Travis County Commissioners Court
December 5, 2006
Items 10 & 15
Number 10 is to receive brief summary of jail construction project, including the number of beds, bed classification and related security and utility issues. And after 10 we will take up item 15. I chatted with the representatives from the sheriff's office after mulling over this matter, and this one really is to give us an opportunity to sort of briefly revisit the planning discussions that we had I guess as early as two years ago and February of this year before we made, I guess, final decisions on the design specifications. But actually number 10 is to revisit the jail construction strategy and I don't see anybody from the sheriff's office. Major balagia isn't here today?
>> he was ill today.
>> it was a tough meeting we had yesterday.
>> [ laughter ]
>> he thought he was going to spread it to everybody else too, and he didn't. The rest of us are here.
>> good morning. Roger corey. Ken deaf will go over the design build project and the minimum cell and the numbers and we'll go over the total review of the project versus the budget and cost and estimate. We will start with the -- with the overview of the program. Ken, please?
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. Ken dady, facilities management department. Yes, this project has started out a couple of years ago as a plan to basically help grade some of the beds we have out there. We have a number of issues at the complex that were brought to light by a consultant that had been previously hired. One of the issues is we have a number of buildings out there that are either getting older and just not functioning near as well asall buildings anymore and wheels have a number of buildings that were built back in the early 90's as temporary jail overcrowding at the time and a lot of those facilities are still being used. There were 888 beds identified as needing basically replacement back at that time. In addition to those beds we had another 572 beds that were identified that -- for variance beds. These are beds that the Texas commission on jail standards has given us a temporary variance to use -- to basically populate our jail facilities a little bit beyond the design capacity that they originally designed as constructed for. This was done again to help ease the jail overcrowding that we were experiencing back in the '90's. The variance beds were intended to be of a temporary nature and not turned into permanent beds, so what this project was to do was to replace those 8 #- 88 beds that are in need of replacement as well as replace the 572 variance beds that also need to be -- go back as regular design beds and be replaced with actual design beds in a new facility. In addition, back then there was a small number of approximately 228 until new beds. Creating a new facility that would house 1688 inmates. The issue went back and forth. It was discussed with the citizens bond committee, it was discussed with the court. The funding was discussed and the final analysis what we have now is the final approved program that went out as an rfq and then a subsequent r.f.p. For a design builder consists of a new housing facility of 1336 beds. Part of how we got from the 1688 to the 1336 was there was a 240 bed work release facility included in the earlier program that was eliminated from this project due to basically the partly funding issues and partly the desire to put that particular piece off until a future boond election that we could take care of 1336 beds with the bond funds that had been approved at this point in time. So that's what we have. We have a 1336 bed facility. We have developed an hoq. They have worked with Travis County for approximately a year and a half now to put together the program and the plannings for this and also the bridging documents that went out to some design build firms. We issued an rfq, a few design build firms responded. We came back, we had a selection committee that was put together of Travis County -- four members of the Travis County facilities management staff and also three members of facilities management, one member of the sheriff's staff, all members or either architects, engineers. We went through the rfq's, came back to the court with our selection committee's recommendation to move forward with two flt rfq respondents. We ended up goeng going forward with three and one of those subsequently decided to drop off and now we're go the r.f.p. Phase. We have now received r.f.p. Submittals from two --
>> let me just call up number 15, rather. 15 is to consider and take appropriate action to select proposal from either faulkner u.s.a. Or gilbane in response to r.f.p. Number p 060203 mb Travis County correctional complex design build project and give directions to negotiate with selected firms.
>> we were here last week to discuss this item and we're back here today, and the selection committee received two good r.f.p. Proposals from the two design build firms, gilbane and faulkner u.s.a. The selection committee carefully looked through both proposals. The proposals include a narrative descriptions of the project in addition to a set of drawings and all these are what we've been calling drij documents or more importantly the project criteria that were developed between Travis County and hok and issued as part of the rfp. So both proposals were based on these bridging documents, the project criteria. We've gone through them, evaluated them, scored them. Hok has gone through them and given their analysis and feedback on what they saw in the two proposals. The members of the selection committee have done their scoring and scoring has been presented to the court with the recommendation that we move forward with negotiating with faulkner u.s.a. As the high scorer between the two.
>> we got that recommendation last week and the scores. So scwlin speaking how would we describe the responses that we received from the two firms relative to project criteria from what shared?
>> our evaluation of proposals, plans and specifications identified a number of issues that were not in full compliance with elements of the bridge documents. There were two elements, the direct compliance with the bridging document and there was the submission meeting the rirnlts of the requested format of the submission. We have requested as part of the r.f.p. Is thalt submissions be equal to a design development package of secretary tral and engineering documents. So there were some components of the proposals that didn't meet that characteristic and it was difficult to fully evaluate their proposals in those areas. And then there were some specific elements offered that were not in technical compliance with the design guidelines, either products that were proposed to be used or building systems or materials. We did an analysis and identified those components and gave those to facilities management.
>> so it is fair to say that both were a little short of addressing this specific project criteria?
>> it's fair to say that neither of the two proposals was 100% complete or responsive to the detailed technical proposals.
>> neither fully complied?
>> that's correct, sir.
>> in terms of the price or cost, are we able to make an apples to apples comparison to each of the proposals to the price affixed by hok, based on hok's project criteria?
>> that's extremely difficult at this stage of the overall acquisition process. You used the analogy of an apple to apple and I would say that we don't have that, we have an apple to orange or an apple to banana comparison. I think the only way to have a better understanding of that is to go through the next phase of the process, which is the best and final offer where clarifications to the proposal can be made, questions asked and further detailed information can be provided to the county to help them make a more informed decision. The process does not anticipate that the final price that would be a price for a contract to be signed from would have been delivered at this point. There's another phase in the selection process that would bring us to that point.
>> it assumes further negotiation with one of the two firms.
>> that's correct.
>> but we don't have the ability to go to both of these folks and say we are not happy with the incomplete information that we have and that we want to work with both of you in questions that we have about your submittal. At this stage do we have to go with one firm?
>> yes. The law is very clear that at this point after the published selection criteria and the ranking evaluations have been made, the county must make a determination to go with one firm and commence negotiations and attempt to negotiate a contract with that one firm. Should contract negotiations fail to result in an executed contract,, the contract provides to the next ranked offer and attempts to negotiate with that proposal.
>> what if you do not reach an agreement on either one of them? Then we go back and start the process over again, is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> we get the negotiated situation with either one of them and we start over.
>> the question that I would have is the information that was left out by the firm. Is that information that was very crucial to reaching the point that I want to be at, that I can be guaranteed almost that there's going to be a good product delivered.
>> some of the elements are very crucial. There are also situations of conflicting information that was provided where in one section of the proposal where we will comply and meet the elements of the bridging documents, but when you look at the specification or a specific product, our evaluation is that that specific product does not meet the bridging document, technical guideline. So those are all things that have to be clarified. I don't think the level of the proposals is that inconsistent with the potential expectations in this type of a process. I think we have am bell material that have been presented to us to have a very clear phase two selection process.
>> but it sound like not all of the information that was left out was that crucial because it sound like it can be made up as we move into the next phase of negotiations.
>> absolutely, Commissioner.
>> it may be a request for clarification or additional information.
>> so at that point when you go through this next phase, you will be able to tell how crucial the leaving out of that information really was so that we can get a good product.
