Travis County Commissioners Court
October 7, 2008
Items 25 and 26
25.
consider and take appropriate action on proposed scope of services for the Travis County central campus study needs analysis and master plan and related issues.
and should we call up 26?
>> yes.
>> as a matter of fact your purchasing agent has asked that she give the presentation first on the rfq item 26, which will then lead into the more detailed discussion on the scope of service.
>> 26 is to consider and take appropriate action on presentation of request for qualifications procurement process in preparation for downtown master plan study and related issues.
>> good morning, judge, commissions, cyd groups, Travis County purchasing agent.
it's been a long time since I've done a presentation in fronts of the court.
we thought it would be a good time to go through this again.
cyd grimes, I know a lot of you have been here before the process.
the proper consumer process there's a -- procurement process there's a lot of different rules.
at this points in time we are looking at hiring an architectural engineering firm.
the laws are specific as to how we proceed with that.
I have a powerpoint presentation I'm going to go through fairly quickly, hopefully.
and then if you have questions we'll -- we'll stop and answer them.
interrupt me if you would like.
marvin and richard were going to come down, marvin brice my assistant purchasing agent over construction services and richard villa real will be the purchasing assistant who will be in charge of this procurement and supervise it.
so that will be the team on this project.
just a brief background, as you know for several months now, historic courthouse being overcrowded, we have folks there in the hallways, we have made do with that building, time for us to do something else.
that building is old, it's not wired for the 21st century technology that is now available to us.
we have talked about that over the past several years, we have spent a lot of money trying to upgrade that building to meet those needs and we still continue to spend money not only on the technology systems but other systems, building that are outdated.
in a sense we are architecturally abusing that facility by just continuing to cram people in there and making adjustments to it.
so there have been several groups, civil judges, bar association, historic commission and others who have asked us to look at a new civil courthouse, also renovation and restoration of the historic courthouse.
we know that the Commissioners court wants to develop a comprehensive long-term capital improvement project to provide the needed facilities for the courts and all government, not just in the downtown area, but south congress and airport campuses.
so what the court would like is for us to hire an expert to help us perform a needs analysis to study our current and future facility needs in the county and including the reuse of our historic courthouse.
a lot of work has been done over the last year or so how we're going to form our teams, who is going to be responsible for what.
last week you did decide that christian smith, special assistant to the court will be taking the lead as the executive project manager and then we also have our facilities management team that will be involved, planning and budget office for the -- for their involvement and others.
so that's just a quick background.
what is the legal authority to issue a request for qualification?
as I mentioned earlier, there's different laws for different procurements.
when you are hiring, when a county is hiring an e and e firm, we have to comply with the government code, chapter 2254.
and we must contract with the most highly qualified a and e's based on demonstrated competence and qualifications.
e and e -- a and es are the only professionals that do to the have to submit their cost at the time of evaluation and competitive ranking.
we have utilized through our purchasing policies and procedures a method called the request for qualifications to competitively rank these firms. Once we rank the firms, we attempt to negotiate with the highest ranked firm at a fir and reasonable price.
the law tells us that -- is the process that we have to follow.
once we determine who is the highest ranked firm based on their experience and qualifications then we ask that top ranked firm for their cost proposal and we begin to negotiate.
if we are successful in negotiating a contract with them, that meets our budget, then we would come back with that recommendation.
if we can't negotiate with that firm, to get within our budget, then we would formally stop negotiation was that firm and go to the next firm.
we would have those ranked prior to going through that process.
the local government code chapter 262 known as the county purchasing act says that the purchasing agent shall supervise everything on competitive procurement.
also that the purchasing agent shall adopt rules and procedures nets to implement the duties and law subject to approval of Commissioners court.
necessary.
over the years we have adopted policies and procedures.
the court approved them, I believe two years ago, we came back and updated those procedures.
time is flying.
the purchasing agent for the public's information is a statutorily appointed official and is not under the supervision of the Commissioners court.
I report to independent purchasing board, two of you serve on that board, judge Biscoe and Commissioner Daugherty.
