Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 18, 2011,
Item 13
>> what item are you here on?
>> thirteen.
>> thirteen.
do we have back-up yet?
>> I don't believe -- 13.
approve contract award for construction project management services, lower level, 1st and 2nd floors of the Travis County administrative building, 70
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
late Friday afternoon I sent the -- a back-up on this item.
we are still trying to work out a few of the terms and conditions.
they are minor.
they have to do with some of our standards terms and conditions but we are still tweaking them.
we would like to ask the court to let us move forward to finalizing those clauses and either come back this afternoon or just authorize the judge to sign the contract.
we have been trying to get this negotiated for several weeks.
we think we are there.
the contract fee is a little bit under 4% of our construction cost.
the fee is $423,625.
with that fee and that schedule, that gets the Commissioner's court, the Commissioner's room moved into our new building in August of 2012.
so it's up to you, whether y'all want to trust us to finalize these terms and conditions or if you want to wait another week.
it's just -- time is money.
>> there is also another -- I am benny hobby and executive manager of emergency services.
I think it's going to be fairly easy for us to work out the 5.1, 5.3.
there is also, on the schedule itself, there is also -- as we have discussed with the subcommittee last week, there were some court approvals that we had gone through initially and there is one more that we want to look at as well, to make sure this is on an extension of time, that we met -- that needs to come to court, I don't know if it is a big deal but judge it could be smarter or to come back this afternoon and try to work the items out so when you actually have a recommendation from us, then it's solid.
>> also, it will give me an opportunity to read the back-up.
it came on late Friday from you, sid?
>> yes.
>> or richard?
I think I was in richard's office.
>> but I am prepared also to walk through the service agreement with you on the high points, Commissioner, so that everybody understands kind of where we are going with this, and complies with what your recommendation was initially in regards to the consultant.
>> I would like to suggest we bring it this afternoon and give the Commissioner time to look at it.
>> and see it myself.
>> and not seeing it in the email, so will have to clear this item.
>> we will call it up -- the last item in today's meetings, and that will be this afternoon, I think.
>> thank you, judge.
>> and who is supposed to give the update on the 32?
mr. Harlo is listening.
if you would head this bay, we would appreciate it.
we can start our discussion on three items. Which one are you here on?
>> thirty-one.
>> all right.
so anybody -- are you on 31?
>> yes.
>> let's call it up, then.
What number is that item?
>> 13, judge.
>> number 13, and 13 is to approve contract award for construction project management services lower level first and second floors of the Travis County administrative building, 700 lavaca to hs and a.
>> I talked a little bit about this this morning and it was in a motion.
these services are for project management 700 lavaca for the lower level first and second floors.
it's through the predesigns through closeout and move-in.
there's four different phases.
the total amount of the contract now after we negotiated is $423,652.
and the services are broke out in four phases, predesign, which will last about three and a half months.
the design phase will last about seven months.
the third phase, construction, will last about 7.4 months and then closeout is about 1.1 months.
I think we figure that's 18.8 months, which is about a year and seven months.
they did -- were able to work on the schedule and we've clarified that.
there were a couple of clauses in the contract that we worked on and we've got it all worked out.
so I think we're ready for court approval or questions.
>> atom looking at the amount.
how did we arrive at that -- whafts the methodology, I guess?
>> the way mr. Stawch and them did their cost proposal to us is based on the amount of time.
so what they did is they broke it down -- it's not in the contract, but we broke out his time and peement in his office working on it.
I think dave's time is about 10 percent.
there's one gentleman, bill mccain, who will be working with ken on a day-to-day basis.
he has more time in it.
and they take their number of hours and they multiply it by their hourly rate.
they add their overhead and profit and that's how they come up with their fee.
it's all time driven.
when we started out we were under this amount, but we did not have those court dates, so as we edit those court dates we added about three and a half months.
and that's what we talked to the subcommittee about could we take out a couple of those dates because that got the time frame back to the year and seven months.
so it's time driven based on number of hours and their fee.
>> Commissioner Huber and I have been serving as the subcommittee of the court and what we've recommended was that on some of those issues for which court input was necessary, then the consultants should chat with individual members of the court.
and if a court member believed that the matter should be brought to the court as a whole, we would do that.
kind of like, you know, from my office if there are design questions about how my office would go, I guess as long as I don't add to the cost, they would kind of defer to me.
the same as other members of the court.
I wouldn't think that we would care that much about it.
but if there's something a little bit more involved than that.
for example, I guess maybe the size or configuration of the courtroom, then the court as a whole should provide input on that.
but if it looked like we were all saying the same in individual meetings, then thrbled no reason to delay that and bring it to court.
that was the realization resulted from the realization that any time you bring it to court you lose certain number of days because of the requirement that it be posted in advance and so --
>> which translates into money.
