Travis County Commissioners Court
October 2, 2007
Item 7
Let's take up number 7. 7-a -- 7, consider and take appropriate action on the following. A, phase 1 planning and phase 2 implementation of the tiburon version 7 upgrade to the public safety modules of the integrated justice system. 7-b, modification number 29 to contract ma 980095, tiburon, incorporated, for agreement for extended services.
>> we're here to get approval to execute the contract with tiburon for the version 7, phase 2 of the project. This is reinstall and upgrade all the up great applications to the latest version, to install the new hardware and operating systems and install the new databases and migrate all the files that are in the current version into the new version 7. We have addressed a couple of concerns the court had last time that Commissioner Davis brought up is that the time line is in the contract, it's part of the contract, and the payment schedule is tied to that time line. So the vendor will not receive payment until those items are completed on schedule as per the contract.
>> will you repeat that last statement you made?
>> I said there's a time line that's part of the contract and that time line is a schedule with deliverables that are tied to those dates and no payments will be made to the vendor until those items are met and agreed to by all the parties involved.
>> okay. That's what I was really -- that was kind of left out the last time we had the discussion.
>> right.
>> if the deliverable wasn't adhere to, then, you know, do we continue
>> [inaudible] in this whole arena of technology is where we start slipping and falling and how short comings. So I wanted to make sure there were -- are deliverables that are not met according to the schedule, it was kind of blurred in the contract, but I wanted to make sure everyone had a chance to look at that schedule as laid out. If that was not met, then, you know, folks don't get paid.
>> that's exactly right.
>> so that's the shoe I wanted to see put on my foot.
>> that's the hammer we needed in the contract.
>> exactly.
>> judy pitsford and one of the things you pointed out last time was if that time line changes, we will come back to court before the time line changes with the project change. If there happens to be --
>> how would they do that? How would they notify knew a timely manner to let the court know, let you know and then you let the court know that they are not where they should be as far as -- because a lot of things happen in that programming world, it does. Anything can go wrong.
>> we will have a detailed project plan behind this schedule that's in the contract so we'll know whether or not they are running on schedule to meet those payment appointments, so we'll know ahead of time if there is any -- anything that causes it to slow up. The only other thing that could cause a time line change would be a new requirement that comes up that we would bring that back to the court.
>> who initiates those requirements? That was another point. Because I know some of this stuff has mandates.
>> that would be the user departments.
>> pardon me?
>> the user departments that are using the system.
>> now, are they going to be responsible for the users of this, are they going to be responsible for making the payment for the delay then? If there are delays, that they should have put their concern -- you see, there has been instances, and we heard it during the budget cycle, where we had folks that was coming here from other departments that appeared not to be included in the process. And I see up here because I wasn't there. Not included in the process. At the last minute they say, well, we need this person, we need this person or we need this or that and we weren't a part of the process which yielded a delay. That was the effect of it, there were delays. But I'm trying to avoid from happening as much as possible. Those departments, if they don't get their stuff on the table as we go through this process, then who pays for it?
>> if they don't define up front the requirements, then those requirements would have to be addressed separately and brought back to the court as a separate item.
>> at whose expense though?
>> well, that would be -- it would be up to the court to decide if they wanted to fund it or not.
>> I'm not being facetious, but that's part of the problem.
>> I understand.
>> we have folks outside of the process, apparently, and then they come in at the last minute, there are requests to make changes and those changes cost money.
>> one thing we did with this project that we didn't do the first time and that is we did a phase 1, which was the planning process, which we met with all the departments, got everybody to sit down and talk about what they needed and what requirements they had that needed to be put into the system. So we feel like we've done a fairly good job of doing that up front. But you never know. Something could come out of the woodwork.
>> judge, that was basically my concern. You hear that a lot during the budget cycle and it costs a lost money to make those adjustments to what we were hearing with the amount of money we had to deal with. I was trying to make sure that whatever happens in this process, the departments are involved, and, of course, -- oh, we forgot to add this, which can cause things to go a little different in a little direction when folks don't put everything on the table. I just wondered if there some kind of a contingency or what is the funding aspect?
>> at this point we don't have a contingency.
>> it has to be brought back to us for any change.
>> that's correct.
>> as you know, when they come back, folk have different reasons. Some make sense and some don't. I think those that don't, we ought to stop funding.
>> just to speak for the elected officials, Commissioners, just to speak for the elected officials, in this phase 1 process, they did identify requirements that would increase productivity in their operations that were not included. And so they are off the table, if you will. They may be a phase 3 or they may not be a phase 3, but I understand and I hear what you are saying because those requirements are what delay the project.
>> exactly.
>> some of the changes to a project that will cause a delay will not be billable, will not be a charge item. And all that I can tell you is that if there is a change to this time line, because we and tiburon want to meet this time line. The public safety users, and I will speak for them because I worked with them from 1998 to 2000, had their products installed on time. They worked and accepted the product as it was and installed that on time. So I'm hoping that -- that re will achieve the same end, that this project will be installed on time. But I know your concerns because we've lived them. We've had changes that have delayed projects. And we will not delay this project without the court's involvement.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> motion and second to approve. We did change the thinking on source of funding and the amount after our last discussion, right?
>> right. And you just approved those funds. With the affected transfers.
>> walk us through what we've just done. There is good news as to how we do the total amount.
>> we've taken the funding that is required for f.y. '08 and moved it out of the c.o.s and into c.a.r. And with what you just approved moved it into the i.t.s. Maintenance budget so we could start the project.
>> which was a good move, but we need to understand we have taken 2 million from c.a.r. So c.a.r. Is 2 million less. But we shifted a little piece of this total funding needed to 2009, so this is a whole lot more doable. We were thinking at one point about either c.o.s or reimbursable so this is a better strategy.
>> we also made -- the county attorney was working with us through this process so we have added the funding out clause to the contract now.
>> speaking of attorneys, ms. Aldridge, any comments from you or thoughts you would like to leave us with?
>> no. Does the court have specific legal questions? I worked with i.t.s. And tiburon to address Commissioner Davis' concerns to make sure those were tied to the payments.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you very much.
>> is that a? You need b.
>> I thought you all moved approval of a been b.
>> I'm fine. I said a, but I'm fine with b, but I do have a question about the -- and this probably is something --
>> that motion covered a then?
>> yes.
>> then let's go to b.
>> we're back.
>> give me the abridged response to the first sentence, purchasing was not clurd in the contract negotiations. Why is that?
>> yes, they were.
>> is that a typo, purchasing was not included in the contract negotiations for this modification is what the backup says.
>> I don't represent purchasing so I can't -- I wasn't involved in that.
>> that must be a typo. Yes, we worked with purchasing.
>> I'm sure syd is on the way down. Let us know before she gets here.
>> [laughter]
>> move approval of d.
>> discussion?
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. She will be now, joe.
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, October 3, 2007, 18:30 AM