>> it would be my anticipation at the end of the next phase we would be able to say all of our questions have been answered, all of the potential conflicts have been clarified and we think this price reflects a project absolutely consistent with the design build guideline.
>> it has to be a different product. Because I notice here some references as stuff being deficient, some not meeting the requirements of the jail state commission. On that if the state jail commission has a minimum requirement, we have to meet it. There's no -- .so where it has not been met, the question is whether we can negotiate with that particular vendor for a product that in fact will meet jail commission standards.
>> if we do that, to what extent are we able to rely on the price that was submitted?
>> we have to look back at the proposals in totality. A price has been put on the table and there was a representation -- let me back up. Our rfp made several demands on the proposers. One was that the proposal be consistent with the technical design guidelines that were prepared. Two was they meet all of the requirements. Even if I made a mistake and omitted a requirement, it was their responsibility to determine that they were going to meet all of the requirements of the Texas jail decision. And three, our r.f.p. Required them to meet all applicable codes, life safety, fire code, handicap access codes. So we put the burden on the design build team not only to give you everything that we developed as part of our r.f.p., but also to give you everything that might be required by any government al agency, review authority or the Texas jail commission. So they then step into the role as being the architect-engineer of record and the builder of record. In the proposal, they made representations in a number of different ways. They made a general narrative, and the general narrative asserts that they meet all of those conditions, and that technical information provided does so. In the review of the technical information, there are some conflicts. And what we have to do as part of this next phase of the solicitation process is to get ample clarification to allow them to submit the information to a sufficient level that satisfies us that they have in fact met all of those requirements and it's going to be a detailed process of going through code analysis. We may ask the jail commission to get involved in a preliminary review and assist us in this process. There are a number of thing that we can do. We have already identified areas that we think there's a problem. We'll present that information and ask them to rectify or clarify or explain why they think that meets the requirements?
>> (indiscernible). Maybe you've answered that question. That is if there is noncompliance with jail commission standards that must be adhered to, who will bear the cost of missing the mark on compliance with the jail standard folks. Is that on the person who submits the proposal or is that something we have to look at? I need to be really -- hearing a clear answer on that.
>> let me give you two answers. My personal opinion is it's entirely the burden of the proposer to meet that rirnlt. Requirement. Period. In the process there is latitude to have -- it's called a negotiation, a best and final negotiation. We may suggest that the break down of the individual cost items that were submitted to us, for instance, light fixtures. I may sit at the table and say billy bob, I know I can buy that light fixture for 79 delays and you have 100 of them for $89. Check your price. And they have the right to say you're right, let's investigate and come back and lower their price by $10 a light fixture. We also, though, I think have some obligation in a negotiation process to protect the county from a future problem by saying we have looked at preliminary soils report and we don't think you have money to do foundation remediation that may be required. Are you sure? And they'll say we've had our engineers look at it and we think we have enough money or we blew that, we don't have enough money there. And the negotiation process allows for price adjustments in their proposal in either direction. What has to happen from our side of the table working with the design-build proposal, the proposer is that we have to assure the county that their getting the best value. That's the whole backbone of this process is that the county gets the best value.
>> but the last statement that you made kind of raised a red flag for me, and that is going beyond the amount of money that I am willing to spend. I mean, especially if it's on the flip side where they look at this and you mentioned foundation for an example. And it's something that they are not going to solve the expense in. And if that's the case, that means there has to be adjustments on our end to make sure that that accommodation is met. In other words, more money. So my concern is the more money aspect of all these things, more money that we don't have.
>> right.
>> so that is the crux in my mind of the matter of this whole situation, the more money point. We don't have the money to suggest it. And I think the judge makes some good comments. I'm not speaking for him, but when he was out there before the voters, we did look at the $23.5 million, whaf it was, that the voters approved, but then these add on,s that we're looking at now is something that we really need to hold our feet to the fire and make sure we don't get into a tough situation where we've got more money that we have to spend, and I'm not pleased with that.
>> Commissioner, I think we all -- I think that's -- our goal is to work for you in the best interest.
>> I understand, but my goal is to get the best quality for the least amount of money, whem it comes to taxpayers. That's my goal. And that's what I'm trying to do here. When I start hearing situations now that the burden of the expense may fall upon the Texas pairs of Travis County -- the taxpayers of Travis County and we have a certain amount of money that we have on the table to deal with this thing, of course I get nervous. I get real nervous.
>> again, this process -- I'm just giving you an explanation of the latitude that this process allows the county to engage in. And it's different from the traditional design bid. A bidding general contractor puts a hard number on the table and that's the number and you sign the contract. There is no negotiation in that process. This process has that mechanism allowing the negotiation as part of the process. It's just an element of the selection process. You may choose to use that, you may choose not to use that. You may choose to hold the bidder to an arbitrary number that you think the project is worth. You have great latitude in this process. What the neck nism is, those, is the staff and your students would meet with the team, the proposing process, and come back to you with a recommendation for your approval that would have determined the specific requirements of all of the technical issues and the specification reason for that price being recommended. And you can accept that or not.
>> when would the jail standard folks get involved? At what phase of this process? I know they've already been involved, but as far as saying yes, this is acceptable, no, it's not acceptable, as far as our standards are concerned, somewhere along the line as we go through this thing and I know they've been involved up front, but farce the -- after all of the negotiation and stuff have taken place, would they come back on again and say blah-blah-blah? When would that happen?
>> as soon as the disposition of the matter before the court now is handled, if we were directed then to enter into negotiation, we would within the next week have contact with the jail commission and ask for a meeting. We have not done that since the proposals have been submitted because we think the jail commission would only be incoastal plained to assist us with one of two -- would be inclined to assist us in one of two proposal.
>> is that saying that the two prices that we have right now are really sort of beginning of negotiation prices? And that the amount really would be the amount contained in a signed contract later on?
>> yes, sir. And as we negotiate we would start with the comments you have made and where there are deficiencies, lack of clarification, you would try to get clarification, get the deficiencies addressed, if we think that code requires something else, we would do that. If the jail commission has certain requirements, we would meet those. And the prices could be up-down. The number that we see in a contract or after negotiations could be less, could be more.
>> yes, sir.
>> is there any ambiguity whatsoever in the bridging documents with regards to steal versus concrete? What is the definitive product that needs to be delivered, that needed to be delivered on this product?
>> the definitive system is a secure enclosure. And the way the bridging document addressed that was the anticipation that the building would be a secure enclosure.
>> all right. So we don't have to act like attorneys, just talk straight. Is this building supposed to be done with concrete or is it supposed to be done with steel?
>> it could be done with either as long as it met the astm 2322 for security.
>> so either party could have gathered and support either one of those and they would be correct in that assumption?
>> the bridging document in my recollection gives them a standard, astm standard to comply with.
>> is one more expensive than the other?
>> yes. Every product has a different price tag?
>> which is the most expensive way to do this if you were to be able to pick between concrete and steel?
>> if I was going to pick between concrete and steel that meets that security criteria, I'm unable to give you a definitive answer on that. I would think they would be very close. Your question, though, is coming from based on the submissions that we've seen, the steel roof structure of one of the proposals does not meet the astm requirement for security barrier. The concrete proposal does.
