Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 17, 2010,
Item 18
18, we have the right people here? Review and discuss copy of services for architectural and engineering services for new travis county administration billing at 700 lavaca street and give direction on how to proceed toward issuance of a request for qualifications, and we have a number already, r.f.q. Number c 100247 rv. That's in the event we proceed in that direction.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners. Cyd grimes, purchasing agent.
>> good morning, cyd.
>> right. We came to y'all back in -- we had this item on back in june and we had a scope of services. Did not have our standard r.f.q. Document which also can includes the standard contract. We've been working on that. There were minor, minor changes made to the scope of services that fm had prepared originally. There was discussion or there was a sentence in the scope of work that talked about the architect of record, and then the f.m. Would be the executive architect of record. We've taken that out because, you know, by the rules architect of the record is the engineer who does the drawing and they are the ones supposed to stamp them. So that's been changed. The r.f.q. Document, and i want to apologize that y'all are getting this late. I know one of the reasons we worded it today was discuss and review, not take any action because we knew y'all would need another week to digest and make decisions. But what we have before you today is the -- our standard r.f.q. Document, which includes a scope of work and a scope of work, as you know, is for the work on the first and second floors which will be our new administration building, the new commissioners courtroom, this room. The media piece, the treasurer's office, we'll have some hoteling suites for the county attorney's office and some of the other executive managers and offices that have to come and spend tuesdays with us so they will have a nice space. And -- so basically this r.f.q. Will go out to hire an architect or engineer to come in and do the design work on those first and second floors for us. As you know, we have hired partners to do some of the infrastructure work and they are getting us some of the fire safety specs so we can bid that out. And then also we will be rebidding our job order contracts so that we will be using those contracts to do some of the buildouts. Some of the complexities of renovating this building we are a landowner and we do have tenants and they will be rolling out of the building over time. It's not going to be, you know, some of the leases i think are for another 10 years. So we're going to have tenants in there. So there's some complexities in this renovation. There's people in the building. And then we, of course, are trying to move folks in. We're also trying to do all that in concert with our master plan that's been going on with broadus and associates which when they began the project we did not have that building. We think the build ing is a great thing and helps ease a lot of issues, parking and space. So we're before you today to answer questions and give you another week to ask more questions, and tinley, who is our attorney on this, won't be back anyway until next week to review it. But it's a pretty standard document and there's not many changes in the document. So --
>> i guess as far as scope of services, any way possible -- we got that information late yesterday and -- yesterday evening. Of course, we try to get things in in a timely manner, and, of course, so we can be able to digest things thoroughly. Any way possible if there are changes -- an example like this one, scope of services, we looked at that and, of course, not knowing exactly what the difference is and this one and the other one, if there is any changes or additions to anything especially when you look at those -- some of those big documents, any way you can indicate some type of shape, form or fashion that these are where the changes actually are instead of actually having to go and review a lot of things that, you know, that's already -- was already a part of the existence earlier?
>> i'm true that f.m. Could produce the changes they made to the scope. I don't believe that there were any major changes except taking out the reference to the architect of record.
>> so that would be the only one?
>> let jim and his staff talk towards that.
>> and i guess from my point of view, not knowing exactly which one is, in other words, you have to kind of compare -- make comparisons and things like that, if there was any way possible to indicate directly where these things are, it would help my staff out and help me a lot.
>> we can provide that.
>> can you do that in the future? It really would speed up the process and we go exactly with a bullseye on that every time, and it really would help out, i think.
>> if we can get all of you that, commissioner, and again, the bigger piece of this, i believe the scope of work is only about -- i don't know, 10, 16 pages. The bulk of the document is our -- you know, all of our processes and our draft contract, which is pretty standard. So i don't -- there really weren't any changes in those documents except mirroring -- because we used -- like i believe the last time we used this boiler plate was for precinct 1 when we hired a&e so we had to change that wording and take precinct 1 out and put this one in.
