1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Friday, August 4, 2006
4:00 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, CommissionerPCt. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
9~
..9
0
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 4, 2006
1.1 Receive and accept scoring of RFQ's received
for engineering and consulting services for
Center Point Wastewater Project, authorize
negotiations for a contract with responding
firms listed as follows:
1. Tetra Tech, Inc.
2. Klein Engineering, Inc.
3. Vordenbaum Engineering, Inc.
--- Adjourned
PAGE
3
7
3
1
^
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"` 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^4
L
25
On Friday, August 4, 2006, at 4 p.m., a special meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call to order this
special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court
scheduled for this date and time, Friday August 4th, 2006, at
4 p.m. It's a bit past that time now. We got one item on the
agenda. That is to receive and accept scoring of RFQ's
received for the engineering and consulting services for the
Center Point Wastewater Project and authorize negotiations for
a contract with responding firms listed as follows: Number
one, Tetra Tech, Inc.; Number two, Klein Engineering, Inc.;
Number three, Vordenbaum Engineering, Inc. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I want to
express my appreciation to the Court for taking time at
4 o'clock on a Friday to do this. And the reason I wanted to
move it along is because, actually, the calendar is clicking
with T.W.D.B., and I think they'd really like to see this
project -- this particular planning and engineering completed
by February. So, the closer we can get to moving along, the
better. Commissioner Letz and I looked at these three
applications. We had one from Tetra Tech, Klein Engineering,
8-9-06
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and Vordenbaum Engineering. We scored the three, and -- and
you have copies of the scoring. Principally, they -- they
work out that -- that we had to take -- take a very close look
at who had -- who had experience with Texas Water Development
Tetra Tech from the other two. So, we scored them in favor of
Tetra Tech, with 65 points; Klein Engineering, with 36 points,
and I checked with the references on Klein Engineering; and
Vordenbaum at 29 points. And so I believe the RFQ process is
such that once we receive the scoring and authorize
negotiations in the order in which they were scored, we can
proceed that way, and if we're unable to work out an agreement
with number one, we go to number two and so forth and so on.
So, I would move that the Court accept the scoring
as conducted by Commissioner Letz and myself, and authorize us
to begin negotiations for an agreement for the preliminary
engineering with first, Tetra Tech; secondly, Klein
Engineering; and third, Vordenbaum, if necessary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with some comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does your motion include who's going
to do the negotiation on behalf of the Court?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It didn't, but it probably
should. Why don't you and I do that? I'll do it, and I'll
e-a-o6
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll confirm with the
Okay. I got a motion and second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with Tetra
Tech; I think they're a good company. They've done good work
before. I would have a problem if we can't set an agreement
with them. I was disappointed in the -- the lack of bids. I
don't think -- by looking through the information provided by
the engineering companies, my personal feeling was that
Vordenbaum, this is really not in their -- their specialty.
This is not something they do. They probably -- you know,
they are engineers; they could probably figure out how to do
it, but I look at this as the -- the first step in a much
bigger project, hopefully, and I'd certainly like some
continuity there. I'm not saying that you have to use the
same engineering firm the whole time, but it certainly, you
know, makes sense, in my mind, that you go in that direction.
Klein Engineering is more -- is kind of -- from what
they've presented, I had a little bit of question on their
staffing ability, their ability to perform this, or the next
one. They've done some jobs, but nothing real big. They have
not done a lot of big jobs, based on the information they
provided to us. I mean, that's all I went by. I did not
B-4-Oh
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
check into it. So, I was a little disappointed we didn't get
some of the bigger firms; H.D.R., Freese-Nichols, some of the
other companies that do this type of work. I guess everyone's
so busy right now that maybe this is too small for them. I
don't know, but I was disappointed. Tetra Tech, far and away,
was the best out of the three that we received, and I have no
problem with going with them. I just wish we had a little bit
more to choose from.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know we've used Tetra Tech on
wastewater projects in Kerrville South. From the best
information I've got available to me, we -- we've not had any
problems with them. They've been responsive to doing what
needs to be done, responding to requirements. When
requirements arise that need to be handled or looked into,
they've always managed to get them taken care of. So, kind of
like the old phrase, if it ain't -- if it ain't broke, don't
fix it. They've been pretty good so far. I would imagine,
because of the work that has been done with them in the past,
that, certainly, we were able to come to terms with them
before. I suspect we'll be able to come to terms again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: True. And they are --
they're intimately familiar with the scope of work that's
required for this, because they helped us develop the scope of
work that T.W.D.B. approved. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
8 9-06
7
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have any comment on
this agenda, do we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Comment on this agenda?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, as in an informational
type item from -- it can wait till the next meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not posted. If you'd been here
earlier, you could have joined the informal comment period.
We'll stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:14 p.m.)
B-4-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
8
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 4th day of
August, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ___ ~~~----
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8 4 U 6
ORDER NO. 29823
CENTER POINT WA5TE WATER PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 4`h day of August 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner W illiams, Seconded by
Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Commissioner Baldwin absent) to
accept the scoring of Tetra Tech, with 65 points, Klein Engineering, with 36 points, and Vordenbacun at 29
points and authorize negotiations for an agreement for the preliminary engineering with first, Tetra Tech;
secondly, Klein Engineering; and third, Vordenbaum, if necessary, and with Commissioner Williams and Judge
Tinley negotiating the contract.