Discussion and approval of letter of support to designate the City of Hidalgo as a Targeted Employment Area for purposes of EB-5 Foreign Investor Visa Applications.

No action taken on this item.

Court proceeded to Item.7.A.

Sheriff's Office - OPSG FY16 (1284):
Authorization and approval to apply for the Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) FY16 grant with the Office of the Governor's Homeland Security Grants Division (HSGD)

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 3, JOE M. FLORES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

 Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

 

1. Requesting exemption from competitive bidding requirements under the Texas Local Government Code 262.024 (a)(4) for professional engineering services.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU  the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                                   
Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

2. Presentation of the scoring and grid for the purpose of ranking by Commissioners' Court of at least three (3) engineering firms from the County's Approved "Pool" as graded and evaluated by the City of Palmview, Urban County Program and Hidalgo County Purchasing Department, in connection with and funded through Hidalgo County Urban County Program Year 27 & 28 (2014 & 2015) Palmview Parks, Recreational Facility Improvements funds.
 

3. Authority to negotiate a professional engineering service contract with the highest ranked firm of SAMES, Inc. for the provision of engineering services for an Urban County Program Year Year 27 & 28 (2014 & 2015) Palmview Parks, Recreational Facility Improvements Project. 

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU  the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                                   
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

Approval of a revision to previously approved (CC12/08/15-AI#52528) Agreement with Brown & Brown Lone Star Insurance Services, Inc., dba, Alamo Insurance Group (C-15-283-12-08) for: Consulting Services for Self-Funded Insured Group Health to reflect the RFP as part of agreement along with the language to include it.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 3, JOE M. FLORES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

Ms. Salazar clarified to the judge that all that is being done is to clarify the original form of agreement that was submitted by the vendor. The agreement did not have the entire list of services required under the RFP, therefore they are making the RFP part of the exhibit which includes all the services.

Requesting authority to advertise and approval of procurement packet [draft service contract, legal notice etc] as attached hereto for Hidalgo County-Flexible Base Materials (Crushed Caliche)  RFB No. 2016-077-SMA including the re-advertising of project in the event no bid responses are received and/or rejected and project is still required.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                                                                                                                         
Vote: 5 - 0 – Unanimously

Acceptance and approval of pre-qualified firms submitting "Statements of Qualifications" for establishment of a "Pool" ( as listed on the RFQ Acceptance Sheets attached hereto) for engagement through the established statutory and local protocol (i.e. nomination by user, grading/scoring, presentation to CC for ranking, authority for negotiations for a final agreement, etc.) on an "As Needed Basis" per project by all County Departments and/or applicable Programs requiring said services as set forth  in the requirements stated in the County's Request for Qualifications packet for the following listed Professional Services:

Ms. Salazar commented that under Architectural Services there were 14 and now they have 10.
Engineering Services they lost 1 and gained 1, no net change.
For Engineering Services-Geotechnical & Construction Materials Testing, they gained 3 more for a total of 9 firms.
Construction Management Services they gained and lost 1, no net change.

 

a. Architectural Services (RFQ 2016-001-02-17-YSS)- 10 firms
b. Engineering Services (RFQ 2016-002-02-17-YZV) - 40 firms
c. Engineering Services-Geotechnical & Construction Materials Testing (RFQ 2016-003-02-17- HGO) 9 firms
d. Construction Management Services (RFQ 2016-004-02-17-MSS) 19 firms
e. Appraisal Services and/or Appraisal Review Services (RFQ 2016-005-02-17-SMA)-5 firms
f. Surveyor Services (RFQ 2016-006-02-17-SGS)-16 firms

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 3, JOE M. FLORES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval on A to F.

Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

with effective date of "Approved Pools" commencing March 16, 2016

Mr. Guerra announced that it is to be commencing March 16,2016

A.  Supplemental [Revised] Schematic Design:
Acceptance and approval of the Supplemental [Revised] Schematic Design by ERO in a deliverable form that can be utilized in connection with the final phases for the Design & Construction of a New Hidalgo County Courthouse at no cost to Hidalgo County

Martha Salazar commented to the court members that the deliverable has a rendering that was not asked to be revised by the court. The rendering is reflected by the City of Edinburg input, which they paid for on a separate project. Ms. Salazar indicated that Commissioners Court is only approving the revisions for the schematics interior.
 
In regards to this statement, Judge Garcia indicated to Ms. Salazar that they were in fact accepting the renderings as to what the courthouse will look like.
 
Ms. Salazar clarified to the judge that she just wanted to point out the distinction that Commissioners Court did not order that, the City of Edinburg did.
 
Judge Garcia emphasized to Ms. Salazar that they were the ones that authorized it to be done, in order to satisfy the City of Edinburg as they are contributing $30 million. 

Mr. Brian Godines Principal at ERO Architects introduced Mr. Eli Ochoa with ERO Architects and Judicial Consultant and partner Mr. Alden Talley. Mr. Godines commented to the court that there were 16 individuals involved from ERO & HDR for this particular phase of the schematic design supplement. He also introduced Mr. Trey Murrey, Principal at Halff Associates.
 
Commissioner Flores stepped away from the meeting.
 
Mr. Godines informed the court that in July 2015 they submitted the supplement which included the floor plans that were approved and signed off by all the involved courthouse stakeholders. The approval was from the 1^st floor to the 6^th floor. They then submitted the exteriors that the city had requested to enhance the exterior in order to make them fall closer together to their downtown master plan. The engagement was done working along with the Economic Development Corporation; Mr. Godines also mentioned they have been working closely with the EEDC, and the City of Edinburg and county officials with regards to the exterior renderings.
 
Mr. Ochoa presented the floor plans and renderings, along with the new approved program. He reminded the court that some of the changes made were the number of floors; they went from ten levels to six. They also adjusted the number of courtrooms per floor from 4 to 6 courts per floor, modifying the capacity form 100 people to 80. Mr. Ochoa mentioned that these changes were made in order to stay within the proposed construction budget of $150 million dollars, which includes the soft cost and the construction limitation. Moreover, Mr. Ochoa presented a view of the projected position for the building the main drive will come through the north side. The design proposes having US 281 be one way round about in counterclockwise around the courthouse. There will be a parking lot on the west side of the building, right along University Drive. This parking space will be utilized for some of the elected officials as well as for handicap.
 
To continue the presentation Mr. Ochoa displayed the interior floor plan, he pointed out the location of the County Clerk’s Office which is to take over most of the 1st floor, along with two Sheriff’s Department functions, the defenders in custody and the security for the facility. Judge Garcia questioned if they had incorporated the changes suggested by HOK. In regards to his inquiry, Mr. Ochoa assured that they have taken into consideration the changes and have been incorporated. They also went back to the stakeholders and addressed their additional comments.
 
Commissioner Flores joined the meeting.
 
Mr. Ochoa proceeded to introduce the 2^nd floor, indicating that the District Clerk’s Office will be located on this floor alongside the Court of Appeals, the jury assembly area and the DA’s operation center. The jury assembly area could also serve for any possible high case trial. The law library and the bar association are also to be located in the 2^nd floor. On the other hand, the 3^rd floor will be able to accomodate six courtrooms and all the judge’s chambers. The Indigent Defense, Adult Probation, Public Defender and the Domestic Relations Officer are also going to be situated in the 3^rd floor. Mr. Ochoa indicted to the judge that the break room and the staff restrooms will also be located on this floor.
 
