Travis County Commissioners Court
March 23, 2010,
Item 10
>> number 10 is to consider and take appropriate action regarded to contracts related to vendors under the ara weatherize ation grants pursuant to joint solicitation of the city of Austin and Travis County as follows, a, authorize the purchasing agent to complete the solicitation process and select eligible vendors to be awarded contracts for, one, slc 0031, test-in audit services.
two, slc 0032, weatherize ation services, and three, slc 0033, text-out audit services.
b, authorize the purchasing agent to finize contract forms for the above services with approval by health and human services and veterans services, the county auditor and the county attorney, and c, authorize the purchasing agent to sign those contracts.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioner, marvin bryce, assistance purchasing agent.
judge, as you said, this is a joint solicitation between the stipand Travis County--city of Austin and Travis County for the american recovery and investment act funded weather ization program.
we have three different services take will be performed.
currently the proposal issued on the 19th and closed on the 16th.
the city of Austin as well as Travis County are in the process of evaluating responses.
we have ten viable contracts for test in, test for test out, nine for weather ization service.
we are evaluating the responses as well as looking at hub participation.
>> you brought up a good point.
all your points are good but that one kind of struck me ear especially as it comes to hud participation.
my question is how will we be able to monitor hud participation.
whether enwe came --when we came back before the court a little bit ago I asked that question sparse making sure --as far as making sure we had that participation lex, not only --level, not onli availability of the prime, there may be some persons that need some job skills when these contracts are let out for the weatherization program.
my question goes took what I asked, that is how can we track hud participation and reflect that to make sure that we have adequate hud participation in these projects?
how is it going to be handled?
>> yes, sir, Commissioner Davis, we are using our standard hud program procedures, which as you know is based on good faith effort.
we have documentation as far as what is required to ensure the hud participation is sufficient or hopefully to our goals.
we have our payment tracking forms and all that.
sylvia lopez is our hub coordinator.
i don't want to speak out of turn as to what she is doing.
>> okay.
>> just with, as we do with all of our contracts, amount of our construction contracts, it is our standard hub program requirement.
not right now at this point, as to the availability or the hub participation, I know we have probably the best effort would be in the weatherization portion where they going actually come in and do the actual work.
we are anticipating I think, sorry, this is jason walker, he is the buyer on this.
we are anticipating these contractors being prime contractors, jason probably subjecting some of this work out.
so--subing some of this work out and we will work with them during the award process and have a meeting to sit down and talk with them and explain the hub program.
sylvia and her staff will help to identify, they will tell us where there are subcontracting opportunities and her staff can help to identify contractors in those particular areas in those particular trades.
>> okay, I just wanted to lay that out a little bit and flush it out and have an opportunity to look at what the participation would be.
>> yes, sir.
>> and the aggressiveness behind the participation.
i'll really concerned about that as you know.
>> I understand, yes, sir, we will stay on top of that.
we will.
>> all right.
>> I'll commit sylvia to that right now.
>> all right.
>> do we have any idea what injection, what this injection of federal dollars will do with regard to the creation of jobs?
that is what it is really designed to do.
it appears that is exactly what it is doing.
>> we are hoping that is what it will do.
as I said, ten for test in, ten for test out.
the testing in is where the contractors will go in and take a look at the home and identify those areas that need to be repaired.
the weatherization contractor will come in and make the repairs and the test out contractors will come in and verify the repairs were done.
we have identified ten for test in and potential ten for test out and nine to do the weatherize ation work.
if we look at ten prime contractors in the test in, ten test out, and nine weatherization, that is 29 potential prime contracts that we'll enter into, then a multitude of subcontracts that could fall under that.
not to mention this is governed by Davis bacon as far as prevailing wages.
>> right.
>> there is a set wage that has been established by the department of labor that individuals working on these projects will have to be paid.
which is typically a little higher than what you would find say just if I opened a business, was paying a laborer maybe $7 an hour.
the department of lay before standards are a little higher than that.
does create opportunities for jobs as well as higher wages.
>> that is a wonderful thing.
>> at some point, though, during the tracking mechanism and after these contracts are let out to the primary and of course they probably suband stuff like that, how will we be able to gather, and think Commissioner Eckhardt brought up another excellent point, how will we be able to gather the information and say, okay, federal government, you sent the stimulus package money and it's to create jobs, already we created some jobs, but how will the public know the number of jobs that have been created after each particular contract is let out and of course they are associated with the sub?
right now they don't know what the primaries are going to do as far as them getting subcontracts.
we don't know, we have no idea that the point.
but somewhere along the line in this process, some won should be able to provide us with some information to say this many jobs have been created.
those kind of figures, I think, we need to know.
i know I would like to know and I'm quite sure everybody on the court would like to know and the public would like to know how much stimulus package money, which we know what that is, but what did it yield as far as job creation.