>> is that the reason that blank building is steel frame construction as opposed to concrete? I don't think that came from your response, roger, it came from your camp. I'm trying to find a way -- something, y'all, has got to surface as to why there is $14,000,014,000,000' worth of difference. That's the question here. Don't worry about answering this thing politically correct, just answer the question. There is something in here as to why one group can do something for $14 million less. If it's not concrete, all the information that we've been given rlt there are pros and cons on both sides. So if there are pros and cons on both sides, it's a real simple deal. One is $14 million less and let's just leave the room. We know that nobody is comfortable doing that because we've got somebody that's able to say, do you know what, I can support -- I don't think that one of these bidders would say, well, I'm going to pick the most expensive. I mean, even though there are people that say, well, we didn't know that there was going to be all of this unbelievable weight to the bottom line price. We have many things that that's not of utmost importance, and especially to taxpayers. But I'm looking for something to be able to weigh in on with regard to why I can justifiably say this is the person we need to go to, because it sounds to me like whoever gets chosen. It's going to be the team that's sort of in the first chair position. They're going to have to come back and prove to us that they can't do the project. I don't think that either firm is incapable of doing this project. What we're trying to figure out is who can do the job for the county at the best price. That is ultimately what we're looking for. We've got to come out of here with picking a horse. I would love to say you all need to go back to these two and say you've got these weaknesses, these points that was definitively answered acknowledged that they get definitively answered. Sthekd come in and say -- I got an understand of what you've -- an idea of what you've got to spend here. We know what you passed on the bond, we know what you talked about with supplementing with the bond money and that being some co money. Why wouldn't you say, do you know what, I'm going to give you one page and comply with the bridging documents and we will do it for $50 million? I think their budget is somewhere 60, 65 million, so we're bound to -- and then we'll negotiate from that point forward. Why wouldn't somebody do that? It just doesn't make sense that somebody would come in with such -- this variation unless you can substantially support why, unless somebody has left something grossly out. So I guess we really get back to the question of in your opinion are these two submissions that we have, are they apples and oranges? And you've already answered that one.
>> yes. That is of my opinion.
>> well, then -- if that's the opinion -- you should have a lot of weight on you with this because that's quite frankly why we're paying you. When hok says this is an apples and oranges deal, it makes me real nervous to pick one just because there's a 14-million-dollar difference.
>> which one comes closer to meeting our design specifications?
>> I don't think either one of the two completely --
>> is closer than the other.
>> is closer than the other. I think there were some omissions in one and that needed clarification, sections that were not included, but both of them include general statements of assurance of compliance with the bridging documents? But I'm not -- I appreciate Commissioner daughert's references here. I'm not daunted by the task of going into the next phase. That's why that next phase is part of the solicitation law for this type of a process. It's then to allow you to sit at the table and get complete clarification of every item and every concern before we come back to you. We're not asking you today to select the individual firm to contract with, we're asking for permission to go to the next stage of the selection process.
>> if you expedite the next stage, how long would it take us? If we expedite negotiations, how long would it take? Six again, it should not be a lengthy process. I think you have to have scumenttation with the proposer before I could give you a real schedule. I think that would be the first agenda item when we would meet with either of the two proposers is to come up with a schedule, but I think the proposers should understand that because they have been invited to the table for phase two first, the county is under no obligation to go to contract with them, that it's still an open item and we could choose to recommend to you that we terminate those negotiations and go then to the other fim and commence negotiations with them if we don't think progress is being made satisfactorily.
>> are we convinced that the second firm will still be available for a negotiation if they break down between the county and the first one?
>> I would suggest that both firms have so much invest understand this process at this point that there's very sincere interest in ultimately getting the contract.
>> in terms of options available today, there's one more in addition to what you -- we of course can choose one of these two, authorize negotiations and if those are successful, fine, if not, we can negotiate with the second party. Or we can reject both of them and do something else.
>> correct.
>> the problem is there's no guarantee that there's a better deal if we do something else.
>> you mean a better project delivery method?
>> if you went out design-build frks you went out classical construction where you design on one end, here's your bid, the old days approach.
>> it's a risk.
>> you don't know where that will end up basically.
>> you mean, judge, the design-bid build, the conventional way.
>> that's correct. There's that possibility, but there's a big question mark at the end of it. Today there are a lot of little question marks. The other thing we've got is construction escalation that we've got to deal with. If you're out there submitting bids, the higher they probably will connell in unless there's reversal in the construction market. That's true, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> but legally we can't say we don't have enough information from both of you and we want some more information from you. We are not allowed to do that at this stage?
>> at this stage, no. At this stage selection criteria have been incorporated, were incorporated into the evaluation matrix. Points were allocated in accordance with the items included on that evaluation criteria matrix. And a ranking evaluation was performed by the selection committee and that is what have you before you. The next step and the only step at this point is as the judge just said, to accept one and proceed or reject both. Six the reason I'm really per pleksd by this is on one hand you tell me this is an apples and oranges situation. On the other you tell me both of them have issues. You.
>> with know that there were so many -- we know that there were so many points awarded out of the price. I mean, that -- which I think is very important, unless, of course, I feel like that I'm not -- that we're not going to get what the bridging documents said that we needed to have. And then it sound to me like that there are plenty of places throughout both of these that there are -- other than the fact that one of the strong point comments that comes from our scores is that blank appears to have complied 100% with bridging documents. And the other one doesn't have that. Well, if the other one doesn't have that, then why would I go with that? I didn't get that comment from the other, which is the reason why maybe you have a 14-million-dollar differential.
>> Commissioner, could I respond to some of that? I know that ed has mentioned you might be comparing an apple and orange here. First I would like to address the issue about that cost was given an overwhelming weight or something and it was a surprise. That should not have been a surprise. In our r.f.p. That we delivered to the court for your approval and then delivered to both proposers, it shows the cost factors have a total weight of 400 points, the technical and design factors have a total weight of 450 points. That's close. That's almost balanced. So we considered the two to be pretty balanced issues for us in scoring these things. Another matter that might help, I don't think this has been brought out since we were here last week, there's other factors that could possibly play into the cost difference. One of the proposals, the lower cost proposal, the one that was recommended, has the -- that team did some more design work. They took the bridging documents and they did some further design development of them and in the process found ways to shrink the footprint of the building which reduces costs. They started stacking components of the building on top of each other and they also found some ways to make the construction a little more efficient, lining up certain major interior walls, moving certain components around so that the construction would be less expensive. Other factor, and I'm not going to speak for the selection committee as a whole, but as a member of the selection committee, one thing, it appeared to me, and this is just basically going on appearances by the visual information that was presented, it appeared that the lower cost firm seemed to make a little bit more effort of really trying to get that cost down closer to what our budget was, closer to what we were looking for. And the reason I say that is because both teams presented a schedule of values with the proposal. And the lower cost team had 14 pages of schedule of value that was broken down into a lot of detail. And by looking at that detail one could tell that they were trying as much as possible to use real measured quantities from the project and trying to use real life costs against those quantities. The other team perhaps did that, but it was difficult to tell that. The other theme a one-page schedule of values that listed basically about 18 or 19 systems. They broke the building down into system components and applied a price to each one of those. It appeared that those were square foot numbers. Maybe they just did that to show what the square foot costs would be for each one. They may have had more detailed backup behind those numbers, but we didn't see it. Just from appearances it looked like the one team had really worked harder to try to give us the best number they could and therefore the best value. And those were some factors that played into the selection committee's decision to score that team the way they did.
>> the other thing that kind of concerned me was also what did -- when we put the item on the ballot, we didn't have anything but like the number be of beds that we anticipated to build. Was that on the ballot? Did we say 1336 beds that we wanted to build?