Judge Garcia requested information regarding the possibility of a 7^th floor. Mr. Ochoa stated to the judge at that the moment they’re still waiting to know what the soft costs are going to be. They are working with the city to see if there’s any savings. He reaffirmed that the 7^th floor will have a cost estimate of about $5 million and will provide an additional six courtrooms.  Mr. Ochoa mentioned to the judge that at the moment they have one extra courtroom located at the juvenile detention area. They could also account for the proposed area set for Indigent Defense and the Domestic Relations Officer. They could combine these areas which could add three more courtrooms for civil courtrooms. They could then add six more courtrooms for dual civil or criminal on the shell floor.
 
The judge commented that perhaps the best time to add the 7^th floor could be now. He recalled that previously out of the $8.2 million that was initially set aside for side costs, that the more accurate figure was about $2 million or $2.5 million. Mr. Ochoa announced to the judge that those conversations are still ongoing between the city and the county. However, at the initial meetings it looked as if there was going to be some savings of about $5 million as well as seeing some savings on the demolition.  Moreover, Mr. Ochoa stated that they were planning on using those savings for the construction of the 7^th floor.  He informed Commissioner Cantu that they have seen savings on the demolition budget due to plugged in numbers they circulated, bringing some kind of input from others. They ended up with three demolition contractors to look at the facilities and provided new and updated estimates. The estimated number went from $3.5 million to approximately $2.2 million for the demolition and the enabling. Mr. Ochoa explained that the enabling is done in order to maintain some of the utility lines to keep both buildings functioning at the same until something is finalize.
 
Judge Garcia requested to explain the $8.2 million set aside for the utility work and side work, and why the change in the figure amount of $2.25 million or $2.3 million. Mr. Godines addressed their question by letting the court members know that these are some numbers that the city was considering at a meeting they held about two weeks ago. Mr. Godines disclosed that the $2.2 million also includes about $500,000 set aside for the disposal of hazardous material. He also reported that the $8.9 million dollars was set aside for offsite work as it relates to infrastructure and drainage and road improvements. As well as for others items related to the courthouse and its impact in the downtown area of Edinburg, for example, telecommunications, more water pressure for a higher building. Mr. Godines stated to the judge that they still don’t know the figure number. However there were discussions that it could go as low as $2.5 million to $5 million, nevertheless there’re still more meetings to occur.
 
Commissioner Cantu commented to Judge Garcia that all these discussions go back to one of the civil engineer item set on the agenda.
 
Mr. Godines clarify to the court that there are actually two sets of numbers, the offsite civil engineering and the onsite civil engineering. The onsite is another cost and another consulting relationship, this is already built in into the onsite construction cost limitation number. This number includes side improvements and side relationships, as for example the parking lot set aside for the handicap and some elected officials. This will also include the landscaping and some civil work within the perimeter and boundaries of the structure site. The offsite is everything outside the courthouse blueprints, as like traffic control. Once again Mr. Godines explained that the $8.8 million was set aside for the offsite, not onsite. These two have been accounted on the project cost. He also stated to commissioner Palacios that the city and the county will be in charge of the outside fiduciary structure. That’s outside the brick-and-mortar cost and the site cost. This is an item that was put in there much like the demolition; the county and the city will negotiate with the vendor as well as negotiate with the civil engineering group.
 
In relation to these two cost for the onsite and the offsite, Judge Garcia stated his concerns about being responsible for the offsite. He explained that the offsite is outside the perimeters of the courthouse. Based on the judge’s concern, Mr. Godines explained to him that this responsibility is a typical expense in a project like this one. The responsibility is due to the infrastructure relationships that are related to the development of the building around the downtown area. In relation to these concerns, Commissioner Cuellar commented that this could be something the city or the state could manage. Mr. Godines mentioned that this is something they can always talk over with the city. Judge Garcia advised that this concern could be address at the joint meeting set for March 8, 2016.
 
On another note, Commissioner Palacios requested to have included Drainage Director Raul Sesin. He recognized the poor drainage in the area and acknowledged the history around the downtown area. Mr. Godines commented that Mr. Michael Leo and Mr. Bobby Villarreal have been involved in those discussions with the city. Commissioner Cantu took into consideration that it is the county’s responsibility to drain the area, as they are the ones who are changing the topography. The commissioner also suggested that perhaps if they are improving the rest of the surrounding are then they could possibly contemplate some sort of reimbursement from the city.
 