>> yeah.
and adds to the schedule and cost.
so the other thing is that on some items for which court input is required, we can have like a standing agenda item during the period so we'll know that it's coming up and be able to streamline things that way.
so that's what that was about.
we did have that discussion.
>> we tried to make this schedule as sufficient as we could to keep the cost down.
>> we did that before and it did work.
and if you -- if it's on the agenda and you don't need it, you simply indicate at the beginning of the meeting that you don't need it.
any other --
>> judge and Commissioners, there's a few things that I mention this had morning that I want to make sure that everyone is aware of.
and that is the scope of work is very detailed.
and if you look at section 6 you will see that this particular project is real dependent upon people working together and coordinating together, and I think that's one of the things that you emphasize as we went forward with this, and that is between facilities, between roger and ken and between the consultant staff it's going to take a lot of coordination because of how everything is going to benr arrauz far=nrc$@&c @&c"xeiekp real well.
we look forward to the relationship because as they're successful, we're successful.
you'll also see in the negotiations that there were some things of which we decided that we would do in-house that we negotiated with the consultants, so we'll be doing some of the ff and e.
that lowered some of the costs.
we wish to go ahead and -- I think that's one reason why we have pbo here is that even though we gave you the dollar amount for the consultant, we wish to take the difference between that savings, which amounts to about $60,000, and we wish to place it in sceang.
one of the things that I was nervous about is that we have a schedule, pricing schedule, but we have zero for contingency.
and for a project this size I think it's important that we have a little bit of funding in there so I'm not having to come back immediately and ask for funding because with projects like this you're going to have some change orders, you will have some things that are going to be adjusted.
so we would like to go ahead and -- diane, don'ts you have the dollar amount that we would do that?
we would like to add that to the overall transfer so that we understand that there's a fee for consultant, but also a contingency that we would have for the project?
>> okay.
so we're transferring from the -- from that large line item an amount to cover this contract and you're suggesting that we transfer the $63,000 into a contingency?
>> I don't remember what the exact dollar amount is.
>> $485,000.
>> and there is adequate savings from some of the previously sold co's for the 700 project.
>> and we achieved this increment by taking on ff and e even though we don't have an ff and e coordinator?
although you've asked several times for this court to provide you an ff and e coordinator and we've always said no, so I'm not flagging you for a thing.
>> on the ff and e, that facility management will take on is only the second floor only.
not the first floor or the basement.
that's what was decided during the negotiation.
so only because it's offices and we can handle it.
>> so you're in support of the recommendation?
>> yes, sir.
>> regarding contingency?
>> yes, sir.
>> the other thing I wanted to mention was in regards to 11.9 and that is there was a well written dispute in appeals process, and in fact the court is involved in it as well, but we're hoping -- we're confident that we can get everything done at the lowest level, which is the highest level when it comes to the work.
and then it will actually come up if it needs to.
so again, I'm proud of the fact that we have a detailed scope of work that allows the consultant to do their job and it also allows the coordination that needs to take place in regards to the other floors as well as the -- your particular floors.
there was one other thing that I think I'm through in regards to -- you'll see my name mentioned throughout this document, or my designee.
and I look forward to working with this project.
it's already been enjoyable to work with cyd and all the staff and this consultant and his team.
I just feel like there's a real positive attitude about going forward and so I look forward to this.
but there is one thing that actually saved us some time in the schedule.
we wanted to highlight that real quick for you because it's significant, I think.
it will come back to you.
roger, did you want to mention that?
>> the schedule that's here right now is about 19, 20 months, is based on construction management of this delivery method.
so that's what the consultant is going to be working with us on to deliver this kind of a method to this renovation first, second and basement.
if that does not work, right there that will be adding to the schedule two more months.
I want to let the court know about that.
we'll go back to the conventional where we should design, bid build.
I'm sorry.
>> I believe, didn't I hear that hsa had volunteered their time to work with legal on the construction documents and not charging for that process?
>> uh-huh.
>> I just want to say since we had the opportunity, exphit to meet with y'all, I want to thank facilities management and purchasing and mr. Hobby for the team that you've already begun to build to work on this.
I feel real good about what y'all are pulling together.
I guess you too rodney.
>> [ laughter ]
>> intently.
>> intently.
the whole crew.
I move approval.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
any discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank y'all very much.
also thank you for your patience in getting this done for us today.
>> thank you.
>> that does it for the court.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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, January, 2011 2:47 PM
