Travis County Commissioners Court
May 19, 2009,
Item 33
Now, the one that you had started discussing, number 33.
33.
consider and take appropriate action on approval of scope of services and issuance of request for qualifications no.
q090166jt, architectural and engineering consulting services for a planning study for a new Travis County medical examiner's office.
you were saying that we previously decided to do the study and we budgeted $75,000.
>> well, you never decided to do the study.
you basically approved the funding of 75,000 for the study.
believe me -- am I correct?
so you have not officially approved the study.
you approved the funding for the study.
>> we approved a study, though, right if.
>> yes.
>> are you suggesting this court would have budgeted $75,000 aimlessly?
>> no, sir, I am not
>> [laughter]
>> then we're together.
>> yes, sir.
>> [laughter]
>> was that earmarked or was that in the medical examiner's -- budget?
>> that was --
>> [inaudible - no mic] facilities budget that was budgeted prior to writing a detailed scope.
that was --
>> but I thought we had decided we need to do a study.
>> yes, we did.
>> we thought at that time that $75,000 would cover the cost.
>> yes, sir, that was the proposed cost for just the planning consultant's fee.
that did not include site technical studies for technical investigation, detailed site survey or environmental assessment report.
the current budget estimate for our planning phase work before you now does include those.
that -- that amounts to 40,000 of the $150,000 that we're recommending be budgeted for the planning phase for the medical examiner.
the other 110,000 of the current 150 is what we have escalated the consultant's fee from the 75,000 that's partly due to the length of time and also due to increase in the consultant scope as the complexity of this study has increased.
>> do we need to know a specific site before we approve the -- the study described in item 33?
>> well -- one of my comments is that we said that we will provide the -- the consultant the site at the time that he begins the services.
so if -- if we think that it's going to take three months to go through this process, which is another thing that I need to discuss with you, I guess the question is can we have a site picked out in three months when we get this contract signed.
and ready to go.
so -- so that's one of the -- that we are going to look at a site.
if we look -- if we ask for more than one site, if we are undecided them our budget will probably need to be increased.
so we really do need to have a site before we sign the contract.
we can go through the process, go through negotiations, but we really need a site decided when we sign this contract.
>> won't that be predicated on what the community is saying?
i mean the input from the community?
it's 13 proposed sites here that we are looking at.
>> I thought that y'all were way -- I'm way behind.
i thought you all were way ahead of me.
>> no, no,.
>> narrowed down.
>> what I'm trying to say, I don't think we ought to narrow anything down until we figure out what the folks are saying about it.
>> that was my question.
if we need a specific site, to hand the consultant to performance the services in item 33, we are looking at giving ourselves I would guess at least six to eight weeks, maybe six to 12.
so we have gotten -- we have not gotten, we have not issued the r.f.q.
so for the medical examiner's office, if we do that so we will have a specific site when we delay action on 33, wouldn't we delay action on 33?
>> if it will take three months to do the process, do we need to delay action?
could we run them in tandem?
>> I guess what cyd is saying is unless we give the consultant one site, we are leakily to see additional services and additional charges.
>> can you all decide on a site in three months, is that long enough for public notice, public input and that we could go ahead and put the r.f.q.
out, do all of the work that we need to do and in three months you all have a site and then we sign the contract and we are ready to go.
>> and it may not be the site that we have here now.
>> right.
>> in other words, those 13 sites I don't know who came up with that.
>> we didn't name the site --
>> well, somebody did.
somebody came up with them, I don't know who did it.
>> actually, how we came up with it, Commissioner, was first of all you gave us instruction to go look at county sites, that's the list came up with of course the county sites, we went and looked at those.
then you gave us direction after we looked at the county sites to go beyond that and actually look at non-county sites.
>> county meaning county owned.
>> county owned.
>> property.
>> then we -- we leslie can give you the breakout of that but basically there was a lot of properties that they worked with their broker.
we went and looked at those sites, that's how it came about.
>> what I was saying basically, going through the process, these sites might not, may or may not we don't really know.
but there may be something in addition to what we're talking about here.
we don't want to close that door.
>> that is correct, Commissioner Davis, alicia perez, executive manager of operations.
in 2007 we looked at about 28 sites.
both county and non-county owned.
that we did at the direction of the Commissioners court.
we came back and narrowed those sites down to -- to the -- leslie, 13?
>> I would say -- narrowed it down to 10.
>> 10.
>> 10.
>> okay.
so -- so we narrowed it down to 16 sites.
>> that's right.
>> what -- what we thought we would do in discussing and planning for this is that we would run simultaneous processes.
go ahead and put the r.f.q.
out because the r.f.q has other things that the court needs to decide, service area that will help you then decide the size of the being building.
as you had requested we put together an outline of what the community input would be, we would like to go ahead and start that at the springdale site with that particular community and get their input.
and if indeed if that input is not favorable, then we move on to the next tight which I think is manor road.
or we go back to the drawing board and say okay what properties are available now and get more direction from the court.
if we do not have a site by the time that we are to negotiate with the consultant, then that can be delayed.
but at least it gives us three months window to -- to work with your office, Commissioner Davis, and working with the neighborhoods out there like we did on star flight and commence that process.
