Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, February 8, 2011,
Item 9
>> number 9 is to consider and take appropriate action on recommended list of three finalists responding to requests for services for consulting services related to redistricting s 110035-ec, and request to authorize the Travis County purchasing agent to conduct interviews and begin negotiations.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, sid grimes county purchasing agent.
we issued and received six proposals.
we had an evaluation committee with representatives from the intergovernmental relations office, tax assessor's office and county clock.
we also had representatives from legal and its because some of the services will require their assistance or its's particularly.
we evaluated the firms on their proposed deliverables, methodology and their schedule and time lines.
the competitiveness of their proposal, their credentials and experience of their team and the staff assigned to the project.
then their experience performing similar types of work as requested by us.
the firms were ranked.
the top three ranked firms with who we are recommending to begin negotiations with.
the top ranked firm was vicker, the second was training and segment professionals, the third was rolandorio and associates.
the fourth form was votter compliance consulting, fifth was richard rodriguez and fee, and the sixth was knight and partners.
so we would like to begin negotiations with those top ranched three firms. Then bring back to the Commissioners court a recommendation for award.
>> let me ask you this question.
as far as further, you ranked them, what is the need to go into further negotiations?
I mean, you have already ranked them.
>> yes.
>> my point, what else do you need to do?
because what we end up doing in the past, I think we interviewed those folks.
>> yes.
>> so I don't want you to, in my opinion, get in the way of why we need to interview people and stuff like that.
I mean, I think y'all have done a great job.
I don't see anything wrong with what you have done as far as you looked at the money, looked at all the evaluation criteria, looked at experience and all those four criteria, actually, and have come back with your determination as far as how they listed as far as--
>> correct.
the one thing--
>> hold on.
what we have done in the past as I can recall, and I may be wrong.
I知 wrong sometimes.
and I admit I知 wrong sometimes.
and folks let me know, listen, folks let me know when I知 wrong in a hurry, in a heart beat.
but I think we have talked to those folks before in the past, if I can remember.
>> yes.
>> is that correct?
anybody up here remember that?
>> I believe that is what we have done.
>> pardon me?
>> that is what we have doneyeah we --
>> yeah, we have talked to them.
I hear what you are saying as far as coming back with financial recommendation.
I知 here to--final recommendation.
I知 here to say I壇 like to interview some folks.
>> I do to.
I壇 like to interview the top three firms.
>> well, when we did this process, my memory like yours, Commissioner Davis, we had a lot going on, I believe what we did, we did bring, I think, the top three firms in.
we had a meeting.
it was of course posted because members of the court, I don't think it was televiced.
it's coming back to you?
the court did interview the top ranched firms and y'all made the final decision.
so that is how we handled it last time.
>> cyd, can you talk to us a little bit, I think there may be a hybrid approach here and I壇 like to hear from you as the purchasing agent what is the advantage of having three firms to negotiate with simultaneousl.
>> well, normally when we do the process, we do the ranching, usually you get a normal break in the scores.
and there was like two and then two and then one, the breakout of the scores.
but what you do at this phase when you take the top three and start negotiating, you have more discussion with them.
I don't know that there has been any discussions with any of the firms as a group.
I think these were just a written quantified scores.
what we would do at the next phase is bring those top ranched firms in and start negotiating, talking to them, formalizing an understanding, getting a feel for the personnel, whether we can work with them or not.
just get a generally feel for who is on the team and whether they mesh with our team and just get a little bit more information than just the written.
it gives you more of a feel.
then once we go through that process, then we ask for our best and final offer on the cost.
so there's a chance in that process to bring everybody's costs down.
then we just come back with the top ranched firm, normally to the court.
the court has some options.
I mean, in these, where the court is working directly with the consultant instead of staff, sometimes the court wants to interview them.
so we have done it several different ways.
standard operating procedure is we do the written, we negotiate with top ranched firms, and we bring y'all a recommendation back.
in some we bring you our breakout and ask you can we start negotiating with these top ranched firms. Then--ranked firms and bring you a recommendation.
it's your pleasure.
on how you want to do this.
certain pres have specific rules but we are going by the rules.
>> it's my understanding that with regard to our negotiations with two firms simultaneously on our electronic auditing system, we ended up being able to both reduce cost and enrich the actual product and scope of services.
>> right.
you gea clear understanding, everybody understands each other.
right now they see what is written in our document.
we see what their written answers are.
but it's just better to tuge interview folks to get, you know a full picture of their qualifications and our ability to work together.
especially when you are talking about a professional service.
>> what would you think of a hybrid approach in which the Commissioners court interviewed the top three and then reported back to purchasing and to igr and the team, at least two to negotiate with, in order to capture the benefits of having a little bit of competition in the contract chal negotiation?
>> we could do that.
if the court with like us to, we could use the same, we could give you a scoring sheet so that when you go through the interviews, you could ranch them similar to what an evaluation--rang them system--rank them similar the a value case committee.
and we ranch --ranch.
rank them that way.
>> I don't agree.
I would like to have the person in front of me.
I don't think the purchasing agent in my opinion is the one that needs to be involved in the latter part of the process, authorizing the purchasing agent to conduct negotiations.
it's all well and good, but I want to follow the trend as we have done in the past.
this is a redistricting thing, not just another contract.
this is a redistricting situation which is going to impact everybody on this court.
