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