Travis County Commissioners Court
January 21, 2009
Item 6
6. Approve modification no. 2 to contract no. Ps000169mq -- ever green solutions llc for compensation analysis services.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, martin brice, assistant purchasing agent. The contract that we are modifying with -- with evergreen solutions, this provides compensation analysis for various county departments. This modification number 2 will increase the contract by $24,500 and it -- excuse me, it modifies the scope or amends the scope to include a compensation analysis for the information technology job family.
>> I have some -- I'm sorry. Linda?
>> in addition to its broader than the i.t. Project. It also includes creating and taking a look at some of the compensation issue that's have been raise on the fy '09 budget process. The services of this particular consultant will focus on structure, infrastructure, allow compensation system, assist and provide staff support. And really addressing many of the issues that will be -- we'll be bringing forward back to you on the 29th in a work session I think it will be. It's dual, not just the it job family.
>> because of the -- because of the additional scope of -- of services, being added to -- to this particular vendor, this is -- this merits the increase. If I'm understanding that correctly.
>> yes, also, you might remember that this particular firm worked with us on the market study for the non-tcso comps. With that there was a leftover item related to the i.t. Project out of last year that they will -- they weren't contracted to do that work, but there was a continuation of the task that they had been charged to do.
>> is there a not to exceed amount specified? That with the modification itself would be adequate enough to make sure that amount is not exceeded under the terms?
>> excuse me. The total -- the total cost of the contract now is 37,400 not to exceed that --
>> okay. That is not to exceed amount. Okay, all right. That's what I needed to know. All right. Thanks.
>> I had a couple of questions in the larger context of the interest in the compensation committee being formed to look at our structures. Let me backtrack for a moment, on the deliverable time tables and fees for number one, just to clarify this examination of this job family is a holdover from our third year of the previous cycle?
>> yes, it is. What had happened that is the department had requested that we examine the opportunities for creating a career ladder structure, career ladder they expected would minimize the loss of -- of extensive skills and experiences. To o other employers in the area. That was the leftover project from last year, the left over tasks related to i.t.
>> so in terms of the -- of the deliverable time tables in number 2 under the strategic compensation assessment and design, that goes to our next cycle?
>> absolutely does. When you say cycle, Commissioner, I want to clarify because I think there was some discussion a few weeks ago about what exactly is this particular service for. It's not for the actual analysis in in the cycle that's we are accustomed to bring the results in. H.r. Staff continues to do that work. What's happening with the compensation can he is that the direction that we received in the budget process was really focused on where do we go from here. Input structures, market studies, how are they funded what are the recommendations for alternatives. What we have found as a staff is the broader exposure and experiences of this particular firm because they work with so many public sector entities around compensation strategy philosophy and all of that, that had he wanted to continue that relationship to access those services. So -- so what we're doing now, in fact I just received this morning some information that prepares us even further to come forward on the 29th in a work session to bring your issues back so that you can dissect those and give us direction on how you want to proceed with the infrastructure of compensation.
>> well, I want to echo your sentiments regarding evergreen, our past experience with them was very good, deliverables were excellent, really, really useful to me. I'm excited about avague ourselves of their expertise further.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] so in -- in -- in -- perhaps this is -- this is sort of an intro into what we will further discuss on the 29th. Is it your vision that this consulting relationship would be a help mate to the compensation committee?
>> oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Would it be possible, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, this might actually be a very useful thing. Would it be possible that the consultants might report a different recommendation from the compensation committee, say, on base pay structure?
>> it's possible that they could because I think that's a part of the reason that we want to access those services to see what's going out and what's happening in the broader market. So it is possible. That the recommendations could differ.
>> as we get further into this this with our work session on the 29th, martin this is a question perhaps to you with regard to the structure of the contract, would there be -- if we tweak this some in regard to more specifics and how-- how the consultant works with the compensation committee as it gets -- gets -- if a compensation committee is approved, gets up and running, if we get more specifics that we want to add to the contract would that be an issue?
>> no, ma'am. It shouldn't be. What I will have to do is review the scope of work of the existing contract to see what all it entails versus what we have added by modification. If it doesn't seem to cover what the court's desires are we can always go back and negotiate additional services if necessary. The first objective would be to try to cover everything that you all desire with this current modification to see if the -- if the vendor would be willing to do those services for us.
>> certainly. The last thing that I want to do is create a slippery slope opening up this contract where we keep adding stuff. But it does seem that we might want to refine the scope of services in regard to number 2 a little further.
>> we would work with -- with linda and her group to determine do we in fact have covered in the contract modification everything that you guys want covered as far as working with the compensation committee and if it's determined that we don't, then we can also go back to the contractor at that time.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> so when we see the -- when we see these dates on the next to the last page, what should we think? Specifically one that's we have already --
>> passed.
>> passed.
>> > this has been in progress.
>> ongoing.
