Hidalgo County Commissioners Court to hear [through presentations with Q&A] from nominated Architects, Geo-technical & Construction Materials Testing Engineering Firms in connection with the design & construction of a New Hidalgo County Courthouse for the purpose of grading/evaluating and finalizing scoring sheets with each professional firm limited to a maximum of 10 minutes for their presentations to identify either specific courthouse or other significant projects with emphasis on the composition of project team identifying firm's personnel and local participation: 

1.  Architect Firms:   

1. HDR, Architecture, Inc.
2. HOK - Hellmutt, Obata, Kassabaum, L.P.

Judge Garcia introduced Hon. John R. Hawkins, representing Porter Hedges LLP and on behalf of Hon. David D. Peden.

Judge Garcia informed that the Firm of Porter Hedges has recommended making a determination as to what method of delivery they’ll be proceeding with. According to the judge, the firm has recommended to proceed with the method of delivery construction manager at risk. In fact both architects submitted the same request. Out of that specific necessity, it is required to get involved in selecting a contractor at this early stage. The contractor would participate with the architects in the preparation of the early documents, avoiding any issues before the documents are finalized. 

Mr. Hawkins informed the court about their three practice groups, including the litigation group and the construction section. Under the construction section they have 10 lawyers, including Mr. Peden.  He informed the court that he practice architecture for 10 years and 20 years of construction law. 

Mr. Hawkins brief the court on the traditional delivery project method, were there’s an owner and an architect and a contractor, completing a triangle. On the other side of the scale, there’s design build, were one company provides both the design and the construction. The construction manager at risk sits in the middle or they could have construction management not at risk, were the contractor is hire for feedback and advice to the architect on how to develop the design in an economic way. On the other hand, when it is at risk, the contractor comes in and aids the architect on how to find the best ways to design the project. This is at risk because typically they would have the contract with construction manager at risk, would be a costless contract and actual cost, plus percentage for overhead and percentage for the fee. The proposal is cost plus, but guarantees maximum cost price and if it goes over the maximum price it would come out of the contractor pocket and not the client. 

Occasionally the way this works, before getting to the actual documents this is the point in time were many specific technical parts of the building become together.

Ms. Salazar informed the court that in order to select the construction manager at risk, there’s statutory method much like it is being done today. The construction manager at risk needs to meet all the qualifications, it is not a just a general contractor who has done conventional construction. This would be someone who is going to present all credentials and experience for this type of construction. Ms. Salazar commented to the court that during this process Mr. Peden or Mr. Hawkins will be very critical in the development of those packets and the credentials needed.

Commissioner Cantu selected HOK to be the first presenter.

Mr. Valde Guerra reminded the presenters of the 10:00 minute time frame.

Mr. Jeff Bradley presented on behalf of HOK and assured the court members of their background experience on high rise construction. He informed the court about the over 100 courthouse projects  that include from 1 to 72 courtrooms each , over 2,500 courtroom designs, 123 AIA Academy of Justice Design Excellence Awards, $3 billion plus justice projects designed the last five years.

The HOK team is composed by project leadership that includes Mr. Court Parde and Mr. Jeff Bradley, both project managers. Mr. Bradley emphasized that there’re no other leadership team in the State of Texas that has led more state projects, between him and Mr. Parde they accumulate over 50 years of experience in the industry.

The team is also frame by Mrs. Linda Bernauer 19 years with HOK, Mr. Steve Brookoevr 16 years with HOK, Mr. Tommy Sinclair 10 years with HOK, Mr. Bob Schwartz 34 years with HOK. Mr. Bradley notify the court about the extensive background experience by Mr. Schwartz stating that he has been contributed author of the National Center of State Courts the Courthouse Planning and Designing Guide. Also in addition, he has contributed on the Court Technology Guidelines that have been done for the courthouse in the United States. The American Institute of Architects has a group of specialist that developed technology guidelines for audio, video, telecom, security and electronics which Mr. Schwartz has been part of. The United Sates Courthouse Advisory Committee also worked on a program analysis and came out with a design guideline.

In addition to that, the American Institute of Architects has retrospects. Every 10 years they published the best courthouses and justice projects in the country. Out of the ones that have been done the last 3 decades from 1980 to 2010, HOK has received 123 awards for courthouse projects. According to Mr. Bradley there’s no other firm that has these recognition, owning almost 25% of all recognition of courthouse awards in the United States.

Structural Engineer Mr. Anu Mahendra spoke about his 45 years of experience in designing buildings. The engineer informed the court about his designing plan for the structure of the Chase Building, which is the tallest tower in McAllen, Texas since 1978. Additionally, he recognized the concerns over the height of the building but expressed that all the building they construct specially in the Houston area, the foundations go below the water table. The BG Place in Houston, Texas was designed by Mr. Mahendra in 2010. The water table in the construction was 10 feet above the foundation, to address this issue they redesigned the retention system to keep out the water and then build three levels of garage below ground. Mr. Mahendra stated that he is the director of structural engineering and will be the one directing the design.

The firm expressed the importance of local team partners, and any substitutes that will work with the team must be approved by the county.

Mr. Parde commented that they began working with the county as of January 2015 and developed a print preview review for the county. One of the reasons they were asked to come present that preview was due to the project change. The project has changed from January 2012 when the project cost was $55 million dollars, to July 2012 for the amount of $112,973,000 to June 2014 when the schematic design was submitted it was for a project cost of $176,690,250

When the firm came on board they analyzed the package that had been submitted to the court and found that some of the cost items had not been included in the $176 million dollars. They line item those issues and determined that the true cost would be about $201,825,250 

Throughout the review process the firm provided the county with a list of recommendations.The county then directed the list to ERO Architects to incorporate the suggestions for a revised package, doing so reduced the total amount to about $147,130,973 and saving the county $54 million dollars.

