Travis County Commissioners Court
November 28, 2006
Item 9
9. Consider and take appropriate action on recommendation from selection committee to commence negotiations with faulkner, u.s.a., the highest ranked firm, offering the best value to the county, in response to rfp no. P060273-mb, Travis County correctional complex (tccc) design build project
>> good morning, judge. Commissioners. Cyd grimes, Travis County purchasing agent. With me at the table is our facilities manager, director, roger el khoury, on his staff
>> [indiscernible], from the sheriff's office mark stefano, from my office marvin brice, I see other members of the committee and the team, it's good to see leslie here
>> [indiscernible] we are here this morning to move forward on the procurement for design build services outs of the del valle facility for the expansion that the court approved in the past. Back in April we came forward with three teams. We got direction from the court to -- to ask for proposals from two of those firms, faulkner u.s.a. And gillbane. We received their proposals on October the 9th. The -- the committee that I just mentioned you had four voting members and two non-voting members. Which included ed spooner with hok our consultant. They have spent, I just see tim lee walking in from the county attorney's office. These folks have spent an enormous amount of time, as has our consultants and the two firms and actually the other firm that participated, they have spent a lot of time going through these proposals and preparing these proposals and we are here today to move forward and make a recommendation. It's been a difficult task. As you will see from the scores, there was only about 73 points difference between the two firms. Gillbane came in at a score of 1389. Faulkner 1461. I think that the main difference in those scores is the cost and roger and his group will -- will talk a little bit about that as we get into it. But a recommendation today is to move forward with the contract negotiations with the -- with the faulkner u.s.a. Group to -- to finish the project.
>> I believe gilbane is here to speak on their behalf, also faulkner u.s.a.
>> in addition to price, the other selection criteria are --
>> good morning, roger el khoury, director of facility management department. In the backup, we will see the other criteria are the additional information regarding the supplement terri original rfq request for information criteria, selection of firm, project
>> [indiscernible] work plan, historic under utilized,, financial stability, qualification of key project individual, schedule and history. This is under part one. The second part would be the design development and technical solution as -- as the proposal must include the design development level development, assist Travis County in the planning
>> [indiscernible] with respect to the material, equipment and systems to be used in the -- in the prosecution and off
>> [indiscernible] incorporated into the work. We have a maximum score on each of those point. As you can see on the backup and then the third one was the group c, I'm sorry, under group
>> [indiscernible] also proposed to submit design build management and procedure plan for the project. And also to submit the quality assurance and quality control plan for the project. And group c the -- it's a cost factor which is a cost of the project also that they have provided also the value
>> [indiscernible] alternative and additional costs related information request for proposals. Now, all of these here are the -- have each has an individual score and if selection member score according to those maximum score on each point. So as you can see, if you total out the scores, for each we have score number a, number b, number c, number d, we have four number on the selection committee who scored. You can see down in there at the bottom of each spread sheet for faulkner and gilbane the ceanch score divided by 4 to come out with the numbers. Really lots of criterion involved in selecting the firm.
>> if you recall, we discussed last time about adding the scores when -- the first process and we did do that in this process. We added two scores together just like roger said. In the first round we had the same type of criteria and on the second round we just expanded on that criteria. And then we added those two scores together.
>> where is that reflected in the backup?
>> it's on the -- if you look -- judge, at the memo --
>> look attachment 1?
>> yeah, on the memorandum, the third phase on my memorandum, the third page.
>> also the second page of my memo, the top page of your packet.
>> which shows -- it shows the rfq score for gillbane and u.s. Faulkner, or faulkner usa and the
>> [indiscernible] score and the total.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> really I need to understand under 3.1.3, which is the cost factors a, that's rlg in terms of -- that's really in terms of the give and take of one group, section one, the other group one, section two. So those things are kind of running really close. Where it really fleshes out is under the a section. Help me understand why the gilbane proposal was so low scored because it's that line that really makes the differential. Help me understand what does that mean in term of such a low core that you didn't have confidence in the numbers that they were showing? I need to understand what that core means because -- what that score means because from their point of view I would see that's what it would take to do this project. And I don't understand that line of what that score means.
>> we're talking about group number c?
>> 3.1.3, and under a. Because it is such a low and consistently low number that that's really the line where this whole thing is won and lost quite frankly. And the scores are unbelievably high for faulkner. So I need to understand what does that scoring mean that you have -- you just didn't like the price and that's why it's that way or did you think that it was overvalued? I need to have an understanding because let's face it, that's where this thing is won or lost.
>> while you're going to answer that, the other thing that reallyups off the page at me is how gilbane got the same score. If you look at the other -- if you're just looking at this thing and trying to figure out how was it done, that is pretty startling. Obviously you've got four professionals here and this is again where I get real uncomfortable, not being an engineer, not being in this engineer, but when you look at this it jumps off the page.
>> the same thing, Gerald. It's not only the consistency of the number, but not understanding did they not tell you why the cost was what it was. Did you think it was overvalued? I'm trying to get an understanding of what did the scoring mean because everybody also under the faulkner proposal had differing numbers and I don't understand that line. That's really the crux of where we're going to land.
