Travis County Commissioners Court
January 24, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 18
18.
consider and take appropriate action regarding information technology assessment and chief -- keith, this is not you, I thought it was -- regarding information technology assessment and chief information officer services, rfs number s110195-lc, including: project and evaluation process; and b, appointment of both a project facilitator and organizational planning team as oversight management team supporting the project facilitator.
those still here, we would ask you to take your conversation outside, please, and let us complete our work.
>> I am thirsty after all of that.
>> [laughter]
>> ms. Grimes.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners.
I was here last week giving you a briefing on the process and the project and the evaluation for the assessment of it functions and the cio transitional services.
gave you just a briefing on where we were.
we had been working on this for almost two years or a year and a half.
we interviewed some folks and we came back to decide that we needed to hire a firm.
we issued rsf.
in October, we received 20 -- we had a preproposal conference.
twenty-one vendors participated.
we received 13 responses on December 6th.
and evaluation committee come priced from representative of county district, district clerk, its, Commissioners court, jp and public safety and two of the external board members reviewed those and they have scored those.
I will be meeting with that group on Friday to give an update on where we are in their process.
>> then recommended that we take the top group out of those written proposals and bring them to the operational planning committee and let the operational planning committee further evaluate the top firms and make a recommendation at that time to Commissioners court.
I also briefed you that we had a meeting last Thursday on the 19th to meet with the subcommittee of the court and we did meet and talked about several issues.
one of those was our time lines and current workloads.
also, mr. Harlo's plans and participation in the process and when he plans to retire.
we also discussed outreach to the other elected appointed officials and then we also talked about how we would earn collude the first round eval -- how we would include the first round of evaluators in the planning team evaluation and also, last week mentioned steven broberg with records and management media also needs to be brought into the fold, so to speak.
so we are here today to answer any of your questions and we also, one thing that we do need direction on or ask the court was to appoint the project facilitator.
we discussed that leroy had volunteered.
however, as you know, leroy plans on retiring himself and so the kind of question was, how long is this process going to take?
in reviewing some of the proposals over the weekend, there is from 6 months to year and a half, two years, so there is room for us to negotiate on that based on what is best for us and our time lines and workloads and that is all part of the process for negotiation.
so we have members of the operational planing team here to help answer any questions or further clarify what we discussed.
sherri fleming operates a the lead in our operational planning team and she is here and joe and roger and danny are here.
I don't see other folks here.
we are here to answer any questions and any input and we move forward.
>> we will track down leroy as well.
>> judge, would you entertain a motion to go ahead and vote leroy as the facilitator at least for the first phase of the contract?
>> that's fine with me.
>> second.
>> second by Commissioner commir Huber.
discussion?
is one facilitator enough?
that would be my question?
>> one thing I spoke to leroy last night about is we are going to need someone -- he can be the lead facilitator but we are going to need someone that is a single point of factor the contractor -- single point of contact for the contractor and someone helping leroy to make sure that all of the tasks, responsibilities done, scheduling appointments and getting all of y'all together and the appropriate people together.
now, the consultants, several of them have, you know, detailed tools that they -- this is what they do.
they know how to assess information and outreach to folks they have done this work so they will be doing a lot of work.
we have a task.
we need to the make sure that leroy has the appropriate support to support him and operational planning team to give you some direction but you have to have a point person under leroy to help drive the day to day --
>> all right.
jeffreys has been the fajkus?
>> well, he was first.
rodney was first and then roger and now sherri has been the lead facilitator on the operational planning team group.
>> but on a here?
has anybody occupied this?
not a but I guess b.
b is appointment of facilitator.
that's what the motion covered, right?
so who has filled that position?
anybody?
>> there has been a lot of discussion.
I don't think a decision was made.
as you heard last time, what we decided on to recommend as a group to y'all, as an organizational planning team is that leroy would be the lead facilitator for this particular project.
>> I don't have any problem with him being the lead but if I were doing this on my own, I would appoint secondary person.
leroy plans to leave March of 2013, his replacement, as we will discuss later on, will start March 1 and leroy will have to do some hand holding after March 1.
until March 1, he will really continue to serve as county executive of planning and budget.
so having leroy as point person is fine with me.
leroy is not here, I think there ought to be a second person.
the other thing it has been my experience that on the way out, when you look around and see your leave and comp time you built up, it is natural to feel, if not obligated, inclining to ahead and use some of it and we will not like to deny leroy that opportunity.
you have been here how long?
>> eighteen years.