>> so the consultant needs the site to perform the full scope of services?
or does the consultant need a specific site to do the other work?
>> I'll defer to leslie.
or roger for the timing of when they start actually doing site analysis work.
>> while you are thinking of that answer, can we do the contract in such a way that we make it clear that we're in the middle of a site selection process, and that at some point a specific site will be available.
but until that point the work that pertains to a specific site has to be delayed.
>> yes, judge, I think we can coordinate that.
i'm sure we can coordinate that.
>> otherwise it seems to me we ought to delay action on the contract until we have a specific site.
but if we can get things started, by working on the many things that we have to do regardless of where the location is, can you see what I'm saying?
we my want somebody to go ahead and start working on that the public will expedite it.
>> operational piece of it.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> needs analysis.
>> yeah.
this also helps, judge, Commissioner Davis you and I discussed this in your office, this also would enable me doing the first piece, including the financial piece, looking at service area, cost, some of the costs have to do of course with the site.
but also enables me to begin at the same time that we're talking to the neighborhoods, I also will be talking with our partners and those outside counties.
because I need to go ahead and start approaching them in regards to what we're doing, so that they can also be prepared in their timing of their budget and their timing of their future analysis of what they are going to be doing down the road matches ours.
there will be many things going on at the same time, many communications going on at the same time.
so it really would be helpful in the first part of the study if we could start looking and reviewing some of those areas with the court.
>> okay.
the proposed contract does not address the issues that we're discussing today.
>> doesn't at all.
>> what issues?
>> if we hire a consultant, we want the consultant to do -- provide the services unrelated to the particular site.
>> correct.
>> and there are site analysis work, the location, the topographic drainage, all of those things that is part of it.
but I think what I'm hearing is that the planning piece can be done, operational piece and review can be done and then once a site is decided we tell them, then they do the work like, you know, with the soils consist of, all of those things that they have to know which site they are looking at, drainage, sursay.
>> this proposed contract does not bifurcate the work like that.
>> we can --
>> I think the project managers can manage that.
>> we can phase the work.
you can do the operation and needs analyses first --
>> not like phase one and phase two.
>> do we need a document that says that so we can see it and know what we are approving.
if you can take advantage of two or three months by doing work that has to be done anyway, I guess we may as well do it.
>> the scope of work could be modified to show clear phasing between the operations and needs analysis portion of this study and the site analysis portion of the study.
and indicate there might be separate directions to proceed based on
>> [multiple voices]
>> but the point is that the document that we have before us today doesn't do that.
and I would like to see just exactly what, if you have a needs analysis all of this stuff it should say just that.
but right now it doesn't do that.
>> I think we need a document that --
>> to tell us exactly what we're doing here.
i'm not going to --
>> > it's a matter of reorganizing --
>> it is.
>> it's all there.
it talks
>> [multiple voices] operational aspect, then it gets to the actual specific site like what's the soil made of.
it's there.
it's just not -- it was anticipated that we would have a site when -- when we got this far.
>> is it problematic to separate it out to reorganize the document?
>> no.
no, we can do that.
>> I -- I think --
>> can we do it by next Tuesday or do you need more time?
>> I think that it's just cut and pasting basically, isn't it?
>> just talking about inserting a couple of headings?
>> I think that it's easy.
>> you all are going to make me say I'll see you at 3:00.
>> leslie and everyone put a lot of work into this document.
we started this process back in November of '07.
one of the things that I need to point out so it's clear to the public, is that back in '07 the Commissioners court approved that we exempt this from formal competition, which means that we will only send it to -- we decided three firms at that time.
>> if we do a $150,000 contract, we don't want to be as cavalier as we were two years ago, do we?
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> go ahead.
>> I'm sorry.
it's going to be $110.
>> 110,000.
>> $110,000.
the other 40 is going to be contracted separately with the individual firms.
like geotechnical the survey and the environmental assessment.
>> there are firms that specifically do medical centers, so it's very specialized type of -- of a and e work.
that's why you made that decision two years ago, very special, it was a very good decision that you made two years ago because those are specialized firmsment I just need to remind of you that and make that clear to the public that we were doing that informal process and sending it to three of the firms --
>> if you have time why wouldn't we compete it.
>> that's your call, judge.
>> make sure that those three that we have in mind know about this opportunity.
>> that is the court's, that's why I told you about this.
>> I would feel a lot better doing that.
>> see you all next week.
we'll have this --
>> next week.
>> beg your pardon.
>> not me.
sorry.
>> we will see your document.
>> yes, sir.
>>
>> [laughter] you will be here in spirit.
is that okay?
let's see how it is in a week, if we can proceed we will, if not -- we waited a few years, a few more months probably won't kill us.
thank you all 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, May 19, 2009 2:00 PM