The firm has worked on projects like the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse in Denver, Colorado, the Miami-Dade County Children’s Courthouse in Miami, Florida the Tarrant County Civill Courts Building in Fort Worth, Texas. They also worked on the design for the Travis County Civil and Family Courthouse; some members of the team have also worked on Johnson County Downtown Olathe Facilities Masterplan, the Wake County Courthouse in North Carolina and are currently working on the Will County Courthouse in Chicago, Illinois. Currently working on the on the King County Children and Family Justice Center in Seattle, Washington the Kent County Courthouse in Michigan and the Indianapolis Consolidated Justice Facility in Marion County.

In going through the process the firm also developed another list of peer review and site development issues, accounting for the potential closing of Business Highway 281, keeping public parking closer to the site, taking into consideration drainage problems and public utilities infrastructure.

Mr. Parde stressed the importance of experience and emphasized on their understanding of large projects and issues. In regards to the recommended construction method, they agree with it. Stating that it is a great idea for the project, it helps coordinate the design throughout the process. They have the strong understanding of the building type. They have experienced successful work through working with the construction manager, such as at the Tarrant County Civil Courts Building in Fort Worth, Texas.

Furthermore, after reviewing the project schedule they have been able to shorten the construction time from almost 5 years to at least 3 years. They’ll be able to accomplish this time frame by using the CMAR process and overlapping the design phase and start sooner. Currently they are working on similar projects in Travis County and Will County both, under the designing stage. 

The HOK team presented a 3D model design of the future site for the courthouse; they showcased a model of how the design would look with the potential closure of Closner Blvd. After looking at scope of the project and with the recommendations they reduced the size of the project. They also indicated that not having to close the highway would save time and money, by avoiding replacing any utilities or stopping any lights in the surrounding area. Moreover, they suggested providing sufficient public parking to help the public reduce the amount of time to park and walk into the courthouse. On the other hand, they mentioned to the court the set up around Austin’s Capital and how it could also work for the new Hidalgo County Courthouse. They suggested having the building sit in the center from both sides of University Drive, and not to the side.

Commissioner Cantu expressed his content with the placement and the potential reduction of construction time. He mentioned that if they do decide to close Hwy 281 they would have to wait on permissions. The architect team implied that this design could work better for future expansions to the building. They also suggest facing the building to the west, due to better parking solution and better presentation.

Commissioner Palacios asked if they’ll be able to see better saving going sideways or by going higher. 

The engineer informed to the commissioner that it would depend on when they decide to do it. If they decide to build the courthouse for the 24 courtrooms currently projected, then they could easily do that now. However if they decide to build high and add a floor now, that would add to the cost.

Commissioner Flores asked about any potential parking garage to extend on the side of the building.

The engineers mentioned to the commissioner that they don’t really need it, but would sit on the west side of the site.

They mentioned that a challenge presented for this project is the high water table. In regards Mr. Mahendra informed the court about his background experience. Reminding the court about the 19 story Chase Building in McAllen, which he design. As well as the construction of a 47 story building, in addition to two 12 story high buildings under HOK.

Mr. Mahendra emphasized to the court that he would be the one to direct the project hands on. He could also save 33% on the cost of the project by designing unity among columns and beams, indicating that it could be cheaper to go up than to go sideways as repetition of the foam. 

Commissioner Cantu and Judge Garcia asked about Mr. Mahendra’s relationship with HOK. 

He informed to the court that he is an employee of HOK. 

Both Mr. Bradley and Mr. Parde reminded the court that HOK is a full architectural and engineering firm and has full house structural in-house MBP’s, Mr. Mahendra runs the structural group for HOK. The firm has both the Dallas and Houston offices focus on the Hidalgo County Courthouse Project. The Houston office concentrates on high building and embassies, that’s where Mr. Mahendra is located. 

Judge Garcia informed the members that the county would not be selecting the people to do the work; they’ll only be approving the subs. The selection would be the firm’s responsibility and would be liable under HOK policy.

The architects affirmed with the judge and informed to him that they’ll be stamping and approving all the drawings. They have standard agreements with all other sub consultants to make sure they have the appropriate liabilities. 

Judge Garcia questioned the kind of liability they would require for this type of project. 

The team indicated that they have seen up to $5 million in professional liability for this type of project; however some counties go higher than that. 

Judge Garcia disclosed to the firm about a local school district that was involved in a case required $25 million and was approved by the contractor firm and the architect firm. The judge informed that this was for a high school project. Commissioner Flores commented that it was project of about $50 to $70 million dollars. 

Mr. Bradley expressed that it was a high amount for that type of project, however they are willing to seat down and negotiate any amounts for this project. Recently they have agreed on a $10 million dollar liability project in Dallas, Texas. 

Commissioner Cantu asked if they felt comfortable with the current schematic design and taking it to the design phase.

Mr. Bradley advised that this would depend on different options, including moving the building which could bring more additional rework. As far as now, they do not anticipate any major changes into the design. The program space gives them the advantage of utilizing all the work that has already been done. 

According to Judge Garcia, the firm that was involved in the schematic design will provide a model to be able to appreciate the size of the courtrooms and allow for judges or anyone to go and see the size of the courtroom. Judge Garcia asked if this could be something they would be willing to provide as well.

Mr. Schwartz informed the judge that they don’t take on any courthouse project without doing a full size mockup early on, in order to get approval. They seek to get suggestions from everyone who is going to be in the courtroom, judges, attorneys or court reporter, all these input provides them when an idea of the space needed it. They have had a full functional courtroom that was tested for one year. 

Commissioner Palacios asked about any potential local subs that could be consider for the project and for what element they could be consider for. 

Mr. Schwartz mentioned that they could anticipate working with ROFA Architects, Inc. however, HOK is a full service firm that work design and consulting. They could do the entire front to back interior courthouse design, except for the civil engineering and geo-tech and the security electronics technology for that they’ll look outside for other firms. The firm assured they understand the importance of local connection and to be able to provide advantage to being nearby. 

