Travis County Commissioners Court
February 27, 2007
Item 8
Thank you now number 8. Consider and take appropriate action on recommendation for contract awards for design-build services for additions and alterations to the Travis County correctional complex, tccc, rfp number p 060273 mb to faulknerusa. This is for an open court discussion. We also have the same meater posted for executive session discussion if we need it.
>> that's correctcorrect.
>> any on up court discussion ?
>> judge, I guess the point is, there were some things discussed in executive session. I think I may have expressed my concern on this particular vendor that we are looking at here, as far as the way things I think shaped up and actually fell out during deliberation in executive session. So I’m still holding true to my comments that I made in executive session on this particular company. And until they do the things that I think are in the best interest of the county, in my opinion, then I will have to condition to look at this as not being favorable dealing with these folks. I’m just going to leave it like that at this point. I just want everybody to know where I’m coming from. I’m not backing off what we discussed in executive session as far as my comments that I made with this particular company. Thank you.
>> judge, I move approval.
>> let's see what we are approving first.
>> what number 8 says.
>> you are not approving what I just said now, Commissioner.
>> I’m approving what number 8 says.
>> I thought you were approving my comments.
>> we have just been handed a document that--
>> judge, if I can start off off. This is a brief presentation just to kind of run through it. I kind of went back and looked at when we came to the the Commissioners court to start this process, it's been two years ago, February of '05 is when roger and I came forward and talked about the benefits of design build as we understood them. Mainly that design build gave us one point of account accountability, that being the design builder. It would save us time and money by having them design and build at the same time, would save us money, and also would hopefully save money. So we came forward then. And for two years, to kind of address Commissioner is Davis' concern, we hired hok in may of '05 and then for the next year and a half, they worked very closely with the user department to talk about the program, the standards, the criteria. We came back, or the group came back, alesia's group, our group, the sheriff's group. I count the at least 17 the not 20 times we came back to talk about the program element, to for you to approve the rfq document that we issued, we came in December of '05 to do the issuance of the bonds. Then in April, we had several, a couple of work sessions after the bond, some folks in that bond committee had some ideas and we had to measure through those again which affected our program. Came back in April of '06 to issue the rfq. And received proposals. Came forward. We had some issues with the first go around. Court gave us direction to issue the rfp to the two firms, which we diddid-- diddid--faulkner and--
>> can you just tell the history of this? I want the court to understand how much work has gone in the last two years on this project. A whole lot of work has gone through. I want to recognize ken gaty marvin bryce, mark stef ano and tinly. They were the main negotiation committee. Er came in and aleasia came in and I came in from time to time. Also the auditor's office and jose and his group to look at the contracts document, payment term. We have or most of us have been through this before. We knew the traps that we didn't want to fall into. I just want to convey, my point to the court is that we have spent an inordinate amount of time to try to make this project a good project and a project that we can all be proud of going forward. There were some issues in the contract negotiations that were, I won't use the word adversarial, they felt strongly and we stealth strongly about. Mainly it was a funding out clause that constitutionally we are required to put in our contracts. We worked with the auditor, pbo, and the attorneys worked at length to get that worked out to faulkner's satisfaction, which we did. The other main issue was access to records. They did not want to provide some of their records to us that we normally ask folks to give us access to. We worked out, again, at length, under what circumstances we can access those records.
>> are you satisfied with that portion ?
>> the auditor is satisfied with it. The lawyers are satisfied with it. I believe if there was a circumstance where we needed to get information, where we felt like something wasn't going legally, that we have the authority now to get the access to those recordswhat aboutthose -- to those records.
>> what about the aub.
>> that was the third issue that we talked about at length. That was our hub program and goals. When we issued this rfp we did not have our hub software. If the court recalls, you all approved that back in September of last year. We have been working all that time to implement the software, train ourselves on it. But during the negotiations, we had asked faulkner to provide us certain information. They did not want to give us the information that was required in the software for our, the nonhub subs of we agreed and negotiated that they would deductduct $50 from the contract amount so that we could try gain access, get the access to that data ourselves and entered into the system.
>> what's the purpose of that software? I remember when we first purchased that software, you tell us what the purpose of the software.
