Travis County Commissioners Court
January 17, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 16
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
and based on who is here, let's call up number 16, consider and take appropriate action regarding update from purchasing agent on information technology assessment and chief information officer transition services, a, project and evaluation process, and b, appointment of both a project facilitator and organizational planning team as oversight management team supporting the project facilitator.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners.
we wanted to come back pan give you just kind of an update because this process has been ongoing for a while.
if you will recall back with at the end of November in 10 the Commissioners court decided to create a county i.p.
advisory board.
you appointed the county auditor, purchasing agent and executive managers for just the public safety information technology services, planning and budget, emergency services and three external community members.
two of the Commissioner, Commissioner Huber and Commissioner Eckhardt, were a subcommittee and several meetings were held.
and as you all know, we have so much going on.
this one sort of didn't keep pace as fast as we wanted but with a lot of work was done.
the board was initially charged to help implement a cohesive technology department that combined i.t.s., records management and media services to streamline our technology services countywide and improve communications and assist us to better manage our mission, critical data day activities for all the elected officials.
in March we gave you a brief update on where we are and at that time you had us, to go ahead and directed us to start interviewing for a change agent or a change agent to help with the c.i.o.
transition.
the board, the internal, external board met with with two individuals and interviewed them based on information received from I believe the outside team and the internal team.
we interviewed those two individuals and it became apparent to us that perhaps we needed to hire a firm that could do this all continuously and one person.
in fact, one of the interviewers that we brought to us worked actually for a firm and mentioned all that extra help.
so we with came back with and we with decided that the best thing would be to do would be to add it all into one solicitation and one contract, and we with came -- the court, I believe we with came to you sometime in October and you authorized the issuance of a request for proposal and we have -- we issued that.
we with had a pre-proposal conference on the 7th of November.
we had 21 vendors who attended that so we knew we had a lot of interest with.
we did receive 13 responses back in the beginning of December.
the evaluation committee that I comprised was made from representatives each one from the county clerk, one from district clerk, one from the i.t.s.
department, two -- I mean one from the sheriff's office, one from the courts, one with from the Commissioners court staff, and then the justice of public safety.
we also had two external board members.
so we with had an evaluation committee of nine including the two externals that received the proposals and have done a written evaluation on them.
now, the issue came up, there was a lot of interest from a lot of elected officials, you remember the last time we met about with the scope of work and who was going to be involved.
and so as we with kind of progressed and had roger jeffries and I sit down and talk about with it because also I had told you who would be the project manager we with thought perhaps or I suggested because I had heard the ops team was interested, I proposed that after the written scores are done and ranked, and we're just about done with those.
I'm checking those to make sure.
once those are ranked, bring the top ranked firms -- right now we've got two potentially top five firms. That's something we with need to look at.
but I proposed bringing those top firms to the operational planning team so that they could continue with the interviews and discussions back and forth and then let that group make a recommendation back to the purchasing agent to bring forward to Commissioners court.
one of the things, and we talked about with this, Commissioner Gomez brought this up in relation to another procurement, the scope of work, and I've attached it at the backup that you received, you can see it's -- it's sort of detailed but it's not detailed.
it tells you there's four phases that we would like them to look at.
and so, again, as we go through this process, we will have to finalize and clarify and specify the exact scope of work.
for example, I know that the county clerk and I know the d.a.
are very interested in sitting down with with the consultants one with on one to discuss their issues and their thoughts.
so part of that scope of work we'll need to further define on who specifically they are going to meet with and what those tasks and deliverables are.
the other thing is in the phase 3, which is the search for the new i.t.s.
accounting executive, a lot of those I feel like now since we've been through several processes with with the team, your planning and budget officer, and there was another one.
I'm going blank.
but I'm thinking that scope of work can be negotiated down and that some of that can be done by h.r.
like h.r.
has already looked at rewriting the c.i.o.'s job description.
that's one of the things we asked them to do.
so again we'll need to tweak that scope of work when we bring it back to you.
so for -- that's just a brief update on where this project has been and where we're at and also my suggestion that we take the written scores and let me bring that to the op team and let them do more of the evaluation process that normally the folks on the written would carry through the whole process.
sort of a -- and I have the flexibility to do that and I've discussed it with the op team.
so at this time that's about where all the project unless the Commissioners have anything.
the second item is where we really need you to take.
if you like the proposal that's put forward to continuation of evaluation process, this op team, then the next thing the court needs to do is appoint a project facilitator.
and we've had roner jeffries volunteer and then leroy volunteered to do that.
some of us felt that having joe be the actual project manager might be somewhat of a conflict of interest.
joe certainly needs to be involved in the process and he is on the operational planning team, so joe will certainly be involved in the process.
and I think that at our meeting on this Thursday we -- the court might want to -- or the subcommittee might want to further clarify what joe's role will be in this because I know that was an issue.
so what we with need you to do today is approve the process that I've put forward to you, the final negotiations to bring you a contract.
and then the other thing is to appoint a -- we're calling it a project facilitator because this person will need to work to help make sure that this consultant knows and is able to contact and coordinate with each person and that they need to talk with.
so that is our proposal to you.
and members are committee are here and I see diana here and I don't know if anyone else is going to come.