>> one of the requirements of Davis bacon is that we receive and verify certified payrolls.
that is not only at prime level but also subcontractor level as with me.
right--as well, right, jason?
we will know the number of employees on a job whether for subcontractor or prime level.
>> I understand.
>> another requirement of Davis bacon is for us to do what wecal periodic labor interviews, site visit where jason will go out to the site and take a look at what is going on, request from the supervisor to pull the worker aside and interview him.
if he is hanging drywall, we'll ask him what are you doing.
i'm installing drywall.
what are you being paid.
and we will then document that, come back to the office and verify that in next week's payroll.
so if I have john smith who I interviewed and at the time was hanging drywall, when I receive the certified payroll from that particular contractor, john smith should be listed as drywaller at that prevailing wage.
we are able to track the number of workers through the certified payroll, what they are actually doing whan they are being paid.
and there are requirements.
the court may recall on preuse contracts we have come back to you guys I think a couple of occasions where we had prevailing wage violations in which case there were penalties to be assessed against the contractors.
most importantly, back payments made to the workers.
mrs.
flemming stepped up.
maybe she can expand on this.
>> I wantd to address Commissioner Davis' question.
i think it's important to note that the federal government has found that in retiring the job creation, so what does that exactly mean, it is sort of that balance between how many jobs are retained and how many jobs are created.
so how do we really identify a job retained versus one that is created.
certainly with the economy, many of these contractors who are responding, I'm sure if they were here, would tell you that as the work drize up--dries up, they are looking at what happens to the crews a they employee.
to the extent this work will prevent those folks from losing jobs as well as provide opportunities for folks who may not have been able to break into the industry because of the work drying up, I think that those will be things that we will see happening.
we will see companies being able to maintain in our community at a time when there are few projects and certainly projects that are far between.
but even here with Travis County we have in health and human services, for example, taken positions that have been authorized but unfilled and converted them to positions to support this work.
so at a time when we might have not filled positions, we have filled and/or are seeking to fill somewhere between four to six positions.
i think that may be true in purchasing we filled a position and I think we may be looking toward a position in the auditors office.
those are the kinds of examples of job creation that we can certainly point to.
but I did want to just make you all aware that the federal government has found that tracking that down to the individual person level has been difficult.
>> may be something we can put arms around a little more because of the way things have been set up.
as far as payroll and a bunch of other things, one of the tracking mechanisms.
just would be good to know how some type of numbers are available, retention and creation, two different things, but as far as jobs are concerned.
it would be something that would be I think we could have that we can put our hands on, something tangible to suggest that we have this amount of activity, job creation or retention in this particular case as far as for system lus --stimulus package money that the county received in the weatherize ation program.
that is the number I'm trying to get after.
>> I can tell you Commissioner, I think we will all, including purchasing, auditors office, all of us involved as well as the city of Austin, will be erring on the side of too much data collection versus not enough.
>> exactly.
>> in light of the rules that we have encountered with these funds, we will have more information than you err wanted to know.
>> can I just give a shout out to y'all as well as to the city of Austin as well.
this is an unprecedented circumstance in a joint rfp process between the city of Austin and the county.
so while the public may be hearing all the stuff about data collection and blah blah blah and maybe flipping out a little bit as they hear us, I also want the public to know that this is a joint request for proposal process through the city of Austin and the county, which will create a degree of efficiency and transparency here to forenot experienced.
this is going to be a very efficient plan, very efficient program, a very swift program, and also it is going to safe --save time and money both for the governments as well as the contractors submitting proposals.
this is really a wonderful wonderful thing that we have put together between us and the city.
it's wonderful to get this era money but what is more wonderful is to see this level of innovation and intergovernmental cooperation at the level level.
i want to, a big hats off to y'all.
>> thank you.
>> if I may aid to that the efficiency also translates to our constituents in that if a person fills out an application with the city but turns out that it is best for the county to handle that particular project, we are using a common eligibility form as well.
once unprecedented cooperation.
>> I look forward to exporting this mold beyond --model beyond the era stimulus to other programs.
a wonderful thing happening her.
>> are we ready for any action?
>> yes, sir, we.
>> I thought you were still evaluating the bids.
>> what we are doing, judge, we are in the process of evaluating the bids.
marry etan is con evaluating the bids.
if I'm not mistaken we have to have the first home completed by the 15th.
the reason we asking the court to allow the purchasing agent to sign these contracts is that once we get them in place, she can sign them and we can hit the ground running as opposed to having to come back to court and bring those back.
i might add--
>> the purchasing agent and I had that discussion.