Commissioner Cantu expressed his desire to bring as many local firms as possible without jeopardizing their company’s experience. The firm was able to bring 15 local firms to the Travis County Project.

Judge Garcia questioned at what stage they'll be able to provide them with the local firms.

HOK representatives informed that currently they have ROFA Architects, Inc., SSP Design out of Brownsville, Texas. They’re also counting with DBR Engineering, Mr. Edward Fuentes Principal for DBR Engineering, came in representation of the firm. He mentioned that they have provided a local firm in McAllen, Texas for the last 10 years. The firm’s experience has been on schools, municipal buildings, worked at Bentsen Towers in McAllen, Texas. Both firms have worked together on over 6 projects and are experienced with each other.

Referring back to the list of local firms they have also added Mr. Rick Hinojosa for the early stage preparation, which could be present on a day to day basis. 

Commissioner Cantu questioned the current stage of the Tarrant project. 

Mr. Bradley informed the commissioner that the Tarrant Project was completed this summer, after completing this project the firm was awarded the new Criminal Courthouse Project. 

Commissioner Palacios and Commissioner Cuellar stepped away from the meeting.

Commissioner Cantu requested to have delivered the number of elevation for the Terrrant County project.

Commissioner Cantu stepped away from the meeting.

Judge Garcia stepped away from the meeting and Commissioner Palacios joined the meeting.

Commissioner Palacios stepped away from the meeting.

Mr. Valde Guerra informed HDR representatives about the 10:00 minute time frame. However, he notified to them that the previous presenters went over 2.5 minutes therefore, they’re going to be allowed to present for 12.5 minutes.

Commissioner Flores stepped away from the meeting./ All court members joined the meeting.

Presentation by HDR.

Mr. Mike Brenchley, Senior Vice President HDR and National Director Justice Program for HDR introduced Vice President Mr. Halden Tally and Mr. John Niesen Project Manager. The HDR team is base out of Dallas, Texas. HDR is a full service multi-disciplinary firm with over 183 technical disciplines within the organization. The firm assures to be capable of addressing any situations that come up while working on this particular project with their in-house personnel. However, they’ve learned that this is civic architectural and courthouses in particular are best delivered when there’s a connection to the culture of its community. That’s how the firm prefers to work, engaging best in class with local professionals work with them to use the best in industry practice to produce timeless solutions that are adaptable, flexible, and cost effective and reflects the community in which they live. 

The HDR teams has spent the last 3 years working with ERO Architects, HALFF Associates and the stakeholders and are extremely proud of the work they’ve been able to produced.  

The team mentioned some of the firms that have joined the team including ERO Architects, The Warren Group Architects, L & G Engineering, WJHW and HALFF Associates are all firms representing the local professionals.WJHW Firm is an acoustics company. 

Moreover, the HDR in-house leadership team is composed by Mike Brenchley, John Niesen and Halden Tally. This team would be in charge of working on executive decisions, contracts, delivery of models, costs and schedule would be overseen by the team and Mr.Brenchley.  Mr. Brenchley informed that Mr.John Niesen would be the Project Manager and assured that he has excellent experience working on courthouse projects in Texas. Mr. Halden Tally would continue to be the Co-Project Architect. The other in-house team is composed by Mrs. Kate Diamond who is an award winning courthouse designer and is recognized by the General Service Administration as an Excellent Designer Peer, and is 1 out of 22 people in the United States to have that designation. Mrs. Carol R. Lanham is a Former Assistant Circuit Executive for U.S. Courts, she’s going to be focused on architectural quality control and move the transition planning which is going to be critical for the ultimate success of this project.  Mr. Martin Aguirre is going to be in charge of the Building Information Modeling and lead the technical discipline coordination in the architectural models. 

The engineering service team includes Mr. Scott McMillan, Jim Gabel and Jeffrey Hargens who would be in charge of working with the proposal sub constructing team to assured of the best industry wide best practice into the final design and follow to final construction. 

In addition they also account for propose local professionals that include Mr. Eli R. Ochoa who has 8 years of background experience on this particular project. Mr. Octavio Cantu has worked with HDR for the last 3 years and contributed to develop technical principals and guidelines. Ms. Laura N. Warren would lead the interior design and will work along with Ms. Diamond to deliver the best design principals that have been established on the schematic design. 

Other potential local professionals include Mr. Trey Murray who has worked with HDR on the development of systems for the courthouse along with other engineers at HALFF Associates. Mr. Rene Garza with WJHW, the company is in charge of taking care of acoustics for the courtrooms. Mr. Behrooz Badiozzamani from L & G Engineering would be in charge of the civil coordination.

The firm’s courthouse portfolio includes three Texas projects in Ellis County and Hays County. Government projects include the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector Headquarters, and have done 4 separate contracts on that section on Trenton Road and Hwy 281. The Border Patrol Sector Headquarters won the best National Design from the American Institute of Architects. 

In relation to the CMAR, HDR has been involved in over 2.5 million of square feet of CMAR delivery projects in Texas. Throughout this process they’ve learned that Texas Counties have learned to accept the CMAR later in the project, accepting them towards the end of DD, mid-construction documents deliverable before GMP commitment. According to the firm this is done perhaps because they’re unsure on how to deal with initial small or multiple packages. HDR assures that they’ll work with the county to fix any issues or concerns in regards to the CMAR and figure out a comfortable level. That information creates the proposed project schedule with construction starting the 1st quarter of 2017 with construction completion last quarter of 2018. The schedule could be optimize and improve by bringing the CMAR on board as early as possible, allowing for early attention construction package for civil site foundations on the first four months are the design development phase. If the CMAR is on board by then, then they could collaborate and allow for a better improve schedule. If they do take and accept the early packages that would allow to move the some numbers back and start faster and save about $ 1.5 to 2 million dollars just on escalation alone for a project this size. 

