Travis County Commissioners Court
July 15, 2008
Item 13
Since we have you there, 13 is consider and take appropriate action on request to short list the top three evaluated responders to rfs number s 0802100 j for administrative services for the deferred compensation 457-b plan and authorize deferred compensation committee to commence negotiations. And the recommended short list of firms is.
>> short listed recommendation is nationwide retirement solutions, our current provider, great west retirement services, icmaa-rc, and principle finance. That was the top three.
>> I thought we should approve that short list and authorize a committee to begin negotiating with them.
>> the top three, great west, icma, and nationwide retirement solutions. Those are the top three ranked firms. There were five officials we evaluated and those were the top three ranked firms we want to start negotiating with for best and final offers.
>> I'll second the motion, judge.
>> move approval of that list.
>> judge, I'm going to ask for another week.
>> any other questions today? Questions or comments on this item? Does that put us behind the gun at all? We've been working on this for a number of years.
>> that does two things. We have a schedule that was approved by court that indicated we would be having interviews with these people tomorrow. They have been notified and some of them are already on airplanes.
>> they are on airplanes.
>> did you want to include one of the other ranked firms?
>> no, I --
>> could we go ahead --
>> is our consultant here? Can we getn] out here? Can we get our consultant here this afternoon?
>> he can be here this afternoon.
>> I mean if we're -- I've got a couple of pointed questions that I would like to ask our consultant.
>> we will call this item up this afternoon. Thank you very much.
Now this morning we indicated our intention to call up another item this afternoon and I see that our consultant has arrived. That item is number 13 which basically is a request to short list the top three responders to rf number for the 457 b plan to commence negotiations. Commissioner Daugherty indicated he had a couple of questions for our consultant.
>> what did we find out concerning the question that I was asking earlier.
>> well, I'm still -- I'm still -- in fact, I was in the hallway trying to understand it and I'm going to need more time to understand the concerns. I did speak with our consultant, and my understanding is that the phone call was made to see if they had gotten our proposal. And this gentleman I said we would get back together to discuss it. But I would respectfully request that since we have the three interviews tomorrow and people are flying in, that you go ahead and allow us to commence the negotiations with those top three firms and some of these other issues can be sort of discussed in the meantime. Because I'm not real, real clear on the specific concerns.
>> well, I guess, you know, in my typical style let me just be direct and ask al because I think al will tell me, al, is there any reason why you would think that somebody that wanted to respond to this in Travis County would feel like that a question were asked by you that might insinuate that somebody would be cut out of having the opportunity to provide a service for Travis County?
>> I'm not quite sure I understand.
>> did you make a phone call to a potential supplier of services for us and ask whether or not they would be able to give us or participate in our process and not have the person that works out of our community that would find themselves perhaps not able to do -- to be the middle person? And we need a -- I think we need that middle person because one of the things that we felt like that we were missing for so many years is somebody to kind of hold all of our hands, you know, and kim is doing a good job of offering all of those kind of services. So that -- that's what has, you know, gotten back to me about why would -- why would you all put out the r.f.p. And have somebody go directly to a major company, a supplier. So is that something that didn't happen, did happen or if it did, I mean why did it for --
>> well, let me see if I can't clarify that for you, Commissioner, because I had two conversations that I can think of right off the top of my head when the r.f.p. Was released. One with a firm that was actually -- the basis for the conversation was a bid in el paso that we were discussing, and during the conversation I had asked them if they had intended to bid on the Travis County r.f.p., and their response to me was we weren't even aware of it. And as it turns out, they are not -- they are apparently not or this person was not registered with r.f.p. Depot and so did not get the r.f.p. When it was released. But they do live in the community and I think it was advertised outside of r.f.p. Depot too. So why they didn't get it, I don't know. And the other conversation was actually from a firm that ultimately submitted a bid to us, and their question posed to me was should -- what do you think about our involving an agent or broker in this process. And my response to them was that's your decision. I can't tell you whether you should or should not. And then they went on to say, well, you know, if we paid commission to somebody, it probably wouldn't make us that competitive. And, you know, my response was once again I can't answer that question for you. That's a decision you need to make.