>> let me give you an overview summary on that 3.3 a and I'll let them explain more on that. What happened to this one is a cost factor. We published our construction budget. It's 59,525, if my memory -- 59,002 -- 59,252,270. We published that. And then during the process we've got a cost estimate from our consultant for about $65,000. So we have 65 million. I -- 65 million. What we did, the reason you see the score are the same because that's the only one. It has a standard scoring, meaning that if anybody met our cost estimate, which is 65 million, they got like 50 point. They got -- I'm sorry. If they are below our estimate they would get 300 point. Five percent over the estimate, then 200 points, 10 percent over the estimate, 150 point. 15 percent over the cost estimate was 50 point. We staibd that as a selection committee on that and they would say okay, here are the costs. We republish the construction cost estimate. Gilbane came out above the $75,000, so it was 50 points. U.s. Faulkner, they were in the -- to our cost estimate, which is 65 million, and they got the 250 points. So that's an explanation on that. But the rest of the score, everybody use his own judgment, his own merit, everybody his own experience, judgment on each other items. But that particular item. It's based on a graph. It's based on a methodology that we need to come one a conclusion among the selection committee that it is a fair number because we publish cost estimate also.
>> let me go there for a second. Where is the judgment then of the confidence or the analysis or whatever that you have confidence that the numbers that each has turned in, one on the high side, one on the lesser side, that you have confidence in the numbers that have been turned in, that those are indeed the numbers. And that there weren't -- in terms of quality, that quality was not sacrificed to get to that certain number. We all want to have confidence in the numbers that have been presented to us. Nobody is looking for the cadillac, but no offense to kia, but we're not looking for the kia. You want a project that is going to be solid and worth this investment. So help me understand here where is the judgment in terms of the analysis of the numbers that they are solid, based on fact, based on deliverables, and based on the quality that we want to have built into this project and maintenance and everything else, that that's the correct number and we're not choosing the lesser expense stiff one and we will have -- expensive one and we will have regrets. Help me understand.
>> sure, Commissioner. All the qualities, section number c deal only with the cost factor only. Any relation to the quality of the work is under group number b. That's how we establish that each team, what they did based on group b on the quality of the submittal. And our comfort level comes from our cost estimation and also the estimation as part of the cost only, the category 5 million. But they each went to think plans and look at what they presented to us and then we scored them accordingly under 3.1.2 group b design, development and technical solution. As you can see, on the gilbane store, look at the numbers, are similar quality for both of them. But what it is on number 6 is a cost link so high on gilbane. That's what hurt them so much. Not as far as the quality. Both of them based on a fairly quality work and then we have a kind of summary of what are they --
>> and also, Commissioner, in our bridging documents, it's sort of our minimum specifications, minimum quality products that we would accept. So we hope that they rn proposing -- that they were proposing basically the same type project, material minimum qualification or quality product. Some of the value engineering will happen in these phases. They did identify some value engineering opportunities. But a lot of that too our assurances will happen in the contract negotiation when we ensure that we both understand what we're getting for the design and what it's going to be.
>> my question is related to this section here, I know in terms that we had discussions ahead of time of waiting and what sections were going to mean as we went through this process. Did folks have a good sense that depending on how close to the mark that they came on budget that there would be such differentials in scoring ing that they needed to come as close to the mark. And as far away from the mark that you got the penalties would be quite severe in terms of scoring?
>> are you asking me if the two proposers knew our formula?
>> yes.
>> I do not thabl they did -- I do not believe that they did.
>> I'd like to point out too that as far as what roger was talking about, the group b criteria, part a under there, that's where we scored the overall technical walt of their submittal and the quality that they had built into the project and their costs. And under the next group c, a, that's the cost itself, just only the cost as roger said. You see we tried to balance the two. We tried to give more weight to the technical merits, 400 point total. They could score 400 points total and a total of 300 points under the cost itself. So in that way we wanted to try to as much as reasonably possible balance the cost factors with the technical factors. And also to answer Commissioner core di's economy earlier, the reason that as roger explained, we have a formula set up for how we would simplely take their cost and plug it into a formula and see how it came out. And the bottom shrine the further the cost was from our cost estimate, cost estimate from hlk action which we -- that's our best information on what this project ought to be worth. So the further their submittal was from that cost estimate, yeah, they lost points, we graded them down on that. If they came at the cost estimate or under it, that would get them their best points. Now, the reason that faulkner -- the threen gilbane had 50 straight across the board is because their cost submittal exceeded the low eflt points, the -- the lowest points. They were 15% over the estimate. So we didn't give less than 50, we just gave 50 straight points. On faulkier, their submittal, their cost submittal came in between the two numbers there, then we had to extrapolate and I guess different committee numbers use slightly didn't means of extrapolating between what the score would be.
>> that's understandable. Now that I see how you got the 50's. It was a real simple. 50 points is what you will gel and move on to the next deal.
>> my next question is going to be in terms of these are the numbers that have been turned in. Everyone is going to want, especially if you're going to approve points to the one with best value, how locked in are they that this is the number, we love this number, that's the number. We really are sorry that that's the number. Oh, by the way, that's the number. Oh, yeah, that's the number. And if it's over that and let's say it's more in the direction of what gilbane says it's going to take to build this thing is tough luck, that's the number. How much assurance do we have that -- plet say it again, that's the number.