Mr. Godines explained that not only is drainage a consideration but also anything else that is also inserted as related to soft cost.  All those items and everything above the brick-and-mortar and the construction cost limitation which at the moment is at $113 million dollars for the building and the construction of the building. Everything over and above reaching to the $150 million number is going to be negotiated by the county, including architect fees, engineering fees, soft costs, furniture, fixtures, equipment, the move and enabling is all going to be negotiated by the county. Mr. Godines explained that all they did was produce an estimate of what they knew in terms of market conditions and the market conditions in 3 years from now. He also mentioned they’re hopeful it will cost less than what they have budgeted, that number being the $8.9 million. Mr. Godines indicated that the intent of the last meetings has been to find out what has been done since the last four years when they had originally projected and knowing what is yet to be done and determine the number. Judge Garcia implied that if they gain any savings they could then construct the additional 7^th floor. Commissioner Cantu expressed his content with the fact that they know they can afford the $150 million project. Mr. Godines informed the members that cost estimates are going to be very close to what has been projected; in fact they are projected all the way to midway and leading to 2018. The entire escalation factors are included and there’s also a county contingency of about $6 million dollars.
 
In connection to the $6 million dollars set aside for contingency, Judge Garcia expressed some concerns, stating that in the previous meetings they had provided a number of $8 million dollars. Mr. Godines affirmed the judge’s statements and explained to him that this was back in July, now they’re accounting for factors in construction escalation and took some of that back in order to be able to account for the escalations since last August. This estimate was also assuming that the midway of the construction was going to be 2017 however they are now about a year later and are now projecting 2018.
 
Judge Garcia requested Ms. Salazar’s suggestion on the action to be taken for this item. Ms. Salazar confirmed with the judge that they needed to accept.
 
Mr. Ochoa presented a short review of the renderings of the building; he explained that the facility was design around a culture design, respecting the land, the people and the history. They ended up coming out with 12 metaphors and designing the project around them.

The metaphors are an inspiration from the orange groves, the Rio Grande River, UTRGV, Edinburg City Hall, The South Texas Museum of History, el ojo de agua, talavera tiles, mesquite trees, the jacal, avenidas, the porch and finally the jewel.
 
Mr. Ochoa indicated that the main entrance will sit on the north side which is where the old Robert Chevrolet parking lot is located,  leading the people through the avenida. They’ve taken into consideration the landscaping as a way to shed the avendia. The back side is to face the south, the war memorial and the handicap parking area as well. The main entrance into the courthouse will host the porch designed around the jewel box with along with iodize copper panel and presenting the talavera tile.
 
Judge Garcia questioned if the construction is going to be able to proceed and be completed before having to act on the existing building base on the renderings. Mr. Ochoa informed the judge that the design fits with the existing building staying in place. Therefore if they decide to keep the existing building after completion they will have the ability to do so, for the exception of the parking lot.
  
Ms. Salazar emphasized that this is to accept the revised schematic design as posted on the agenda.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 5 - 0 – Unanimously

B.  Legal Counsel:
1.  Exemption from competitive bidding requirement under Texas Local Government Code, 262.024(a)(4), a professional service;



On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously 
 

2. Authority to negotiate a Letter of Engagement with the law firm of Porter Hedge, LLP, Hon. David D. Peden [pronounced Payden] in connection with assisting Hidalgo County including, but not limited to, the following scopes of legal services:

    a.  negotiating the final form of agreement (AIA form of agreements) for the last phases (where applicable): design development, construction documents, bidding or negotiation, construction/contract administration, project close-out & warranty which includes the architects obligation to engage Civil, MEP, HVAC & Structural services;
    b.  providing HCCC with information on the different options on methods of construction (i.e. conventional, design-build, cmar, etc.);
    c.  assist HC with the preparation of any and all procurement packets that will be required for the design and construction of a new courthouse including the contracts required for same;
    d.  define the role and scope of services for the engagement of a Project Manager, if HCCC so opts;
    e.  other services as may be defined by CC;