>> exactly. So i --
>> we can get you the changes. F.m. Can send you the legislative changes.
>> it would really help my staff and i out tremendously if we could get it in that type of format. Thank you.
>> so cyd, when you compare this document and say you've just changed the architectural record language, so you are compare ing this document to what document?
>> the one that was presented in june that we brought to court in june. You all postponed the item. And so it's -- it's that june rendition. Jim, can you go through what other changes you know were made?
>> they were pretty minor ones. In some of the clarification of some of the scoping items. I'd have to itemize those for you.
>> you will be able to do that between now and friday at noon?
>> yes.
>> commissioner huber.
>> it's been, what, roughly six weeks since we had this on the agenda, and i was the one that sought some outside comment on the scope of services. I only yesterday got back from facilities management their comments on my comments. I haven't even had a chance to completing digest them, but i do know that i disagree with some of the things that i saw in there. So for that reason i'd like some more time. The other thing, and i understand we're just discussing it today, but the attachment with the construction manager at risk, the cmar and the design bid build, dbb summary, i had the opportunity to very quickly float that by an outside professional who strongly disagrees with some of the assessments and i have to question since we've not done any cmar in house whether we don't need to get some additional objective assessment of the process. Which also i would like to see include the possibility of using an external project management -- project manager. I think we've assessed the pros and cons of doing that because i think we need objectivity and balance particularly since our facilities management department is doing construction on 315 and there is a need to coordinate between the two. I worry that we have a tendency perhaps from the day of not fully understanding real estate projects and putting too many demands on our -- and expectations on our internal department. The project management skills, for example, that would be required for this project are quite unique. Facilities management has never renovated a 15-story class a office building with existing tenants as a department. Perhaps some of our project managers have. I personally would like to see who in facilities management proposed this project management on this and what their qualifications and references would be on a build offing of this nature. I think this is a very high profile building that we have, it's our county seat for the rest of my life time, and we want to be sure and do it right. So i would like to see that from our internal folks. If we were going to put this out to bid for project manager, we would require that of them. The scope of services, i have a couple of questions on. I will have more because i haven't had the opportunity to look at it in detail, but one of the comments was made where i had asked about the tunnel and air quality permit for that, did you find out whether or not one is indeed in place and if not do we need one?
>> i don't believe we need one, commissioner.
>> well, that's not what i was told from the outside, so believe, i would like that confirmed. Another question i had, are the common areas on floors 1 and 2 and the basement atrium area that penetrates 1 and 2 part of the scope of services ?for the a&e.
>> it would be but there's not likely to be any work in that area. The work that will be going on in that area is work that we're already engaged in and that's the installation of sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems.
>> well, i think we should consider continuity of design. There may not be any major construction work, but they are an integral part of the two floors from a visual standpoint. So to me i think that's something that should be considered as at least incorporated from a design standpoint.
>> well, let me clarify. That entire -- the entire first and second floors are part of the scope of services for this ae that we're soliciting. But we don't anticipate that there will be any design work in those. Now, it's conceivable that they could propose something and if so that would be part of their scope.
>> but the basement floor where you enter from the tunnel is indeed part that the atrium level above that is part of floors 1 and 2 as well, correct? So shouldn't that not be in consideration from just an aesthetic design standpoint in its connectivity to the rest of the floors?
>> well, it's going to be part of the overall building project, and if -- you know, i don't think it needs to be part of the scope of the first and second floor.
>> so if the other -- the a&e part that's scope as it is, they are looking to put a paint color in that area that may not be in keeping with what facilities might propose for the atrium area, to me that's a potential conflict.
>> well, it would be a coordination. You know, we're going to be managing that contract, and it will be a coordinated effort and so that if a different paint color or finishes changes are made, that can certainly be included as an addendum to the contract.