>> as we go through negotiations, if that has a tendency to change, then all of a sudden we're not --
>> the score ought to change.
>> thank you very much. Help me understand how lock understand is it s. The number.
>> if you recall the r.f.p. Issuance action we included in various locations quite clearly statements to the effect that each of the proposers were given an opportunity to do due diligence, to raise questions, to seek clarifications. We issued four amendments to the r.f.p. That provided those clarifications. When thrrn questions about -- they were very specific technical questions for the most part. And presumebly they were asked because they would influence not only the design development documents that would be be presented, but as well as the cost proposal, the cost factor in the proposal. But we did state several times very clearly that nothing that -- that there could be no reason that a proposer would have to deviate or recalculate their calculation of costs that were provided with their proposals. Because as I said, we did give them much opportunity, many opportunities and repeated meetings to raise those questions about items that might influence or later cause an adjustment to those.
>> and is there a time limit in terms of how long this pricing is good for because that also says in terms of they also know that things got to get locked in and let's go because prices are changing on concrete and steel and copper as we speak.
>> exactly. I believe it was 120 day period that each proposer must stand by the proposals that were submitted on October 9th. So that would take us through the beginning of February of 2007.
>> so even if -- this is such a huge investment. We owe it to earn to ask all of these -- we owe it to everyone to to ask these questions so there's absolute clarity to where this is going. So let's say that concrete trip else in cost tomorrow. As long as we get things locked dmown the next 120 days in terms of a contract, it's like tough luck.
>> that's correct. Keep in mind that this -- today what we're seeking is simply to start the negotiation s to make those agreements. In terms of reduction or changes to the scope of the project itself, then that may have some effect on the bottom line baifbly, but yes, they are bound by the cost proposals that they have submitted.
>> one last question. So if we move ahead today or next week or whatever day we're doing this, do we have any doubt in our mind that we will be able to finish all the negotiations in the time frame established so that the number is the number is the number is the number?
>> we are committed to start negotiations with the firm, the approved firm next week if we can, and Thursday. And then we really want to move forward --
>> this week.
>> I'm going to ask for one week, one day. I've only had a couple of days to look at this and I don't know if -- I'm as baffled today as I was three or four days ago. So I will need a week. I have three or four questions that I need to ask snoongs -- did you get yours out?
>> yes.
>> no more?
>> no more.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> thank you, judge. I just want to make sure that -- I'm really concerned about ex-calation of costs when we get into these projects. That 'the market, material, things like that are moving so rapid until we may quote a price today and then tomorrow it is out of this world. We do not yet have an f.t.e. Cost escalator type person on board with the county and this is one of the reasons that we're looking at that. Because my concern and my question today is that within the 120 day period that we're looking at and everything is locked in the way we are looking at this and negotiations are taking place, and that is an unusual increase of cost, even though we negotiate this, is there any opportunity for the winning person, the winning bid on this to brack out and say, hey, I looked be at this thing and my goodness gracious, all those other escalating costs have mushroomed to the point where I really am not going to make the money that we anticipated when we first looked at this thing. So is there any way out of this particular situation based on runaway, rampant, uncontrollable cost escalations? That's my concern because really you sit down and start negotiating and that's one thing, but then when you start look teg rub beer meeting the road and it's all the profit oriented business that we're dealing with to make money and you start losing money, then is there any opportunity for them to escape? That's my question, legal.
>> we have provided in our r.f.p. Documents, in the bridging documents and in in the rfq as well as well as in the detailed information criteria every possible means we have at this time of ensuring that the project is designed and constructed in a timely fashion in accordance with the project schedule and in accordance with the calculations of compensation that were provided to us. There are always in the construction industry and including design build industry situations that arise where there are those types of occurrences. And I can't really speak to what that might happen in a force ma juror situation that might occur, but as I said, we've provided every protection that we can possibly put in place right now to ensthawr the proposers are bound by the information, including their compensation that they include understand their proposal.
>> what I'd like to make sure happens is that we have as many controls in place whereby we don't have to solve the cost overrun on projects that we end up sometimes getting involved with or we have to end up spending more money than we have available to spend. So that is a real legitimate concern. So I'm concerned fw whoever -- if the recommended person, that they want to end up getting involved with this, it's fine. I want to make sure up front that it will be very difficult to support cost overrun and money that's above the budget. So that's why I'm squawking and hollering right now because I don't want this to go beyond an allocated amount of money that we have to spend on this. So that's one thing. And the second thing and I will be quiet after this, judge, but the second thing is that I want to make sure that whenever these projects come through, I want to make sure that the minority participation is at a level where it should be. And I know that voluntary compliance and things like that we're trying to get to another situation where we have a lot of minority peangs involved in all of these things. I want to make sure that whoever gets this thing, whoever, I want to make sure that that is still on the table. I don't want to be looking at something where people are hollering, screaming, complaining because of the fact that participation wasn't what it should be. And I just think that's a valid point that I'd like to make sure that it's on the table for those folks to keep that in your head as we go through this process. He.