>> we have been trying to maintain, or trying to track the monies that we spent with the hub community now almost ten years and we have been doing that manually all these year. We can use the hte system for what we pay our prime contractors but the hte system does not track what we pay to our subcontractors subcontractors. So we have been doing that. Like I said, over the past ten years. Manually. And this software package is in use in houston and other cities and counties. I’m not sure about counties, but other citscits--cities of it's just an automated way for us to track our hub statistics and dollars. We hired a consultant several years ago, an expert in civil rights and the hub programs, and she recommended that we, if we ever did want to do a dis disparity study, that there's certain data we should be gathering, not just what we are doing with our hub but what we are doing with our non-hub subs. That gave us an idea of how much work was being subcontracted out. And of that amount, what was divided among the minority contractors and the non nonminority contractors. So that information, it's not specific to this project or how much we spend with minority firm on this project, but it gives us data that we need for the big picture look on our hub program and if we ever get to a disparity study. That's why we wanted the information. They are willing to try to meet a 30 percent goal for hub participation. And we're trying to focus that on the construction trades.
>> as far as dorf as far as as--dorf tail--dove tailing, I think when colette came in and told we need to do in the process of looking at disparty study for the county, this software was recommend. And of course it kind of dovetailed into that situation, meaning that all persons that we do business with should hopefully subject themselves to this particular software, which is a real big concern of mine and a whole lot of other folks out there. As we proceed to get the collected information from this software to proceed with the data gathering that's necessary and essential. My next question, there are otherve vendors that--
>> point of order. We have an agenda item posted. This is history that the Commissioners court discussed in executive session. Came out and took a vote. We are way down the road on it. Commissioner Davis had an opportunity to voice his objections and vote against it, and he did. So we are past all of this. But the item posted today is not a history of this. It basically goes to other specific items that we need to address. So not to cut you off.
>> no.
>> a lot of people have worked hard.
>> right.
>> we have just been handed five or six pages of something that's new. And in my view we need to hear about this. So under this posting, I don't think we ought to re relive every step of this thing. A whole lot of people have worked over the last two years. In the spirit of compromise, what we said was, if you achieve a hub participation goal of 30 percent and give us the documentation where we can certify that, and purchasing will do that, then in my view we have achieved that part of it. So facilities, we have been handed this. What is this ?
>> okay.
>> these pages, I’m going to walk you through real quick some of the high points of the contract that we are asking you to approve. By the way, we are not specifically asking for to you approve the contract necessarily today. We want to get you up to speed what we have done, highlight the point, and look forward to your approval next Tuesday, hopefully. To approve today a reimbursement resolution would be needed because the bond funds, all of which we need to--
>> we have been told that the next item we would not need a reimbursement resolution because we will have cash in hand.
>> on March 1.
>> on March 1.
>> that's true, right ?
>> March 1.
>> in fact we will not need item number 9, which we can pull. That's the reimbursement resolution. We had it on just in case. We have cash in hand.
>> on March 1.
>> we are not approving it today. Right? All right. Am I mice an understanding? Okay. That being the case, if we look at this and read the proposed contract, we will see the various elements expressed in some way in that document ?
>> let me explain. The contract itself is composed of a number of pieces. One of the pieces is this document right here, this 3 inch binder, of the final proposal from faulknerusa. This document goes in conjunction with the original proposal, the two together are the final proposal. The original one except as amended in here. This has had a whole lot more detail, explains everything, all the quip, basically embodies all our technical discussions that we had with them to clarify what we are getting in this contract. And this is the table of contents from this final proposal. So this lists the stuff that's in here, highlights a lot of of the issues that we worked out with them, whether they were architectural issues, whether they were scope issues, quality issues, what's in the project, what's not in the project. Basically, all of this, to make sure that what they are giving us complies with our project criteria. So the first, I’ve got a few points to make on the contract versus the project criteria, we worked out a lot of issues. I know that you all were somewhat aware of some of these issues even as far back as when we first asked you to allow us to begin negotiations, there was talk of security, the horizontal security barrier, which in their, in the bridge, original bridging documents from hok, was at the roof level. Faulkner's proposal, that got moved down to the ceiling level. So we had a lot of discussions with them about that. They provided samples, what's going to happen. We have taken it to the jail commission. The jail commission can't get 100 percent approval until they see the construction documents. But they have basically approved the concept of what we plan to do on the ceilings, and we've got plans showing what's going to be used where. So basically we are in agreement with them on how we are going to provide that secure ceiling barrier. We have worked out what types of wall finishes materials will be used in certain inmate occupied areas. We have those resolved. The initial roofing system proposed wasn't what we wanted. We have gotten gotten an arriving system, modified bi bichmin system, which is what we asked for in the project criteria. There were negotiations on the sightwork. Some of the sightwork, there were areas of the bridging documents a little unclear about walk waist, road -- --walkways, roadways, that's all been clarified.
