Travis County Commissioners Court
March 18, 2008
Item 4
Number 4.
we did get a briefing from the county attorney.
but didn't take action.
4.
a, consider and take appropriate action on request to issue an rfp for food and beverage contract at the Travis County exposition center.
b is really alternative language to consider and take appropriate action on request from g&m catering for extension of current food and beverage contract at the Travis County exposition center.
so what they set forth really are the two alternatives that we have, one is to issue an r.f.p.
and b is to extend the contract of the current vendor, g and mcatering.
any words, Commissioner Davis?
>> yes, judge.
of course, I -- I pushed for -- for 4 a and I wanted to make sure that -- that purchasing had an opportunity to participate in that and to actually send out a request for proposals and I really don't know all of the -- all of the -- of the ins and outs of -- of an r.f.p., but -- but we did speak with -- with our purchasing agent, my staff did, cyd grimes, and of course we had explanations from staff to see number one I guess to see the dynamics of the r.f.p.
along -- how long it would take to get back information from that r.f.p.
and of course at that time determine if there are persons that can provide the kind of level of service that we think that -- that is appropriate at that time.
we could go forward.
not saying that these folks that are -- that are already in -- in contractual relationships with Travis County, not saying that they are barred or prohibited from participating, but I just thought it should make it very interesting to see exactly what we have maybe available that we are not really looking at.
this is why I wanted to basically go and -- out to see if we can -- if we can get an r.f.p.
to check out the -- the particular participants out there that maybe can provide service to the expo center as far as food and beverage and concessions are necessary.
so this is basically the gist of that particular request is to go out for an r.f.p.
so that was the portion that -- that wasn't on the agenda last time, this particular item came before the Commissioners court.
and of course that -- that I just think it needed to be a level playing ground and right now it didn't feel that it was a level playing ground.
and so -- so this is basically trying to -- to make a balance, to bring a balance I think by initiating an r.f.p.
that was my request to do just that.
and of course I would like to see if the purchasing agent, cyd grimes, the purchasing person can maybe talk to us about that.
and of course they are very aware of this particular item being placed on the agenda and we did talk directly, staff did talk directly to -- to them on this item.
so -- so I'm just waiting to hear what the -- what the process is as far as looking at the r.f.p.
>> there she is.
any response from the purchasing agent?
the protesters has been in place for the 18 or 19 years that I have been here on the Commissioners court I think.
>> I'm sorry.
what was the specific question?
>> the r.f.p.
process as far as the time line and things like that, for this particular type of --
>> for concessionnaire contract, it would probably be a four to six month process to issue the r.f.p., have it on the street, do the evaluations and come back with a contract.
four to six months.
>> okay.
>> to do that process.
>> four to six months.
okay.
in different situations there have been different time lines and that's basically the time component was what I was concerned about because in different situations the r.f.p.'s have been sometimes a little faster than others.
I guess it depends on response and a whole lot of other things.
>> correct.
how many people respond.
>> you know we have been doing it for 18, 19 years I guess, but the time line is what I'm after as far as -- as far as what we have to deal with as far as -- because it varies.
there's not consistency as far as the times.
even though regardless how many years we have been doing it, it's the variation as far as the process of how long it takes, it varies.
in this particular case you are suggesting that it probably would take how many -- how long?
>> about four to six months from the time we start until the time we come back with a contract, I would estimate four to six months.
>> okay.
I just think that it's good for us to take a peek see out there to see what else is available.
this is not to say that those particular persons that have the current contract wouldn't be able to also participate.
but I do think that it's very important for us to look at this and then go to that end.
so this is why I placed that item on the agenda is to do just that.
thank you, cyd grimes.
>> tell us about the revenue under the current vendor.
>> alicia pearz, executive manager for administrative operations.
you have in your backup information on the revenue in the memorandum.
on the last page of that memorandum you have information from 1998 to -- to 2007.
on the revenue for the concessions.
the revenue from concessions is about a third of our budget.
in 2006, you can follow from 2005 we had about 318,000, 485, 2006, it went to 210, dropped to 310,939 and then went up significantly in 2007, 365,296.