Commissioner Gomez was there for a long time, but decided to do something bigger.
this independence from the Commissioners court helps to ensure fair proper consumer process.
procurement process.
also it needs to be noted that my assistants as much as I love them, they are much smarter than me, they cannot act on their own right.
everything has to be supervised by the purchasing agent.
the next step is developing the scope of work.
the scope of work is the most important piece of the document and to begin with, we need to identify the technical and other staff that will prepare the statement of work.
in that statement of work we need to clearly define the project, what our intent is to get that project done.
we need to state the objectives of the work and we need to find the tasks to be accomplished in each objective.
we also in those tasks need to determine a level of detail that is needed in each phase.
we have had a lot of discussions going back and forth about the detail in this scope of work.
this in my mind is a high level study to give us guidance on the next phases.
we are not going to be asking these folks to design a building for us.
they will be doing a very high level analysis of what we need, raw square footage those sort of issues, but they will not be doing the level of a and e work down the road.
we actually know that we are going to build a specific building.
we also in the scope of work want to know what our deliverables are.
what do we expect them to hand to us at the end of their study and clearly define that and we try to tie those deliverables to our payments just for administrative reasons.
once we develop the scope of work, we need to now develop our evaluation criteria and the weighted factors.
the statement of work or the valuation criteria should be tied to those factors.
so since we are required to look at their qualifications and experience it makes sense that we would look at what are their minimum qualifications, what do we want these folks' expertise to be.
fact it's in planning and needs analysis and master planning.
we also want to know the experience of each team and each individual staff member.
we also would like to know what their work plan approach is.
how are they going to gather data from each department.
how are they going to coordinate with the county's project managers.
what is their time lines for doing this work.
and what are the resources that their team will need and what do they expect the county to do on the other side of that.
I think sometimes we forget about that this is a partnership with the contractor and all of us, although we are behind this expert -- although we are hiring this expert to do this job, they're going to have to work with us, they are going to have to be able to meet their line.
we want to be very clear going in who is going to do what, who is going to do it and when, we all want to meet or time lines and our schedule.
once we come up with those criteria, then we assign rates to those -- weights to those evaluation criteria and we prepare a matrix to assist us in the process.
we have tried to develop a matrix that is easy for everyone to adhere.
and on the next, you can't read it on the monitor in your backup, it's just a sample.
this is the one that we use for the broker.
basically we give it weighted factors with the most important factor we have seen the most points down to the least.
and again in this process we cannot ask for price.
in every other procurement price is definitely a valuation factor.
once the team has developed the scope of work, then we go towards finalizing the rfq document.
in that document we want to clearly explain what the rules are for everyone involved.
and one of my -- one of my big issues is that all communications be controlled and be processed via the purchasing office.
also in the document we need to clearly identify what they are required to submit to us.
if they do not submit certain information, we can reserve the right to ask them for that or we can reserve the right to consider them nonresponsive.
we also want to explain how the process is going to be, who is going to be on the evaluation team, how we are going to evaluate their proposals.
also the evaluation matrix helps to explain to them what we are looking at and what we expect of them.
one of the things that we have discussed in the group is -- is whether the winning
>> [indiscernible] can compete with specific rfq's for specific buildings recommended in the plan.
my recommendation in this particular procurement would be that we allow them to because it will be a whole different competitive process at that point.
be years down the road or at least a year down the road, so I would recommend that we do allow them.
it's not the situation where they are designing the building and then we're hiring them to build the building.
I would recommend that we allow them to do that.
we work very closely with the county attorney.
I believe tim leija been assigned to this project.
she's worked with us for years on trying to standardize some of our documents.
we love tinley.
we will work with her to make sure that the documents get finalized.
we also, purchasing gets input from the other departments to make sure that they agree with -- with all of the information.
and then once we have the final draft we will bring it to Commissioners court for your approval and then we will seek your approval to release the rfq and begin the formal process.
>> go to the next page on the fourth bullet, I missed that whatever -- can you repeat?
something about you were going to ask them to something --
>> there was a discussion on whatever firm we hired to do this master plan, these analyses and master plan, whether we would allow them to work on any future projects that come out of the master plan.
>> okay.
>> so if they -- they say we need five buildings, will we let them compete to design that specific building later on?
>> so there's no problem is what --
>> I don't see a conflict of interest in this particular case because this study again will be high level sort of a guide to where we're going.
so I think it would be -- I don't see a conflict of interest in allowing them.
I think the team agrees on that.
>> okay.
on the next page talking about the issuance, some of the decisions that we make and with the court's input is how long are we on the street, allow this document out on the street.
because of the complexity or the volume of work and the number of departments involved, we believe we should put it out on the street for 45 days.
