Travis County Commissioners Court
December 9, 2008
Item 24
24. Consider and take appropriate action regarding the scope of the rfp for the new financial accounting system, also known as the "befit project".
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> Travis County auditor. We're going to have probably numerous agenda items as we move along this very long journey of a new erp, which is the new buzz word for enterprise resource planning, that focusing around the financial accounting system and we have been here on numerous things before. This is just another step in the process. Let me make clear this is not an approval of the r.f.p. The r.f.p. Is in process. We expect that will be done near the end of June, early July, around that time frame and then we would bring that back to you and at that point the court really needs to determine whether or not they are willing to fund it. Because if we issue an r.f.p. And as, you know, after we evaluate it, we determine that you don't want to fund it, it would be very difficult to get vendors to bid on it again. So I just wanted you to know this is not the vote on the r.f.p., this is the vote on the scope. Because we are a very decentralized organization, there are many players into the financial system. The key core is the general ledger. And that system, everything else kind of hooks on. The business processes start out as small as you want them, start feeding into the general ledger. The system will never be stronger than the general ledger. If we get really strong parts out here and the general ledger is week, the system will be weak. So it is really the central point of the general ledger and therefore has a significant importance in terms of a system. So what we have done is -- is given you really an option of which you prefer. And that is do you prefer that we have an enterprise resource integrated system, understanding that the general ledger is at the core of that, therefore our office will have a very strong voice in the picking of that. Or would you prefer a more decentralized fragmented system, however each player would solely pick their own -- their own system? We have talked significantly with the county treasurer and the county purchasing agent, they prefer an integrated system under option 1. So that is their choice. What -- what is left outside of those -- that elected and appointed official are really those modules that report to people that you control and that is h.r. In the budget office. So in the backup that we provided you, there is a list on the very last page of -- of really kind of the modules and how they fit and who owns them. So the -- the first ones are basically the accounting types of things. The auditor. Then you can see the purchasing agent and the treasurer. Right in the middle of that are those functions that really belong to the Commissioners court or are shared. We put project accounting on there as shared because many people have a -- kind of an interest in -- in that. So -- so what would happen is if you vote on option 1, it would be an integrated erp system and we suspect that there is some functions one would be budget preparation and secondly is the actual preparation of the cafr that many vendors have a third party they want to do that. We would expect that. It's kind of astounding to me in a major financial system those two elements wouldn't be a core part of it, but apparently people's desires and needs are so different that it doesn't suit their purposes. So we would consider that -- that there would be separate solutions for that. Or option 2 would be that we would go with, I would call a modified e.r.p., all of the functions of the auditor, the purchasing agent and the treasurer go out for bid, get that done, get that up, and once that's running and we know what that platform is, stage 2 would be to bring up the other modules that you all control an then connect those. Joe harlow has joined us here as the i.t.s. Person, he'll be for the basic -- we'll within running as you know the actual application. But the support and everything of the system itself excuse me is i.t. So this is christina adara on my right who is the project manager for our office. And to my left is mike wickern, who basically christina reports to and will be the interface between accounting and -- and the systems part in our office. So we will be happy to answer any questions that you have on this.
>> so the three departments that you mentioned, treasurer, purchasing, hrmd, for option number 1.
>> the treasurer and purchasing and our office. It is my impression, judge, I mean, at the last steering committee meeting, it was very -- because we had put this back up together earlier, put tentatively we think that. But both the purchasing agent and the treasurer said no, put that in there, we want to go with phase 1. It is my belief that -- that hrmd and the budgeting office feels the same. But the hrmd director and the p.b.o. Manager did not attend that last meeting. So it's my impression in previous conversations that -- is what they prefer. But I don't want to speak for them, where the other two gave a very clear and joe it's obviously one of the players in this as well, he can speak for himself.
>> I would like to just add one thing, that -- that, you know, from the long term costs and support standpoint, if it's not -- if you don't look at it as an integrated system up front and by a system that -- that already has that integration as part of their architecture, and then we try to -- try to retrofit other applications for other departments into that environment, that's going to increase our maintenance costs and it's going to take a lot longer to -- to implement as well. But it will definitely increase the long-term maintain costs.
>> it's going to look more like facts.
>> yeah.
>> yeah.
>> there's a reason we ought to do it.
>> [laughter]
>> that statement was in support of option 1.
>> that's correct.
>> okay. Any other questions or comments? So you are looking for feedback from us on -- on whether we prefer option one or two?
>> yes, because that will -- that will define the scope of the r.f.p. That's going forward. It will either be a modified like -- you know, our modules purchasing treasurer or it will be the full blown package, including hr budgeting and any subsidiary functions that might be picked up as we're going along. You know, there's a lot of -- of just anticipating because we haven't picked a system. We don't really know and they are different. So -- so you know many things are in play and as you know, with -- with making any big decision, there will be tradeoffs in that -- in that pick. As to what things are strongest, what can we live with, what are the costs, what is the impact on others? I mean as we're going along and get better information, and if we think that you need to take a vote on it, we're going to bring that to you so that you are in the loop as we're going along. Then in -- an executive committee has been put together, here's linda, an executive committee has been put together and we have been meeting monthly, but we've just had two monthly meetings, which include joe, me, christina, mike attend that meeting as well as diana, linda, alicia, dolores, cyd, john hilly from the county attorney's office and the judge to really look at not kind of technical issues but overriding things, this kind of issue was brought up there and the judge thought we ought to bring it to the court and take a vote and I agree with that.
