Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 9, 2010,
Item 28
Let's call up 28 first, consider and take appropriate action regarding county property at 700 lavaca.
a, the use of external or internal project management for the project in whole or part.
b, scope of services for architectural and engineering services.
and c, directions on how to proceed toward issuance of a request for qualifications, number q 100247 rv, and selection process.
and I understand that our resident has travel plans, so let's give him an opportunity to come in first.
>> william allensworth.
where would you prefer I address you all?
>> if you have a seat and speak into that microphone, we'll pick up each and every word.
>> yes, sir, we met, judge, 25, 30 years in dallas when you were practicing with --
>> I didn't think either one of us was that old.
>> we had a case together, I believe, 30 years ago.
>> okay.
Commissioners, my name is william allensworth, the professor of construction law at u.t.
law school.
I知 a lawyer here in town and this is --
>> they are going to tell you to talk into the mic.
>> thanks.
I知 a lawyer here in town.
I teach at u.t.
law school.
I知 a construction lawyer and I teach construction law, construction litigation, and I think I know a fair amount about the process.
I was talking with Commissioner Huber and suggested to her that this project that you all are taking on at 700 lavaca is complicated, there's just layers of complications with this.
we've got a bunch of law firms upstairs in c 2s that are going to be complaining about any construction going on.
I think there may be talk about restaurant or something downstairs.
it's a complicated -- this is a complicated issue for anybody.
my question for the Commissioners court is whether this is one that's really appropriate for the skill sets that would be over at facilities or whoever with the county is going to be doing it.
and I confess I don't know much about this project, but if ever there was one that struck me as being more appropriate for the private sector, and I do not have a dog in this hunt, but that this is on the design side, on the project management side, on the scope of the r.f.p.
and who you are trying to get inside, and that there is a huge different between trying to put together a greenfield facility, when I say greenfield, where you are working on a raw piece of land, as opposed to inside a structure like this.
and you may end up having to pay a private firm one or two percent to be a program manager or an owner's rep to help you put together a design team and I think you might find that to be money pretty well spent.
this project, on a remodeling like that -- like this, with people in the structure, with building the -- I知 not sure how old that thing is, must be be 40 years old, systems that nobody has taken a serious look at possibly in a long time, and my plea is for the private sector to be doing this rather than trying to do this in-house, and I think you may find that would be a
>> [indiscernible].
respectfully submitted.
>> thank you very much.
any questions?
thank you very much.
we appreciate your visiting with us.
good to see you again.
>> thank you so much.
safe travels.
>> now, two weeks ago we did give a new backup that was based on meetings that staff and I had had, some of those meeting with outside folk.
then meetings that we had with county staff.
and was one of you about to lay that out?
>> judge, I wasn't involved in all those meetings so I will let tinley lay it out.
>> yeah, I had presented a do you want that was distributed with the rest of the court backup, and it was item 31 two weeks ago.
and basically it just recapped a series of meetings that representatives of various departments including the first purchasing agent, marvin bryce, myself, tin le.
y aldridge with the assistant county attorney, that held with some private entities entis about how to approach this -- this project and the management of the project.
and this document that was -- that was distributed basically recapped it.
it's not in -- it doesn't represent the he -- an advocacy of my office or the purchasing office.
it simply sums up what was discussed, issues that were raised, and because the court is not of one mind on how to approach the project, a proposed compromise that -- that the participants in these meetings believe may, in fact, push this project forward.
and the proposed compromise -- do you want me to lay that out?
or do you want to -- take it from here.
>> quickly.
>> okay, sorry.
>> you were doing such a good job.