>> I don't believe so.
>> so we just had an amount of money.
>> that's correct.
>> and a general description. On the presentations I had I would talk with folks about the variance beds and how we would get up to --
>> with the public?
>> yeah.
>> the bond was 23,500,000.
>> right. And then what about the committee, the citizen's committee. They looked at this 23-million-dollar figure and they felt that that was the right figure to present?
>> from my experience --
>> I just want a reminder.
>> we had a number about twice that much that we were asking them for during those hearings.
>> we discussed the costs with them and there was lots of value engineer or scope production value engineering up and down and we landed on a 23,000,500. I remember when we brought this project early on before even the citizen -- the bond citizen committee were involved, we bought about $100,000 of a -- I mean 100 million. $100 million, and then with the help of the citizen bond committee we went through every item in the program from a one sale for the maximum security to two doubled in the maximum security, we brought this down to a 23,000,500. Plus already we have the 40 million in the fund.
>> can I offer another clarification, please?
>> sure.
>> this is my personal feeling.
>> speak into that microphone, if you would.
>> there's been a lot of discussion over the issue of variance beds and what a variance bed is. A variance bed is not a real bed. It should not be counted as part of a jail's capacity when you look at capacity as beds that are -- that legally meet the definition of the Texas jail commission standards or aca standards if you want to be accredited or any of the other criteria. It's a situation where you've had an indulgence by the jail commission, you've got a double bond sale and you've thrown in a mattress on the floor and put a third person in that cell. And that's a variance bed. All it means is that the jail commission on a temporary basis as agreed not to give awe violation for the citation. It doesn't mean it's a good bed. It doesn't mean from the sheriff's department perspective that it's a bed that is safe, secure and makes the facility more manageable. In fact, if you've got a 48-bed unit that's got showers for 48 people and toilets for 48 people and you put in an extra 48 beds in that unit, now you've got standing room only to use the toilet. The chance of fights, disturbances, the inability of the staff to manage that is substantially increased.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] variance beds. And then whatever the other adjustment was, we came down to -- to 1336.
>> right.
>> and so -- so did the citizens committee have that figure of -- of 1460 before the adjustment down to 1336?
>> the citizens committee I think viewed the variance beds in a different light than my statement.
>> well, the way I'm seeing it now, they are real. They are going to be built. We need to build them into the building. So I think that's probably one of the reasons why we're coming up short on the -- on the amount of money. Although I don't think we ought to take any shortcuts. It's got to meet jail standards and -- and -- but I just kind of wanted to understand that figure, too. You know on the cost. A little better. Just reminders.
>> why don't we take any additional comments from -- comments or questions from the court. Give you an opportunity to make any additional comments and then we have representatives here from the two vendor. If they have comments hear them, then try a motion.
>> judge, I guess the last thing that I just need to say, I guess following up on a lot of things. Getting some kind of time schedule together, like you mentioned that yourself, expedite the process whereby we can begin the negotiation process. I guess if I heard you correctly, you said a week. Is this some -- do we have to I guess hear from the vendors the -- the proposallers to see if -- proposers to see if that is something they can live with as far as whoever has decided, whoever the court decided to -- to select to go through this process, would that be something that's realistic to them to -- to say hey we can really deal with this, and -- in a week's time to begin the negotiation process. Because time is money. That's the collection costs, a whole lot of other things that we have to deal with. Time is money. In this process. So I guess my question is that -- would that be any -- would there be any barriers to the point whereby whoever we look at would have problems in meeting with -- with an accelerated time frame to get this negotiation process out of the way where we can -- before we can go to the next step to look at -- you know, whatever we need to do after the phases is concluded itself, whether they meet the -- the overall benchmark to move forward or we go to the next -- the next proposer. I really don't know. But somewhere we ought to have some commitment from -- from whoever it is to -- to look at an accelerated implementation of the negotiation proceedings for a set schedule to come up with some type of answers to flush out all of these things that will be discussed and of course we need to get down to the nitty-gritty in my opinion on this stuff. So that's my question. And I guess we are ready to go. I guess the question is are they ready to go?
>> right. Well, Commissioner, I apologize because I may have confused the issue here. The week -- the one week I was referring to, our ability to have community with the jail commission.
>> oh, okay.
>> I think in terms of an adequate amount of time as part of a best and final negotiation, we probably are looking at a three to four week period of time to be able to get enough information to come back to you and report on that.
>> no, no, no, you weren't confused. It's actually the beginning process of the negotiation. When would that actually begin? In other words, we are looking at accelerated negotiation process. Get them at the table. When can we begin that process? That's the answer -- it's not being confused with whatever the general standards commission is looking at. And that's all -- that's all etched in stone, we will be able to present something on -- what I'm looking for now is when can we begin the process?
>> Commissioner, I can answer that.
>> all right. Can you answer that for me.
>> if this court approves the selection committee recommendation and we can start doing the negotiation within a week, it's going to take us about two weeks to finalize the negotiation. And come back, you know, with say either -- we need to go back, we need to go to the second company or we need to go ahead and recommend signing the contract.
>> so a week from today to action --
>> we are going to start the negotiation. So it's going to take two weeks, you know, the negotiation with the -- with the firm.
>> we also have to consider the holidays.
>> [laughter]
>> I'm sorry, I mean exclude accounting the holidays
>> [laughter] I didn't mention that holiday.
>> questions from the court?
>> thank you.
>> any other comments from -- from any of the five of you all?
>> I --
>> it's not required.
>> [laughter]
>> I -- I would like to -- we stand by our recommendation as the selection committee to move forward and -- and give us approval to start negotiating with the -- with the low bidder.
>> thank you. We have representatives here from gillbane and faulkner. Any comments? Going once? My motion is that we authorize staff and hok to start negotiating with faulkner. That we use the 14 pages of values, you can call them, as beginning point and figure out ways to comply with applicable codes and report back to the Commissioners court success or failure at the latest, the first Tuesday in -- in January. What's that?
>> then we are looking at the second Tuesday. If negotiations break down between now and then, though, we would be notified immediately and this matter would be placed back on the court's agenda for appropriate action. That motion was seconded by Commissioner Gomez. When I look at the proposals and discussed this matter with hok and county staff, not only last week, but a couple of hours yesterday, and looked at the matter on my own, we kind of boxed in, but at the same time I don't know that there are better options and it seems to me that -- that the other options carry with them a great deal more risk, larger question marks, and may well at the end of those processes result in our spending a whole lot more. Both firms, I think, spent a lot of time on the project, tried to arrive at prices. The 14 pages give us a lot more to work with than -- than the one page. There is a huge difference, you know, $14 million if the law allowed us to negotiate with both of them it would make sense to me to do that. If told by legal at this point we cannot do that. My get is that probably -- guess is that probably an appropriate amount is somewhere over 65 million, but you know substantially less than 79. So the question is whether this process enables us to get there. Problems for the court?
>> judge, I think the interesting thing here is that let's assume that -- that this 65 number is going to go up. We can only assume that that's probably the case given the fact that we are going to sit down and say this doesn't -- doesn't fit for us, this doesn't work, this does work. Maybe I'll be surprised and faulkner will go down. I would be willing to bet you that ain't the direction it goes. If it goes up, then you can see where the other firm says okay well, you know, there was -- there was 72 points difference between us being the people in the room, and I don't know I mean what -- what's the percentage of -- when this happens, ed, how often do -- do things break down in this and can you give me an indication of that? Most of time what you do is you -- when you enter this phase of it, you maintain, you stay with who you are with, and you just hammer out the price? Is that what happens more often than not?