>> i'd like to have further discussion on that before next week. I think that we need to be sure that the way we're scoping this out that it's coordinated effectively for the presence that the county would like to create on the first and second floors. I would also like to request an executive session on legal for next week on this subject. And the other thing i'd like, it's in the category of not pushing our folks beyond their limits is that i know that fmd has an all lost on its plate and we've got the smart building and the renovations of the chair king for hhs, renovations at the jail. I would like to see a list of the active construction projects that fmd has on its plate and assignment of f.t.e.s towards that. It's just that it's so important for us to stay on track, on budget with minimal conflicts and problems and delays that i think we need to look carefully at the allocation of our resources on this. So that's my comments.
>> so how many months, weeks or days do we need to be ready for our discussion and action? You can't get all this done in one week, or can you?
>> i think we can, judge. We've been working on this for months. I think we're all ready to --
>> i don't know if we've been working on it for a month or whether we delayed action for a month. There is a difference. And i don't know that the questions have gotten easier or the decision we must make. But i'm of the opinion we should go ahead and land on it and proceed in one direction. Now, when will roger be back?
>> roger will be back with us next week, sir.
>> next tuesday.
>> my gut reaction tells me to take two weeks and be ready. And any questions that court members have, they should try to get to facilities, i'd say within the next two to three days. And let me try to get the important questions on that list. We've kind of been skirting a very important one. The fundamental question really. That will be number one on my list. What i'm looking for will be a statement for pros and cons one way or the other. And it kind of boils down to as to floors 1 and 2 who really manages the professional that comes in and do the work. Right? The other thing would be the facilities ability to complete all of the work on its plate and add this. Now, on facilities plate would be floors 3 through 15, which it's a lot of work, but --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> i wish i could think we would be ready in a week --
>> what does it do for our time frame of moving into the building and doing the necessary -- it pushes us back two weeks, yeah?
>> we have things going on now. We have to get the mep finalized, but we do need to make a decision because if you hire a project manager outside of the county, then that person will be managing all. So we really do need to make this decision in two weeks whether we're going to do it in-house or hire someone to help us. Once they have that trigger then we can give you a better estimate of how much time it will take.
>> we have made the decision to get outside professional stins on floors 1 and 2. We did not make the decision on who would manage that professional -- those professionals' work. And it seems to me that's where we kind of broke down last time. And it seems to me that we need to resurrect that issue early on and go ahead and address it. And -- but i think that in order to really make an informed decision, there are some other questions that we need to get answered. And if we commit to doing that, then we can put that -- that r.f.p. In final shape, get it on the road and then there will be work we can do while we're making our responses.
>> okay. So we will get you the red line scope of services that commissioner davis asked for. We'll get everyone a copy of the questions and answers that were posed by commissioner huber to review. And then you've asked for all the current projects that fmd is doing and their work load, and a qualification statement of who at fm -- if we go in-house -- will be the project manager. That's my understanding.
>> now, we're able to come up with i guess the minutes of that -- was that in june when wee decided on floors one and two? Why don't we come up with the minutes of that meeting to see exactly what motion was made and approved by the court, and that would be a good starting place. We may well want to review that decision. But there is -- there is still another decision as important as that one regarding management. Management of the professional work on floors 1 and 2. I feel a whole lot better about this already.
>> [ laughter ] two weeks, we do have two weeks. But i think if we go ahead and make the final decision then --
>> judge, would it be appropriate and in order, i don't know, for me to be able to circulate any external pros and cons i get regarding opinions on project management to the court and staff?
>> that's fine with me. We would just need to know who it comes from.
>> sure. I can do that.
>> even if they come from the judge.
>> [ laughter ]
>> we could put you in charge, judge.
>> nope.
>> [ laughter ]
>> nope?
>> [ laughter ] all right. August 31st.
>> thank you.
>> now, we did tell some of our outside consultants that we would call up the (indiscernible) item at 10:30.
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, August 17, 2010, 2010 2:30 PM