I believe christian built that into his schedule.
there are legal notice that's we have to meet.
we have to advertise in the newspaper.
we also will issue through our third party what was rfp depot is now called e bid sync.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> bid sync.
so the same folks, same program but just a different name.
they thought it was more clear that it was a -- people understand bids, they don't understand rfp's quite so much.
we also recommend a presubmittal conference.
we need to decide that date that's part -- when we issue the rfq, that date is in there.
>> and at that time do you also discuss with the potential bidders that they would -- have to pay their subs?
>> we -- yes.
right?
>> before you go over all of the rules to make sure that -- that they understand how we -- what we expect of them.
>> yes.
>> and we have -- we have our hub group jerome, sylvia and betty, attend those preproposal conferences not only to talk about that, but also to help them hook up with minority firms that they might need assistance with.
we provide lists of our minority firms according to their expertise.
so -- so -- so we do make that effort to have people understand the rules.
>> just a matter of them attending the pre--
>> yes.
legally we can require these conferences be mandatory but it's very limiting and sometimes we sort of shoot ours in foot by -- ourselves in the foot by making them mandatory, I'm cautious about that.
a lot of these firms will possibly be out of the area and -- and we have even talked about having a -- having a telephone conference video conference for folks who are outlet of state to -- out of state to help with expenses for everyone, we're still talking about that.
we will have a presubmittal conference.
after that conference, if there's any questions or clarifications we issue an amendment, everyone gets that same information.
we want to make sure that everyone is hearing the same thing, getting the same information.
bylaw we -- we have to have -- receive these sealed and on time.
if they are not -- if they are not here by the deadline, we don't accept them.
that's vera in my office.
poor vera she does it very well.
it's hard when somebody walks in one minute late and you say I'm sorry we cannot accept it.
we say that repeatedly at the presubmittal conference.
also with -- with requests for qualifications or proposals, we have -- we have a public opening but the only thing that we tell the public at that time is who submitted a -- their qualifications, the bid scenario we actually open up the bids and read out who the potential low bidder is at that time.
but we do not do that.
very importantly, the contents of all of the proposals or qualifications are kept secret during the evaluation process until after we make -- until after the court makes a contract award and then that information becomes public.
on the next page we talked about the evaluation process.
again the law says that the purchasing agent shall supervise the process.
the purchasing agent works with the court to talk about who our evaluation committee should be.
members should be.
and of course, you know, all of the people that have been working on the project should be included.
but we also wants to limit the size.
there was a recommendation at one point that -- that court members sit on the evaluation committee and I have always tried to not have the -- the individual court members sit on the evaluation committees.
and in my mind it's -- it just kind of -- it's not a good process.
you are the ones to ultimately make the decision, depend on your staff to make the right recommendations to you.
that's my recommendation.
you all have the ultimate say, we will -- we will adhere your wishes.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] acknowledgements form prior to these documents basically are self-evident that they will keep all the information confidential, they will not have conversations with any a&e teams, firms, anyone.
they also know the rules of the games as far as, you know, if there are any conflicts of interest, if they have any business dealings with any of these firms, it has to be disclosed.
in the process, we do need technical folks.
leslie, roger, a&e, technical types, be belinda, christian, planning type folks.
so we do need technical members and we should have some operational members, perhaps from the civil court, maybe a member from the criminal courts, but we need to think about that and I don't think we've vetted out who we think should be on that time but we're getting close to that.
I also would recommend --
>> who is this "we" you are talking about?
>> well, there's been a group meeting.
christian, belinda, alicia, roger, leslie, who else?
rodney rhoades.
>> a number of people on the committee.
we need the numbness to get the job done right.
>> sure.
>> that may be four, it may be nine or ten.
and I don't know that a court member would be interested in being on there.
I'd be real surprised if that is not zero.
but I guess that would be my -- I'm sitting here thinking -- I'm not thinking necessarily about the size, I'm thinking about expertise that you want represented.
and so you want the right people at the county to be on this committee to help us get the job done most efficiently, effectively, is what I would think.
>> correct.
>> that number may end up being real small.