>> Commissioner Davis, rargd the health requirements, one of the things we talked about is once we finalized the contract and you everything in it, whoever the winning firm is, we'll work with our hub program folks to make sure that we meet our hub goals in this contract. And both firms have committed to doing that.
>> I'm going to be look being at it real close.
>> and as far as the cost and assurances, I think that we need to make very clear that it's a matter of sitting down with whoever the court directs us to negotiate with and make sure that they understand what y'all have just said and see what assurances they are willing to give us on escalation of cost. Then we need to make sure that that is written down in our contract and very clear to both parties. That's the job ahead of us.
>> toipt lay it out because without me saying that it might be a person of the involved parties that may not think that Commissioner Davis is thinking about things like that.
>> we do have both those parties here and maybe we could entice them to negotiate a contract and make those assurances on the record.
>> it's on one radar screen.
>> I am glad they are hearing from the dais.
>> thank you, judge.
>> remind me of what r.f.p. Related services hok was supposed to provide.
>> one of the things that hok did is they got copies of each of the r.f.p. Submittals and they compared them to the bridging documents and they produced a you report basically kind of going through division by division and how each firm did in comparison to the bridging documents. They also looked at the value engineering options proposed by both firms and give us their assessment of those and if they throrpt a good idea, bad idea or basically our decision. Then they just gave us some extra miscellaneous information just based on their general overview. So all of their team members, including their structural engineers and their mep engineers all looked at the proposals and gave us their evaluation. They did not score them. They were not scoring numbers. They gave us their evaluation as the scoring members of the selection committee there by used in our scoring.
>> judge, let me remind thaw this procurement method follows the design-build written out in chanter 272 of the -- chapter 272 of the local government code. And it told us there's different methods and this method we are following what the law required. And it required us to hire independent sort of construction management firm to overlook be and do this for first process. So we're following what the law requires us to and is stated by ken, those are the services they're providing for us.
>> those services were provided in writing?
>> yes, we have a contract.
>> may the county judge receive a copy by five today?
>> you want a cone of the -- you want a copy of the hok contract?
>> no, sir. I want a copy of the evaluation, written evaluation provided by hok that the committee factored into its consideration of the two proposals, evaluations and scoring. That's what you just described, right?
>> right.
>> I don't want to see the contract, I want to see -- whether the law requires the evaluation or not, we had them on board to help. The backup refers to them as the county's design-build consultants. I want to see basically what they provided. They're here today. Hok is here today?
>> hok is not here today.
>> hok is the county's design-build consultant, so we expected for them to provide us just basic information about the two proposal s to enable our internal committee to do the evaluation?
>> that's correct.
>> that's what their contract says?
>> their contract is to help us analyze these proposals and to understand how they compare with the bridging documents.
>> and may I add this? In the phase 4 of their contract with us, they're supposed to help us in the proceed ciewment process, which this one is part of it.
>> okay. Marvin I may need a copy of that contract after all.
>> yes.
>> we have seven pages of back be-up is what we should have.
>> it's about that.
>> the baffling part is that the two proposals are so far apart cost wise. When we look at the two, did we conclude that we were getting roughly the same from both?
>> you mean the quality or -- except cost? Everything except cost?
>> everything. That's what it boilses down to, -- boils down to, right? What is it that you really get for 59 million and do we get a comparable project for a price that's dramatically higher? That's what this is all about. Because you wouldn't pay substantially more money to get roughly the same project. Project.
>> my opinion on that is that we evaluate them boats carefully. It's hard to say whether they're boats exactly -- the same quality, but I would say that we did not see $14 million worth of difference in the quality between the two.
>> did we see comparable quality?
>> I would say comparable, yes. There's still some -- a little clarification that would be needed on both of them. There's -- some have better information in areas and some weaker information in areas, and vice versa.
>> don't we need to see a side by side comparison of what we get from each proposal? See, my problem is that after being part of the county government for 17 years or so, these criminal justice projects scare me? Typically they don't come in on schedule, they don't come in on budget.
>> that's right.
>> as you know. And so I think our responsibility to taxpayers is to do our best to make sure that we've got a fixed price and that we understand the quality of the product that we're supposed to get. And I don't know how we make that determination without some sort of side by side comparison before we give direction to go ahead and negotiate a contract with one of the two vendors. Is that something we can put together in two or three days?
>> sure, we can.
>> what the committee has done in their evaluation process also. This information -- I'm sure hok has done their analysis and they've looked at that, and that's part of why the scores have come out like they have where the big difference -- everything is pretty much the same except the cost. And -- that information is there for you, judge. If you want to look at it in detail, we'll get you the information.
>> I insist on looking at it and I should. There's no way to make a determination without seeing it.
>> all right.
>> otherwise we should just tell the committee to go ahead and make your choice and bring us the contract. And there are four or five legal questions that we need to address in executive session.
>> there's also a budget issue because we're still short money.
>> may i?
>> I want to see a side by side comparison of each proposal so I can understand that in fact the cost difference is not that big a deal.
>> we can provide that comparison, judge, sure.
>> when?
>> a couple of days.