>> most of the time it's a fair statement. It's not unheard of, though, to -- to terminate negotiations and -- and go to an alternative.
>> but you can see where if you are somebody that's -- you know that really lost out on being able to be in the room first, it's because of that price, but all of a sudden you come and you work, all of a sudden that 65 goes to 72. Say okay well what would happen if it would have been 72, it would have been 79. Then we wouldn't have had all of this point spread and we might have won by philosophy or six points. I mean, which is the reason why this kind of smells. I mean, it -- but maybe it the way it works and I -- I will admit that I'm learning. You never know all of the questions to ask whenever you go into this thing to begin with. I mean, I think that most people have convinced me that design build is a legitimate way to go. So I'm -- I'm comfortable that we are going the right direction with that. I will say this, I mean, if we don't get what we need to get out of this project, and pretty close if not exactly what the bridging documents say, and we don't -- we don't get that within 5% of this price, I'm going to tell you, I'm going to be -- going to have to take me to the mat to go any farther on this deal because then I will be convinced what happened is that -- that somebody was able to -- they were just arbitrarily able to give a lower price because it's obvious what I have heard, I mean,, you know, not just that one didn't. I'm hearing both have deficiencies, that probably allowed me to vote for the thing because I have got our consultant here saying neither one of them did everything that they were supposed to do. Something --
>> I'm not sure -- some of the concerns that you are raising, I think -- I think the public that's -- that's witnessing what we are doing here today, this is to make sure that we are understanding is just -- just frustrating a phase as far as negotiating could see what we can iron out and get to that point. Of course the first -- the first negotiation doesn't fall through with -- with the folksner u.s.a., of course it results, the negotiation process can convince with gillbane, my concern is that the final phase of -- if either one of them accept the biddings and the negotiation process that -- that take place, don't conform with the prices that we are looking at, I have some real serious concerns about holding the line and holding the cost, that of course we won't know any of that until the actual contractual situations are looked at and things like that. This is what I'm going to really look at real, real, real close to see where I go in this process and -- and so that's some real legitimate concerns. I hope the negotiation goes through accordingly and we stick as close to that bidder that we are looking at because something out of -- out of -- well, out of that range significantly is going to really -- I don't know -- I have to really look at that very closely and seriously. I want everybody to know where I'm coming from before I get there. So I sure thank you for concerns for Commissioner Daugherty.
>> I think all of this are going to look through this very carefully. Looking and expanding the jails, it's very expensive housing, housing like no other. No other entity does the jail construction other than counties because we are responsible for the criminal justice system. Public safety is the other concern that I have, because I think people in this community voted for this. Keeping in mind that the say the of this community is at stake. I also wants to make sure we use those dollars as effectively and as efficiently as we can. That we get a product that meets the jail standards standards. The jail commission standards.
>> I think we will be keeping a close eye on the process as we go. It's a tough situation to -- for us to be in. It needs to be done.
>> can I make one brief statement. Susan spitaro, county auditor. One caution, people have misunderstood these things in the past, is that what people have to understand with county government is not one dollar goes out of this treasury unless in fact it is documented that it meets the -- that the work done has complied with the contract. So that has to be very carefully considered when you enter into these contracts. The vendor that gets this bid needs to be able to deliver and document that he has in -- in the time periods that he expects, they I should say, expects payment from the county. So I know there are governments that are not as constricted as counties, some of that is handled much more loosely. But just as a word to the wise, it isn't here. So that contract that -- the vendor that gets this, needs to understand that he is going to have to deliver documented for -- for the amount in the contract and the work done. Just -- just kind of so we don't get cross-wise at the beginning. This is a really big complex project. So for what that's worth.
>> okay.
>> the spirit of the motion is if negotiations break down, any time between now and January 9th, the court would be notified immediately, we will --
>> exactly.
>> we will put it back on the agenda. Do something else. If we don't hear from you, we will assume that negotiations are going well.
>> okay.
>> that we have to comply with all of the codes and -- and try to get the best price available.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> thanks to both vendor.
>> thanks y'all.
>> thank you. Did he step out? I was going to try -- we ought to be able to do both of those fairly quickly. 7. Consider and take appropriate action on budget and contract issues regarding the keith ruiz building at 5555 airport boulevard: . Contract award for interior renovations for Travis County offices, ifb no. B060356-rv, to the low bidder, trimbuilt construction, inc.; b. Funding for its infrastructure improvements; and c. Discuss security improvements options and funding.
>> good morning, I'm alicia perez, manager for executive operations. I will have the facilities staff in here momentarily. You received backup for 515 and -- 5555 and 5501. The backup provides a background and overview of the building. On 5555 the county bought the building in March of '06, it will house the sheriff's office, currently galt building, the fire marshal, currently at a lease space on 9th street and its disaster center, a new surface. The sheriff is scheduled to move to reese building early in may, which will maintain a schedule for renovations at galt, then the d.a. Will move into galt and then space in the cjc will be converted to new criminal courts. Which was a necessity that -- that really the ultimate goal was to -- to have a -- for the -- for the courts. Last time that we brought this item to the court, the court requested that any project that comes in over the 20% escalation during the budget we -- we spoke with the court about -- about a need to have a 20% escalation amongst these projects. Anything that goes over that, the facilities management staff was tasked with providing memorandum that outlines the -- the component of cost savings or value engineering that had gone into the project previously. We have provided that -- that for you in -- in detail in terms of what the staff facilities management staff has done to -- to reduce the cost of the project and provide value engineering. This particular item, there is also a -- a b and c to it. Judge, if there's any questions on the award, I can move on to b and c.
>> okay.
>> b is funding for its infrastructure. And that is in the amount of $219,000, 7523 -- I'm sorry, 219,752. And that is to complete its structure, this is a sheriff's facility, it will need connections to gatn and also a switch, a telephone switch which is dedicated to that particular building. On security items this is 37,117. The majority of that has to do with providing cameras, control panels, motion detectors and -- and labor. A large amount of that is labor. And cable for the connections. On a last week you transferred the funding for that particular contract. On b and c we don't have funding identified. On c, on security, in fy '05 and '06, there was 150,000 and about 200,000 respectively put aside for security improvements. This year there was no reserve for security improvements in talking to p.b.o. That was just put into the allocated reserve and not in a particular set aside. And so we would need to identify a source of funds for b and c, I think that you have -- that you have choices that we spoke about. Diana is here, but allocated reserve and car reserve are the two choices to fund those expenditures.
>> so we have enough in car reserve to cover the -- the its plus security? The 219 plus 37,000?
>> move approval of a, b and c with the car reserve being the source of funding.
>> let me ask this question then.
>> all of the necessary expenses to -- in other words, is there any other department, anything else that's going to come at us that we do not -- do not have a handle on? This is -- let me -- that we put our arms around this project, these are the expenditures, all of the departments that have been -- have been involved in this process, all -- all of the things that have come to the table, funding-wise, is this --
>> I would say yes.
>> that's what I wanted to hear because -- I don't want -- I don't want you to come back roger and say hey Commissioner we forgot. I want to make sure this is it.
>> that's it.