Ms. Salazar mentioned to the court that on the notebooks handed to them this morning, they were provided with the CV of the Law Firm of Porter Hedge, LLP. They were also provided a CV on Hon. David D. Peden. The law firm specializes on construction practice.
 
Judge Garcia informed the audience that he recently attended a construction seminar in San Antonio, Texas. The conference was attended by about 800 lawyers and the main speaker was Mr. David Peden. The speaker discussed several issues involving construction law. Judge Garcia stressed that this law firm is well known and recognized in the area.
 
Ms. Salazar reaffirmed the comments made by Judge Garcia on the integrity of the Law Firm of Porter Hedge, LLP. She underlined the information provided on the CV, all the extensive education programs and seminars that the law firm is involved in. She further informed the court that proposing this excemption and also approving the authority to negotiate a letter of engagement with this firm, in particular with Mr. Peden will be from Item.21.A.4.B. 2. from A to E. of some of the services that the county would be requesting. Ms. Salazar mentioned that this is a summary of the main points she took away from a meeting held with Judge Garcia, these are the different aspects of engagements and services that would be required from the law firm.
 
Ms. Salazar indicated that some of the points are to negotiate the final form of agreement, the AIA. When applicable for the final phases, when selecting, scoring, grade and rank. The firm would assist in that aspect of representation. She also informed the members that as of letter B. the firm would be able to inform the court of different options on the method of construction, as now they are most familiar with the conventional method which is a hard bid. There’s also the construction manager at risk, which could help explain the pros and cons against conventional. There’s also the design built, which the county has undertaken only once before. That project was the construction of the Hidalgo County Adult Detention Facility and Law Enforcement Center. Ms. Salazar mentioned that the county might have the possibility of undertaking some sort of boot in the ground representative, in the title of project manager. This could create a liaison between the court and those professionals constructing and designing the courthouse and any other services they may want to include in the engagement.
 
Honorable Mr. David D. Peden from the Law Firm of Porter Hedges, LLP. Introduced his professional background to the court, he informed to them that he has been practicing construction law for 41 years. He informed the court that when the American Institute of Architects was revising their contract forms, he was appointed by the American Bar Association. He was one of ten lawyers from the country to negotiate directly with the AIA, at Washington and New York among other locations where they met. Mr. Peden recounted that he has represented public entities such as County of Victoria, City of Sugarland, and the City of Houston. He also has experience in commercial and industrial construction work. Mr. Peden stated to the judge that he has in fact seen the areas that he is being consider for, he suggested to the court that base on were the plans are at the moment it would be to their best interest to include a construction manager at risk. This would be involved under Chapter.2269 selecting a construction manager at risk.
 
Mr. Peden recommended the two step process rather than the one step process. One step will be looking at qualifications and price, two step you separate price out and determine who is going to do it base on qualifications and then have a second advertising for the price. Any considerations for the locals would be the selection criteria of price, either price in or price out depending if they chose one step or two step. Experience and reputation, the quality of the services, do the services meet the needs, the past relationship with the county. He suggested considering previous business relations, also looking at the total long term cost. Mr. Peden also mentioned that if they were to choose to go with a separate construction manager they would have to advertise and select separately for that separate construction manager. He informed the court that the construction manager at risk would basically get the separate contractor involved now, with the architect firm they can then decide to go forward with developing the plan. There upon, as the plans get more and more developed it will provide more freedom from the contingency fund. He emphasized on the key to get everything coordinated, for example if they have separate civil, he has seen cases were there’s conflict between the civil drainage facilities and what the architect and structure direct. Therefore, if they are considering having separate civil they need to find a way to make sure they all get coordinated before the construction drawings are finalized. Mr. Peden recap that all these information is something the law firm can assist with, to make sure the contracts are how they should be.
 