>> then that's probably where it came from. With that kind of --
>> well, we did have written in our solicitation that contractor warrants that no commissions, fees, excluding salary or any other revenue based on this planner's assets will be paid to any representative and/or other third party that does not provide direct and previously disclosed services to this plan. And we did have that in there. Now, al, can you explain what we meant by that?
>> yeah, and that -- that was if there was the middle man, an agent or broker locally that wanted to provide some type of value added service as part of this process, that they would negotiate that service and the cost for it with a provider that submitted a proposal and that there are proposal fully disclose what that revenue stream might be and what value it might add to the plan. And the participants in the plan.
>> okay, well, that clears it up. I mean obviously when we go through these processes, y'all, we all get calls about -- I don't know what that was about, I mean and, you know, the best thing to do is just say let's just talk about it and --
>> they didn't call me, Commissioner.
>> they didn't call you.
>> and i, you know, I would just respectfully request that when the Commissioners get telephone calls when we're in the procurement process that they have those people call me so we can investigate this and get all the answers answered for the Commissioners court prior to coming to Commissioners court and y'all having to make a decision, especially when we're trying to meet deadlines. Because I'm still -- you know, I have -- you know, I've made a call now and me and this gentleman will talk more because he has some concerns and I told him that I would call him back and discuss it. But as far as today and moving forward, I think we are where we're at and we need to move forward because we have these three folks coming in tomorrow for negotiations. And if there's any other issues regarding this matter, it might be handled outside of this procurement issue.
>> well, and I agree. I mean you know because here we are at the 11th hour and we need to move forward, but that's a little bit about what we've gotten into very recently about people think that we don't do things in a timely basis to where you do have the ability so if you have some questions, then let's -- let's take a little time. I mean, you know, no one likes to think, well, you've got some questions, but guess what, we need to move on this thing today.
>> and the solicitation document clearly says please thoroughly read this document, if you have questions, please send your questions at least so many days prior to the bid opening. When we do an amendment, we send that amendment out to everyone so everyone has the same information, you know, level playing field, all those terms were used in procurement so this is a fair and open process. And a lot of times judge Biscoe mentioned it this morning, you know, I can't make everybody happy because everybody can't win the bids. So a lot of times what you get are phone calls of, you know, quite frankly sort of, you know, --
>> disgruntled folks?
>> right. And it's my duty and on your behalf to investigate that and make sure that everything has been fair, and then if I need to get with the attorneys, make sure everything is legal. So --
>> if I could just add one additional comment, I think the -- and really I don't know a whole lot about what the actual complaint or concern was, but I believe there's a prevalent opinion in the local financial services industry that -- that some people should be a player in a plan like this. And the reality of the governmental 457 market is that it is no longer an agent or broker-driven marketplace. And a lot of that is just because of the pressure on costs and increasing value at the participant level, and typically when you have -- when you involve an agent or a broker, it's not as cost efficient as if you did it with your own salaried employees, people like kim right now that works for nationwide.
>> well, I certainly would expect to get those services. I mean, you know, I'm not interested in paying for something that we don't get. Given the fact that we know that we expect and that we need those kind of services. And I realize that industry is out there going, you know, now if somebody else has a angle on doing this where they don't have to use that and maybe we do that in-house so that we -- I wouldn't think you would fly somebody from boston or wherever because I don't -- I mean are any of these local? I mean, you know, I guess nationwide would at least feel like they are given they have so much presence that they presently have.
>> kim lives here and I think the gentleman from houston and then the other guy is from up north somewhere.
>> great western
>> [inaudible] had a local representative. Icma did not. But we made it clear that there are would be something we would like.
>> but none of them -- they are all salaried employees. That's the primary difference.
>> good, judge. I'm fine.
>> for the record, let's indicate the three firms that we are short listing.
>> the three -- the top ranked firms that we're short listing are great west retirement services, icma-rc, and nationwide retirement solutions.
>> move approval of those three.
>> second.
>> to be short listed and authorize a committee to commence negotiations with them.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor say aye. That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much. Good to see you again.
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:
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:51 PM