They have incorporated 4 million principals into the development of the project, identifying the scope validations with stakeholders and construction manager to on the same page. The firm has its own data base to benchmark cost estimates. All five of the projects submitted were under budget, most recent Texas Projects, Hays County Courthouse savings of $14 million dollars and the Ellis County Courthouse with $1 million dollars in saving. 

To close the presentation the team assured that they are pleased with what has been accomplished with the Hidalgo local team. They’ve been able to validate the cost savings that were recommended on the schematic design report. The schematic design was adopted; they were able to satisfy the city on the exterior design and achieved sign off from all the stakeholders. They assured to be the best qualify team for this project. The team is engaged and passionate to continue forward on this journey to complete this project. They have the CMAR experience to deliver this project, know Texas courts and the team has deep ties with the community. 

The construction timeline is 22 months and if they accept early packages they could pull it back and have an overall schedule of 22 months. Early design time line was 32 months with total overlaps time and if they accept early design packages they could compress it by at least 2 to 3 months and work with the CMAR. 

Commissioner Cantu expressed his concerns over the potential closure of Hwy 281 and the drainage improvements that would have to be made. He asked the team if they have been in communication with MPO to help with some of those cost in relation to closing Hwy 281 and the redesign of stop lights or drainage improvements, and if it’s been accounted for on the 3 year plan.

The team informed the commissioner that it has been anticipated that it will be running concurrently. When they’ve done similar things before, they’ve seen project right of way improvements with the project site it’s a matter of communication and collaboration working with the courthouse contractor.

The commissioner asked how they’ll be working concurrently if the foundation sits right on Hwy 281. Once they start bringing dirt and creating the foundation they’ll be working on Hwy 281 and the road is going to have to be closed.

Again, Mr. Badiozzamani expressed that they’ll welcome L & G input on that concern. 

Mr. Jacinto Garza informed that they’ll be glad to work with HDR as far as coordinating that item, as the roads circulate around the courthouse square. They’ve already initiated work with the MPO, also according to the representative they’ve been working with Commissioner Joseph Palacios since he is a representative of MPO. He has allocated about $10 million dollars to add to a different source onto the budget. They’ll be working with the MPO and HDR to assist them with what relates to the coordination with TXDOT. Only if it is part of the contract, if it’s not part of the contract they could add civil firm as well. 

Commissioner Cantu acknowledged that it is completely separate but they’ll still be working with them on date planning. The commissioner asked what would be the time frame if the county does receive money from the MPO.

In regards, Mr. Garza informed the commissioner that for the roadway they would have to do an environmental clearance because it is not going to need any right of way and could be done on an 11 month period. They should be able to schedule any improvements on FM 107 and Hwy 281 and be on the time frame schedule.

Commissioner Flores asked how long it would take for the MPO to appropriate founds.

Mr. Garza informed the commissioner that the MPO should be attending Commissioners Court within the next month or two to appropriate any additional funds.  After that there shouldn’t be an issue as far as meeting the time line for clearing the environmental, drainage should also not affect HDR’s design. 

Commissioner Palacios mentioned some issues he sees with the design of the footprints of the building from the last presentation. The commissioner expressed his appreciation for the extensive work that has been done however, he voiced his concerns over the proposal or alternate for the building to seat somewhere else, doing so wouldn’t require closing Hwy 281. The commissioner questioned the commitment by HDR on looking at potential alternatives that could cost major savings to the overall project and not only to the brick and mortar. 

In regard, Mr. Tally informed the commissioner that the biggest savings happen at the early stages while working with the CMAR.

Mr. Eli Ochoa communicated to Commissioner Palacios that when they worked on the master plan they looked at different options on where to locate the building. One of the outcomes they wanted from the master plan was to use the least amount of land as possible, as they know the county will continue to grow. By doing that they’ll provide the county the ability to add structures, whether is another court building, parking garage or whatever may be. Therefore the idea of the strategy was presented and the appointees by the court members approved the location within the master process. Mr. Ochoa added that this building is going to take deep foundations and those are very time consuming, therefore by starting on the east side of the building they’ll be able to save at least 2 to 3 months before the foundation is constructed. When they sequence those projects they just don’t start with the foundation and do the entire foundation, they start with one end and work their way across. In working with the construction manager a lot of that sequence is discuss during the process and that’s the advantage of CMAR.  Overall Mr. Ochoa stated their goal is to reach a shorter period of time for the construction. He reminded the members that when they did the first schematics package they were looking at an escalation factor of about $9 million dollars a year to be added to this project. 

Commissioner Cantu pointed out that he did not understand the closing of Hwy 281 and stated to Mr. Ochoa that he didn’t think it would happen as easy as he stated. 

Mr. Ochoa indicated that they still have to design the foundation and complete a lot of designer work. At this point they’re considering staring the foundation 6 or 7 months from now. If they work their way from east to west they could have US 281 closed in 10 months. 

Commissioner Cantu openly asked if Hwy 281 could be closed in 10 months.

L & G representative informed the commissioner that TXDOT would be the main agency to respond to that question. Closing a state road means coordination, and it needs to get started now. The state won’t allow for a state road to close in such quick notice, there has to be a traffic study done and the state needs to be convinced it needs to be done. There has to be a temporary test to find out how traffic is going to be handled.

Commissioner Flores stepped away from the meeting.

Once more Commissioner asked about a specific time frame to close Hwy 281.

Mr. Badiozzamani informed to the commissioner that this is not easy to tell since they’re getting involved with state property. However he informed the judge and the commissioner that it could happen within a year. 

Commissioner Cantu informed that soon they’ll be hiring civil, on which Mr. Badiozzamani expressed that this would start putting the process together. He also mentioned that if they run into any surplus property they’ll have to go through certain procedures to get it sign off.

Commissioner Cantu asked what would be the worst case scenario even if they go full speed.

Mr. Badiozzamani expressed that the main thing is to convince the local TXDOT that there’re alternatives to the closing of that road.

Commissioner Flores joined the meeting.