>> Commissioner, what we really need to be mindful of, effectively what this is telling us is how expensive it is to do these projects and if you are trying to go down through this page, I mean you are -- you have either got to either restoke other things drastically, or you have got to move some of these things to 08, 09, so all of these times that we are doing budget, when we have these larger numbers that we say you know what take and get those in the reserve. As long as we are in the phase of -- of buying and I think that, you know, that we -- that we are making -- I think that we are making prudent decisions you know what we are doing with ownership in buildings versus leases, I mean, but bearing in mind that those things on the front end are extensive, especially at the base. Today -- you know, building cost is just -- just, you know, beyond guests. So this is -- this is a wakeup call for us. I mean, we have been having these wakeup calls for about a year. But I mean if you ask the building professionals, they are telling you that even though some things are -- are flattening out somewhat, they are still flattening out with a high bar. So -- so I think that's what we really need to be careful of.
>> okay.
>> and Commissioner Davis, just so -- so that you are aware, this is -- there is a 3% contingency in the project for about $60,000.
>> okay.
>> okay? And going back to what you mentioned, Commissioner Daugherty, I just want to -- to mention to the -- to the court that -- that the ultimate goal to moving to the airport building, the 5501, was to move out of lease space, to take services into the neighborhood and then to meet the growth, the need for a growing population. But in phase 1 you saved almost $7,684,000 of annual lease costs that were saved by moving into phase one. $684,000. In phase 2 the amount was almost 400. It was 378,000 in annual lease savings costs that you will realize by the construction of this particular phase.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> will is to consider and take appropriate action on the following 5501 airport boulevard building. 8 a is to approve for building renovations (phase 2c), ifb no. B060358-jw, to the low bidder, brath, inc.; and ab is recommended security improvements at 5501 airport boulevard, including options and funding.
>> okay.
>> 5501 again in your backup, you have a program overview. When I talked about lease savings, this is the -- the building, the 5501 that I was -- that is talking about where you saved almost $700,000 worth of lease savings in phase 1. Phase 2 will net you almost $400,000 in lease savings. We bought the building in '03. It will house it, its training, hr and d training, there will be a small area for the wellness program. We have, if you look on the second page, you have -- you have again an annualized savings of -- of 422,000, that's annualized on 9th street. That's why that's a little bit of a different number. But that's what you would realize in annual savings.
>> alicia, it was -- it was a question that was posed some time ago, I don't know whoever got announced it, if so I may have missed the answer. But the question was that -- that the departments that -- that are moving into this new renovated area, the departments that we have mentioned here today, 5501 airport, was the ff and e situation, were there any capture of any furniture or a lot of other kind of things that -- that would have been available to -- to actually move so we wouldn't maybe have to purchase a lot of things that may be on the radar screen? How did -- have we ever been in that situation as before the -- before the -- these actually -- actually departments actually physically moved and go to 5501 airport? Was there any -- any information related to that? Is --
>> Commissioner, we went back and looked very carefully at the departments that are moving into that building. We did an assessment of all of the furniture that they presently have with the idea that we would reuse absolutely everything that we could. And we would move everything that we could and that the the only things that we would purchase would be -- would be items that would replace worn out or damaged furniture or ff and e. Or things that -- to furnish things like a conference room for instance that they don't have now, so -- so new uses, waiting room chairs that maybe we could expand it to accommodate growth. But we went back and looked at everything that they have gotten and we believe that we are narrowed it down to a -- to where we are being the most efficient with those funds.
>> the fund for the ff and e was approved in fy '07 budget separate than this. We have $300,000 for both buildings. Keith ruiz building and 5501 phase 2 project. And we feel at this time that we are not going to be using all of the $300,000 to furnish.
>> will you repeat that last part.
>> we feel facilities management feels at this time we will not be using the full $300,000 for the ff and e. So we might have some savings down the road.
>> okay. Good. Glad to hear that. But the other is that the realization of the move for these particular departments in this facility would save us significant amount of money as far as lease, as far as what we have to pay out for leases currently.
>> yes, sir.
>> that's correct.
>> okay. What was that file number again?
>> it was -- you have it in the backup. 422. $400,000. A little over.
>> okay. I have a little different figure, but -- but anyways, it's in the fours.
>> yeah, it's about 400,000.
>> okay. One of the differences, if you remember, we -- we reduced the space on 9th street. Danny hobby and his group moved over to -- to the executive manager area, so that's kind of where you see the differences.
>> okie-doke. The contract on this as you mentioned, judge, is to the -- to the qualified vendor and it is for about
>> [papers shuffling - audio interference] million dollars. Then the security issues are 43,000 -- 43315? I'm sorry. Here it is. About $43,000. On that, that is our estimate for the security items. What we would do with that list and then forward it over to -- to the security community, they would review it, make sure that everything on there was needed and is essential and required. Then we would bring it back, that would be another item that would a transfer from allocated reserve or car reserve.
>> okay.
>> I have a hard time -- understanding of numbers here. The bid is $1.8 million. After we use a 20% escalation, we have 2.8 million. That's a million more. Also we need 291,000.
>> okay.
>> you see what I'm saying? On this sheet that you are looking at, number 3, there is a -- there is a -- a number 3, the airport on building phase 2, original budget yeah is 2.82024. Out of that -- out of this one, we have -- we have, if you look at the -- at the -- in the -- in the budget, backup, this sheet right here, that we already spent for the metal roof replacement for the project, about $165,000. Also we are at this time construction going on for phase 2 b, structural and civil construction for $835,000. And that's why -- why the differential right here that you are looking at.
>> okay. So there are sums in addition to the 63,000 --
>> [indiscernible]
>> that's right, yeah.
>> [indiscernible] expenditures automatic of that
>> [indiscernible] budget.
>> okay. So are we still looking for money for security and its?
>> no, just security on 5501.
>> 43.
>> 43,000.
>> car reserve? Still healthy?
>> there will be enough for that. But
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> so should we ask to approve b today or just ask to authorize you all to chat with the security committee about it.
>> mike
>> [indiscernible] from the sheriff's office. Head of the security community. In talking to fm and certainly to the other individual that sit on that security committee, since they are still at the design phase of this, we felt that it was prudent to bring it forward at this time. Had we not matched it up to the exact layout and design of that, so some degree I think as ms. Prez brought up, we felt that it was sufficient to cover the baseline for base security for our county facility if that -- with that design.
>> what are we asked to do today?
>> judge, we were asked to bring you all of the items that would --
>> what are you asking the court to do? Look at it?
>> approve the funding.
>> move approval.
>> you want to be approved?
>> yes.
>> it's going to be --
>> committee before they go to --
>> I have no rob with that
>> [multiple voices] just a problem not getting an answer.
>> [laughter]
>> yes. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Source of funding being cash reserve. -- car reserve. Thank you all.
>> thank you. I think we need purchasing here on --
>> he's here.
>> the whole department. There he is.