>> the compromise would include engagement of an outside project manager to manage the design and construction of the basement and floors one to two and only those floors.
our internal staff would be the primary project manager on the remaining renovation work to be done over a course of years, some immediately, some -- some in a couple years as tenants leave the building and the renovations that have to take place in the tower.
we would continue to use the existing property management company as the primary liaison with tenants to minimize distractions, disruptions of business as usual.
and issues that can arise during this very complicated, well, in some views very complicated project.
drafting a scope of services, which would be the job of our office, so that the chain of command is very clearly set out and that any outside consultants would know who to turn to, who to consult, who to meet with, who to coordinate activities with, who in our facilities department should -- should approach when there are issues that inside project managers encounter.
there was discussed, the judge had proposed that our own facilities management department be -- was required to submit a proposal on management of the project and the individuals and entities with whom we met were pretty much of one mind that that was not a sound idea for many reasons.
so the idea would be to exclude facilities or not require them to submit a proposal.
and the benefits being to foster cooperation, communication, controlling the budget expectations, the project schedule, et cetera.
that was the --
>> emphasize that's not an advocacy that our office is making, that's just a summary of the recommendations provided by the groups that were met with.
>> that's correct.
it's not an advocacy of -- by our office or purchasing or -- it's simply a recap.
and a proposal to move forward.
>> and I think there's -- I saw something that said that we would encourage the two -- two sides to work together, keeping in mind that the taxpayers of Travis County are the ones that we're looking out for.
this is an external service, it's not so much internal, it's got to be for the external customers.
and -- but is that -- is that still part of the backup?
>> it really is, and what I did yesterday was there was -- we did not address specifically dispute resolution, so yesterday I sent out four bullets, and what those bullets say basically is that if we follow the compromise, then the external project manager and internal facilities management department are expected to work together cooperatively, collaboratively.
the project manager would really be given responsibility for the basement, first and second floors, but would work with facilities management.
and in a document yesterday, if the external project manager and facilities management have a disagreement that they cannot resolve -- first they would try to resolve the disagreement.
if they cannot resolve the disagreement, then it would be brought to Commissioner Huber and me.
we have served as a subcommittee of the court on this project for several months now.
I think both of us have forgotten it.
but the purpose is to enable us to make a decision expeditiously rather than having to post an item on the agenda for full court consideration.
if, however, Commissioner Huber and I are not able to resolve it with the project manager and facilities, then we would put it on the court's agenda.
the other thing is if we make decisions of a significant nature, we ought to put it on the court's agenda for ratification as soon as possible anyway.
this is really what that document says.
and, you know, one problem that we've had historicry is that if you are a construction contractor and you are trying to get directions from the court, we have to post the item, give advanced notice, then on a Tuesday discuss it and, you know, we've got a one-week courtesy, all they we typically try to work as expeditiously as possible.
the other thing is that in the compromise there is language regarding management, supervision, et cetera.
our goal really is for the project manager and facilities to work together on the basement, one and two, and so we would tweak the language to make that clear.
working together on the basement, one and two.
the other thing is that facilities has already started working on floors 3 through 15, so we would expect them to continue that work.
and at the appropriate time if they think there is work for the project manager to do on those floors, then those requests would be brought to the Commissioners court for action.
>> okay.
>> now, to be honest, you know, what we did last time made sense on paper, but the more we talked with people who possess a lot more expertise than I in the field, it seemed that it would be better to do another way.
and what they were saying was they kind of doubted our ability to get an internal response to an r.f.p.
and fairly evaluate it.
and to be honest, you know, when you start talking about price, their conclusion was that internal facilities would have a distinct advantage there.
you know, it's a big project.
there's a whole lot of work ton done there, and, you know, if we can pull off the cooperative, collaborative working relationship that we, you know, should get, then I think long term we would be better off.
>> I agree with everything that you've said and I think it's down a good road to take.
the only thing is, I guess the only reason that it seems to be an unusual step to take to require internal and external bids is that it's just not part of our culture to do that.
but I think if you start out wanting to do that sort of thing, I think it's also a check on the internal folks by the public to see how well are you performing, how well are you using the resources that have been made available to you, and -- and I think there would be some good measures that would follow.
so it just would make us more transparent and -- but I think it would be a good step to take in the future.
