Travis County Commissioners Court
March 13, 2007
Item 13
Due to technical difficulties some caption files may be incomplete.
...To contract no. 05 ae 0176 jj, lockwood, and dangerous and newnam, incorporated, for east side service center project. There was a question. 06. It started out as a $20,000 project, I believe.
>> yes, ma'am. Good morning, judge, Commissioners, marvin brice, assistant purchasing agent. Initially the contract started out at a $20,000 contract, facilities management had requested we hire lockwood, andrews new man to come in and do an initial site survey for us. After that site survey was performed it was determined, and I don't think mr. Acorey is here, but it was determined that we wanted to continue with the same consultant to do additional services for us. The first modification was for them to come in and do civil engineering services. We since modified it a second time for them to do structural and now I think we're looking at, on this one -- I知 sorry, the second one was to do -- yeah, structural, and the third modification we're asking them now to do additional structural engineering services for us.
>> so this is just a changing scope of work and the explanations for the --
>> yes, ma'am.
>> cost?
>> it's -- typically we try to stay with the same consultant for continuity of services out on the project there. I don't think it would be a good idea to have, for example, lockwood, and driews newnam come out and do site, someone else to do civil and someone else structural. We want to keep continuity of services out on the site.
>> is there a way -- I don't know if there is -- is there a way to bid the contract the whole scope of services?
>> I would have to defer to facilities management. Typically we do try to put them out, a whole package. I don't think at the time when we did the initial contract for site, I don't think it was anticipated that we would do the civil and the structural that, that we would contract that out. I think they may have contemplated doing it in house or there may have been a budget issue. I値l let mr. Acorey speak to that.
>> I hope these initial services were not known at the time the initial contract was executed. When we did the first contract did we know we would need $80,000 worth of additional work?
>> no. Good morning, roger.
>> [inaudible] department. I was running to come over here. Okay. When we started this project back then it was only for feasibility study and that was for the tnr department and just to look at the site that's feasible for this -- the east side service center. The facility time, roger.
>> I should get some exercise.
>> be cool. Anyway, what happened is we started this project
>> [inaudible] took over on those nine facilities, and we did phase 1. Phase 1 was the civil engineering services. So what -- the first facility study engineers, so we hire civil engineers because they provide civil engineering studies. They did the work and they did all the roadway for the east side service center. While we were doing the facilities, we asked them about if they do structural engineer work, so they said they do. And we hired them as structural engineers to do phase 1 -- I知 sorry, phase 2. Phase 2 is fleet services, assembly and crew buildings, three buildings. That's what they do in phase 1. Then we started to do phase -- phase 3, which is the other six buildings, so it's good practice to have the same structural engineer who does the first three buildings, so that's how it happened.
>> but we didn't know about the scope of the work at the time that we bid the contract initially?
>> when we did the civil engineering work in the first, we did not establish the numbers of the lengths at that time and we did not establish how many -- what are the scope of services of those buildings and what the size of those buildings are, no, we did not.
>> so it evolved from the time we issued the contract in November?
>> that's correct, you know, because couple service, when we start looking at the fleet services, at different -- I知 sorry, phase no. 2, for the three buildings, and we established that the fleet service for buildings n, the two buildings are the ones we need to do them. And the other one, we'll see how they can evolve you know what -- what are the number of buildings we need to do. We have an idea that those buildings will be done, but we did not know what the scope of services until we get into it, c and r together and we develop the scope of services. So we divide it into phases and we go to the court, we're going to do phase one and then we'll do phase 2 for the buildings, and that's -- and that's what happened. And the funding was at that time that one fiscal year will provide $2 million, the second fiscal year -- first year will provide 2.2 million, $920,000. The second fiscal year will provide 2 million. So that's what happened.
>> what makes it seem like an issue is probably the terminology. When you use the word modification, I mean, most of the time people think, oh, then you've modified it, you're bringing us something different. Really what this is is it's just sort of a phased out.
>> that's correct.