I've heard from several elected officials and I assured them we with will be contacting the majority of them in person or some sort of survey to get their input on what their need are from a countywide i.t.s.
perspective.
so we're trying to be as inclusive as we are and sometimes when you try to include so many it gets a little unmanageable.
>> in our meeting that the o.p.t.
and the i.t.s.
subcommittee is having Thursday, one of the agenda items that has been proposed for consideration is to come up with a draft for the scope of how that outreach will be done and then shop it to the individuals and the elected officials that have expressed interest in how this goes about so that we can really -- my hope is that through -- through assistance with with the o.p.t.
we can write a scope that has full input from the electeds who want to make sure the process the change manager uses to hear their concerns and incorporate their own evaluation and input is as robust as it can be.
>> yeah.
and again --
>> and I haven't contacted dana but I was hoping dana would spearhead that.
the.
>> I guess -- I guess a question is would you want to add -- and here's where you start getting a lost people.
would you want to add one elected official like the county clerk on the group to work with us or you want just the operational team and then just ask dana to give us that input as an advisor?
>> I would ask that we have this Thursday meeting with with the o.p.t.
first before we clarify that.
>> I think we need to consider what making a quick choice like that, the implications we might not have thought out completely because we've got a lot of elected officials with vested interest in this.
>> I mean all of them are interested with.
the main ones at the county clerk, the district attorney, the sheriff.
>> the county attorney and the judges are also keenly interested in the electronic data reporting and making sure that that is a high priority and scope.
>> and that's of why I included those folks on the evaluation committee because I knew the courts, the sheriff and all those folks were really interested.
but I did get phone calls from those three departments.
>> somebody come sit with them, hear their concerns and explain how they might be addressed?
>> yes, sir.
>> there was a bit with of miscommunication out there that the folks that were doing the written evaluations were going to be the people picking joe and that's just not accurate at all.
I think they thought that we were with doing this and they weren't going with to have any input and I clarified that.
I said no, no, no, the evaluation committee is going to help us decide who the best qualified and experience firm was with and in the scope of work specifically the contractor will be contacting you elected officials either face to face or by some sort of survey.
>> okay.
any comments from any of the other managers?
the all right.
then if we go to b, the recommendation is court appoint a project facilitator.
and it's either leroy nellis or roger jeffries or both?
is that what I'm hearing.
>> it's at y'all's -- it's at your discretion, judge.
we with need one -- I think it's better with to have one facilitator and then he work -- of course, I'm still supervising the process.
I'm going to be processing the project facilitator until we get a contract, and at that point he will be the main point of contact for the contractor and then he will be responsible for communicating that to us on the operational planning team.
>> ms. Fleming has some comments.
>> sherri fleming, county executive for health and human services.
I think that the discussion had been with sort of a co-facilitation arrangement between mr. Nellis and mr. Jeffries in that they were both -- they would both be sort of our point of contact.
the entire operational planning team will be assisting with with this project.
so the selection of the single point of contact certainly is yours, but I think mr. Jeffries and mr. Nellis are prepared to co-facilitate.
I thought that's what you just told me.
>> could I ask we with put this on the agenda for Thursday as far as the facilitator?
just to be helpful to volunteers if there was a need for it.
I think there was also some discussion about the role that joe would play and different folks would play in addressing this project.
I know at one point leroy also offered to facilitate or to manage this project, and I think he's even got another suggestion that may not be in your backup that we with haven't had a chance to discuss.
and perhaps on Thursday we could have that discussion and land on a recommendation for you at another time, if that's all right.
>> you want to postpone this item one week?
>> I think that sounds perfect.
>> I would like for you to approve a so I can continue on with with the process.
>> I think you ought to keep working and when it comes back, I think we ought to have flexibility to approve any or all.
any, a part of it, all of it or none of it.
at this late date, I mean I think it's a foregone conclusion that we'll approve most if not all of it.
but I'd rather do the whole ball of wax at one time.
>> we'll bring it back to you.
>> that means you will meet on Thursday for sure.
>> yes, we have a meeting scheduled.
>> I would like to know what it comes back what i.t.s.'s role is.
and I guess mr. Harlow's too.
if you need to discuss that Thursday, let's just add it.
>> can do.
>> how is that?
that's more than you hoped for, isn't it, cyd?
>> that's more than I hoped for, judge.
thank you.
>> anything else on this item?
we appreciate you all's work on it.
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.
Subscribe for updates