>> by five tomorrow?
>> we can get you hok's evaluation today. And that goes a long way towards what you're asking for. And I can tell you right now there are two big things that we saw as a difference between the two. Two --
>> one reason I'm asking for a week is I want to spend some time behind closed doors quietly looking at the backup. More than this here. I want to see what the committee had to look at. And I'm not assuming that I'll arrive at a different conclusion, but I'm assuming I'll have more input on that conclusion than I will in responding to the committee's recommendation. I mean, I suspect the work that y'all have done, but these are conclusions basically. And when I look at the evaluation criteria, they all seem to be the same except price. And I want to understand what we get for $59 million and what it is we get from 65 or so. We have to understand what it is that we need hok to look at for us unless we are convinced they've looked at it already. And I guess when I see what they provided, I'll be able to make that determination. Do you see what I'm saying? Now, I don't know whether the -- whether a representative from each vendor came prepared to give comments today or not. If so, now is your opportunity. My guess is that the court will have questions or comments after we hear from vendors also. So there's a representative or two from faulkner or gilbane, this is not the time to be shy. If we can make four of those chairs available, roger, maybe you should sit in the middle or the end. The middle would be good. And if we could get your names and which firm you're with, we would be happy to get your comments. By the way, I'm committed to making a decision next week unless there is unreadiness by somebody else. If I get the information I'm asking for, I will spend the time necessary to land on one of the vendors by next Tuesday or land on a decision. Yes, sir.
>> judge, Commissioners, my name is tim garber, I'm director of communications at faulkner, u.s.a. Today I have with me my colleagues ross cruz, bob frich and bill andrews representing the operations and preconstruction dent at faulkner. In brief, this is a very important project to us. I think our proposal demonstrated that. We put considerable energy and resources into making sure that the technical and quality assurance aspects of this project met the expectations of the county. With that said, we wrent above and -- we went above and beyond what we felt was necessary with respect to outreach at this stage in the game the hub community. We held an event at the hilton Austin to promote this project to the local subcontracting community. We took it upon ourselves to meet with the city of Austin, the assistant city manager to talk about in expediting a process for permitting for this project, making sure that the city was aware that this project was coming down the pike. But most importantly what we did was look at the subcontracts and the packages and sit down one on one. We held several meetings in our offices with interested subcontractors for the various packages for this project, and we got real numbers. We spent the majority of our time -- I wouldn't say it was the majority. There was a lot done on the engineering and the architecture and the design, but we spent a considerable amount of time making sure that our budget was something that we can stand behind. This is -- we entered into this knowing that this is a guaranteed fixed price, guaranteed scheduled contract which is what we routinely do as a design-build firm. So we felt that it was imperative that the number that we turned in was a number that we could stand behind and defend and we're prepared to do that. In closing I would like to say that faulkner u.s.a. And the majority of our team are all local firms. This project holds special interest for us in that it is in our own backyard, it is something that we take great pride in in being able to work locally as we did recently in Williamson county with a very successful corrections project there. So incident the clerk to understand -- so I want the clerk to understand that this is a project that faulkner and the team members that we assembled are all homegrown local companies and we stand ready to begin this project as soon as the court makes its determination.
>> so you're convinced that the 59 million and some change is a good number.
>> I'm convinced that the 65 million #- 8 895,000-dollar number that faulkner presented is a solid number and one that we can stand behind.
>> 65 million.
>> yes, sir.
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
>> we've got considerable backup, judge, as well from our subcontractors that support that number.
>> let me ask you this then: under what circumstances would you believe faulkner would be justified in increasing that amount?
>> I don't anticipate a scenario where we would increase that amount. In fact, we've also indicated $2.5 million' worth of value engineering that we feel would also be considered. So we looked at this project very closely, very thoroughly, and as we said in our presentation to the selection committee, I believe back in -- when was that, August, September? That we have a reputation and a record of no change orders once we give a guaranteed fixed price. It just doesn't enter into the equation. So we stand behind this number and we're ready to proceed.
>> so only owner initiated change orders should increase the price.
>> that's correct, judge.
>> okay. Are y'all from faulkner too?
>> no, sir. Good morning, judge, Commissioners. I'm john churchill with gilbane company. With me is our architect. First I'd like to thank you for giving gilbane the opportunity to put forward a proposal. We do appreciate that. A couple of questions that I had initially, Commissioner Sonleitner, Commissioner Daugherty you asked those regarding the scoring. We were also very concerned that we were only awarded 50 points for our price proposal across the board, and especially considering -- I guess we weren't aware that the budget was published anything above the 59 million. That's the only wing that we have seen officially from Travis County in the r.f.p. Is second of all, it was also our understanding that the scores for the pricing rn supposed to be-- owe were supposed to be evaluated against the design criteria and not against the budget. That was our understanding and the way the r.f.p. Is written. So I guess those were two points that we had that we were a little concerned about. I know that john had a couple of questions as well so I will let him address those.
>> I guess the key thing, this probably would be directed more at the county attorney than the selection committee per se. I'll await the county attorney's attention before I ask the question.
>> good luck on that.