>> all right. Before we get to that one, though. 28 ought to be quick. It's so receive update and take appropriate action on county bond rating trip on December 13th through 15, 2006. We do have a bond rating trip coming up. As I indicated in my e-mail, normally we discuss management highlights last year looks like we discussed about 11 of them. And this year my recommendation is that we probably do a smaller number than that because we need to leave some time for gas gasb 45, which is a real big issue. I'm a little -- a little note that I September out yesterday, I indicate what I think the 8 important ones are. I tried to do six, but I think some of those really ought to be pretty fast. But -- but that one that you may not understand is the county city collaborations there. That's always a big issue. And I worked with a -- with the managers, we came up with 10 or 11 pages of that, so you really can cover it in about a minute or two. But I think that it's important because some of them are pretty major and really if you don't think about 'em, you don't -- they don't surface for you. Not on your radar. It's a pretty impressive list. And what happens is that the mayor and I met with arrow a few months back, they -- I was trying, we were trying to explain to them how we collaborate on different things because they were lamenting the lack of cooperation between the two of us. And I said well, you know, we -- we cooperate a whole lot more than the average resident would know. They wanted us to put together a list. I did, I was really kind of impressed. Since that already exists my thought was just to kind of hand the list out say here's what it represents. I think in every community there is -- there is hope that the governmental entities will work together more cooperatively and so -- so that -- that demonstrates that more than anything else. We did brag about the cdbg grant last time we were there. We talked about the $2.4 million. Yeah, I don't think that -- I don't know that we need to say a whole lot more than that. We can cover these quickly I think.
>> it was very
>> [indiscernible]
>> right. The new civil courthouse we ought to go ahead and put that on the radarment it's going to be a few years in the planning, we may as well just lay it out there. So that's my list. Any other ideas or --
>> huh-uh.
>> there was a --
>> one --
>> there was a whole lot of -- I said most of these are on her list, too, it was a lot longer. What I tried do was -- was pick the brightest of the highlights from her list. I think that I added maybe a couple of others. Susan?
>> I'll be presenting the county's financials as we always do. As the judge said gasb 45 is a huge financial issue and we will have significant discussion on that. Not having that in the past other than a short discussion. So I do contemplate this will take longer. We are bringing bond counsel with us this time for the first time because of the magnitude of this issue. It could have a huge physical impact now and later. Others ought to be as concerned as we are.
>> susan, is that something that you have been in touch with the other folks? Does everybody go to new york? Did all of the other governmental entities, did they all go to --
>> I think part of it depends on how often they issue debt, what's the size of the debt. Debt issuances. And I know some do and some don't. We normally do because of the size of the issuance. People in new york, this time we felt that it was important because of the magnitude of -- of gasb 45 and there are -- there are officers in the bond rating companies that we deal with that have been publishing and speaking on this issue. And so -- so we wanted to be certain that we talked to them specifically and so -- so our financial advisor has a range for them to be at that meeting, so we will talk very specifically about our situation. The county, as you know, one of our concerns with this is that -- what is the legal status in Travis County. So we paid for our legal review, one of the things that we want to do is bring that legal review up there, which shows facts for this government and have -- have at least two of the attorneys that worked on that review, they are to specifically answer questions that they have and then -- then, you know, I can relate to them the accounting ramifications of that. But they make that decision, Commissioner, based on need. You know, what you really have to talk about sometimes we have met in dallas, one year after 9/11 we actually met here, the raters came in here. Just depends on the complexity of the issue and the things that we need to discuss.
>> we are looking at issuing maybe $70 million worth of debt, which is a big number. The other thing is that I didn't realize until I -- I hadn't thought about it a whole lot. Looks like they sort of implement the gasb rules by the rate sneers they have a lot to do with it.
>> they expect governmental entities to comply with gasb standards. So they are a player in terms of implementing gasb 45. Kind of like a gasb 34. It costs us a whole lot of money to implement. Some of us are still trying to figure out public benefit to derive from that.
>> I think we need to make that very strong message to the raiders. Gasb comes out with the rule, the auditors enforce it. Then they have bond raters out speaking on it, saying we want to keep the bond rating. You need to be doing these things. The judge is exactly right. We have taken those very seriously, we have implemented things and we have seen basically -- basically no impact on that. No use of the data. It's very expensive data to collect. We were willing to do it to meet standards because we thought we wanted it. But I think it's four years since it's been implemented we have really not seen a substantive question on gasb 34 at all. This pronouncement on the heels of it, the question has to be asked, to the bond raters as well, we need to know directly from them how important this data is around that they understand what they are doing. The real critical issue about 45, just for the public's viewpoint is that -- is that they have -- the governmental county standards board has redefined liability. They have basically not talked about a legal obligation or an obligation that cannot be avoidable. This is totally different. From the way governments look at money. It is a huge departure, it is of material consequence. The truth is the way governments create obligations, under Texas state law and the constitution is that in counties you are the ones that -- that affirmatively vote to establish an obligation to find exactly what it is that you find in the contract. This is a huge departure from that. Very significant. And it also, judge, I think your comment was exactly right by looking at this. Kind of like a precursor now. How many more of these do we see. This is a government. These financial statements need to reflect what this government legally is object gated to do, has done. There has been information out in the press, 45, they are all talking about well it would be interesting to know. The county's audited financial statement is not a planning document. It is a historical document based on rules for a period that reflect what happened. It is not what we think is going to happen or what we contemplated. The actions that have been taken liabilities that you have agreed are liabilities, expenditures that you have authorized. That's government. There are enormous issues in this involved. Not just the pronouncement. You need to have an eye-to-eye talk with them. The judge is right. They are the ones out speaking on it, we need to know where they are on this.
>> we meet with one on the --
>> on Thursday morning and the other on Friday morning.
>> of nexrad doppler radar.
>> next week, right.
>> have a good time in new york.
>> thanks, Commissioner. I hope we are not going to be facing a blizzard up there. We texans do not have boots and winter coats.
>> we will discuss these highlights briefly. Okay?
>> okay.
>> the public defenders item, what item is that? Number 9 to discuss two proposals for mental health public defenders grant program. Receive recommendation from committee and give any necessary directions for court action on December 12th, 2005. I posted this item for discussion today. Give us a week to pull mull over it, take action next week.
>> marvin brice, assistant purchasing ago. I have with me jorge, in charge of the procurement and coordinated it, I must say did an excellent job on it thanks to him.
>> Travis County received a multi-year discretionary grant to establish a mental health public defenders office. One of the requirements, also in accordance county Texas code of criminal procedures did those services feed to be procured through the competitive process via the issuance of an r.f.p. On September of this year the court did authorize such issuance. Proposals were requested from governmental entities as well as non-profit corporations only. Two
>> [indiscernible] were received one from the Travis County criminal justice department the other from the non-profit agency Texas legal aid. An evaluation committee reviewed those. It consisted of two county Commissioners, one criminal defense attorney, no on the mental health wheel, one not on, one mental health advocate.
>> how did this go out.
>> as an r.f.p.
>> okay.
>> yes, sir.
>> the results of the committee's scoring is contained in your backup, the last page, the evaluation matrix there. This morning was such criminal justice planning department received 4,752 points. Texas rio grande legal aid received 4,465 points. And I think was that out of a total of how many points that were made?
>> that was a total of 5,000.
>> a total of 5,000 points. Which brings us to -- to the point that we are at now, which -- which in accordance with the Texas code of criminal procedures, after considering each proposal for the public defender, submitted by
>> [indiscernibleent tear or non-profit corporation the --the ...
>> [reading] and this is -- this issue is now before the court for your consideration, discussion and possible action.
>> questions? My intention really was to put it on the court's radar, give us a chance to discuss it. And then one week later post it for action.
>> yes. We can do that. I will bring it back. Roll over. Any questions about this item.
>> when do we expect to take action? Next week.
>> the only thing that really jumped out at me was, you know, when you look at the scoring anything that jumps out like that, you take that out, I guess that was the reason why most of the time when you see scoring you see the low dropped out and the hydropped out. If this were going to be predicated strictly on the --
>> exactly.