>> uh-huh.
>> so I would like to have that up front type of situation where I知 able to discuss these particular matters and if costs come into the picture, it does.
again, right now we don't know exactly how much as far as cost is concerned, I don't know what they charge.
I don't know at this point.
but I saw the criteria and I said well, they are ranked and now I want to interview them.
>> okay.
>> that is where I am right I know.
and this is redistricting.
this just affects everybody on this court.
this is a redistricting issue.
>> criteria number two was the competitiveness of cross --cost proposal.
I guess we have a cost from each firm.
>> yes.
>> were all six notified of the committee's scoring and--
>> that is standard operating procedure.
I hope they did.
>> the ones not part of the top three, they know, so if they had chosen to come today--
>> I値l verify.
that is our normal procedure to notify those firms.
>> okay I知 hearing that the three of you at least agree that we should interview them, the court should interview.
I guess when we get down to our preference, we can figure out how to proceed.
the question is how do we negotiate a price.
is that the second part?
>> the price and the scope of the services.
it's my understanding that in our recent past, negotiations for professional services where there was more than one that was being negotiated with, that we got a better result.
both in terms of scope, specificity, and product.
>> was this a great differential in the cost esmake the?
>> I don't believe--
>> of the top three?
highest was probably more than double the lowest one.
>> of the top three.
>> of the six.
>> certainly of the six.
I have to go back and look at the top three.
I think probably that may be true of the even of the top three.
>> okay.
>> normally what we do, after we go through the interviews and the discussions, we ask them for a best and final offer.
that is when they send back their final price.
>> and we have done it in the past.
in other situations.
we have gotten into contract situations and we may agree on somebody but then the cost may be too high.
of course that is something that you have gone and gotten involved in and stuff like that.
and we proceeded.
I知 just trying to figure out what we are doing here as far as getting away from what we have done in the past.
>> I知 here, exister, to get direction from the Commissioners court on how you would like to us proceed.
>> okay.
>> normally we do bring you a recommendation.
I understand the sensitivity of this contract.
that is why we did it like that ten years ago and why I offered to you that if you would like that, we can do it that way this year.
that is what, sounds like, the vote is going to be.
>> being a county judge, my lines will remain the same after this.
>> that is for sure, judge.
that is a certainty.
>> would take a constitutional amendment to change the boundar.
>> why don't wu we do the interviews at the appropriate time decide the appropriate role of the purchasing office.
especially in terms of determining an appropriate fee.
part of that may be getting from 3-2.
and if we interview them, I guess we will know first, second third.
and for the top two after those interviews, we will know how close they are on the costs and at that point be better able to determine whether one is in fact worth more than the other and whether a higher fee is justified.
so we can sort of have our cake and eat it too, but I am hearing that we think we should interview the firms.
>> I move, judge, that we interview.
I guess Commissioner Gomez said sheptd to see the top three.
>> do we want to try to have Thursday work session times?
does that work you y'all's schedules?
>> we went through that this morning.
we kind of need to probably do that, but we can communicate by e-mail without violating the open meetings act.
if we are talking about scheduling.
and getting a time for the whole court to interview three firms, in my view we probably ought to allow, I壇 say, an hour a piece this time.
now, will we have the information that the committee had on the top three?
>> yes, I can get you the proposals on the top three, if that is the number you want to interview.
>> okay, historically when we do the interviews, do we consider that to be like starting from scratch?
or do we start with the previous score and go from there?
>> in this process because we didn't lay it out real specifically, I would say we would start from scratch.
y'all would interview them and than ra in, k.
>> woo what did we could last time?
>> we had the three.
we ranked them.
y'all interviewed them and I think y'all communicated your preference and y'all took a vot.
>> okay, I壇 like to move that we do that in this particular case, that we interview the top three candidates that have been recommends, after they have gone through the criterion by the purchasing agents and we interview these top three persons.
>> that would be vicar, training and rolando.
>> yes.
and as far as the time of the interview, judge, when would that be appropriate to bring it back before the Commissioners court?
before setting the time and the dismate.
>> I think we need to do some e-mail communicating.
my request of the court would be to consider days other than Tuesday and Thursday.
>> other than Tuesday and Thursday.
>> sloose --there's also Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
seems we ought to start thinking about a Wednesday.
now, we expect numbers the later part of March.
April 1 is the deadline.
>> not later than that.
although I have heard from several sources that the numbers are actually going to come out the middle of this month.
>> middle of this month?
>> February, yes, sir.
>> oooh.
>> in my view it would help us to get this work done as soon as possible.
>> a Wednesday is fine.
>> we can work at it.
>> okay.
Monday and Friday?
>> Monday is fine.
>> why don't we give ourselves advance notice.
I just think that, I知 not talking about tomorrow, but I think that if we could get this done in the next two to three weeks, it would be good.
>> that is a part of the motion then.
>> the motion is for us to interview, the court to interview the top three firms. That would be vigor staff training and relando, and that we try to get an appropriate time when a full complement of court members can be there.
that was seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
any more discussion of the motion?
at at appropriate time we'll figure out the role for the purchasing.
okay, ms. Grimes.
thank you.
and the committee.
>> thank you and the committee.
>> thank you.
>> 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, February, 2011 2:19 PM
