Discussion, consideration and approval of the specific services to be performed by Program Manager [in Phases through Work Authorizations for each Phase] with approval of the form of the AIA/Program Management Contract/Agreement [drafted and reviewed by legal counsel Porter Hedges, Hon. John Hawkins] commencing with Phase I and action/approval of Work Authorization #1 including authority for County Judge or Commissioners Court Member to execute applicable documents and subject to form 1295, and all HC requirements.

Judge Garcia recapped that at the last meeting, at the suggestion of both parties, they agreed to reset the negotiations until today in order to have a further discussion of services for program manger and what the charges will be to the county. However, the judge stated that he was advised that an e-mail was sent out yesterday afternoon stating that Dannenbaum did not want to discuss money at this meeting.

Richard Seitz, Program Director for Dannenbaum mentioned that it was cleared the court required further clarification on both, the proposed scope of services submitted by their team and the county's expectations for the program manager endeavor. They compiled a worksheet of Work Authorization No. 1 as requested, and was provided to the court. Seitz noted that the scope did not include any additional services for commissioning or field inspections. The scope of their services was provided for Work Authorization No. 1 and is in compliance with the RFQ they responded to and Dannenbaum's proposal. However, in light of the discussions, they proposed going line item by line item and at the end provide the court with a fee number for Work Authorization No.1.

Judge commented that about a week ago, they provided the court with different services that would be performed by the Dannenbaum's team. However and according to the judge, as of yesterday afternoon there were changes made to the services they said they were going to be providing. Seitz said this was not correct, because the line item provided yesterday, is in essence the scope in the spreadsheet that was proprietary information and was not for distribution to the court because it contains their fees. According to Seitz, it is their opinion and their attorney's opinion that this is better discuss in the negotiation meetings. 

Carlos Del Angel let the court know that what was provided today, follows the same format that was provided last week at the closed meeting they held with Mr. Brooks. According to Del Angel, that document was not fully complete and was only provided in good faith but was not for distribution. 

Commissioner Palacios disclosed that he met with them last week and knew the document was incomplete but were relying on their professionals to bring them to speed. The commissioner agreed with the proposal to go line item by line item and start deleting unnecessary items. Additionally, Commissioner Palacios agreed that monetary discussions should be conducted privately to not put the company in disadvantage. 

Reza Badiozzamani cleared that if anything was moved from the original submittal to the one submitted yesterday, it was just the format and nothing was added or removed to the scope. He noted that on the county's behalf, they wouldn't want to negotiate individual tasks in a public matter because if they do not reach an agreement with them, other firms will know what the county is willing to pay for certain line items. Judge Garcia asked Badiozzamani if they wished to discuss the matter under executive session or in confidence. On that regard, Badiozzamani stated that they would. However, according to the judge the law does not allow that, because in order to have all the commissioners present it needs to be open to the public. Reza suggested speaking in lump sum terms in order to not jeopardize the county's negotiations. Again, Judge Garcia stated that specifics needed to be discussed in order to have a total at the end. On that note, Commissioner Palacios replied that this was not the appropriate setting because it puts the firm at a disadvantage and should be done outside of a public meeting and disclosed only after they come into an agreement. Judge Garcia questioned how they could legally proceed to doing that. Commissioner Cantu commented that they should start with the scope and decide what items will be discussed. Martha Salazar added that they should get to the scope of work and then negotiate. Michael Leo commented that he attended that meeting and understood that the form was not complete, but didn't understand that the form was so confidential to the point that they couldn't share it with the court.  

Again, Richard Seitz stated that they entered into a private negotiation with the county and are willing within that negotiation, going line item by line item, dollars and man hours. They would allow distribution of that spreadsheet after comments and reviews by those involved in the negotiations, but are not willing to do it during open court. According to Seitz, the reason is because it describes their process and fees. He also stated that after deleting items, they would provide a total lump sum amount. Commissioner Cantu mentioned that there's got to be some money to be paid, in order to obtain the building they expect. On that regard, the judge stated that it has to be a fair amount and so far, they are charging the City of Edinburg only 2% in comparison to the county's 6%. In consideration, Seitz informed that the contract they have with the city is basically a record keeping process and does not address the same issues. 

