Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 16, 2010,
Item 15
15 is consider and take appropriate action at property at 700 lavaca.
a, approve order exempting the purchase of project management services.
b, discuss and provide direction regarding the procurement, and c, other relate issues.
>> good afternoon, cyd grimes, county purchasing agent.
as you recall, last week we discussed project management and how we were going to handle that.
roger and his team will be handling the design and project management of the floors 3 through 15 along with all the other miscellaneous work that we have going on such as the fire alarm and springer will, the new fish measures we transferred over from the grant, so facilities will be manning all of that.
the discussion last week is the court wanted to hire an outside project manager to manage the design or oversee the design and construction of the basement, first and second floors.
last -- well, actually yesterday I sent all of you an email making request that allow us to negotiate directly with h.s.a.
h.s.a.
worked with us back in 1999 on the criminal justice project.
dave stouch, the principal, is uniquely qualified to provide these services to us.
he is very familiar with county procedures, all of us, staff and our official protocol.
I believe that this recommendation will save us at least three to four months.
if you -- few approve this action, roger and I and whoever would go and negotiate with mr. Stouch and then bring back to you a contract.
hopefully we could have this done either prior to thanksgiving or right after thanksgiving.
so that is -- that is our hope.
one of the things that if you allow this and h.s.a., we can negotiate a successful contract, one of the first things they would do is sit down with all of us, sort of get caught up on where we are on the project, what all facilities has going on and develop a work plan, a schedule and budget for the basement, first and second floors in coordination, of course, with f.m.
and other words they've got going on.
the other thing we would ask them to immediately do is to review that r.f.q.
that facilities drafted for us to hire the architect and do the design work for the basement, your new Commissioners courtroom and the offices.
so we would want him to review all of that immediately and work with us and f.m.
to get that issued as soon as possible and hopefully at the beginning of next year we would have an architect on design and they could be working on the courtroom, which is one of the other main critical paths.
we'll need to identify funds for this contract and I do not have an estimated cost, but in summary, just given where we are, the huge workload that we all have, I think that this would be a prudent step for us to take.
and so I’m asking the court to authorize the purchasing agent to negotiate directly with dave stouch of h.s.a.
and allow me to come back to you with a contract for approval.
>> I move approval of exempting contract for these services and moving forward.
>> so when you say negotiate a contracted with h.s.a., you really mean you and the facilities department.
>> yes.
>> and ten would represent the county attorney's office, the three of you all basically.
but the key point and the motion is to exempt this from competition, goo in, try to put the contract in plays with h.s.a.
as the project manager.
right?
>> yes.
>> miss precinct 2 Commissioner?
>> yes.
>> discussion of that motion?
>> what was the motion?
I stepped out a minute.
>> it's to exempt the selection of the project manager, negotiate the team of cyd, roger and tenly to negotiate directly with h.s.a., dave stouch, to be honest, to try to put a -- negotiating a fee more than anything else.
and there are a couple of other things we need to do in separate motions, but that's this motion.
>> okay, I just wanted to get it.
thank you.
>> any more discussion of that?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
there are a couple little things -- well, I talked with roger about them and Commissioner Huber and I put our heads together on the compromise document that tenley sent.
what I handed a minute ago was wording changes, one of them we discussed last week where we had outside p.m.
to report directly to facilities management.
we would change to outside project manager to work directly with the facilities manager, facilities management director.
the other change in that language that is three or four lines is intended to indicate that for the scope of services for project management, the facilities management department, purchasing department and the county attorney to prepare a draft scope of services and work with the project manager to prepare a final version.
so part of salary negotiations will be negotiating really scope of services for the project manager.
>> yes, sir.
>> right?
any issues with any of those?
then I move approval of those two changes.
>> judge, I apologize, that language that you are referring to, can I get a copy of that?
did that come from the county attorney's office?
>> what came from the county attorney's office is what I just changed, those two changes.