>> this is my preference, judge.
my preference.
and again, offers must be accorded fair and equal treatment.
that is one of the reasons I'm so controlling about communications be directed through the purchasing office.
evaluation committee role --
>> I think it ought to be all communications regarding -- there ought to be something a little more restrictive than that.
you see what I'm saying?
there will be communications from firms that want to submit if local firms do.
not necessarily regarding this r.f.p.
see what I'm saying?
so you really mean all communications regarding --
>> sure.
sure.
when we issue that r.f.q., from the time we issue the r.f.q.
until the time you approve a contract, all monks should be very controlled through the purchasing agent.
>> okay.
so where does somebody go if they have a complaint against somebody on the team?
>> they come to the purchasing agent.
>> what if they have a complaint against the purchasing agent?
>> they won't.
>> [laughter]
>> there's another answer.
>> I can't control everything, unfortunately.
I mean, that is a process we would like to hear too.
what I'm talking to is folks trying to get one member of the Commissioners court or one member of the evaluation committee off to themselves to make their arguments.
it doesn't look good in the public's eye and that's -- that's what I'm referring to.
people have complaints with me, they can call judge Biscoe.
>> I made my point.
>> [laughter] thank you.
>> all right.
committee role.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> if you are selected to be on the evaluation committee, you will need to read carefully and score each proposal against the evaluation criteria and not against the proposed -- other proposals.
the members should keep working to justify their score and help jog their memory and to use if necessary if contractors ask for a debriefing after the process.
once individual committee members score their proposals, we will all meet as a committee to discuss and finalize our individual scores.
sometimes when you get the group together, after you've done this process and you talk about, you know, like belinda might have more expertise in an area than, say, one of the operational people.
and we get in the meeting and we just discuss it and sort of come to a consensus on how we should finalize our scores.
then we will calculate the overall scores and purchasing will verify all their submission requirements were included.
the committee will then decide to short list the proposals.
we will take -- we will bring that short list to Commissioners court for approval to gwyneth views.
the next bullet is another one where we need the court's direction.
being this is a big project, I would probably recommend the first one.
what we would recommend is that once we decide the short list, that we bring -- we have a scheduled open meeting for all the Commissioners to interview the top ranked firms. Or we could -- the court could choose not to do that and allow their staff to do that and we would not have an open meeting.
after the interviews, the committee would decide the final rankings to bring back to Commissioners court and would also ask the court to allow us to start negotiating with that top ranked firm.
and then we would bring back our contract award to court for approval.
so would the court want -- I would assume that in this process you might want to have open interviews to where you all could actually interview the top ranked firms.
>> there are a number of officials who are deeply, deeply interested in this project and could also benefit by participating in an interview process with the short-listed firms, the top two or three.
as a matter of fact, I have an e-mail I have not shared, even judge dietz has shared that given the distinguished nature of what we believe will be the final short-listed firms, that he is interested in not necessarily participating in the detailed evaluation committee, but wants to interview them.
and in essence assuming he will ask some questions, but there are many other officials, a variety of colleagues who are keen on participating in this in a substantive way, along with members of the Commissioners court.
so I would envision possibly dozens of people who might be interested who could listen to an interview process with the short-listed firm and then have the evaluation committee take that information and rescore.
because there will be information surface in those interviews that will be very valuable.
so I would recommend the court actually have an open meeting and invite anybody that wants to come, but the only rule being if you sit down with one, you got to sit down with them all.
you can't just sit down and listen to one, you got to listen to -- and the short list I assume will be either two or three and hopefully it will be three.
do you agree with that?
>> yes, we agree.
we agree.
just given the scope of this project and the needs analysis with 30 different departments, I think it would give the other elected officials a better feeling that they are comfortable with the group that we choose to do this work.
so ...
the ridge is thinking.
is -- the judge is thinking.
is in a what you all would prefer?
>> I don't have a strong position one way or the other.
>> if members of the court decline to participate in the interviews, then they would decline -- it wouldn't necessarily be a posted Commissioners court meeting, but still I would urge any official who is interested, executive managers, elected officials, appointed officials, members of the public, I mean whoever wants to join in, join in.
so that it's open, transparent, and I have great confidence that people will be very impressed with the qualifications when you look at the people that are going to be receiving this r.f.q., they are of national and international stature.
>> the one caveat would be that we not -- like televise it.
we would have an open meeting because we would have the other firms sit out during those.
so there's some closure to it, but not a lot.
>> okay.
>> okay?
page 12, the evaluation --
>> I believe before the r.f.q.
is issued, this issue has to get resolved.
am I correct?