>> [ laughter ]
>> well, judge, we'll try. We have nothing to lose in this. The question that aircraft asked is owe thee eric asked is critical. Under 3.3.2-a as published under page 16 of the r.f.p. Is the way this is worded would lead us to understand the base cost would be evaluated against the project criteria not against budget, not against other cost. And we felt the project criteria was exceptionally well-defined under section b of part 2, page 22 of 113 of the r.f.p. As the bridging documents. That there was no reference at all to cost or comparative cost there, ie, therefore leading us to believe that this would be a factor evaluating the appropriateness of the cost to the project criteria, ie, the bridging downlts, which are both function and quality. So therefore an evaluation of the cost versus the quality of the design presented by that team. And the very concise and direct explanation of how the scoring was developed on this was most enlightening to us because we felt that this would be an evaluation of the cost of the gilbane and faulkner proposals versus their designs. And which gets into 3.1.2-a, the evaluation of the designs versus the crooilt criteria, it was actually our understanding that if we submitted a design development level of document, we understand through the grapevine that there may have been some vary idea levels of details difference in the documents that were submitted. But what required was a dd level available or applicable to pricing that described the systems. Thrrn certain areas -- there were certain areas within the r.f.p. And the design criteria specifically that we felt were fairly descriptive. I don't have a clue how detailed the hok analysis was, judge, in such issues as this, but gilbane alone has done over 15,000 beds for tdcj. And the reason I'm mentioning the Texas department of corrections here is they're probably the largest user of alternate cell type steel, concrete, prefab, etcetera, between six and eight thousand of those beds were steel beds. So they're very familiar with various types of construction and so chose to go with concrete for several reasons. I'm only saying this, judge, to maybe prompt some questions and understanding of hok's eye valuation. But if one were to look on the design criteria dated June 16th, page 5 under secure construction grade level 2, for wall construction there is a lot of specificity, but there is a loophole mentioned in a sub, subsection in here for that particular item on wall construction which referenced passage of astmf 2322-03 and approved by Texas commission on jail standards for lots of alternate construction. However, that same option is not allowed on floor construction and roof construction. Which is very specific as to the concrete components required for the security of certain envelopes, prescriptive, but not allowing that exception. If indeed our worthy competitor's design takes exception to a lot of these and those exceptions were not noted for those, there is a potential that we could have made some quality differential changes. If you go to page 20 of the design criteria, it says insulated concrete forms and tilt wall panels with insulation sandwiched in are preferred. I think you will find on the gilbane design that we e.r.ed more on the side of conserve be tism on the preferred ends -- conservatism for preferred ends for long-lasting life cycle cost reasons. And those are just issues that are there, but getting back to the 3.1.3-a evaluation action we are rather surprised that it was an evaluation against budget as there is no mention of budget in the defined project criteria. As setforth in the r.f.p. That was really more a statement than a question. I appreciate you letting us ramble.
>> when we see the side by side, we will see that, right?
>> I have not tried to look at either of y'all on this thing. But to me that would be important, side by side comparison. We see exactly what we're getting. And the other thing really is hok's agreement that in fact the comparison is accurate. Is that why they're part of this effort?
>> correct, correct. I mean, their comparison, we look at their comparison also as not only by themselves, but we as a committee, we look at the plans also and determine that the side by side for gilbane and faulkner, u.s.a. Comparison were correct. We will provide that to you, judge and in a couple of days we'll get it to you.
>> let me make sure I understand attachment two. I do see the $65 million.
>> correct.
>> and should I look at the disief million in number -- 65 million in number five. Then I see faulkner u.s.a. 68.99. And then I see gilbane at 71.9. So the difference in cost between the two is a difference in 65.3 and 79.9.
>> 65.8. Not 79.9.
>> 69-point #- 8, number 8 there faulk another u.s.a. And 79.9. So that's roughly $14 million. What percentage would that be? I see percentages in that.
>> roughly 22%.
>> that's right. Irk so someone said either we don't understand it or it's unjustified. We're not getting 22% more value. That's the committee's determination basically.
>> the committee determination, it's really based on one firm submit a cost, it's based on the project criteria. Just like 3.1 -- just like we said it on the 3.1.3-a. They have a project criteria. They cost it out. And that cost came out for gilbane, about $79,930,000. Comparing to our -- what we believe the design build project cost estimate should be, which is 65,391,997, that's more than 15% differential and that's request they got the 50. Now, what they provided in attachment two is for the court to understand that while we have an approved budget with us, which is the 59,000,259 and what their numberer, faulkner u.s.a. And gilbane, the dwierchs our -- the difference between our published budget and their cost estimate on the project, and that's what attachment 2 shows.
>> a couple more and I'll be be done. Hok looked be at our project and said it should be done at 65.3. Faulkner said we can do it at 68.8. We need hok to look at the faulkner proposal and say that's exactly what we had in ours, right. And had then look at gilbane and say either that's exactly what we had and here are the reasons for the differences or they're offering whole lot more than we anticipated in these items right here. Isn't that the sort of analysis that we need to see?
>> I think we will provide the side by side comparison and also assign a cost estimate to each one of those because we have that. I mean, for each item. I'm sorry, we have a cost -- see, hok give us a comparison item by item. And also we have a cost estimate by gilbane and u.s.a. Faulkner.