I'm going to also ask mike norton, who is the director of the expo center to come up, he's most familiar.
>> I'm romg project, as alicia mentioned to you, as you look at the chart on this, you look at the 2007 -- 2007 just started going up on the revenue.
it's kind of like -- like almost matching the year 2000 when we started with ice bats where everybody would like to go to the expo center.
what I'm trying to say here is 2007 was 100% jmk took over that expo center.
they started on may 2006.
so -- so year 2007 we -- we experienced some revenue increase, it's a fact -- it's effect.
>> our current contract calls for 39% of the revenue to go to the exposition center, plus a $50,000 payment.
the $50,000 payment was something that we negotiated last time when we had the extension for austex and it has really been quite a premium for us to get not only a percentage of the revenue, but guaranteed those $50,000 payment that goes to improvements at the expo.
as we go out for the contracts, our base would be what we have now, our baseline -- baseline.
>> last time when we got the 39% we got the highest that we could, plus $50,000.
>> yes.
>> was negotiated on top of that.
>> yes.
>> in addition, the vendor has -- has committed to make -- to make several improvements
>> [indiscernible] in the request dated January 2nd, 2008.
if we approve this my recommendation would be to incorporate that language into the amendment.
>> alicia asked you on to come up.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> considerably as of this moment, it's -- it's up almost 100,000 to this year, so it does represent a substantial amount of our budget.
it's -- it's not just about percentages and contractual terms as it relates to what we earn.
also about how that vendor can develop that income and continue to make it grow.
so 39% or 35% or 45% of the lower figure isn't going to get us where we need to be, that's where gmc catering really developed the expo center revenue by virtue of knowing the events, stocking, keeping the lines palatable for our patrons as opposed to having lines that impede people from being able to byproduct.
there's only so many hours because we are not open 24/7.
in purchasing a contract like this, we are not buying a piece of equipment, we are not contracting for concrete that has a warranty.
once we get into it, if the vendor is not proven, we find that out through time because it's not as simple, not black and white, there is the price, this is the guarantee, we are stuck with it.
currently we have a vendor who has proven himself not only other facilities but with us considerably with the numbers that we have.
>> for the record, what's your relationship to the expo center?
>> I'm the director.
>> okay.
I guess the big problem that I have is that if I thought that we were genuinely looking for another vendor, then I would support the r.f.p.
I don't know that it's fair to have a lot of vendors submitting proposals doing a whole lot of work in response to an r.f.p.
when we have pretty much reached the foregone conclusion that we ought to give this vendor another opportunity.
he's been there two years, which is a short time.
we made a whole lot more money in 2000 which roger said when the ice bats relatively new, than there were dropoffs since that point.
since this vendor arrived in 2007 had pretty much a full year, we saw pretty much an increase in the revenue, the vendor has made improvements at the facility.
we need all of the help we can get.
we discussed this during every budget cycle.
in addition to the improvements that we have been making ourselves, if we can get the additional 8 or 9, that are committed here, then I think that it's a move in the right direction.
so -- so I'm all in favor of competition, but I don't know that -- that we ought to do just competition for the sake of it when we know that we will extend the contract.
it seems to me that based on performance since -- since this vendor acquired the contract, we really ought to extend it.
so -- that's my --
>>
>> [indiscernible] of course I don't disagree with what I guess the judge is actually saying.
when you have a vendor I think that comes to each one of our individual offices and passes out his proposal, of course I didn't accept it.
I refused to accept it.
that in my way -- in my opinion is an unfair advantage.
now I suggested that we do this independently, and unfortunately this particular item that's on the agenda is linked on the things that I don't agree with.
the b portion of this I don't agree with.