Judge commented that his impression of WA No.1 was that they would help finalize the schematic design and assist with hiring the architect, the contractor and help develop a budget. Seitz disclosed to the judge that they have to set up base lines for the scope, budget and schedule. There are a series of activities that are required for a good program manger. Del Angel clarified to the judge that all those items mentioned will be performed under Work Authorization No. 1 and the items listed in the scope will help accomplish it. Carlos informed Commissioner Palacios that there's a lump sum for Work Authorization No.1 that was already presented to the county.

Judge stated concerns over the 60 hours requested by the firm for the gathering of all existing courthouse documentation. Carlos mentioned to the judge that their best estimate is 60 hours because of the amount of work it will take to gather, sort and review the information and generate a report to present to the court. Seitz reminded the judge that any discussion regarding man hours will have to be during the negotiation meetings. In addition, Ray Eufracio questioned who would be in charge of all the related invoices. With regards, Reza Badiozzamani said that this was no different than any other contract they have with the county. Seitz added that regarding the invoices, they will be a repeated task of the presented scope and with the indication of each completion percentage of those tasks.

Concerning the development of steering committee, Del Angel informed that this includes stake holders that will basically steer and influence some decisions into the design of the courthouse, but do not have any decision making power. 

Commissioner Flores stepped away from the meeting.

On the other hand, the governing committee is made up of internal stake holders who are members of the Hidalgo County and staff, CMAR and architects. Badiozzamani assured that governing and steering committees as they relate to finishing out the design, have not been established. In addition, all of the twenty-nine committee members did was to agree to the overall layout and functionality of the courthouse. Brian Godinez with ERO Architects explained that the schematic design is a schematic design that was submitted and adopted by commissioners court. They have not began with design development yet, he clarified that it will occur when they go into the design development which is the next phase with all the tasks to go into design development with the architect and eventually to the construction manager at risk. The governing committee will be the advisors to the court. Seitz informed that this phase takes about a month, in which the court should select who the architect will be. The architect will then get on board the second month. 

According to Carlos Del Angel, Early Project Definition and Alignment (EPDA) is the most important task for WA No.1. This explains that the owners input into the project is very important at the beginning, but diminishes as the project goes on. Any changes made now, will cost less than later. Under the workshop material preparation, judge Garcia voiced concerns over the billing for 56 hours to prepare the workshop and 80 hours to conduct it. It was explained to the judge, that those 80 hours are divided into 10 hours per person. Once again, Badiozzamani emphasized that hours should be discussed during negotiation meetings.

The Program Management Plan (PMP) relates to how they will implement and schedule all other factors outside the courthouse to make sure these don't delay the project or affect the overall budget project. According to Del Angel, they took their direction from Exhibit A- original county requirements RFQ Bullet Point I. 

Commissioner Flores joined the meeting.

Again, Del Angel stated that their scope came from the original RFQ.

Commissioner Fuentes stepped away from the meeting.

John Hawkins who was present over the phone, commented that the county's RFQ suggest that the county made discretion to not use certain parts of the scope of services or may request services not listed on the scope. According to Commissioner Palacios, the only reason he made point of reference to the scope was to look at it and consider what could still be needed to negotiate or strike items out. Again, Del Angel mentioned that it is best to strike out items from the scope and move into closed negotiations. The court agreed to strike item (a) of bullet point 5 - Coordination with City of Edinburg to secure funding. Commissioner Palacios suggested leaving items (b to f) under the identification of external factors for coordination and implementation into PMP, with the intent to negotiate man hours.

Commissioner Fuentes joined the meeting and Commissioner Flores stepped away.

Carlos Del Angel indicated that development of project specific websites and social media pages will be imperative to share information to the broadest constituents regarding roadway closures, parking situations and other endeavors. 

At the time they reach the program management information system, they will conduct a workshop to know who the members will be and who will have access to the information as it progress. Badiozzamani reported that during this stage, the county will be able to assign people to have up to date access from program information all the way to construction. 

They agreed to remove bullet point (b) assist county with selection of the project architect. They do not have any hours associated to this item and do not anticipate to participate, unless it is indicated. 