>> well, the other thing is if we do this approach, there would be a way for us to informally compete to select a project manager, right, cyd?
>> yes, sir.
>> which would put us in a position to make the decision faster and give us an opportunity to informally community indicate with proposers; whereas, you know, the formal communication sometimes does not allow, you know, the full discussion that we want.
>> yeah, I知 not sure I知 following, judge.
normally when we do a competitive process, we -- it's a very formal process.
we advertise, have to meet certain requirements on some of these, you could exempt them from the formal process if you wanted some other process followed.
you know, we had talked about exempting this project manager because we're looking at three to five months before we can get them on board most likely.
we've got to develop the scope of work, so I guess part of me would say if we are in a hurry, we should exempt it from competition, do an informal process, or if you all aren't in hurry, then we go through the formal process which will take us three to five months probably to get someone on board.
>> I like the compromise plan.
>> by exempting?
>> no, the compromise plan of having the -- that the judge laid out.
>> but that's just in -- once we have a contract.
that's not getting to us a contract.
>> you are saying that if we went to an informal process on the r.f.p.
for the design for floors 2 and below --
>> for the project management.
>> for the project management.
>> if you want to exempt it from a formal process you can do that.
you can authorize me to go out and look in the community and find who y'all might think is most qualified and we can just shorten the process.
it takes the formality out of it.
have an evaluation committee, having all these things, you could do that.
that gets us faster down the road.
>> I think we ought to have a selection committee.
>> you do want to be a competitive process where we put out a formal request for services and go through our normal process.
>> I think we can do it informally, just not with one person doing it, with a group, with a small committee.
>> right.
okay.
>> I don't want to be on that committee but I think we ought to have three, four, five people.
>> so we want to exempt it from formal competition and do an informal process with a small evaluation committee.
>> but what would be the time difference as opposed to the normal process in contrast to doing it on the -- on the shorten end.
>> probably two weeks.
actually maybe a month.
>> about a month?
>> yeah.
yeah, the difference the probably a month.
>> okay, month as opposed to six months or nine-month type situation.
>> our workload, I just have to tell the court our plates are full.
the county attorney's and all of us.
so we'll do it as quick as we can once you all give us direction on what you want us to do, we'll do it as quick as we can.
do the informal process, we'll save town.
>> so for clarification purposes, we're looking for an external project manager to work with our internal staff.
>> y.
>> for the completion.
okay.
>> and then the other issue for us is --
>> project manager though will focus on basement, one and two.
>> right.
and coordinate with facilities' internal project manage other the rest of the construction that's going on because we're doing a lot of construction.
as you should know, we've already hired engineers to do the sprinkler system and fire improvements, and we've already contracted to start that work.
that work is in progress.
we've been working on just other things in the building, so there's a lot of other issues.
last week the court authorized transferring money from the arra grant over 700 lavaca, that's going to create another layer of complexity.
whoever we hire will have to coordinate with facilities management who will be managing those other construction projects that are going on.
>> can we do this -- we will have a whole lot of backup.
>> yes.
>> I understand exactly what proposal is before us and I think we all do.
but it may help us next week, though, to bring back a clean version that everybody can look at.
put everything else aside.
but in the meantime, we can go ahead and start putting together the informal process.
>> we can do that.
>> right?
>> right.
>> as well as give some thought to who should serve on this small committee.
and it would be the people at the county who would put news the best position to make the best decision.
>> I値l bring that back.
>> right.
and then anybody that has questions about what it is we're doing today, if you get those questions to us, we'll try to answer them next week.
but this direction is what we are hopefully approving today.
does that make sense?
>> yeah, just a little clarification for next week, are you asking we come up with a scope of services for the outside project management contract?
>> that we have a clean version of what the compromise is.
2, that we have as close as we can get to a scope of services.
so if we could complete that, fine.