>> after 18 years, he deserves fair and generous treatment, especially for benefits he has earned.
catch my drift.
so if he is the point person, that is fine but I would appoint a secondary person so we will know in leroy's absence, the second person would be available and the team will keep working on this anyway, right?
that's kind of the reality check.
when you think about it, and really, we want the change manager not to miss any steps, right, so when the primary contact is not available, I would like for there to be no question about who the secondary contact is.
I think that serves us well.
>> I was going to ask could we have a motion to add jeffreys as the secondary facilitator?
>> absolutely.
>> that pleases me.
>> do y'all accept that -- I won't ask you whether you accept it -- I asked it in such a way I hope you understand the answer is yes.
>> [laughter]
>> yes, I will be glad to.
>> okay.
any more discussion of that motion?
all those in favor.
show Commissioners, Eckhardt, Huber, yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis abstaining.
then there is this second part is different from what we just did.
appointment of opt as oversight management team supporting the project facilitator, and o.p.t.
is a team that has been working on this.
>> yes, sir.
>> and one we have been working on basically?
>> right.
>> move approval of that one.
>> discussion on that motion?
all those in favor?
show Commissioner Davis abstaining.
the rest of the court voting in favor of the motion.
should we back up and pick up a?
>> there is no action on a, I guesses to prove the process we are following, we are going from the written evaluation committee and then having the o.p.t.
team do second half of the evaluation.
I don't know if you have to take action on that.
>> although the court play want a little more detail about what was fleshed out that the o.p.t.
can reach down to the first evaluators with regard to the evaluation and the drafting of the scope for the eventual contract and that there is a fairly robust program for getting input on the outreach portion of the scope.
it already has been in the works.
>> I think the idea is that the organizational planning team will provide support to leroy and then ultimately roger jeffreys throughout this process and of course the purchasing agent will be there to guide us on those issues but just to ensure that as ibs arise during this process, that there is -- that as issues arise, that there is single level management to stay on track.
if I have to put it in a nutshell, I think that would be it.
>> questions, commentses?
so we don't need action on a?
we basically allow that to happen.
anything else on item 18?
I guess on mr. Broberg and records management, the question is whether that department is caught up in this evaluation process.
>> yes, sir.
>> the scope of work stands now, it did not specifically name records management media services.
it was only it and the it folks in the entire county.
so it did not include looking at combining those departments so if it is something that the court wanted us to do, that was something I would negotiate into the contract.
>> so the question really is whether we leave --
>> focus just on the it department and them and not bring back the issue of whether to combine those two departments.
that's totally up to y'all.
>> I think that there is -- there is possibly a middle path here, or perhaps a bridge deferred.
there was considerable discussion about whether there were any black box items that were external shops that should not be looked are or should be looked at and I think that -- I think that perhaps we don't have to have that level of detail at this point, as long as the change manager is able to do a full assessment of our it capabilities as an organization, and that the exdetermine shops have the solace of knowing that they have a robust outreach in the first phase scoping in that assessment, where they can have an honest conversation about where we have been, where we are, and where we should think about going.
I don't think that we need specify any external shop being folded into its as a concept to be reviewed via the change manager.
>> so basically we leave that issue out now?
>> leave it blank slate and let the assessment be done without preconception.
>> do you know what that evaluation assessment would cost?
>> right now, Commissioner, we are looking at more than we have in the budget.
we have 200,000 in the budget and we are probably going to need to at least double that, if not half a million.
>> half a million?
>> I am going to try my best to negotiate.
we are a long way before giving you a price but we are probably looking at 350 to half a million.
it is very expensive.
it is very intensive.
they are going to meet with every elected official in some way.
they are going to have tools they use to assess the level of knowledge of it staff across the board.
it is very -- there is very detailed.
a lot of work involved in it.
very time consuming, plus if we have an enter rim cio type -- interim cio type change management person, those salaries are...
>> I would come back to the court as soon as possible once we go down the budget path, so we can --
>> one area that I think we can negotiate some services out and save money is in the recruitment process.
we have them doing a lot of task that we might depend on diane blankenship and her group to do so I think it is an area that can be negotiated and find cost reduction in that area.
the Commissioners mentioned brining diane at the appropriate -- bringing die yarn at the appropriate time to assist with that.
>> we need to agree that whatever amount we agree to spend on it, we are getting that much benefit out of it and one way to do it would be to receive briefing early on to make sure we are together.
>> yes, sir.
>> anything else on this item?
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> 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.
Subscribe for updates