>> I suggested throwing out maybe the high and low score. Since it's not totally predicated on scoring, we didn't think that was necessary.
>> for the viewing public, can you just basically describe how this process works? Real brief like. Before --
>> brief explanation of --
>> very, very brief.
>> the r.f.p. Was issued in early September. And essentially we opened it only to non-profit corporations. And governmental entities. As a result we put together the evaluation committee. Which -- which was mandated by the Texas task force on indigent defense and the criminal code of procedure. And -- and as a result we received two proposals, one internal, one external. And now we are tasked with -- with deciding whether it is going to be in the county's best interests to go internal and set it up as a county department or -- or establish and pursue contracting with an external agency.
>> the purpose of the contracting -- the purpose of the intent is to do what?
>> ultimately to -- to establish this mental health public defenders office.
>> right. To serve the -- in Travis County area or --
>> Travis County area.
>> only?
>> and possibly extend it further to --
>> surrounding counties?
>> yes.
>> a little problem with that is that each year, according to the grant, the county has to -- has to -- to allocate $125,000 more. So the first year 125,000. Next year 250, next year 375. So I don't see us enthusiastically serving residents from other counties with Travis County picking up the pieces.
>> that's what I was getting to, judge. If we end up doing that, what are the other counties willing to share in the cost. If we actually bring it in personally in that area to serve.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> yeah, that was kind of my concern was that just -- just that. Was there any way to address that if Travis County's match has to be shared -- any way to cost share -- I'm sorry.
>> I apologize, as part of the grant application process, essentially the county agreed to pursue alternative funding sources and I don't know for certain whether or not that would entail cost sharing with other counties. But -- but it does involve pursuing federal funding, et cetera. This is one of those areas I think if you get in there, come up with an incredibly successful program, other counties can learn, can kind of piggyback your efforts without spending Travis County dollars there. See what I'm saying. So if you do a regional perspective, regional approach from the beginning, my guess is that the contribution from the other counties would be a lot more realistic. The other thing is -- is that we would be in the driver's seat and if we didn't like your contribution we would expand to them would be my thinking.
>> I think, too, though -- that -- that the only way for this to work really is for the legal arm to be end twined with the social services part where we really deliver mental health service, do it in house, legal aid, that's what we have learned from our inmates is for us to do the right thing. Get them at least if not a whole lot, f they are not released for a situation where they have management, medication, et cetera, that's -- that's putting it altogether is a challenge.
>> we will have it back on next week for further discussion and action.
>> judge, do you just want to leave it on as is, just roll it a week.
>> we have to explaining it a little bit because I recall myself wording it that way so we could not take action. But consider and take appropriate action, typical language would be fine.
>> okay. We will get it changed. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I guess we ought to recess until 1:30, huh?
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Year contract. We are basically agreeing to a one year contract. Because we want to keep the performance, we want you to hold our feet to the fire make sure that we become better and better in serving your employees. Over time as the assets have grown the fees have come down. In these negotiations with the committee with your consultant, they have challenged us to be better. We have not been bitter in the process. We have worked and focused on the employees and I think that's why we feel comfortable that we have a a great arrangement with minimum interruption for your employees and consistency and tangible benefits that when we take this story to the streets in our new marketing plan, education plan, they are going to come back and they are going to say this is -- this is wow factor. This is game changing, this is different and better. We will continue to be challenged by your committee to make our program better as the assets grow. And I think that's what we like is that we are going to -- we are going to report to you knowly what the market value adjustment and when it is 0. There are opportunities internally and externally for you all to consider whether it be a committee consultant or this court.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> that's kind of -- the highlight of my report. Once again I would encourage the court to respond favorably to the initial recommendation of the committee. To approve the contract. Or to approve these enhancements to -- to the existing arrangement. If you have any other question, I would be happy to -- to see if I can answer them.
>> questions? Should we plan to have you back on for action in a week or two weeks?
>> in a week.
>> are you planning to be here?
>> because this discussion reminded me of something that needs to be done before -- before -- I need to go back through the current contract and see about provisions that are in there that need to be included in this that haven't been, like the 20% pay out per year, fixed account.
>> we should have it back on.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you very much.
>> okay.
>> and we have just two other items on b. I think that you have gotten the recommendation and then c, dan?
>> on item c, judge, Commissioners, the committee is very productive. One of the best committees that I have ever served o. What we are recommending since we are moving into a contract year is that the committee be designated as standing committee with oversight responsibilities of the 457 b plan. And also that we -- that we would require the services ongoing services for an expert in the 457, we are requesting that the contract with -- with the retirement store be extended on a year to year basis. What we would do is bring back to the court, when this comes back up in two weeks, a -- a program to outline how the committee would be structured, how -- how new members would be added to the committee, and what their charge would be for oversight purposes. So we would like to bring that back in two weeks when we bring the contract back.
>> I know this time around, that was something that nationwide agreed to pick up. What was is the presumption as to who would pick up that expense in the future.
>> the negotiations, I will let barbara explain.
>> in negotiations what nationwide agreed to is to give us $10,000 when this contract is signed in relation to the consultant fees. For each year that the contract is renewed or goes forward beyond that for five that would be picking up 5,000 of -- of what that consultant charges us now. That might be more than what the consultant charges us in one year, less in another. What's depending on how many services the consultant asked to provide us during a particular year.
>> we are in the -- in the throes of finishing up the negotiations getting the contract. One of the issues that we have discussed is the contract that is being developed now is a one-year contract. Not a year to year contract. Which means if it's a one year contract we would be probably be before the court in six months discussing an r.f.p. As opposed to a year to year contract which would be --
>> we could still do that with the year to year, too.
>> I need some clarification on that. Because I know that when we had given instructions to basically get us a new contract, I never thought that I heard instructions from a majority of the court to say bring back a one-year contract and let's start all over on this and dedicate all of the time and resources what it was going to take to do an r.f.p. Where did that instruction come from in the one year contract?
>> the committee recommended that.
>> well, I appreciate what the committee has recommended on a lot of things, but I don't believe that was the instructions given from this Commissioners court and I'm wondering why --
>> we will have that back on when we take action.
>> whether --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we will --
>> that's the court owe snow.
>> is this the committee the same as the employee benefits committee?
>> no, sir it's not. It's a separate committee.
>> let us know who is on there.
>> yes, sir, we can do that.
>> we will do that. Two weeks instead of one?
>> I believe so.
>> okay.
>> for specific items I think each ought to be listed give us a chance to land on it one way or the other.
>> if the will of the court is to go with a one year contract so be it. If the will of the court is to make it a renewable contract so be it. Whatever. But procurement processes are expensive and they are time consuming and I never thought that we would spend all of this time and energy and go great we are done for five months and we start all over again.
>> we will make and list go through them.
>> bob, we will take your item this afternoon. I don't think we ought to rush through it. If there's nothing to do, I think we ought to wait until next week. If we need to do something, I think we ought to take our time and do it. We could take it pretty close to 1:30, your afternoon payment is 2:15. If you get here safely at 1:40, we will get you out of here before 2:00, I know. That's probably better than trying to rush through it.
>> sure. 15 minutes would be adequate.
>> move that we recess to 1:30.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote with the Commissioner Daugherty temporarily away and Commissioner Gomez absent.
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, December 6, 2006 9:34 PM