Travis County Commissioners Court

March 6, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 6

View captioned video.

>> item number 6.
approve the techshare resource sharing addendum to the conference of urban counties interlocal agreement for the common integrated justice system, odyssey court administration system and optional modules; and approve the software as a service and professional services agreement for the purchase of the odyssey case management system from tyler technologies, inc.

>> it has been a long time coming, hey?

>> yes, ma'am.
we are very happy to be here today.
my name is susan speak.
I am the justice of the peace for precinct 3.
I am here today representing my colleagues who wanted, first of all, to thank the members of the court for encouraging us to move forward with this project.
I believe that date was last April.
then your approval last August.
last August, again, with your approval to move forward, your able staff and purchasing and its has negotiated with the vendor and I will turn this over to ms. Acevedo who will brief you at this point.

>> good afternoon.
Commissioners court, we are here today with lori kye from purchasing and ter arery montgomery from its.
-- terry, and we have a quick presentation that will review background and project schedule and costs.

>> there we go.
okay.
December 2004, Commissioners court approved interlocal agreement in the urban counties tech share program a, may 2010, Commissioners court directed justices of the peace to research case management systems. Odyssey, case management system was recommended.
April 2011, Commissioners court approved 18,000 to tyler technologies for gap fit analysis, implementation plan and cost.
August 2011, Commissioners court approved 5 year budget.
of approximately $2.7 million.
tyler presented system to satisfy jp requirements with 2 purchase options.
one was the traditional purchase of the software licenses where county would be required to purchase servers and maintain the system.
the second option is to rent the software through a software as a service option.
software as a service odyssey case management system will satisfy jp requirements out of the box.
Travis County owns the data and output reports but not the software code.
data from the system will be downloaded to Travis County database monthly.
time to deliver greatly reduced due to architecture, infrastructure, and core software available at odyssey.
reduces capital investment in servers, operation al and labor costs associated with maintaining the system.
odyssey responsible for complying with local and state reporting modifications; it is also responsible for maintaining the system.
the modifications if needed happen to reduce costs through the techshare and the performance measurements will be to follow a strict 15 month three phase project time line with associated deliverables.
phase one, after approximately nine months we will complete jp collaboration process for detailed project plan.
jp3, data conversion for system pilot.
Travis County data conversion from legacy cjs system.
data abstracted from legacy system to text files converted to relational database system.
this will be downloaded monthly to Travis County data system.
phase two, after approximately 12 months will complete jp1, 2, and 5 system.
the legacy cjs and mapper data conversion and phase 3, after approximately 15 months will complete the jp4 system and the facts conversion.
this is the detailed project schedule that show it is quarters and the five month -- that shows the quarters and the five quarters and the 15 months that will result in the project completion.

>> do these phases move sequentially.

>> some of them are parallel but sequentially, so if you anningotice in the that will be parallel but then you will go through the design and the conversion and parallel.

>> okay.

>> sequentially.
the five year cost approved in August 2011, you will see for the first year it's 1 point -- roughly 1.5 million.
second year is approximately half a million with years 3, 4, 5, around or a quarter million each with total of $2.7 million for five year costs.
this the is the five year updated cost which is roughly the same as what was approved in August 2011 with a little bit of a five-year total estimated cost reduced.

>> and so year one is 2012?

>> yes.
the fiscal year.

>> we bucketed it to .4 million?

>> yes.

>> okay.

>> we budget.

>> we have county staff available to work with the vendor to make the performance -- to meet the performance measures on page 4?

>> yes, judge, I believe its, you know, through their project management will be working very closely with the vendor, making sure that things are going as planned.
ms. Montgomery has been assigned specifically to work with the jp courts on this and, again, through their project management, this is something that its will be supporting this time.

>> let me ask a question.
judge, sorry, were you --

>> I am done.
yes, sir.

>> I want to make sure that everything in front of us today, it happened accordingly, especially with the scheduling, you know, there are some things sometimes, the slip schedule, my whole point out of that, a lot of slippage and then of course things won't be implemented and done in a timely manner.
so my concern -- my question is there anyway, where in the contract if things are not met according to what we will bring before the court today, then what clause do we have to cease -- what out clause do we have to cease the using of this particular vendor?
as far as contract is concerned?

>> well, we are purchasing the tyler software system under the osposis or under the umbrella of the cuc of urban counties and that's the entity that went through the solicitation process and selected the technologies and so we do have two contracts before you.
one is a an addendum to the existing interlocal, which has termination rights in the county for it, as is the separate contract for tyler technology, the softwares and services contract.
there is several options for termination.

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> okay.

>> is there anything that -- where the -- where the user is not happy or not pleased with what the results are, especially on the software because we won't be able to own -- we have no control of the code, per se?

>> there is the standard determination cause provision in here.
there is a termination for convenience.
the termination for cause would be triggered, for example, by a material breach which, in my opinion, would be -- would be represented by such a thing as failure to deliver -- deliver both on time or failure to comply with -- as tanya said, the very strict schedule.

>> okay.
okay.
I just want to make sure that what we are doing here, there is some situation at first and if the deliverables aren't what they should be, and that's one of my main concerns.
thank you.

>> any other questions, comments?

>> I have a questions that sort of the flip side of Commissioners Davis', if this ends up being a wild success and we see very smooth implementation and would like to expand our relationship under techshare, do we have opportunities in this contract or would it be a separate contract?
for instance, I techshare has juvenile case management, adult case management and integrated management, not just for jps but across the entire civil and criminal justice arena, and is there opportunity for us to expand relationship with the conference of urban county techshare with these other areas if it ends up being a roaring success?

>> I do believe there are such opportunities with the techshare program through cuc.
that will be handled I believe as a separate addendum covering that separate project and the separate client departments.
it would presumably be handled either as a brand new project for cuc to handle or it would be handled as an addendum to an existing techshare agreement if the scope fell within existing scope.

>> from policy standpoint, one of the reasons I bring it up, as we have seen in the paper, the court fees, the proliferation of court fees as well as proliferation of the state level with regard to mandates of how we maintain records.
I believe that the premise for techshare has been borne out that through multiple interlocal contracts through cuc, there is strengths in contracts that say if you change up the way we are to report this data, all of us have to change and all of us are under a single contract for a -- a methodology that we like and that will be very expensive and we can give you a fiscal note like that, which is beneficial.

>> [laughter]

>> move approval of 6a and b?

>> second.

>> discussion on the motion?
all those in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank y'all very much.

>> thank you very much.

>> thank you for your patience.
if we get that wild success and I certainly want to be the one that gets the credit.

>> [laughter] I will be out of town, if we don't.

>> well, I want to point out my office manager Karen barlin is here and she graciously, when I told her our office would be the first one to do this, she said let's go judge.
we are already for it.

>> thank you for being on the bleeding edge.

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.