Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 13
Since we have you there, 13 is to approve contract award for consulting services relating to redistricting.
rfs number s 110035-ec, to the highest qualified respondent, rollnd lrios and associates.
pllc.
>> yes, sir.
Commissioners, cyd grimes, we were able to negotiate the base contract at $66,067.
we added two options that if we choose we can add those amendment.
one is for social media as part of the public outreach segment, about $2400.
then if we have to do more extensive one-on one consultations with the jps or constables, that will cost another $5,000.
so the contract right now is for the base price of $66067.
>> those options were not included.
>> it was but the pricing was not clear so we tried to clear up that issue.
>> okay.
>> and there was talk I believe among the committee whether we needed either one of these compolents.
so we added them in as options to add to it if we need them at the time.
>> okay.
>> I do want to be clear that the contract, the bid, the proposal that mr. Rios gave us did contemplate redrawing lines for the justice of the peace and the constables.
as you know, for the members of the court, we built into the contract the notion that they would come meet with you, that they would give you the opportunity to explain what you were looking for in terms of your districts, what kind of communities you wanted to protect and serve in your districts, and also the chance to look at maps and tinker with them, if you will, a little bit.
they had not contemplated going through that process with the constables and the jps, and it is that additional work they are asking to add on as an option for $5,000.
>> think we have done that in the past.
>> the only two jp constable ed that expressed interest to me knowledge at this point are five and two.
>> as far as I know, that is correct.
>> and it's mute mute all, apparently, the line between five and two.
>> I will move approval, judge, except there is a misspelling.
I believe the name is roland works an o at the end.
>> yes.
>> on the agenda.
>> make that correction.
>> have we checked with the county attorney on the redistricting for the jp and constables?
there's five them each.
if two want to redistrict, just between them, their new lines, we can do that?
>> yes, we can do that.
>> that is the legal opinion?
>> yes, it is my local opinion--legal opinion.
>> we probably need to talk to the others just out of the courtesy.
>> yes, so far nobody has contacted me about wanting this?
right.
>> I guess I'm assuming there would be reasons why you wanted to do those but leave the others where they are.
>> yes.
>> the others, do we know where they stand or they basically have not committed?
>> early on in the process I had conversations with, and I'm hesitant to say who exactly, but I have tried to touch base with people from each of those different ed.
usually a--precincted, usually a brief conversation.
I know judge stig said she was okay with the lines.
I don't know what constable mccain's position is and I think I talked to constable concollo with four and she was okay with her line.
those can the conversations I can sort of renremember specifically having.
>> okay.
is there a second?
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> any discussion on the motion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> real quick clarification.
that is without the options.
>> that is with the prices for the options.
>> if we need them.
we will have an amend am and come back.
>> the way I have the contract, it's your decision is now.
at the time of signing, whether you want the option in or not.
>> the option would be in and then--
>> no, right, yeah.
the thing is that the way that the options are laid out in the contract, it says that the choice is to be made at the time of signing.
otherwise if you want to have those options in, we will have to go through the amendment process.
>> it's an elective provision in the contract.
>> yes.
>> we can elect to utilize later but we would authorize it now.
>> you can elect to use it now or not.
fan you don't want to use it now--and if you don't want to use it now and you decide later on you want to, you have to go you through the amendment process.
>> this may be a mute point because I know that jp, I know con --constable five and two want to meet with our consultant regarding redistricting .
the $an of 5,000 is for any or all, correct?
>> correct.
>> we can go ahead and vote the $5,000 now because we know constable five and two want to utilize it and it's no additional cost under the contractual language for any of the other jp's or constables to utilize, ry correct?
>> correct.
>> why can't we just change the contract to contain what we are saying?
>> it does contain what we are saying, I believe.
>> right.
>> making the decision today.
we are not making the decision daud because we have not heard from them.
>> it's section 4.18 is the option.
>> the difference is whether the contract is, the difference between a 66 or 71.
>> yes.
>> so what the contract as currently constructed, as I understood when I read it, if we say it's 71 today, that covers what we know constable five and two wants to do and what any of the other constables or jp's want to do.
it's a flat 5,000 to include the jp's and constables, whether two or ten.
>> I'm more uncomfortable deciding for constables five and two when they have not come to the court.
what if they can't reach agreement about what to do, we shouldn't make that decision for them.
>> the way it's written, 66,000, and if we decided during the process that we needed to go back and do the 101 or the social media, we would go back and amend the contract.
so my understanding, I looked at the wording and I thought it was okay.
you're awarding the base contract and if we decided to do either one, we will do an amendment to those.
I don't believe we have the full amount of money today.
so I think what you are approving today is the $66,000 with the option to mod that when the time is right to make the decision to do those two extra pieces.
now.
>> the wording is not that.
the wording is if you make the election today, it will be immediately incorporated into the contract.
if you don't make the election today, then we will have to go through the amendment process.
>> I apologize.
>> why can't the wording by what cyd said?
>> because--
>> why can't the person who put that contract together change.
>> I put the contract together.
>> why can't you change it?
>> we can change it but we don't know whether mr. Rios is in favor.
they have already negotiated it.
>> we have a signed contract.
>> I guarantee mr. Rios is thinking if I do these three things, I will be paid these sums of money.
at some point the decision will be made about whether I do these three things.
right?
>> we can do that.
just means we have to come back next week to find out whether mr. Rios is in agreement with that change in the wording.
that is all.
>> I have no problem with the motion authorizing Commissioner Eckhardt to sign on behalf of the court.
how is that?
>> I think it's a simple change in wording, myself.
>> no, it's a simple change in wording.
we were just being administratively efficient.
if you don't want to be administratively efficient, we will change the wording name agreement.
>> I agree with cyd.
>> we can bring it back.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt, if this is agreeable, we make this change, it's agreeable to mr. Rios, rather than bring it back to the court, we all understands it, I think.
Commissioner Eckhardt can sign on behalf of the Commissioners court.
>> meantime, actually, as far as efficiency, meantime why don't I have constables elfont and balisteros provide their input.
I know they want to utilize the services and they have a mutual desire.
it's not a conflicting desire.
to work with mr. Rios.
>> I hear where you are coming from about what about the 2400 for social media?
>> my understanding is the negotiation considered that and mr. Rios came back with $5,000 flat that was just an add-on for working with the constables on the map.
>> two options, the social media actually three options, I believe.
we have the speakers bureau, social media and the consultation with the jp's and constables.
yeah.
>> your question, Commissioner, goes to that option with respect to the social media.
>> yes.
and I don't understand why we can't just at cyd's direction, that is what they negotiated, was to have it as an option.
we don't get the contractor along those lines.
>> because the goal was to walk out today with the contract signed and have everything incorporated into it that you wanted, with the idea that y'all would know what you wanted today.
apparently that is not the case, so we can go and amend the contract as much as you want.
but that means you will not walk out with a contract today.
>> actually, you could walk out with the contract today and come back.
cyd, do you have modification authority to this level?
>> yes.
>> you could do a mod yourself and we could--
>> I move approval of the base contract at $66,067 with the understanding the purchasing agent will come back next week with any modifications.
how about that?
>> second.
>> sounds good to me.
seconded by Commissioner Huber.
the chair will not allow discussion in the interest of time.
all in favor.
any discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
we are together again, ms. Grimes.
>> thank you very much.
>> thaunch--thank you.
>> moving hurriedly.
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.