I kind of wanted my item, the item that I am going to support, that's 4 a, is to be a stand alone item.
of course it didn't come out that way.
but based on that I'm going to move just as I stated because I feel that we need to revisit that and see what else is out there.
and maybe -- maybe something, maybe not.
I don't really know, but I just think not allowing anybody to have an unfair advantage and in my opinion it's unfair.
so based on what I'm hearing, I would still like to make the motion, whether it fails approval, whatever.
I would like to send a clear message that I think we need to look at an r.f.p.
process, we maybe can get a better deal.
we don't know.
but anyway based on that I would like to still make a motion to support item 4 a to go, issue an r.f.p.
for the contractual services for food and beverage concessions at expo center.
I move approval -- I move approval of 4 a.
>> is there a second?
that motion dies for lack of a second.
>> judge, I would like to make a motion for 4 b.
that would be for a -- a three-year term with a -- two one-year extensions.
you know, obviously given all things are met at the end of that three year, I mean I think that it's a two-way street.
whether the vendor wants to have another two one year terms. Perhaps they don't.
perhaps we have issues at that time, but I think that that gives us enough time to take a look at this thing.
>> second.
>> I have -- I will be brief.
I have been very involved in this.
I have been very involved with the vendor.
mainly because I thought that there needed to be attention given to the concessions out at the expo center.
in the last year and a half, I can honestly say that questioning a number of people, not to say that there are always opinions about how somebody might want something to happen versus another, the overwhelming response that I get, and I probably could have jerry brag, you know, come to the microphone because he's the person that's dealt with -- jerry if you want to come up real quickly, I don't want this to last long.
but here's a gentleman that has -- that owns the rot -- the rot rally, same that three times real fast.
but, jerry, would you agree having been out there long enough that you can see some comparison from our present vendor from what we have had in the past, how would you gauge those?
>> thank you for having me up here to say what I have to say.
as you know, I've been a pretty vocal participant in the affairs at the expo center for over 10 years now.
I have to say that everything is moving in the right direction at the expo center.
business is good.
and a large part due to the efforts of people like michael norton, charles wells.
think of single handedly -- they have single handedly done more at the expo center to help my business which in turn helps your business than any two people in the last 10 years, other than the court.
I want you to know that two years prior to g and m catering taking the contract I was up here on several occasions because I was receiving 200 complaints a year about food, quality, service and price.
I'm happy to say over the last two event, the last year and a half, I've had one complaint.
it was not about food, not about service.
but it was about price.
we can't make them all happy.
but it just goes to show when the food, the service, the quality and the hard work goes into it, the -- the price complaints tend to melt away.
I can live with that.
I think you've got a wonderful thing going.
I would hate to see you mess it up.
again, thanks for having me here.
if it -- if it ain't broke, let's don't fix it.
>> judge, obviously I mean along with that -- with that recommendation, of approval of 4 b, we would take g and m up on the improvements that they have slated here that they would be willing -- willing to make.
now, it does say if granted the five year extension, I mean, I don't know whether that means that we have got to negotiate, you know, some of those improvements given the fact that I guess we're not solidifying a five year.
I mean we are indicating that we think that there will be five-year opportunity with three -- with two one year extensions, but I would think if we continue along the path that we are on right now, we will be just as happy in three years as we are right now.
>> three years with two one year options to renew subject to mutual agreement by both of us.
>> yes.
>> and the vendor is here if there are questions.
>> that would be my --
>> motion and a second by Commissioner Gomez.
any more discussion?
we do incorporate the -- the promises into the amendment.
>> right.
>> all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioners eckhardt, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> voting no with these particular comments.
I still think that begin going out for an r.f.p.
is an appropriate thing to do because it may even suggest that there may be better situations that we can get involved with.
we will never know until we get out there and test.
we are not saying that gmc is not going to perform at the level, but there may be others out there that can do just as an adequate job or better.
you never know.
>> thank you all for your input.
appreciate it.
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 19, 2008 2:51 PM