Commissioner Cantu stated that he agreed with the judge’s suggestion from the beginning, indicating that it would be a great idea as no one has experience building a $150 million dollars construction project. He looks forward to the guidance from someone with the experience to work with these types of contracts. Mr. Peden accentuated his experience with these types of projects done in Florida, California and Texas. He commented to Commissioner Cantu that some projects have been private and some public, his preference is CMR because it delivers the best value. He indicated that he rather have MEP come through the architect, structure to come by through the architect, civil is optional whether they decide to put it under the architect or have it separate it can be done both ways. The key is to get it all coordinated and assuring that the contractor has sophisticated software in order to run the clash program to make sure that structure and mechanical don’t have conflicts as the project comes together. Even though no project is ever guaranteed free of change order, this process does provides the best control. It may also depend if they choose to have a third party involved in the form of some sort of manager to interact with the rest.
 
Commissioner Cantu questioned the process of maintenance and how to work it into this project. In regards, Mr. Peden stated that this concern is more of a design choice rather than a lawyer’s choice. However, it is something that needs to be coordinated on the front end, and to what degree they decide to go leads.
 
Judge Garcia mentioned to Mr. Peden that they‘re going to be requesting his guidance when preparing the contracts to make sure they are prepare in such a way that it will benefit the county. This is to make sure there will be no limitations, liability clauses or arbitrations, to also make sure all the insurance is adequate and the county is the only one being insured.  To ensure that they don’t use the same insurance agreement or get involved in more projects. Mr. Peden assured Judge Garcia that they are capable of bringing this kind of experience to the team.
 
On the other hand, because of conflicts stated on Chapter.130 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code and conflicts on Chapter.151 of the Insurance Code, at this point they are not sure the extent of that, the architect could give an indemnity. Nevertheless, the architect could give defense cost, should there be a claim from a third party as an injured worker.



On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU  the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval on Item.21.A.4.B. 2. from A to E. 
                                                                   
Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

Judge Ramon Garcia is to be the main point of contact between Martha Salazar.

C.  Nomination of at least 3 firms from HC current approved "pools" of professional services providers:
1.  County's obligation for professional services under construction project:
     a.  Geo Technical;
     b.  Materials Testing;
     c.  Surveyors;
     d. Civil Engineer;
    
Ms. Salazar mentioned that the civil engineer could be based on some limited scope or they are going to need that definition. 

Commissioner Cantu suggested to first select civil and then as they hire an architect they can help them determine when they are going to need geo technical and others. The commissioner also proposed joining together civil and the surveyors.

Ms. Salazar mentioned that the first 3 are prior to construction, however 3 is the minimum they can always nominate more than that. 

Nominations for Geotechnical and Materials Testing per precincts:

Judge Garcia: Terracon Sonsultants, Inc., Reba Kistner and PSI.
 
Commissioner A.C. Cuellar Pct.1: Terracon Sonsultants, Inc. , Reba Kistner and PSI.
 
Commissioner Eduardo “Eddie” Cantu Pct. 2: L & G, MEG Engineers and Terrecon Consulting & Eng.
 
Commissioner Joe M. Flores Pct. 3: L & G, MEG Engineers and Terrecon Consulting & Eng.
 
Commissioner Joseph Palacios Pct.4 nominated all of the above.

Nominations for CIVIL ENGINEERING AND SURVEING WORK per precincts:
 
Judge Garcia:  S & B Infrastructure Group, LTD.,  Dannenbum Engineering Company, and HALFF.

Commissioner A.C. Cuellar Pct.1: S & B Infrastructure Group, LTD., Dannenbum Engineering Company, and HALFF and TEDSI.