>> yes, because that will be part of the explanation in the r.f.q.
on what the process is, how we're going to do the interviews.
so yes, we would need to make that decision before we put the r.f.q out.
again, some of the rules of of of being an evaluation committee member, again, your name must appear in the key contracting list.
all information is confidential until after award.
no discussions would occur regarding the r.f.q during the process with anyone outside the evaluation committee.
any requests for information must be reported and referred to the purchasing agent.
have I said that enough?
no discussion with a&e teams. Read the code of ethics, sign the form, report any conflicts of interest.
remember that your decisions must be defendable.
people will ask, you know, why did you pick them over me so we need to be able to justify our scores and just as another warning is we are working in a fish bowl.
so need to be open.
during contract negotiations, once we come forward with a recommendation with the top ranked firm, we will come back, we will start negotiation, purchasing purchasg supervises the negotiations.
again, we might decide that we have the whole committee on the evaluation -- on the negotiation team or we might have a smaller subset to evaluate -- to participate in the contract negotiations.
that does not have to be decided up front.
that can be decided later.
we work very closely with the county auditor who drafts the legal contract and gives us advice.
we also work with the county -- what did I say?
>> auditor.
>> I was looking at attorney.
yeah, we work with them also.
they, of course, review and help and verify the funding.
one of the things we need to remember is that a fair and reasonable price to us means a price that's in line with the current market values and a cost to the contractor who -- that allows for them a reasonable profit.
to the a&e team a price means take price that's realistic in terms of their ability to perform the work.
if we are not realistic in our price negotiation, we run the risk of the contractor cutting corners or delivering late or the worst could be that they default on the project and we don't want that.
so we need to be fair in our negotiations and our expectations.
once we have a contract ready, we bring back to court for approval.
once court approves, there's certain documents that we attach to that contract, give it a contract number, enter it into the system and then purchasing distributes all that contract information to the contractor and others.
once we're ready to start going on the project, we normally issue a notice to proceed after we receive any bonds or insurance that they are required to provide to us.
and then normally I would issue the notice to proceed after I got a letter from facilities management.
in this particular case it would likely be christian smith.
and then the work begins, the hard work.
the next page talks about project and contract management.
the project should be managed on a daily basis by a project manager.
I understand the way the scope of work is written that we have an executive project manager as christian and then belinda.
I would recommend both of these managers be on the evaluation and negotiation committee.
the project manager is responsible to ensure that the county gets the professional services that we've contracted for.
they are held to a higher level of accountability to make sure that all the work that we contracted with in the plan is done, that the schedules are being met, that budget is being met, et cetera.
the project manager also certifies the payment to the contractors' invoices before sending them to purchasing and then we send those on to the auditor for approval.
so very close working team process that we have in place.
we've been doing this for years and we're fairly experienced at it.
when we get -- start working -- once a contract is approved and the project managers start working with the contractor, their -- purchasing is pretty much not involved until there are any changes to that contract.
and any changes that they want to make would have to be approved in writing either by the purchasing agent or Commissioners court.
the court has authorized the purchasing agent to make some minor changes.
that is not the same as the team coming to you, project managers, for policy questions, as would be done on a regular schedule, I believe, during the whole needs analysis and so forth.
then in our contract management, if we have conflicts between the a&e and -- I have s.m., but it would be special assistant project manager, we normally step in if there's a conflict.
if we can't resolve it then we come to the Commissioners court for resolution.
and just in summary, we need this needs analysis for our current and future facilities, staffing workload.
some of the teams are already being drawn up on who is going to be responsible.
the purchasing agent is tasked with overseeing the procurement process and compliance with these rules that I've outlined here help to ensure a fair, thorough and coordinated effort for all parties.
so that is -- that's how it's supposed to work.
do you all have any questions, other questions?
anyone have comments?
>> since you talked about how much you love your staff and how much you love the attorneys, how much do you love christian?
>> well, he hasn't let me drive his new car yet.
>> christian is the person I'm looking to the contractor bring this thing in.
hopefully this is getting -- this has gotten signed off on by the special assistant because what I'm hearing in this is that you have to sign off on more of this stuff than what I'm hearing the special assistant.
procurement, I understand that.
but I mean, you know, what I'm looking for is in x amount of time here is what the court said that they needed and I think it's going to take every skill set in the world because we have seen in the last few months even though there have been a number of things done, people get pretty proprietary about where their responsibility is, what's statutorily or mandated to do.