>> well, I would like to hear what linda is saying.
>> I just warranted to mention -- wanted to mention when I announced I had a scheduled conflict and I couldn't attend the last meeting I wasn't aware that h.r. Needed to weigh in. As susan mentioned h.r. Does prefer the integrated system and think that -- would give us the most benefit of what we're trying to achieve.
>> I move that we go with option 1.
>> second.
>> for the reasons stated. I guess better and easier integration for affordability, maintenance-wise, long term --
>> was either one of these particular options -- have either one of these particular options being before us, does that have any impact on the schedule as far as coming to completion with the benefit delivery system? Would it -- would it --
>> [multiple voices] impact one way or the other
>> [multiple voices] pardon me?
>> Commissioner Davis asked us for -- for a new implementation schedule. I handed one out to all of you as well, cautioned to you to call it attentive at best. As we're getting more information, that is impacted. What we need to do is part of it depends on the selection of the system how we bring it up. We do know from the r.f.i. That we issued, almost everyone recommend that's payroll come up on January 1. The calendar year because of the tax implication of the payroll. The other thing that we contemplate, Commissioners, that there will be a dramatic change in the chart of accounts. So mapping back and forth will be complicated. It would be our desire to bring most of these modules up before the end of the fiscal year because the end of the fiscal year is just the very busiest time for our department and many of the others anyway. But we're trying to assess once we start actually seeing demos in that -- what kind of -- how difficult it will be to map the chart because of course at the end of that year we still need to produce a cafer, we need to pull account information. So I think that -- that phase 2 would definitely be a longer implementation because phase 1 would come up first, then you would go out for a separate r.f.p. For h.r. And budgeting. So that definitely would be longer. I think the efficiencies of everything favors option 1 in that group involved has been very cooperative in a -- in a county-wide spirit of what we need to accomplish. The departments like our payroll office, we're very close to h.r. All the time. Back and forth. Our disbursement auditing works very closely with purchasing all the time. It's not as though these are unique relationships that have never been there before and now we have to forge them. The rest of us worked with the budget office we do the -- of course estimating revenue and everything. It isn't as if these are odd fellows.
>> the reason why I'm posing the questions I do not to repeat situation that's haven't been favorable as far as I'm concerned with things that we have done as far as some of these systems that we have brought on board and they haven't met schedule. This is why I brought these points up. The scheduling of these things, is there is -- if there is some reason during this process that -- that schedule dates will not be in grasp, in reach, I think there ought to be justifiable reasons to tell us why. Slippage is something that we have been dealing with and at the end of the day it costs us more because we come up short on target dates that we -- that we say we can meet this particular scheduled time. So victim concerned about that and -- I'm very concerned about that, I just don't want a repeat performance of things that just haven't really been able to digest of things that have happened in the past. So I'm very cautiously looking at this and I would like for the schedule, if this is a schedule that have been accepted by the parties involved, something that we can live with, and understand, there are situations where -- where some things just can't be met because of circumstances. But they have -- that does not mean they have to be justifiable circumstances. So I'm just laying that out today so everyone understands where -- what I'm going to be looking at as far as future support of this particular endeavor. And I just think that's more than fair.
>> as far as the implementation schedulings, until we actually know what system we're going to, you know, let the expertise of the vendor that we're picking, the experts of their system come up with a finalized implementation schedule that we all can live with. So the implementation schedule is not set in stone.
>> still ballpark. We are looking at ballpark scheduling here. That is the schedule.
>> yes.
>> implementation phase, all of these other things I understand all of that. But there is something ballpark we are looking for at the end of the road, a journey, there's a date and time we want to be concluded with this matter. That's what I'm talking about.
>> all right. In our time frame bringing up a financial system are really tricky. There are times when absolutely there are not the resources to bring it up.
>> I understand.
>> so we are -- we're with ya.
>> [multiple voices]
>> I underlined justifiable. Say Commissioner -- I can live with that. But some of these things is -- we'll get there when we get there.
>> some of the things that we will also -- that are unknowns, we're going to be getting into that. For instance one of the things in terms of just plain where do you sit, in order for us to hire the backfills, we need our systems people to move over to us. Facilities has done everything they can to make that happen January 1 and we can't get a permit from the city of Austin yet so run the t 1 line. So we're probably going to be four to six months -- six weeks behind. I'm guessing, just because we're sitting there waiting to dig a trench.
>> I understand.
>> so those are things that are going to happen that we're going to have to -- to deal with. The other thing is I contemplate again christina is right. Once we start seeing and looking at systems, there will I think be many policies we're going to want to look at that you will be very much involved in. Some of those move quickly, some do not. Exactly.
>> that's something that's hard to define. But I'm with ya on that. I mean --
>> suzanne, thank you and your staff. You have been very open to questions that I have and thanks so much, that helps me a lot.
>> thank you.
>> was there a second?
>> yes.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you all very much.
>> that you very much. That was option 1.
>> thank you very much.
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, December 9, 2008 3:10 PM