>> and suggested evaluation committee.
>> right.
>> judge, I知 just wondering, just to interject here, when we're looking at evaluation committee and perhaps scope of services, if it wouldn't be a good idea to identify one external individual in the construction community that really understands these projects that could -- I mean because it is a new kind of project for us, to sit on the committee.
and I don't have anyone particularly in mind, but I think that expertise would be useful to the process.
>> yeah, if we can identify such a person who --
>> disinterested party.
>> disinterested party.
>> makes sense to me.
mr. Allensworth has a huge hourly fee.
>> [laughter]
>> judge, I値l help you out on this thing.
I don't know whether -- I知 not sure -- this is very
>> [inaudible] we'll see how long the thing is.
like I say, you have a complicated deal and there's a lot of parts.
>> we'll communicate with you, okay?
>> yes, sir.
>> 29 next Tuesday.
cyd?
>> I only have one other thing, judge, and it is in your dispute resolution.
you and Commissioner Huber are sort of taking my part, my role.
standard operating procedure is that if facilities department and a contractor or any department and the contractor have issues, the first thing is they try to work it out with the department.
if they can't, the contract says that they come to the purchasing agent.
we try to resolve it.
and we have a pretty good track record of resolving a lot of issues before we ever bring them to you, but there's a lot of things we don't bring to you so I would recommend you don't delete the purchasing agent.
hopefully that will keep a lot of things away from you all making decisions.
just on contractual disputes.
on design and those sort of things, you all will be totally involved.
>> agree with cyd.
>> give us a two sentence description of the jurisdiction that would include you.
>> okay.
that's it.
and there's a lot of --
>> if you want the whole deal, we'll figure out a way to work that in.
>> okay.
>> but I知 just thinking there's a world of possibilities, and the language is intentionally broad was the goal here.
so --
>> I just wanted to --
>> okay.
we can get all this done by next Tuesday.
do we need a vote on this direction?
>> probably.
>> I move approval.
>> make a motion.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
and this basically is for us to bring this back next Tuesday, have a good look at hopefully a document that clearly sets forth everything so we'll know exactly what we've done and we'll have precise minutes to refer to in the future.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> just I -- I知 going to be a team player on this and go with this.
I do have concerns about direct report to the court on this.
I have concerns because by design it's a five-headed beast.
we don't have many of the assets that are common to good management for a project of this complexity and time frame.
just by design, we cannot be speedy, flexible, decisive, consistent and with clear lines of communication.
so I知 willing to go with this, but I think we've got to be really mindful that we are not fast, decisive, consistent and have one clear line of communication since there's five of us.
so with fmd and this project manager for floors 2 and below, having a direct report to us in any instance of disagreement, I just want to be mindful that we're going to have to work mightly to mitigate the fact we're not fast, consistent or have a clear line of communication.
there are five of us.
and if something goes south, it will be very difficult for us to exert -- what's the word I知 looking for?
it will be difficult for us to have a level of discipline over these two -- these two, frankly, competing shops on this single project.
I just want to be mindful of that and lay that out there, that there will be conflict, and if we don't figure out to handle it speedily and with consistency, this -- this court is not ideally suited to be a project manager, which is essentially what we're doing in this compromise.
>> I知 hoping we stop short of that.
cyd already volunteered to be that speedy revolver as well if we need her.
>> I have similar concerns, but my concern was that this is another department that has no leadership as far as an executive manager.
this department did have an executive manager at one time, but however this department has been void of an executive manager, which I think where the rule or the line of authority actually rests from that position downward.
so I知 still concerned about that.
not that I don't want to support this, that I知 not going to support it, but I知 going to keep echoing the same thing, we need to fill that executive manager's slot otherwise we have a lot of loose heads without a leg.
>> we have another week to mull over this and if there is language that will give us a better chance of success, then we ought to consider it next week.
any other discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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, November 9, 2010 11:00 PM