>> for each item?
>> we will create that for each item for you.
>> okay. Commissioner?
>> judge, unless I'm missing something, this is real simple and I think john hit the nail on the head. What we're looking for is an apples to apples comparison. I mean, if what john is really asking is were we bidding on something that was quite specific and, do you know what, if faulkner bid on the specific thing that we did, well, then, we see difference in prices all the time about what one company can do something for versus another. Now, I will tell you that 99% of my comfort level is going to be with you, roger and hok that has a contract with us, what we as a court have got to depend on is for somebody to say, do you know what, each party -- because both of these companies are reputable. That's not one of these companies that want to get the middle of an arrangement with Travis County and something blow up. I mean, nobody likes that kind of publicity. So I'm comfortable that each of these. I was comfortable when we had three people that I thought could do this job. Now it's just a simple matter of convincing me and that's you and hok sitting down and saying, do you know what, we've looked at this and this is an apples to apples. It just so happens that gilbane on pricing theirs said this is what it's going to cost. Because after all is said and done, we can pull our hair out over this thing and get down to all sorts of legal questions and all this and that, but we have bridging documents. We knew what we were looking for in this thing. This is not like we're just taking something off the shelf and saying, hey, go do this thing. We've done a lot of work up to this point. We've met with every department, we've met with everybody that possibly could have a say so on this. So unless this be somebody can convince me in a week that -- and I'm sorry, john, that somebody wouldn't have thought, do you know what, I've got to think that price is going to be a big driver of something in this thing. Now, if somebody convinces me in the next week that, do you know what, you are not being given what you are being asked for with this 65-million-dollar bid, 65.9, then you've got my attention again. But at 20%, y'all, unless somebody can mel me why we can't look at this thing and go, hey -- and I understand that we have different prices come in from different companies and I respect the fact that somebody has whatever price they got. But once I get comfortable with the fact from you, roger, and from hok and I guess I'm as interested as the judge is to see the comparison, but what I really want is for somebody to sign off on the fact that do you know what, these are apples and apples. Now, if they're apples and oranges, then I think we have a different reason to sit down, but I can't imagine that we're going to have apples and oranges on this thing. Somebody has really missed the mark. Hok -- somebody should have said, wait, wait, we've got this thing coming in here and fwheed to have -- we need another meeting where everybody comes in the room because the last thing we really need here is to get into some kind of technical hubbub that drags this thing out because we all know one thin, we need to get on with moving with this thing or 65.9 or 79 ain't going to be right. And I for one think that if we can't get it done in the next week, then we have really messed up and I don't think that -- I don't think we're in a mode and I don't think that we're close to messing up. I'm happy with where we are right now, but I would like the verification of the apples and apples deal.
>> have we paid hok? Are they still on contract or what?
>> they're still on contract.
>> I think they need to be here next week. I think they need to look at the hok design specs there and then look at both of these proposals and say, hey, this is right on right here or this is right on plus. I mean, isn't that why we had them on board? Not that I necessarily want to see them, but I want to hear what they have to say and I think if I have questions that I want to put it to them directly. And we may as well get them on record here. This is what this is all about.
>> I think we're all kind of hovering over the same kinds of questions and toipt make sure and I'll ask it my way that related to this side by side comparison and getting the information from hok, 'we seeing a preferred to the, well, that wasn't required, to making sure that what -- did somebody deliver preferred alternatives versus not or were we both seeing equal things being proposed where it said preferred did both act as though that was required? In which case that is a side by side equal comparison. And joe, you're absolutely right. We see this every single week in terms of a bridge project and you will see a wide variety of somebody says I can do this job for this price versus something else. It's the same thing. So we just need to have that comfort level and what truly was being priced and is being proposed was looked at. Stfs the word preferred that caught my attention here. We want comfort and understanding that that's what we're getting as opposed to they're giving us the preferred requirements, and I don't know if this is the case. Somebody else is giving us the minimum requirements and the preferred stuff isn't in there. It's just making sure that we know exactly what has been priced, we know exactly what we're getting in terms of quality and that there is a good side by side comparison. My only thing that I would like to get information on and making sure I understand in terms of the scoring related to 3.1.3 a, which had to do with the pricing line item, is that a percentage off of our old budget, which was 59.2, or is that the percentage off of what was the hok project estimate in July of this year in which case faulkner was close to being perfect on the mark and I don't know if that would have changed the percentages at all related to the scoring. Help me understand what percentage off of which budget.
>> it's a project cost estimate is $65 million.
>> just making sure it's not that much more draconian. That helps.
>> so the 59 million represents what?
>> the 59 million represent the approved construction fwowjt the 69 build -- budget for the design build project.
>> so then you add the design to it.
>> no, it's design and construction. It was 59,250,000.
>> I have to ask this question although I'm scared of the answer. How much money do we have budgetd for this right now?
>> out of that $259,259 is the actual portion of that budget that we've assigned to the design build contract part. The rest of it is owner costs and other contracts doing minor parts and pieces of this.