Under bullet point (c) assist county with procurement of the construction manger at risk (CMAR). Martha Salazar disclosed that Mr. Hawkins developed the original RFQ for the program manager and the understanding is that he will also develop the RFQ for the construction manger at risk. Del Angel advised that it will be imperative for them to be involved in the process to review the documents, as the county is not very familiar with putting out a request for a construction manger at risk. They refer to RFQ and RFP, because there are two different process for putting out a construction manger at risk procurement. Step one requests only qualifications and step two requests proposals for a selective group of firms that advance to step two. John Hawkins informed he prepared a two-step system. Badiozamani claimed that their intent was to never write the legal language of the (CMAR) procurement but assist the county with criteria to identify the construction manager at risk.

Commissioner Flores joined the meeting.

Bullet point (d) program administrator item (a) prepare / submit program manger's monthly invoices, was deleted from the list.

Commissioner Cantu stepped away from the meeting.

It was explained to the judge that the 16 staff members he assumes the county is being billed for, are needed to conduct the meetings and there is zero hours associated with them. Just because they are identify, it does not mean they are use for every task.

Commissioner Cantu joined the meeting.

There will be three meetings with L & G Management Team to coordinate between projects, one meeting this month and two subsequent. Items (4) weekly program management team meetings with architect's project management team and Item (5) weekly program management team meetings with CMAR project management team, were deleted from the list. 

Community outreach and communication tools, was placed on the list because it was in the original RFQ. Martha Salazar suggested to have the county's IT department and Public Affairs obtain the information from Dannenbaum and manage the website. Commissioner Cantu noted that Dannenbaum's team are the experts on what information would need to go up in the webpage. Reza noted they would be prepare a link to tie-up to the county's website.

Commissioner Palacios stepped away from the meeting.

Seitz disclosed that the 2% charged to the City of Edinburg is from items stated in bullet (d) maintain project documents control system. The project planning phase services (a) program administrator and management, were removed from the list. It was stated, no money was associated with this scope. During this phase, they expect to have weekly meetings with the architects but it will be contingent to the execution of the architects contract. 

Commissioner Palacios joined the meeting.

First month's initial phase fee will be $236,418.70 but subject to negotiation hours. It was explained to the judge, that the initial fee of $201,000.00 was just a work in progress, and it was prior to organizing the tasks in the months they were going to show up. 

Del Angel commented that bullet (d) develop program management plan was placed in the original RFQ in several sections as well as in the scope of services and was stated as one of the major deliverables for this project. This is the "how to" of the project, this indicates how the project will be run. With it, they get to prepare and analyze what steps to take for future issues. In essence, this section gives the outline and the source to all program changes that are essential to the project. This section also measures the quality of success and criteria. It is the base and core of what Dennenbaum has been hired to do.

Commissioner Flores stepped away from the meeting.

The only submittal made from the 1st month to date, was for $562,490.00 which was made on Dannenbaum's behalf. According to Badiozzamani, to identify which tasks were removed would be difficult, but the hours would be re-adjust. He assured that it did not increase the work authorization total. 

Seitz disclosed that the way they determine fees is by assessing staffing requirements over a duration of activities and not by percentage. He noted that this is not the final product, however it is close to the totals and the reason for the increase is because some items were shift from one month to another. 

Work Authorization No.1 total for the performance of months 2 and 3 totals to $321,661.16
Grand Total for Work Authorization No.1 $558,079.86

Seitz reminded the court that they signed a confidently agreement when they entered into negotiations, but have not received any signatures from the court. Upon receiving signatures, they'll provide the spread sheet for WA No.1 that lists hours, fees and rates. Seitz emphasized to Mr. Hawkins that what he obtained on March 30, was just a draft of something they discussed which at that time was known to be confidential and not for distribution. Once more, it was stressed by Seitz that they need the man hours and procedures to be confidential. According to Reza, the reason for this confidently agreement is due to the extensive hours they worked into the strategic plan for this project, they do not want this to become available to competitors. This does not meant that it is not going to be available to the court. Judge Garcia emphasized that they need to be open to properly protect tax payer dollar. 

Commissioner Flores joined the meeting.

Martha Salazar stated that once they enter into contract with them, anything that went into that agreement is open record because it becomes accepted by the court. The judge argued to Badiozzamani to understand that this is not their money and need to protect the tax payer.