>> briefly, what this provides, as ken said, this is a table of contents for the details. Judge, you for one wanted to see the deliverable. These are the deliverables. That are then specifically, you know, detailed in these particular documents. The second page on here is a detail of the project budget budget. And each line item and how that will be utilized. The third page on here is a schedule. This is a schedule, the milestones, what we expect to be done by what time. And as you can see, there's two dates that I want to point out to you. On number 31, which is a substantial completion, which is September 18 of '08 '08. That is substantial come pleek. 90 days after that you -- --completion. 90 days after that you have final completion, which is December 11 of '08. Those are target dates. All the other things that you see are milestones that we would monitor, that the inspector, Commissioner Davis, would help us make sure we are getting done, and that they match the contract. So what you have there is the schedule. The page after that is project manage the and excuse. We spoke--execution. We spoke about the need for hok and project management team from facilities manage management and then faulkner faulkner. This lays out the cop opponents.
>> faulkner.
>> I’m sorry, this is the faulknerusa organizational chart. But coupled with this, then you havehave dñtch you have ken, the inspector, and the services from hok.
>> and the sheriffs office.
>> and the sheriffs office, uh-huh.
>> okay. When I see all of these, should I conclude that Travis County and faulkner are in agreement on what's contained in the documents ?
>> yes. Most of these documents are all excerpts from what they have provided right here in final proposal.
>> the member of the court do not have a copy of the thick book there, but for those of us who want to see more of the details, who should we contact ?
>> free feel free contact me.
>> you will share that with us.
>> you bet.
>> between now and next Tuesday.
>> I will second commission Commissioner dougherty's commissionwe don't need a motion, what do we need to approve today ?
>> judge, this was a review. We can't, we are not asking you to approve the contract because we don't have the money in place until March 1 1.
>> we can at least acknowledge receipt of the document.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> as to where we are today.
>> I would like to make one point. If you are ready to approve it today, then we hope will you also be ready next Tuesday because next Tuesday is a drop dead date.
>> that's fine.
>> we will need it approved by next Tuesday.
>> okay. Now we do have faulkner representatives here. Other than really enjoying the way in which the Commissioners court does business, you all have heard certain representations made made. Would you like the clarify any of them? Or contradict any? By your silence do you indicate concurrence? And your names are? We'll get to you the mic one way or the other.
>> judge, my name is tim gar garvid, the director of business development and communications at faulknerusa, and we have mr. Ross cruise, project manager also vice-president of construction praises at faulkner. Everything we have heard today, we agree in principle with. We are excited to get started. I concur with ed that this was a very reasonable and thorough negotiation. A lot of due diligence has been done and we believe we have a really good project ahead of us and we look forward to getting started.
>> I want you to understand my comment that I made also and the way I made them and why I made the comments that I made today. Not that, and I do support. Construction and replacement of the facilities out at del valle as the court directed we should do in November of 2005, support and approval of such a project. However, I have some very very strong reservations about a vendor such as you, that refused to utilize the software from purchasing agent, that actually is supposed to track and determine the non-hub ven done and hub vendor. It's very important to me, as we try to come to some point that all vendors here in tract in construction projects, utilize the same software. Otherwise why should we purchase it. I don't think you should escape that scrutiny of the software as we look forward to getting disparity studies done here for the Travis County residents. I don't think you should escape scrutiny. Again, that's my opinion and of course I can't support anyone that will not want to use the software to give us a better flavor of collecting data in the future that we need for disparity studies. I hope you don't take that thatation offensive. That's news the. Nature. I hope you understand.
>> we never said we would not use the software. We always believe the reporting of subcontract is an overriding public need. We have a record in Travis County in Austin in heading hub goals and we intend to do that on this project. We believe there's an over overriding proprietary and reason to not include non- non-hub subcontracts in this project. We have gone through that our rationale and reasoning with county staff and attorneys, and we worked out a compromise we think is good for the project.
>> my point is the next vendor may have circumstance circumstances also that are private and. In other words, looking for excuses not to use it. Of course, in my opinion, that's my opinion. But again, I hope that any other vendor that comes before us now does not escape the scrutiny of the software that has been imposed and purchased by Travis County to do just what we need to do, and that's to track both non-hub and hub vendors. I can't make it any clearer than thatthe majority of this--
>> the majority of this this appreciate it's your willing willingness to increase hub participation 30 percent. Thank you for coming down.
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, February 28, 2007 8:20 AM