>> let me clarify that
>> so -- so if we approve one of these proposals, do we have to take that amount plus add to it? Four million -- 4,497,000 to get the project done?
>> the lowest proposal, cost proposal that we have currently from faulkner u.s.a. Is is 6 -- 6,642,000. Above our -- our approved budget. For the design build part.
>> but does that include the only cost and --
>> no, no.
>> $4.4 million.
>> no.
>> that's what I'm saying. So if we approve one of these proposals.
>> uh-huh.
>> then we have to add to that, 4.497 million.
>> 6.6.
>> 6 point 6.
>> 6.6 million.
>> assuming the owners cost still come in at 4.4, we always thought it was going to be, we are 6.6 short, but in terms of what bad news we got this summer in July, we -- we ought not be surprised that it's that number because we were warned in July by hok that they thought that the number that we had from almost a year before, when we went before the voters, had slowed because of thing that happened with the fuel, concrete, steel, everything else, they basically were giving us the bad news in July that it is possible that this budget is not what we had hoped it was going to be because of what had happened in the previous year.
>> can I have a slip of paper. That would indicate all of the costs that we have to incur in the last one would be -- would be these two proposals.
>> okay.
>> okay. That in a jar of alka seltzer.
>> that's a point that I was trying to make earlier. The cost of everything is moving rapidly. That's been a year. Look how much it's increased. So that's why I asked earlier, whatever we end up doing, we are going to have to some controls. Remember I came into the tail end of this cjc building over here, it was really a headache until we got control of it -- of that thing and we are going to scrutinize this as closely as we possibly can. But I'm really not excited about a lot of this, especially if we have to deal with -- with things that -- that we were not in control of. But I want to make sure before we go forward with any of this, we are going to have more controls before I support board approved funding and all of these other kind of things, but the cost overruns, change orders, of course, those things happen. But also errors and omissions, all of those kind of things got to be taken into consideration. I'm going to be real, real tough on this to make sure that before we go forward with this, that we have a lot of safeguards in place to make sure that the voters get -- get what we paid for. Thank you.
>> 10:00 next Tuesday better or -- or 2 in the afternoon?
>> next Tuesday it's okay with us to 2:00 in the afternoon if --
>> doesn't matter? Morning or afternoon.
>> I would prefer morning, judge?
>> hok is coming here from where?
>> dallas.
>> usually they come in the night before.
>> doesn't make any difference. I just want to comment. One of the cites that john was pointing out that the sales themselves were -- cells themselves are made out of concrete or metal walls. But they did say concrete floors and ceilings. That was in there. It's our understanding that the other team's proposal was on metal modular cells which doesn't meet the design criteria. I think that it's a great idea to do that. But if it's not meeting criteria that should have been part of a v.e. Option as opposed to a -- here's our base bid. Because that affects not just your base price, it affects everything in your proposal. So I guess -- you know, when you talk about the points that were awarded, that that's -- make sure they are in the right slot as to where they belong. I guess the other I guess I just want to make sure that I understand that the scores that were awarded, the 50 points for us, whatever for the other team was based on the estimate, design estimate and it wasn't based on the published budget. The difference between the two. They -- the selection committee made a comment that yeah a certain percent for how far off you were in from the budget, actually from the estimate, not from the actual budget. It would make a difference in the number of points awarded if you base it off the county's budget for the project.
>> it won't make a difference for --
>> won't make a difference for our team.
>> 20% --
>> it would make a difference --
>> that ought to be crystal clear next week after we do our apples to apples. All right?
>> judge. I would like to respond to that comment.
>> this will be our final comment today.
>> thank you very much. I would like to call up my colleagues, mr. Fritch, mr. Cruise to address the choice of wall systems that we have included in our proposal. I mean, I think that it's fair that it was brought up.
>> this may not be our final comment today. Come on up. Roger, we may need you all's chair there.
>> okay. We will need your full name again, please.
>> good morning. I'm bob fritch, the director of preconstruction for faulkner u.s.a. I just wanted to address the comment from the gilbane side of the table with respect to the steel cell components that we priced out for the r.f.p. Proposal. We feel that we were well within the requirements of the bridging documents and the program as submitted or as required by travis county. And I'm actually quite surprised that anyone else knows what we have submitted so far in our proposal. Do you have any comments?
>> I believe that the steel cell system was approved by addendum, added did I addendum -- added by addendum during the process, which is the reason that we chose to go that route to give a better value to the county. That the second floor system is concrete over steel, over steel deck, and we believe firmly that we adhered to all of the criteria set forth by the county in the r.f.p. I, too, am surprised that the other team knows what we did.
>> whether addenda were added, whether they were shared with the vendors.
>> I can get the answer next week.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
>> okay. How is that?
>> good.
>> I eagerly anticipate next week's discussion. And unless I hear otherwise, we will schedule this matter to be called up at 10:00 a.m. Okay? And that will give you all in favor, signify by saying aye. Of the afternoon off next week. Chance to celebrate or wait outside Commissioner Daugherty's office to chat with him about --
>> okay.
>> thank you very much, we appreciate it.
>> thank you, sir.
>> thank you.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> yes, ma'am. Critical. Okay.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 07:48 AM