>> I need a copy.
>> now, the other thing that -- there's a little chart that was circulated.
>> yes, sir.
>> the 700 lavaca project organizational chart.
got the
>> [indiscernible] on one side and the -- does the whole court have that?
>> it's on the back of the agenda.
>> the only part I’m having a hard time understanding is the purchasing and county attorney being between the Commissioners court and the project manager and facilities.
>> you remember last week we talked about, y'all talked about forming a subcommittee to handle disputes and I told you that in our normal operating procedure how it normally works or always works is if the department has a contract dispute, they try to work it out with the contractor.
if they can't settle the dispute, it comes to the purchasing office.
and 99.9% of the times we work through those disputes and it never comes to Commissioners court.
and because this is one of those projects that has to move quickly, we would like to continue that.
now, those are for any kind of conflicts.
there are certain things that will certainly come back to Commissioners court, the design that is proposed from the a.n.e.
and those type issues.
so some things will come back for your approval, space, budgets, that sort of thing.
but this has to do with if there is some sort of a conflict between s.n.
and the outside project manager, we would be involved first.
>> this is just a graphic depiction of what we do on almost any contract, the boiler plate that if a contractor has a dispute they have to make it to purchasing and you all have to try to work it out before it comes to Commissioners court.
>> correct.
but it's our standard operating procedure.
>> but your explanation is this is for disputes.
>> yes.
>> and if you look at it, it would appear to cover everything.
may we should just put disputes under 700 lavaca project organizational chart, for disputes.
does that capture what you have in mind?
because I don't think I have a problem with it, but I do have a problem with just this being organizational structure for this project in general.
because what we discussed last week was if there is a problem between facilities and the project manager, they will try to iron those out.
failing to do so, they would come to a subcommittee of the Commissioners court made up of Commissioner Huber and Sam Biscoe.
and I have no problem bringing in legal at that point, especially on disputes, but what about a whole lot of other stuff?
I mean, if say they disagree on how high the dias should be, I don't know that --
>> you don't want me to decide that, judge?
>> [laughter] those kind of issues are design issues.
it deals with your space and those would certainly come to y'all for resolution and actually probably a vote on space.
>> we're hoping to get most of those resolved without coming to the Commissioners court.
>> that's my -- that's my --
>> we lose three days when he do that.
>> well, more than three days.
so that was my purpose in putting those back in there.
so hopefully we can handle anything within our purview to handle and anything that can't be resolved at our level would come to you.
and, of course, you would have certain approvals on what the space looks like, materials, budget, schedules, that sort of thing.
>>
>> [inaudible] with the subcommittee?
>> I think when we come back to it with salary and other information we bring the chart back.
and that will give us a chance to discuss it outside the court and spend whatever time we need to on it.
>> perhaps there should just be a separate organizational chart with regard to disputes.
because I see where you are trying to go with the quotation mark contract administration on one side and disputes in quotation marks on the other.
and I hear what you are saying about it being confusing as head of the organizational chart when we can probably come up with a better graphic.
>> roger and I visited this morning and I think I’ll let roger speak for himself, but I think he agrees with this process and he and I are committed to making it work.
>> we are assuming that a reasonable and appropriate contract can be negotiated.
>> yes.
>> if that is not possible, the sooner that's realized and the court notified, the better because then we will have to decide another course of action.
>> correct.
>> anything else on this item?
>> what if we
>> [inaudible] on your last motion.
>> we voted on the first one.
we didn't vote on the second one.
>> that was just for two changes.
then I move approval of those two changes.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote with Commissioner Davis temporarily off the dais.
>> judge, I believe you did approve a excelling the purchase.
>> yes.
>> we eagerly anticipate y'all's report back to us.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> miss porter, does that get us to executive session?
>> don't we have the --
>> do we want to do that without -- I guess we don't need mr. Eckstein here to do that.
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 16, 2010 3:20 PM