Ms. Salazar informed the court that they had an option to score or leave it for a decision for next week’s meeting. They could also finalize scores when they have the same type of procedure for the civil engineers.

Judge Garcia mentioned that they were not ready to proceed with the finalization of scores.

Commissioner Palacios suggested introducing a formal action if any of the commissioners was ready to take action. In regards, Ms. Salazar indicated to the commissioner that it could also be sent to her office. The commissioner decided that this was not a good idea after all.

Commissioner Cuellar asked Judge Garcia what action he would rather take.

Judge Garcia requested to wait since this would be the most critical contractor agreement they’ll enter to. 

Ms. Salazar informed the judge that she would be sending him information in regards to the civil engineer questioner. They’ll be distributing the questioner to the committee members on Monday and would have to set up another workshop to heart the civil firms.

Commissioner Cantu questioned the need for civil engineering presentations. 

Ms. Salazar mentioned that it was up to them to decide if to have civil engineer presentations.

Commissioner Palacios suggested keeping the civil separate and not within the architects.

Ms. Salazar informed that tomorrow they’ll be receiving the questioner from the civil firms and distribute Monday. Therefore, they could be making two decisions on the meeting set for April 19, 2016 that would be the final scores for architects and the scores on the civil if they do not need presentations for the civil. 

Judge Garcia asked Mr.Valde Guerra to coordinate a special meeting before the 19th to score architects. 

No action taken on this item.

Court proceeded to adjourn.

2.  Geo-technical and Construction Materials Testing Firms:  

1. Terracon Consultants, Inc.
2. Professional Service Industries, Inc.
3. Millennium Engineers Group, Inc.
4. L & G Consulting Engineers, Inc.
5. Raba Kistner, Inc.

Ms. Salazar explained some rules on how the presentations were to occur. She reported that the presentations were going to be from the nominated two categories providers, architects and geo-technical construction materials testing firm. She validated with the judge in regards to the order of the presentations, explaining that the order could be as they wish it to be.
 
Commissioner Palacios stepped away from the meeting.
 
Ms. Salazar requested for everyone else to wait out on the west side of the building, as they were not allowed to see or hear the other presentations. The audio was turned off in the hallway.
 
Mrs. Salazar mentioned that as per the judge’s request, Geo-Technical and Materials Testing was to be done first.
 

Judge Garcia selected the firms to present in the following order:

1. Terracon Consultants, Inc.
2. Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI)
3. L & G Consulting Engineers, Inc.
4. Raba Kistner, Inc.

 
Mrs. Salazar informed the court that Millennium Engineers Group, Inc. withdrew from the presentation. The firm sent out acknowledge via telephone and through another individual.
 
Commissioner Palacios joined the meeting.
 
Judge Garcia took time to formally thank all the firms for their attendance and participation on this important project.
 
The judge reminded the presenters of the time for each presentation, to be at 10 minutes plus question and answer. 
 
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
 
Jorge A. Flores, P.G., Principal and Office Manager at Terracon Consultants, Inc. presented to the court an outline and overview of the firm. The firm remarked on the 80 courthouse projects nationwide over the past 15 years. Mr. Flores pointed out that the firm worked on the Brownsville Federal Courthouse in 1999 providing both, geo-technical and testing. The firm has had 230 local government projects here in the Rio Grande Valley. They have worked with TXDOT, City of McAllen, City of Edinburg, among other entities.
 
Mr. Flores emphasized on the importance of team project and the qualifications that each of them has. He informed that he would be the administrator and work with the contracts. The firm will have Mr. Alfonso A. Soto as both geo-technical and CMT services. Mr. Martin Reyes and Ms. Stephany Chacon will assist with the geo-technical portion of it. On the other hand, Mr. Juan M. Borjon and Mr. Guadalupe Leal will assist with the CMT section. Mr. Chuck A. Gregory will be assisting as an inn-house consultant out the San Antonio office.
 
Mr. Flores was proud to report to the court of the prestige accomplishments by Mr. Alfonso A. Soto, P.E., D. GE, F. ASCE. Mr. Soto has over 25 years Geotechnical Engineering, Diplomate Engineer by The Academy of Geo-Professionals. He is also a fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers, honor held by fewer than 4% of ASCE members.
Mr. Soto is also a pioneer at UTRGV as he was the first geo-technical professor at the civil engineering department.
 
Some of the major projects Terracon has undertaken have been the Federal Building and Courthouse in Brownsville, Texas. They took care of the geo-technical and materials testing services. Mr. Flores mentioned that all these projects are vertical projects and have deep foundations.  The firm has also tackled the Federal District Office Building in McAllen, Texas. The Sapphire Condominiums at South Padre Island, the building is a 32 story building with 26 floors up to the two towers. Another important project is the ongoing South Texas Medical Academic Building at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, also with deep foundation. La Plaza Parking Garage in Brownsville, Texas is another significant project the firm is currently working on. They are also performing geo-technical and CMT services for the City of Edinburg’s new Bert Ogden Arena. The firm has also worked at the VA Clinic for the City of McAllen and the City of Harlingen.
 
The firm’s reputation and the vicinity of their work will be at a 5 mile radius of the future Hidalgo County Courthouse. Mr. Flores affirmed that because they have over 100 projects within 1 mile radius of the future courthouse, they have database of the surrounding soil.  He also emphasized on the importance of safety, and the significance of it to the county.
 
Mr. Alfonso Soto spoke about the geotechnical services they are able to provide for this project. This includes specialization on foundation analysis and design, groundwater control, in-situ testing and performance monitoring, pavement design and subgrade evolution, site characterization and soil stabilization and ground improvement. The firm is also able to do pressure meter testing; they directly obtain information from the soil and determine the stress-strain characteristics.
 
Another advantage the firm presented is the use of electronic yearly report. This provides the client with a website to documents and allows for interaction and collaboration among the design team members. They can also update information and monitor the team’s schedule.
 
