Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 14
14, approve contract award for 700 lavaca building, levels 1 and 2 glazing replacement, ifb number b 110310-je to the low bidder, qa construction services, inc.
e.
>> this bid is for the levels one and two levels glazing replacement.
as you said, judge, we had a bid come in from qa construction services in the amount of 262,280 and they want to bid alternates 1 and 2 for a total of 375,840.
as you know, we've put out a bid so that three through 15.
at the time it was a lack of coordination with our outside consultant and so we kind of went back and forth.
so we didn't know if they were doing it or we were doing it.
so we're doing it and this is it and we need to get it done before construction starts in a couple of months.
>> questions or comments?
>> the scan of the building at 700 lavaca has always been the responsibility in the entirety of the Commissioners' court it has nothing to do with the outside contractor on floors 1 and 2.
this should have been bid for a unit for the entire building back in February when the glazing first came up.
to piecemeal it like this is an irresponsible use of taxpayer funds.
it costs more this way.
I move approval of this at this point because it needs to be done.
it has been delayed and delayed and delayed since February.
and it's reached a point where it was almost problematic in working with the outside contractor on floors 1 and 2 because they needed to make decisions on how they were going to work on the inside.
so there again, it the lack of looking at something in its entirety at the time that it needs to be done.
it is much, much cheaper to do a comprehensive project for a reglazing of an entire building than to go back and add pieces later.
I move approval.
>> second.
>> I have a question.
when was the glazing completed for the other floors?
when was the glazing completed for the other floors?
>> a couple of months ago.
maybe three months ago.
three or four.
>> so we did all the other floors and waited to do these two?
>> what's the reason?
>> what's the reason?
>> right.
>> I guess why is it just coming to us is the question?
>> can you repeat the question one more time?
>> we did all of the other floors.
why did we wait to do these two?
under a separate contract and a separate amount?
>> sure.
when we started this, the project on the glazing, it was a funding -- we didn't have no funding for a glazing.
I want to make sure one more thing is nothing to do with hhi, the outside contractor.
it has to do when we started the project we had no budgets for the glazing at all.
there's no glazing budget.
what happened is when eob was started, rodney rhodes and myself, they talk about the transfer of fund from the elb to 700 lavaca for energy efficiency and we have to do it so quickly in order to cover the front right there by the mid of January.
and then we said the clear-cut right now is to do the tower.
and then we'll come back later on and we'll do a change order right there because we -- the tower is so easy to change the panels from the inside.
and that was so easy to change the panels on the inside.
they did not put cranes or anything.
there were some panels on the outside, the corner and we did it from the inside.
what happened is we need to spend the money, 50% of the energy efficiency money by June.
we say we'll change the change order.
the change order came to us right there, it's about like 1,200-dollar panel.
and we said this is too high.
because they're out on the first and second floor they have to do it on the outside.
they have to do scaffolding, there's trees and all that.
they say it's $1,200.
we disputed that number.
and we said no, we're not going to do it, and we know we still have some time.
and went for bid because I would like to see the competition on that, and we did.
and 1200 per panel, the change order is, it's 1,199.
then when we put it for bid, the panel, it's about like 1,040.
so we save about 155-dollar per panel if you multiply by 360 panel, that's about 55,800.
I think we did good.
we saved the county money about doing that.
and it's not going to affect the project on the first and second floor because it's going to happen from the outside.
they're not going to remove all the skin.
they're going to move one panel at the time.
and it's not going to be affecting the -- the general condition with the contractor, there's a condition in there, it said that you have to coordinate with the existing project, the project going on.
and I can assure you that that's going to -- it's not going to be a problem.
>> is this a different contractor, qa construction services?
>> yes.
>> from the one that was utilized for the tower?
>> yes.
if you look at the second contractor who bid, he was the original contractor, it came from $1,240,000, you see?
and if you do that right there, the math on that, 360, divide that, it will be about $1,222 per panel.
so he kept his number in the change order and then change it had by $22.
what the qa construction, the guy, we worked with him before on so many project in the county and he's responsive and I think he will do a good job and we can get this project done in about 120 days once the court approve this item.
and notice to proceed is received by cid, purchasing agent, and 120 days and we'll be done by April.
and that I can assure you.
and I will be watching that very carefully.
>> why is it --
>> you made a real good point.
I don't know what all the hassle is up on this court when it comes to facilities.
it seems like we've got a severe problem.
you're doing stuff cheaper and you've got your way of doing things.
you've been doing it for a long time and you have saved the county a lot, a lot of money for the taxpayers.
and I think that needs to be said and hammered on over and over and over again.
>> I think there is evidence to the contrary, Commissioner.
>> hold on.
well, I don't -- let me talk now.
I think you have done a good job and I think you're doing a good job.
and I see where you're coming from and of course what he just stated is fact, there's no doubt about that.
so we're going to look at this as we go through this.
purchasing, you're involved also.
facilities is also involved.
but I think this hammering and hammering and hammering on facilities has got to stop.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] and, of course, you have saved the county a lot of money.
I know that by example, I know what I'm talking about.
so anyway, I'll leave it alone.
thank you.
>> I'm just speaking to this particular project and as a member of the subcommittee of the court for 700 lavaca we have been asking for the grazing for months.
I do have another question.
the glass, the exterior glass that will be used on the first and second floors, is it of the same source and composition as the upper floors?
because glazing ages differently by different manufacturers.
this is an aesthetic issue for the building.
>> we have the same cut sheet for the panels for the tower upstairs and for the first and second, and the differences right now, the panels on the first and second, they can come from the outside to the main panel from the inside.
it's going to look the same.
>> it's going to look the same now.
is it the same source of glass?
>> we specified the same glass.
>> okay.
manufacturer.
okay.
the other point you were talking about putting it one panel at a time it has reached the inside stage because there's inside treatment on the first floors.
and if they cannot do that inside treatment of the windows will till the glass has been changed.
so it is an issue as it relates to the finishout.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
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.