>> okay.
>> we also discussed that these may not be ready for action today.
and they are not right?
>> no.
>> that is why we have also posted a voting session on Thursday.
>> okay.
>> to give us an opportunity two days from now to take this matter up again if it's ready.
>> okay.
>> but my position is is that we need to know a bit more about what the proposals are before we authorize the purchasing agent to sign on behalf of the Commissioners court.
>> okay.
>> so we need to know a bit more about what is proposed, what is good and what is not.
don't we?
seems to me we always do.
with the amount of money involved in this case and the federal government and state government, then I think we ought to be a bit more informed than we right now.
>> I don't know if it makes a difference, judge.
the contracts when awarded will not be funded.
they will be funded on an as-needed basis.
>> right.
>> it's not like there is a monetary value assigned to them.
we are just signing the actual contracts and then as work comes about will fund them at that time.
if you would like for us to bring it back, I'm not certain when we will--
>> I believe the basic content of the contracts will be from the bid process.
>> yes.
>> from the bid document, which was brought to the court.
>> brought to the court there, yesthe content is going to be basically what was set out in the bid document.
>> authorization the issue the solicitation was brought before the court.
>> and the city of Austin.
>> okay.
>> we have seen very little.
>> okay.
>> we have heard, we have gotten briefings from health and human services.
that was my point when I put the item on.
>> okay.
>> but cyd and I anticipated lack of information today.
and I think that is where we ar.
>> right.
>> but it's also posted for action on Thursday, a voting session, if we need it.
>> okay.
>> so my view, we normally wouldn't just authorize signing of a contract that we have not seen.
not only would we normally see it, we normally would execute it ourselves.
authorize the agency to did it is fine with me but we need to see exactly what the document i.
>> we are going have a form document and I believe we are pretty close on that.
we can get you something before Thursday.
>> but we have received how many proposals?
>> we have ten eligible for test in, ten for test out, and nine for weatherization.
>> so will rechoose all of them?
>> we hope to.
>> the rates are the same.
>> yes.
>> everybody--
>> we set the rates.
>> they responded to those rate.
>> yes.
>> the rates will be same.
>> it's a pool of contractors.
marietta said it's all the same rates.
>> okay, I think if you give us an executive summary of what is proposed as soon as possible, giver us a chance the review that by Thursday, it may be that on Thursday we are ready.
>> okay.
>> when I looked at the backup, step--sketchy would be generous.
i need to know more about it.
if we authorize the expenditure of $2 and a half million of federal money for the county and a like amount for the city.
not that I distrust our personnel agent by normally I would be more informed than I am now.
>> I understand.
you need the executive summary, judge.
i don't think the contracts will be ready by Thursday.
>> we will have ra draft that will be very close.
>> okay.
>> I think the one we have now--
>> there's a draft contract.
>> we have the scope of work.
>> okay.
>> the compensation for each unit repaired is set by the federal government.
and so the contractors would have wree re--would have responded to the parameters within the solicitation.
the number of units they complete times maximum of 5500 would be the potential earning possibilities for those contracts.
>> I'm hearing that the information is available.
it's just not in our backup.
>> okay.
>> I'm successing that we --suggesting that we put it in the backup by close of business today or tomorrow morning to give us a day to review and be ready on Thursday.
but we have posted this for voting session at 1:30 Thursday afternoon.
>> yes, sir.
>> we should have the drafts ready by then, maritt is that correct -- marietta?
>> I sent the drafts out zed --yesterday.
>> okay.
>> I would treat it as agenda and that will entails.
>> if the drafts are ready can we bring it back today?
>> I think we will, to get all the attach knowledge together--attachments together, Thursday will be easier.
>> we need a summary of the program also.
if you had been working with this previously, then you know what is in it.
we have not.
we have been briefed, and our brief has been more the state contract is on the way, the state is not doing changes that we want, feds insist on this, that kind of stuff more than anything else.
>> okay.
>> and I think we ought to treat this like any agenda item.
>> I understand.
>> okay.
>> anything else on this item?
>> no.
that is about it, judge.
>> the exact wording is posted for Thursday at 1:30 for voting.
if we are ready then, we can do it.
>> we should have you the back up by then.
>> thank you.
>> all right.
>> thank you y'all.
>> is that okay.
and if we get the backup early enough to review before Thursday we can move on it quickly.
so I'm in the planning --not planning to sit around discussing this Thursday afternoon.
i hope to review it before that and be ready for action when the meeting starts.
>> thanks.
>> thank you all.
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, March 23, 2010 2:53 PM