Under materials, they are able to provide on-site observation and monitoring during earthwork and foundation installation, and design review of concrete, grout and asphaltic concrete mixes. For the construction materials engineering and laboratory management system, the firm can establish process for rapid transfer of results, make all parties aware of the work scope and avoid any overlooks. They can also maintain a tracking system for material performance, report distribution, and non-conformance items. All these will allow for real-time management of scope, budget and costs.

Finally Mr. Gregory summarized on the background experience, reputation, results and their excellent relationship with other firms.
 
Judge Ramon Garcia commented on the issue of preparing an agreement, if they were to select Terracon. He implied that some companies insist on limitation of lability only clauses and agreements. Judge stated that he wants to make sure that the firm knows the county is not looking for that.
 
On that regard, Mr. Flores stated that they could not do that for a government project.
 
The judge asked about the amount of insurance that the company is covered for. Mr. Flores mentioned that as a national firm, they feel proud that they have the resources for that.
 
Once more Judge Garcia asked about the amount of policy on both, general liability and professional liability.
 
In regards, Mr. Gregory commented that on the professional liability side, using $1 million is a general standard. For general liability, Mr. Gregory stated that they’ve seen it go all the way up to $5 million.
 
Mr. Flores explained that they have general resource flexibility, and have never had any issues negotiating.
 
Commissioner Flores inquired from Ms. Salazar about setting their own limits on whatever they might be required.
 
Ms. Salazar commented to the commissioner that they must make all the professional providers aware, that if Hidalgo County chooses to increase its limits from the regular projects they can. If it’s special project the county can increase its limits. She stated that all the firms are aware of the county’s capability to increase the liability if it so wishes.
 
Mr. Flores added to this comment by annotating that the firm could also include Hidalgo County as an additional insured.
 
Once more Mr. Guerra informed the presenters of the time limit.
 
Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI) introduced its presentation.
 
Mr. Hector Lopez informed that the firm has over 120 offices across the United State; here in Texas they have 13 offices. The firm has conducted work here in the Rio Grande Valley for 30 years. Currently they form a team of 13 professionals.
 
The firm interacts with the clients through their laboratory capabilities and typically they work closely with the structure engineers.
 
Mr. Lopez informed the court that he will be the main point of contact, and is capable of preparing the proposals and can execute agreements on behalf of PSI. He proudly informed the court that between Chief Engineers Mr. Dexter Bacon, P.E. and Mrs. Shailendra Endley, Ph.D.,P.E.  Both provide over 60 years of experience in this field.
 
The firm has worked on projects such as the Los Corales Towers in South Padre Island, The Marriot Hotel in Corpus Christi, the Anadarko Tower in Houston, Texas and the Baylor School of Medicine, among others.
 
Mr. Lopez assured the court that as the work and scope develop, they’ll be taking care of the initial drilling and sound break, they’ll make sure all appropriate samples are collected and taken to their laboratory. Furthermore, he and Mr. Eichelberger are going to be involved in the classification and testing to make sure of the best quality and value engineering service is provided.
 
They’ll be able to present a preliminary report to the structure engineers and discuss any type of questions or comments on the settling of the foundation, the capacity for the support of the building, type of mat foundation and any settlements to be anticipated. Once this process is complete they’ll provide a final technical design report.
 
Once the plans are finalized by the engineering firm, the construction begins. As construction begins they’ll start working together with the engineers to assured the best quality materials are utilize, the correct compaction of the soil, the quality of concrete, anything related to steel welding and x-rays. Mr. Lopez assured the court members that all these qualifications are done by the appropriate technicians.
 
Moreover, he presented a list of recent projects they are currently working on here in the Valley. They are working on the Fine Arts & Academic Complex – UT System at UTRGV, the Fine Arts Centers at High School Campuses in the City of Edinburg, New Fire Station for the City of Mercedes, Las Costas Condominiums Tower in South Padre Island, among others. Mr. Lopez show cased pictures of the San Marcos Courthouse and the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Austin, Texas.
 
Mr. Lopez informed that he has work along with firms such as ERO Architects, Page Southerland Page, Gignac, SpawGlass, Guzman & Muñoz, Green & Rubiano, Naismith, Marshall, S & B Engineering and many more. He is the one who has personally interacted with the other firms to ensure the best decisions are made to keep schedules on time and on budget.
 
Mr. Lopez made certain that PSI is the best qualifying firm as they are good at their geo-technical work, they have no other interest on selling concrete or excavating or other miscellaneous. He stress on the importance of gaining the client’s trust and the crucial significance of accountability and commitment to the project and project tracking.
 
Lastly, he informed the court that for the last 8 years that he has work at PSI, he has not been involved in litigation over technical mistake. 
 
Commissioner Palacios and Commissioner Cuellar stepped away from the meeting.
 
Mr. Valde Guerra reminded the presenters of the 10 minute time frame.
 
Presentation by L & G Consulting Engineers, Inc.
 
Mr. Jacinto Garza P.E. at L &G Consulting Engineering, Inc. presented a power point presentation of the firm’s qualifications for both the geo-technical and material testing for the new Hidalgo County Courthouse.
 
Mr. Mark McClelland, P.E. Senior Engineer gave a short background of the current courthouse construction. Mr. McClelland reviewed the potential six story courthouse, indicating that so far, it is going to be at about 311,000 Square Feet.  Judge Garcia pointed out to Mr. McClelland about their desire to possibly add a 7th floor. The engineer assured the judge they are more than capable of handling a 7th floor, and underlined their cope of work on the geo-technical and material testing.
 
The presenter indicated that this falls under 3 categories, the Geo-Technical, the facility, the immediate side around the building. Aside from those categories, they are also considering the importance of road consideration around the square. He stated that L &G is familiar with roadway engineering and can provide the geo-technical and material testing for the reoadway. Furthermore, he spcified on the issues of drainage around the area and idicated that they're capable of addressing the issues or concerns. 