>> we have learned that purchasing and the auditor are reluctant to pay for services that were provided before the -- before the executed contract.
>> well, the contract is already in place. The contract is currently in place. Basically what this modification is doing is adding these services at the -- at the price listed. In my opinion, I don't think we would have a problem if the court approves it. Would pay for these services.
>> but what I want to hear is that we will get new dates on --
>> we can adjust it.
>> okay. So when do we invite the afsme representatives to provide input?
>> that invitation, it's my understanding, is has been extended. Alicia may be able to respond to that.
>> my recommendation is that if we are going to get input from them, we will be able to get it before the work session.
>> yes, sir. Talked to greg last week and we have been playing telephone tag, so we promised that we would get together this week.
>> in regard to that, I believe that I sent y'all a draft of sort of noodlings around about that compensation committee. There's been talk about agendizing that, frankly this agenda item took me by surprise when I read the part 2 of it because it does so obviously inform that discussion. But what I would like to see, if we could before the 29th, is -- is at least a preliminary discussion of -- of -- of how a compensation committee would be developed and who would be on it. And what the charge might be so that we can better inform this contract and fully utilize their expertise because they clearly have a great deal to offer in -- in both developing that compensation committee and making it really sing.
>> but we have been working with them on just that task. And just yesterday we -- we completed it was about -- I think it will be the third draft of the charge and the committee structure. We discussed different methods to -- to get to the point that you are talking about and we talked about -- about distributing it to the court and then meeting with the court individually. We need to touch base with the county attorney on how we do that because we're not getting a vote from you, we're trying to get direction. From you. On some of the issues on the comp committee. And then -- then we plan to -- to have a discussion again in a work session on a Thursday to try to refine it and get it ready for approval. On consecutive Tuesday --
>> for deliberations or --
>> on Thursday we expect the 29th we would discuss it and solidify the -- the charge and the membership. Then we would bring it back since Thursdays you are not voting sessions, we would bring it back on a Tuesday for you to actually vote and appoint the members. But we will get you the document prior to that. And talk to the county attorney about the possibility of discussing visiting with each of you should you get -- to discuss the document as opposed to -- to, you know, getting a vote from you. The wording of this item implies that we are approving a specific modification today.
>> yes, sir.
>> these attachments need to be updated.
>> adjusted.
>> so do we need to -- to approve a -- a final --
>> I think what we can do is approve a modification, we should be able to work with the vendor to adjust these dates if that's the concern of the courts, if just the dates. We should be able to adjust those. Little to no --
>> what we are approving then are -- are sort of basic scope of service.
>> right.
>> and compensation.
>> yes, sir, that's the major portion of the modification.
>> all right. Then.
>> adjusted scope and compensation.
>> the source of funding would be what salary savings and hrmd.
>> yes.
>> any other questions? The -- the work session will be a lot more productive if we respond to specific recommendations. Or options if you have -- if you don't have a specific recommendation. On the membership, we may as well see that and I can't recall, we may have made commitments during the budget process, I'm visualizing several individuals who -- who seem to have done a whole lot of work and were informed and -- and interested. May as well have them on the committee. Tonya --
>> tonya mills.
>> cfo.
>> and debbie.
>> yes.
>> ms. Rich.
>> what we have done is as opposed to for example tonya mills and debbie. Two from tcso, do you really want to do that?
>> no, we were discussing the actual constituent members -- we weren't -- we were saying those are people who have very robust interest as we move toward this January 29th work session, we should certainly get their input to make it the most robust discussion as we can.
>> of course it came through afsme as well, working with them on that issue.
>> > what we have done is just put departments and included afsme.
>> we have to add other interested parties.
>> I would suggest that we might also want to add a -- a citizen task pair who is not a member of our workforce.
>> I would request that -- that the court review the -- the draft in terms of -- of the number of members, 32 member committee would be a little large. Looking more at 15, 16 people.
>> I think even that perhaps is too large. We should look at job families, rather than a representative from each department.
>> if you look at job families, you have how many job families?
>> I would say about 10 or 12.
>> 10 or 12 job families. So that may be a way to -- to do it. We will cut it that way, too.
>> and to also consider ex-officio members that frankly shouldn't have a vote on our -- recommendations. Those committee's recommendations, but should certainly have a voice in the discussion of the committee.
>> I would say maybe at least two citizens, you know, you were suggesting Commissioner maybe one taxpayer, but I would think maybe a couple of taxpayers. Would balance it better.
>> I am advised we may have gotten beyond our posted item. My only point was we will get a whole lot more done if there are specific recommendations. I would rather start with a committee too large and reduce that than one too small and try to build on it in a work session. Your advice is that we've said enough.
>> [laughter] any more discussion of the specific motion before us on this item?
>> move approval.
>> just for the record this goes specifically to the bullet --
>> we didn't have a motion. Seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all.
>> thank you.
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, January 21, 2009 2:03 PM