>> -- deal, and I think that most people think that when we're going to do this east side center, it was this big project, and why didn't we get the cost for the big project so that we knew that , you know -- that this was coming along. So I think that, you know, it is a flag that always gets brought up, but sometimes the terminology is the thing that throws us up here. I know that I致e made that comment before, roger.
>> exactly.
>> about modification. I mean, because modification is generally going to throw a flag. It's like, oh, you didn't know what you were doing to begin with.
>> the amount was a red flag for me. From 20,000 to 100,000. But for professional services we often do not compete if we make changes.
>> that's correct.
>> midstream.
>> that's correct.
>> and in this one I guess all things considered, we concluded it's better for us to go ahead and modify an existing contract with a consultant already on board than issue an rfp or rfq for another consultant.
>> that's correct. That's correct, contract wasn't competed either. It was under $20,000, so we went directly to lockwood andrews newnam at the request of facilities management, that we've done business with them before. We know their qualifications, and met all theces for engineers, we look at different companies to diversify, you know, our work, and what happened is -- and they're providing a civil engineering services at that time. We asked purchasing to provide a separate contract because we're providing a separate services, structural engineering. Because we landed -- to provide the structural engineering, then we have to modify their civil engineering contract to provide the structural engineering services. Otherwise it would be two different contract, work for civil engineers, and one for structural engineering.
>> which isn't have been open for discussion. Let the general public know when this particular service center will be open. The east side service center. I know we're looking for completion, we're going through the process, but what do we have envisioned for the completion of this project?
>> we -- we're going to go for -- let the project in about a couple months and then we have about like eight to nine months construction for those nine buildings. So that will put us in March 2008.
>> 2008. Okay. I知 looking --
>> for these buildings.
>> I知 looking for the ribbon cutting ceremony project. I think it will be a great event.
>> do you anticipate that there will be additional modification with this project?
>> at this time -- at this time we might have one modification on the water line system, but it's not with those two companies.
>> bless you.
>> we have a little difficulty with the water system of the east side service center. Originally we started the -- doing wells, and we did three investigation. We did not find
>> [inaudible] went about a hundred feet down. So right now we have other ideas how to collect water, and we -- in the whole complex, ran water for -- and we are doing a big pond. It's a retention and detention pond, where we're collecting all the water through the pond and then we draw from the pond to a tank and provide a line and water system. Right now we're talking with the city of Austin, if they can provide us with potable water, you know, from that existing 6 inches line, which is capacity at this time. So we are having a discussion right now with the city of Austin, and we might have to bring one more modification for a new contract for the water system, for the potable water system only.
>> the other residents and businesses out there on the city of Austin, are they on that water line?
>> they are, but there's a 6 inches water line over there. It has the pressure and the capacity issue with it.
>> okay.
>> in that whole area out there,
>> [inaudible] there is definitely -- does need to be an improvement from the city of Austin, since they are the ccn who actually provides water to the entire area. They're the near uz one to us, and it is within their jurisdiction, so we have to deal with the city of the water syst?
>> for the water system?
>> oh, yeah.
>> I mean, we're trying to get the water system from there -- right now we're working with the city if we can draw a, like, a water
>> [inaudible] for potable water to minimize the amount of value we need for the east side service center from the existing 6 inches water line in different time, you know, like we don't draw anything during the day. We draw something at night when the minimum capacity -- something like that.
>> coordination.
>> absolutely.
>> roger, is there any difference between what we anticipated was going to be the cost of an east -- east side service center from day one to what we are going to end up most likely paying for?
>> no, sir. The only thing that's different is what is the
>> [inaudible] water line system.
>> that's the reason I made the comment that if we really don't see a difference, whenever we see modification and a big number, it is something that kind of jumps out at you, kind of like, oh, you-all didn't think this project out. And that wasn't what happened.
>> that's correct.
>> the project was thought out. It's just that we continue to bring these things to us, modified, is , you know -- I
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, March 14, 2007 8:00 AM