Mr. McClelland provided an overview of the company's information. He reported that the company has been located locally for over 15 years, it's fully certify for laboratory testing and engineering. They are knowledgeable on projects for shallow and deep foundation design, analysis for construction materials, among other testing for various projects. He further informed the court, that L & G is the largest civil engineer company in the Rio Grande Valley, with two main offices in Mercedes and Mission Texas. The firm operates 3 geo-technical drilling rigs, it's also the only construction material testing firm that has handled CMT for over $600 million dollars.

The engineer informed Judge Garcia, that they have also handled some levy projects and the rail road bypass project in Brownsville, Texas. The firm has also worked on federal, state, county and city projects.

Finally, he presented a chart with all the information of each employee at the firm and their certification background. He spoke about his personal background informing the court that he worked for the State of Texas Department of Transportation for 29 years and ultimately ran the entire state wide geo-technical section. Upon retiring from TXDOT, he began working with L & G. Mr. McClelland has worked on over 100 bridge foundations, shallows foundations, slope stability issues, and oversaw the writing of the TXDOT geo-technical manual, as well as the construction specifications that TXDOT uses for foundations and geo-technical. He explained that he was very much involved in the TXDOT construction materials testing, while working there. 

Mr. McClelland reported on some important projects they have worked on or are currently working on.Some projects include the Home Land Security Levy Project, the Raymondville Drain Project, and State administration building and the precinct 1 Sheriff's Substation.

In continuing with the introductions, Mr. McClelland introduced Mr. David Saenz, P.E., C.F.M. who has also worked with TXDOT for over 12 years. Mr. Saenz is currently serving as Laboratory Engineer of Record for L & G and is in direct oversight of all work products. He has completed over 120 geotechnical studies in South & Central Texas including over 60 buildings structure studies. Lastly, Mr. McClelland emphasized on the knowledge that Mr. Saenz holds on the awareness of the South Texas soils.

Commissioner Cantu asked abou the difference between the work experience with bridges and roadways, and the different testing experience for this type of project. 

In regards to this inquiry, Mr. McClelland informed the commissioner that not until the architects provide an idea on the type of foundation, they'll go forward. However, the biggest difference with buildings is the foundations. He mentioned that this building is big enough that it may be possible that it may go into deep foundation.

Commissioner Palacios asked for clarification on the bridge structures for a lot of the work that has been done in the past, asking if it has more deep foundation as supposed to the one for the future courthouse. 

In reference Mr. McClelland explained that in very competent soils they can put bridges on shallow foundations, but so many bridges are on water ways or rivers, therefore more often than not, bridges are on deep foundations.

Commissioner Palacios commented that most of the work that L & G as done for the county has been on deep foudation. Once more he asked if it's more complex on deep or shallow foundation.

Mr. McClelland discussed that both are totally different engineering, the boarding tend to be deeper on deep foundations and the exploration tends to be more intense. On the other hand, shallow foundations are more impacted by surface conditions, moisture changes, and settlement or shrinking and swelling. Both are different approaches, and the firm assured to be completely knowledgeable on both areas.

Judge Garcia commented that out of all the firms, L & G has been awarded about 75% of all county contracts. He voiced his concerns over the distinction on doing the engineering work, as it has been done on roads and structures not so high or heavy. The judge asked about the firm experience on this type of future structure. 

Mr. McClelland informed the judge, that while working for TXDOT he participated on plenty of projects dealing with  district and maintenance buildings,and intelligent traffic system facilities. Often he has work with up to 3 story high buildings, and with L & G he has worked on schools and warehouses. 

Mr. Saenz added to this discussion, informing the cour that they have work with up to 2 story buildings in the local area. Mr. McClelland commented that typically a 6 to 7 story building sits on the niche between the typical 1 to 2 story buildings. He affirmed that the future 6 to 7 story courthouse is nothing unique or unusual enough to create any issues. 

Judge Garcia reminded the representatives that they had previously indicated taht this would be different type of engineering.

With respect to this comment, Mr. McClelland explained that through working with the architects they would take the lead on the type of foundation studies they're going to consider. For a building this size and considering shallow foundations and deep foundations, this would ultimately be the architect call. 

Commissioner Palacios sought to know why L & G  is unique from the other firms presenting or what it is that sets them apart from the world of materials testing.

In regards to the the commissioner's inquiry, Mr. McClelland indicated that there're certain national standards for the entire materials test that all firms are expected to abide by. Therefore, no other firm will conduct a test very different from the other or in any other different method. Mr. McClelland explained that what sets them apart is the familiarity of projects and knowlege how soil performs. Another advantage is that they are capable of performing all testing here without having them to be sent out.

The judge stressed that national standard expectations are important however, experience matters on buildings like this one. The judge emphasized on his concerns over the firms' lack of experience on projects like the future courthouse. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Garza explained to the judge that they are knowledgeable on their field. He reminded the judge that a few years back they  had to take back some of the contaminated soil across the street from the courthouse. They'll be working with the architects and structure engineers for the design type of foundation.

Once again, Judge Garcia voiced his concerns over the qualifications on the testing for materials that might be use to support the heavy structure.

Commissioner Cantu asked Mr. Garza what types of tests they'll be performing.

Mr. Garza explained that they have to test the soil, asphalt, test the grid, among other testings. As far as materials go, Mr. Garza assured they have all the testing capabilities.

Commissioner Palacios asked Mr. Garza if they have ever had any litigation in the past. 

Mr. Garza informed the commissioner that they've never had any litigation over their work or have ever dealt with any buildings collapsing. However, when they do encounter issues with the building components they work with the contractors and suppliers.

Mr. Badiozzamani noted that one thing that sets L &G apart from the other firms, is the experience in the area of understanding the soil. Whether they have a heavy building or heavy bridge, the importance is to understand how the soil behaves under heavy loads. He emphasized on the experience that all the staff has and the background knowledge of Mr. McClelland and his expertise on soil behavior. 