Commissioner Eduardo “Eddie” Cantu Pct. 2: Quintanilla Headley & Associates, Inc., South Texas Infrastructure Group LLC., and HALFF Associates, Inc.

Commissioner Joe M. Flores Pct. 3: S & B Infrastructure Group, LTD., L & G Engineering and HALFF Associates, Inc.

Commissioner Joseph Palacios Pct.4: S & B Infrastructure Group, LTD.,  L & G Engineering and HALFF Associates, Inc.

D.  Architect 
Nomination of at least 3 firms from HC current approved "pool' of Architectural Firms to complete the final phases for the Design and Construction of a New Courthouse [i.e. design development, construction documents; bidding or negotiation phase, construction/contract administration, & project close-out and warranty phases.

ARCHITECT

Judge Garcia: HOK, LLP., HDR Architecture, Inc. and ERO Architects.

Commissioner A.C. Cuellar Pct.1: HOK, LLP., HDR Architecture, Inc. and ERO Architects.

Commissioner Eduardo “Eddie” Cantu Pct. 2: HOK, LLP., HDR Architecture, Inc. and ERO Architects.

Commissioner Joe M. Flores Pct. 3: ERO Architects, HDR Architecture, Inc., and HOK, LLP.

Commissioner Joseph Palacios Pct.4: ERO Architects, HDR Architecture, Inc., and HOK, LLP.
 

E.  Selection of Evaluation Committee(s) - Professional Services Providers Nominated:

Judge Garcia

Commissioner A.C. Cuellar Pct.1

Commissioner Eduardo "Eddie" Cantu Pct.2

Commissioner Joe M. Flores Pct. 3

Commissioner Joseph Palacios Pct.4

Mr. Valde Guerra

Acceptance and approval of Work Authorization No. 8 (with an estimated cost of $3,952.13) as submitted by L&G Engineering, Contract No. C-15-125-04-14, to provide Construction Material Testing Services for the Pct. 2 Las Milpas Road(McColl to Jackson Rd)Project.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU  the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                                   
Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

Acceptance and approval of Work Authorization No. 9 (with an estimated cost of $5,206.03) as submitted by L&G Engineering, Contract No. C-15-125-04-14, to provide Construction Material Testing Services for the Pct. 2 San Antonio (Moore-Sam Houston) Road Project.

Judge Garcia stepped away from the meeting.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 3, JOE M. FLORES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

 Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

a. Acceptance and approval to execute the final form of a Professional Engineering Agreement with L&G Consulting Engineers, Inc., for "Pct 2 Boys & Girls Club Facility Project " as approved for negotiations on CC 2/23/16 and subject to compliance with HB23 and HB1295 [if and when applicable], and legal review for the design and construction management and inspection of the project;

Ms. Salazar requested Mr. Sergio Cruz to explain the concerns raised by the Auditor’s Office.
 
Mr. Sergio Cruz approached the court to state some concerns in regards to the use of the applicable use of the CO’s, at the moment they are requesting approval base on legal approval and bond counsel approval.
 
Commissioner Cantu stated that they shouldn’t need any bond counsel approval, when it’s only a community resource center and was approve under the bond. According to the commissioner if it doesn’t fall under the community resource center which it will, it is almost exactly as the building next to this one. Once again, he stated that they do not need bond counsel to approve.
 
In reference, Ms. Salazar commented to the commissioner that they wouldn’t need bond approval if the title was CRC and not Boys and Girls Club.
 
In regards to Ms. Salazar’s comment, the commissioner stated that this is the way they identify the projects, and this is only an extension of the community resource center.
 
Mrs. Linda Fong questioned again if this was going to be a Boys and Girls Club or not?
 
The commissioner emphasized that this is going to be a community resource center.
 
Mrs. Fong made it clear that they just wanted to know if they could legally operate a Boys and Girls Club, using CO funds. Once more, the commissioner emphasized that this is not a Boys and Girls club, but a Community Resource Center. 