I mean, part of the reason that I voted for christian in this spot is because I think that he has wording with everybody here long enough, he knows the importance of this thing, but boy, I sure hope we don't get to the point where, you know what, we can't get over that.
I guess to answer the question about whether you love him.
>> yeah, christian and I have worked together well over the years.
christian is a lot more thorough than me on some issues.
I think smaller, you know, to me -- I make decisions very quickly.
christian has got to have a whole lot more input.
once the contract is awarded, I think christian -- and I think the key and you said it is all of us, no matter what department we are in, we are a team and we need to work together for the greater good.
and I think everyone understands that and hopefully everyone will comply with that.
>> and just for my purposes, on page 15, would you just kind of correct that.
I think there were some errors as to who reports to what.
if you could just correct that so that I have the right folks who will be -- we will look to the contractor get certain things ready.
>> well, in the scope of work that we're going to be talking about next, it talks about that christian smith will be the -- I believe it's executive project manager.
and belinda powell, I always want to call her poppy, will be the project manager.
so those two will be working in concert together.
instead of having one project manager we sort of have two project managers.
christian and belinda, of course, working years together can manage it.
but they are responsible once we issue this contract to work with that contractor.
all communication should go through christian and belinda and then filter down to everybody else that needs to be included.
that's critical.
and then they will be looking at the work to make sure that they are on time, that they are on budget and all those sort of things.
and then the payment, the contractor's invoices would go to christian or belinda.
they would certify that amount of work has been done, we've received the deliverables and make payment based on a phase.
that's normally how we negotiate the contracts.
so is that clear, Commissioner?
>> it's a little clearer.
I just thought there were some -- page 16, I guess, on the second bullet, it's got s.m., but I think I heard you say that's special assistant rather than s.m.
>> right.
>> if I can just have a corrected copy of how all of those relationships are supposed to work.
>> I have prepared this before you all made you all's decision last week knowing who was going to be in.
s.m.
will be heavily involved.
I'm sure leslie will be involved and belinda will be working with her and p.b.o.
is going to have a piece in it also, and christian will explain that more in detail when we get into the scope of work on the next item.
>> well, do we need to discuss that?
Commissioner eckhardt notified me of an emergency yesterday so she is not here.
I'm not sure how comfortably feel acting on 25 with three of us.
do we have another week?
>> you can take the time you need to be comfortable.
>> I think we ought to.
I don't know that we ought to have five, but seems to me we would like the have four.
>> if you want to delay the whole thing for a week and pick it up next Tuesday, that's your call.
>> I think the more we have here the better.
>> [inaudible].
>> do you want to delay it --.
>> we have three unanimously supporting it, if there are not four, we don't do it.
>> we have been responding to the "d" word and the "d" word is like a cross to a vampire.
the "d" word is delay.
then if it's your call, that's okay.
>> I just had this thought, typically we have a full complement of members, five.
it's one thing if it votes 3-2, at least all five participate.
this is an important decision.
>> on number 25, you have the full scope of service.
>> what cyd referred to as the scope of work, and you have a schedule and evaluation criteria and an evaluation matrix.
we are hoping you can approve it all.
that you would have read it, identified specific issues.
perhaps if you want to delay it a week, it would be nice to have those issues surfaced so that -- and this week and certainly that you will have read it in detail.
>> I don't want to have two discussions on the same topic.
and if we -- if there is a -- shouldn't be a problem next week.
if there is, I would suggest a special posting where we try to get all five present.
this keeps us going in a direction that's real important.
>> do you want to have a presentation in a work session?
>> I'm hoping we take action on Tuesday.
>> so would i.
>> we can post it for work session just in case.
the work session is next week so the voting session is two days before.
if we can get it done, fine.
I would feel a whole lot better with four of us present than three.
>> judge, that gives us more time.
we just got the evaluation matrix a couple days ago, and it needs a little bit of work.
and I have some comments so I think a week is good for us too.
and we've been working to get the r.f.q.
tomorrow with tinly.
>> try to have four or five members present so we can --
>> then I will probably bird dog everyone to urge you to have read every sentence.
and to catch the one mistake that we put in there purposely so that you would find it.
>> okay.
we'll have it back to agenda next week and try to have more members present.
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, September 2, 2008 8:37 AM