Commissioner Palacios commented on the work that L & G has done for the county and expressed his understanding on the advantages of L & G on the field of road work. However, now that the county is undertaking the construction aspect, he is feeling concern over the construction side. 

Mr. Valde Guerra informed the presenter of the 10 minute time frame.

Presentation by Raba Kistner, Inc.

Mr. Isidro Arjona PE, PMP presented on behalf of Raba Kistner Services, he gave a shor review of the compnays' background. The firm was founded in San Antonio, Texas in 1968 and has been established in the Rio Grande Valley since 1991. The firm has worked on dozens of large public sector projects of similar scope and magnitude through the state of Texas. The McAllen Laboratory has been accredited by AASHTO by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since 2005. Raba Kistner McAllen has the largest scope of ASTM accredited test in the Valley.

Mr. Arjona reviewed his work background informing that he holds 23 years of experience in the field, 21 years as project manger, 17 years with Raba Kistner. He is also a licensed professional engineer in the State fo Texas and Minnesota, and experience in vertical projects. Projects such as, the Webb County Courthouse, UTRGV Science Building Expansion, Mission Regional Hospital, City of McAllen Performing Arts Center, Rio Grande Regional Hospital in McAllen. 

The team is compose by Ms.Katrin Leonard, PE in charge of overseeing the Geotechnical Engineering. Ms. Leonard holds 20 years of experience and significant experience in vertical projects here in the Valley. Mr. Carlos Ceballos, PE engineer in charge of Materials Testing, with 14 years of experience, 2 years with Raba Kistner he is licensed professional engineer in the State of Texas and also has experience with vertical projects here in the Valley. The field laboratory supervisors would include Mr. Eloy Arredondo certified under the National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies. He holds 13 years of experience, 5 years as supervisor, and 8 years with Raba Kistner. Mr. Juan Carrillo also NICET certified with 22 years of experience and 17 years as supervisor. Mr. Carrillo is responsible for the maintenance of AASHTO and US Army Corps of Engineers McAllen Laboratory Accreditation. 

Mr. Arjona emphasized to the court about the company's substantial experience on projects like this one here in Texas. He further pointed out the major projects they are responsible for, such as the City of McAllen Performing Arts Center, Mission Regional Hospital, McAllen Miller International Airport Terminal Expansion, Hidalgo County RMA US 281, City of McAllen Downtown Parking Garage, among others.

In comparison to other firms, Mr. Arjona assured that Raba Kistner has experience site specific background. They've actually drilled on the specific site where the new courthouse is to be constructed. Mr. Arjona encouraged the court to take into consideration the environmental work that has been previously done. The study revealed that there're gasoline storage tanks that have ben removed from the north side of the future project. 

The firm has also performed three geotechnical studies in the surrounding site. According to the tests the ground has variable expansive to highly expansive clay, could potentially result in different movements for shallow or flat foundations. Also the depth of groundwater that has been measured has been approximately 12 to 23 feet below existing ground, it was measured within the last 3 to 4 years. Based on what the firm knows about the site they do anticipate that ground support structures. Typically the system that is used here in the region is drilled straight shaft.More likely they anticipate deep foundation system consisting of drilled straight shaft piers, which will likely be required to support the future courthouse superstructure. 

Once more Mr. Arjona emphasized on the experience and knowledge of onsite specific conditions that the firm has, and informed that that this knowledge can allow for proper scoping for geotechnical study and to reduce the likelihood of surprises during construction. The firm poses significant experience in vertical construction and courthouse understanding throughout the State of Texas. Their laboratory located in McAllen, Texas is ASTM accredited. Notwithstanding, Raba Kistner team also sustains other knowledge in in the fields of welding, building envelope, inspection, floor flatness, and roofing services. 

Commissioner Palacios questioned the litigation history of the firm for any past projects.

In regards, Mr. Arjona informed the commissioner that as they have worked on thousands of projects, there have been occasions where they have been invovled in litigation. Nevertheless, they ahve never been found at fault.

Judge Garcia asked about the potential engineers that will be working on the courthouse project and the background experience they posess on this type of structure. Mr. Arjona notfied the judge that he personally has experience working for the Webb County Courthouse. Ms. Leonard is experienced in managing the geotechnical services and has completed work on the expansion for the Science Building at UTRGV, the Performing Arts Center in McAllen, Texas as well ast the expansion of the Mission Hospital. 

Judge Garcia stated to Mr. Arjona about some contracts that the firm has entered into with different public and private bodies were they have included limitation on liability clauses. Judge informed Mr. Arjona that they are not going to be allowing that for this particular project. 

Mr. Arjona assured the judge that they have always negotiated with the client. Even with projects were there are limitations of liabilty, if it's not acceptable to the client then they always negotiate to meet their requirements.

The judge made clear that this is not a normal project for the county, and that the insurance limitations for the firm to make a presentation is the minimum of $1 million. Therefore, the judge emphasized they'll be requiring for substantial work and will also have to get involved in the negotiations.

Mr. Arjona informed the judge that they have negotiated higher liabilites in the past and are able to compromise for certain clients.

Commissioner Cantu inquired on the amount of the liabilities the firm has carried out.

Mr. Arjona indicated that they have worked with liabilities of up to $5 million.

Commissioner Palacios requested having Terracon back to ask a specific question.

Mr. Valde Guerra reminded the court about the 10:30 meeting.

Terracon presenters came back into court to undertake questions from the court.

Commissioner Palacios asked Mr. Jorge A. Flores if Terracon has ever been involved in any litigation matters throughout the State of Texas.
In regards, Mr. Flores notified the commissioner that they are a large company, at some point they have encounter litigation. He reminded the court that they have over 146 offices across the nation. However, the office located in Pharr, Texas has only been involved on one litigation case, they were dismissed. 

Judge recessed the 9:30 a.m. meeting to open into the scheduled 10:30 meeting