dwoa a requisition in place. If you don't have a requisition in place, you can't have a requisition from lient item. It has to be in the count number be.
>> so does it need to be two days or can we do it in one day?
>> it needs to be in two weeks only for the fact that when you approve a budget adjustment or transfer, that hasn't reserved those funds. All it's done is put it in the line item. If facilities does not do a rec for that contract, whatever that contracted amount is for that year that you're going spend, then they could use that noun something else and you won't have funds for that contract. That's why we say that you approve those budget transfers one week. The department puts in the req, therefore it's encumbered, so when you're approving that project there are funds encumbered. They're not just a budget sitting somewhere, there are funds encumberd for that contract.
>> if it's got to be two weeks, it's two weeks. I can live with that.
>> so today we've already done a reimbursement rez resolution, therefore we could today still do item number 16 which says it gets moved over and that's all the budget amendments and transfers. But we delay until next week the awarding of any contracts under 24 and 25 so that there is appropriate line items to back up the contracts that we want to award if indeed that is the pleasure of the court. Are we there?
>> facilities can put in the reg this week once the budget transfers are there to the line item and then you would have funds reserved, encumbered, waiting for you to either approve or not approve the contract.
>> will that work? Then I'm theerg we need 24 and 25 back on next weerks but with specific projects, not general language like a. And on c I say when the projects come forward, we just have to deal with them. That's the infrastructure improvements. I heard the explanation on security. I don't know that we have a fix today. If it ain't in the budget, then at some point either we put it in or we don't. And it seems to me that we have to look at specific projects to make that call. Some will be more important than others, right? I certainly don't want to think we will number a position of just approving it because they asked for it, but some of this stuff ought to be done, some can probably wait until the next budget cycle. Some we may conclude shouldn't be done at all. I'm sort of speaking -- 24 and 25 next week. We can go back to the item.
>> I was going to say is it appropriate judge to move approval on item number 16? In its entirety.
>> not yet because we haven't called item. But 24 and 25 next week. That's what we're hearing. We won't need 25-a.
>> that's right. And we can do sfean you approve t.
>> let's do that on 24 and 25. Any discussion?
>> judge, there is a motion and a second on the floor.
>> I withdraw my motion. Wait a minute, though. That was on really how we process the different things. Not a specific one. So that is a good motion. It's doable, right? Y'all have been doing close to that already. Fwheed it to see that written explanation ourselves, I think, in the backup. And I don't have in mind voluminous documents. Just the bullet summary will do it for us, I think. All in favor of the motion? That pass busy unanimous vote. We'll have 24 and 25 balt on next week with specific wording that allows us to address contracts and projects.
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, November 22, 2006 12:39 PM