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 3, JOE M. FLORES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

 Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

b. Acceptance and approval of Work Authorization No. 1 (with an estimated cost of $54,055.56) as submitted by project engineer, L&G Consulting Engineers, Inc., for Prof. Engineering Services for the "Pct 2 Boys & Girls Club Facility Project" through Contract No. C-16-131-03-07.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 3, JOE M. FLORES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

 Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

A. Due to cancelation of the project, Rescind action taken (CC 02/04/15-REG. AI-48332) ranking as  #1 the firm: ERO Architects for the purposes of negotiating a professional (AIA form of Agreement) for the "Design and Construction of a Mechanical Shop" in Hidalgo County Precinct No. 4;

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                                                                                                                         
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously

B. Due to the cancelation of the project, Rescind action taken (CC on 05/19/15 - REG. AI-49639) ranking as #1 the firm: Broaddus & Associates, Inc. for the purposes of negotiating a "professional construction management services agreement" for the "Design and Construction of a Mechanical Shop" in Hidalgo County Precinct No. 4.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                                                                                                                         
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously

A.  Action to rescind suspension and resume Hidalgo County AIA Contract No. C-13-072A-11-19 with Couric Enterprises, LLC dba Foremost Construction for "Hidalgo County Precinct No. 4 -Construction of a Community Resource Center in San Carlos" by authorizing architect of record Mata Garcia Architects, LLP, to proceed to notify contractor via attached formal letter of Commissioners' Court action to resume construction work as of March 7th, 2016.

The concern stated on the the letter of concerns was the HB 1295 form. Ms.Salazar mentioned that the vendor made an attempt to send the form this morning, unfortunately there was an error. However, it's still subject to the receipt of the corrected form.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval subject to the receipt of the correct HB 1295 form.
                                                                                                                                                         
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously

B.  Acceptance and approval of Change Order No. 5 for modifications to building in the amount of $133,000.00 and an extension of 537 days for Contract No. C-13-072A-11-19 with Couric Enterprises, LLC dba Foremost Construction as reviewed/approved by project architect of record, Mata-Garcia Architects, LLP for: Hidalgo County Precinct No. 4 -"Construction of a Community Resource Center in San Carlos" with authority for County Judge, or Court Member to execute document.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                                                                                                                         
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously

Requesting authority to advertise with approval of RFB plans and specifications developed by project engineer, LeFevre Engineering & Management Consulting, LLC, for:  Hidalgo County Precinct No. 4 -"Construction of Parking Lot at San Carlos CRC & Sunflower Park"-RFB No. 2016-115-03-30-MSS.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 3, JOE M. FLORES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

 Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

Requesting approval to purchase (4) Four 2016 CAT CT660S Dump Trucks through the County's Membership/Participation with BuyBoard's Awarded Vendor, HOLT CAT [Contract #430-13;Expires 11/30/16]) for $501,313.00 through Requisition #293162 which includes OEM & Non-OEM Optional Equipment plus shipping and a one-time administration fee of $400.00 subject to compliance with HB1295 & HB23 & Modified CIQ if and when applicable.

Ms. Salazar mentioned that this is also in compliance with HB 1295.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 3, JOE M. FLORES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

 Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

A. Approval of Request for Payment-Application No. 11 in the amount of $34,675.00 from Central Air and Heating Services, Inc., awarded contractor for the Sheriff’s Office “Adult Detention and Law Enforcement Facility Roof &/or Air Condition Repairs &/or Replacement”, as certified for payment by project engineer,  Chanin Engineering;

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 3, JOE M. FLORES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

B. Acceptance and approval of invoice No. 13159-14 in the amount of $599.00, submitted by Chanin Engineering, LLC, contracted engineer for the “Adult Detention and Law Enforcement Facility Repairs and/or Replacement” C-13-133-07-09.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                                                                                                                         
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously