1 dallas county commissioners court briefing agenda … · translation services; bid no....

1

DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURTBRIEFING AGENDA

June 10, 2003

REPORTSIRECOMMENDATIONSIREQUESTS

1) JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

PAGE NOS.

a) Agreement with the City of Grand Prairie for JuvenileAccountability Incentive Block Grant "Turn back" Funds .4-27

b) Recommendation for Award of Contract for Operationand Enhancement of the Dallas County Juvenile InformationSystem and Development of the Adult Information System 28-57

2) FACILITIES

Lease Renewal. 58-59

3) HUMAN RESOURCES/CIVIL SERVICE

a) PEBC Bylaw Changes 60-69

b) Review of Nepotism Policy 70-74

4) COMMUNICATIONS & CENTRAL SERVICES

Destroyed Shelving Write-off. 75

5) PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

a) Award to other than the lowest bidder - Annual Contract forToilet Tissue and Toilet Seat Covers; Bid No. 2003-084-1323 76-80

b) Contract Extension - Annual Contract for Interpretation andTranslation Services; Bid No. 2002-121-1155 81-82

2

c) Contract Extension - Annual Contract for ResidentialMechanical Services; Bid No. 2002-120-1154 83

d) Request for Proposals for Library Management SoftwareRFP 2003-090-1329 84

e) Request for Proposals for Third Party Claims AdministrationServices for Dallas County Self Insurance WorkersCompensation Program; RFP No. 2003-049-1318 85-122

6) PUBLIC WORKS

Inter-local Agreement for the Intelligent Transportation System 123-140

7) OPERATIONS

Main Street Traffic Study 141-146

8) OFFICE OF BUDGET & EVALUATION

a) Request for Exception to Hiring Freeze - (JP, Pct. 5) 147-149

b) Review of Constable Traffic Programs , Handout

9) IT SERVICES

Report on Civil Courts Advisory Committee Finding N/A

10) Performance Forum , Insert• Agricultural Extension Service

11) Miscellaneous, Travel Requests, Miscellaneous Equipment, andTelecommunications Requests 150-156

12) PUBLIC COMMENTS

Speakers N/A

3

FIVE SIGNATURE DOCUMENT(s) FOR CONSIDERATION

- Minister's Letter of Appreciation

- Letter to Miss Amy Renee' Lenderman - Miss Garland

DATE(s) TO REMEMBER

*******

4

Dallas County c?JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

"" , ,..,. , -,j I,

Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

MEMORANDUM

March 21,2001

Dallas County Commissioners Court

Michael K. Griffiths, Director

Agreement with the City of Grand Prairie for Juvenile Accountability IncentiveBlock Grant "Turn back" Funds

Background of Issue

Seventeen jurisdictions within Dallas County have pooled their funding from the federal JuvenileAccountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) for the purpose of creating a centralized data basefor juvenile records, called the Dallas dounty Juvenile Information System (JIS). The JIS iscurrently in operation, with over 1400 trained users and 32 agencies using the JIS as theirprimary system for processing juvenile offenders. Total funding for the JAIBG project was$1,380,831 in the first year, $1,869,072 in the second year, $1,814,142 for the third year, and$1,917,693 for year 4. Year 5 begins July 1, 2003 with a funding allocation of $1,612,233.

Beginning with the second year of JAIBG funding, a portion of the grant dollars has beenreturned to the participating jurisdictions to purchase equipment and/or services to access theJIS. These "turn back" funds are allocated based upon the percentage of total funding eachjurisdiction contributed to the JAIBG project. Commissioners Court approved similar agreementsfor Years 2 and 3. The purpose of this briefing is to request Commissioners Court approval ofthe sharing funds agreement for Year 4 with the participating jurisdictions for the turn back funds.

Impact on Operations and Maintenance

All of the participating jurisdictions except the City of Dallas, use the turn back funds exclusivelyto purchase equipment and services that enhance their ability to access the JIS. The City ofDallas uses a portion of the funds for equipment and the remainder to provide a prosecutor andassistant assigned to juvenile cases in their municipal court. Each jurisdiction is responsible forthe purchase, installation and maintenance of all equipment purchased with turn back funds.Jurisdictions must provide receipts or other documentation that the funds have been expendedbefore Juvenile Department staff process a reimbursement request.

2600 Lone Star Drive, Box 5 Dallas, Texas 75212 (214) 698-2200

JAIBG Turnback Fundspage 2

Legal Information

A formal sharing funds agreement has been developed that is used for each participatingjurisdiction. The agreement has been approved by the District Attorney's office for review. TheCity of Grand Prairie agreement is attached, without Attachment 0, Uniform Grant and ContractManagement Standards, which is not provided due to its length. The same format will be usedfor agreements with other jurisdictions. We are currently in the process of receiving agreementssigned by the authorized official from each jurisdiction. The signature of the Dallas CountyJUdge is required on the agreements.

Fiscal Information

Each jurisdiction receives 25% of their total grant in turn back funds. Grand Prairie's total isreduced by $1,506 that was allocated to the project to solve a network problem that affectedGrand Prairie and several otherjurisdictions. Dallas County's turn back share was $136,814.75.Those funds were allocated to the general project to allow for integration of the new CaseWorker5 system into the JIS and to complete the electronic reporting to the State. The turn back fundsare available from the JAIBG, no County funds are involved. A listing of all jurisdictions and theirturn back allocation follows. The column labeled"% of Total" indicates that jurisdiction's matchand grant total's percentage contribution to the overall project.

JURISDICTION GRANT MATCH TOTAL % of Total TURN BACK

Addison $10,497 $1,166 $11,664 .61 $2,195.75

Balch Springs $6,472 $719 $7,191 .37 $1,797.75

Carrollton $32,582 $3,620 $36,202 1.89 $9,050.50

Cedar Hill $6,695 $744 $7,439 .39 $1,859.75

Coppell $5,815 $646 $6,461 .34 $1,615.25

Dallas (City) $859,836 $95,537 $955,373 49.82 $238,843.25

DeSoto $10,604 $1.178 $11,783 .61 $2,94550

Duncanville $14,122 $1,569 $15,691 .82 $3,922.75

Garland $60,677 $6,742 $67,419 3.5 $16,854.75

Grand Prairie $55,821 $6,202 $62,024 3.23 $13,999.75

Highland Park $6,167 $685 $6,852 .36 $1,713.00

Irving $58,330 $6,481 $64,811 3.38 $16,202.75

Lancaster $8,456 $940 $9,395 .49 $2,349.00

Mesquite $44,528 $4,948 $49,476 2.58 $12,369.00

Richardson $37,258 $4,140 $41,397 2.16 $10,349.50

Rowlett $8,088 $899 $8,987 .47 $2,246.75

University Park $7,443 $827 $8,270 .43 $2,06750

Dallas County $492,533 $54,726 $547,259 28.54 $0

TOTAL $1,725,924 $191,769 $1,917,693 100% $314,102.50


6

JAIBG Turnback Fundspage 3

Performance Measures

The are no specific performance measures for each jurisdiction's turn back funding used topurchase equipment and/or services to allow access to and utilization of the JIS. The City ofDallas' goal for their municipal court prosecutor program is to process 12,000 non-traffic cases.The program processed 11,516 cases in the third year of funding.

Project Schedule/Implementation

The jurisdictions are in the process of finalizing their turn back funds purchases. All turnbackfunds must be spent by June 30, 2003. Reimbursements must be finalized by August 14, 2003,within the 45 day time frame allowed for final liquidation of grant funds.

MIWBE

Not applicable.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Dallas County Commissioners Court approve the Sharing FundsAgreements for Year 4 with the seventeen jurisdictions participating with Dallas County in theJuvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) program and authorize the Dallas CountyJudge to sign the agreements and related documents on behalf of Dallas County.

Recommended by: vl-t:U t: 61!,~Ji,;Michael K. Griffith Director


7

JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT

SHARING FUNDS AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AND

THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE

THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), is made and entered into by and between thefollowing Parties:

Dallas County, Texas (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"), located at the AdministrationBuilding - 2nd Floor, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75202, is a corporate and political body recognizedas a legal subdivision of the State of Texas pursuant to Article XI, Section 1 of the TexasConstitution;

City ofGrand Prairie, Texas (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"), located at 317 West CollegeStreet, Grand Prairie, Texas, 75050 is a home rule municipality pursuant to Section 5, Article 11 ofthe Texas Constitution;

WHEREAS, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Actof 1999 (Public Law 105-277) allocated $250,000,000.00 to the Juvenile Accountability IncentiveBlock Grant ("JAIBG") for the purpose ofproviding funds to State and local governments to developprograms that promote greater accountability in the juvenile justice system; and

WHEREAS, the Office ofthe Governor's Criminal Justice Division ("CJD") will administerthe JAIBG which is a "reimbursement grant" for the State of Texas and has notified the Parties oftheir respective awards; and

WHEREAS, the award ofJAlBG funds requires a ten percent (10%) local cash match fromeach of the Parties; and

WHEREAS, community planning efforts have identified the need for improved coordinationamongjurisdictions and branches ofthe juvenile justice system, especially in the area ofinformationcollection and sharing; and

WHEREAS, qualifying units oflocal government may waive their right to their award andrequest those funds be awarded to and expended for their benefit by a larger or contiguous unit oflocal government; and

-1-

8

WHEREAS, jurisdictions within Dallas County wish to collaborate in using JAIBG fundsto develop and implement an integrated data processing system (the "Dallas County JuvenileInformation System") linking law enforcement, prosecutors, probation officials and Child ProtectiveServices; and

WHEREAS, COUNTY shall serve as lead agency for the project and ·will submit aconsolidated application for JAIBG funding to CJD; and

WHEREAS, CITY desires to waive its rights to apply for and request that its respectivegrant funds be awarded to COUNTY to be expended for their benefit by participating in thecollaborative effort more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporatedherein for all purposes; and

WHEREAS, CITY authorizes COUNTY to submit a consolidated application for JAIBGfunding to cm for the purposes of developing and implementing the integrated data processingsystem described in Exhibit "A"; and

WHEREAS, upon formal notice from the CJD that the consolidated application has beenapproved and the JAIBG funds have been awarded, COUNTY shall establish a dedicated accountin which all JAmG funds shall be controlled by the Dallas County Auditor's Office in strictaccordance with CJD guidelines and procedures;

WHEREAS, CITY agrees to provide its respective ten percent (10%) cash match of$ 6,202to COUNTY for the collaborative effort which shall be deposited in the dedicated account; and

FURTHER, CITY agrees to continue its participation in the Juvenile Crime EnforcementCoalition;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, promises and mutual covenantscontained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency ofwhich ishereby acknowledged, it is mutually covenanted and agreed by and between the Parties hereto asfollows:

I.

PURPOSE

The Parties agree and acknowledge that the Dallas County JAIBG Collaboration was

established in 1998 when fifteen jurisdictions within Dallas County pooled their Year 1 Funding

from the Federal JAIBG for the purpose of creating a centralized data base for juvenile records

known as "Phase I" ofthe project. Phase I included the following aspects ofthe project: establishing

-2-

9

the hardware and software for the core data base; and integrating the new data base with the

Caseworker system which is used byjuvenile probation, prosecutors and the Juvenile Courts. During

Phase II the initial system created under Phase I was expanded to include the following

enhancements: online arrest processing and identification support; expanded data elements;

automation ofreferral process; expanded the district court processes; enhanced caseworker interface;

provided intake processing, arrest profile, and auto printing; enhanced DA processes; and included

truancy information. Phase III produced additional enhancements to the system including: hardware

and software upgrades; automated arrest report enhancements; development of a records

management process; incorporating data from additional agencies; development of disposition

recording methods; development ofa victim-witness notification function; and enhancement ofthe

systems reporting capabilities.

COUNTY and CITY further agree and acknowledge their continued desire to participate

in the Dallas County JAIBG Collaboration and pool their Year 4 Funding from the Federal JAlBG

for Phase IV of the project. During Phase IV, a portion of the JAIBG funding will be allocated to

operation and maintenance of the JIS. The following priorities for enhancements to the system to

be developed and implemented during Phase IV: improvement to the juvenile profile and system

navigation; electronic filing to the District Attorney; incorporating data from additional agencies;

improvement to the records consolidation process; and development of functions for juvenile

probation services.

II.

TERM

The term ofthis Agreement shall commence on the date ofthe last signature approving this

Agreement and shall terminate upon final expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant.

-3-

10

, III.

INITIAL JAIBG FUNDING AMOUNTS

Prior to the COUNTY'S submission of a consolidated application to the State of Texas,

Office of the Governor, the CJD initially allocated the following funds to CITY:

CITY $ 55,821

IV.

LOCAL MATCH FUNDS

CITY shall be solely responsible for its respective cash match, as required by the tenus of

this JAIBG award, and said sum shall be directly transferred to COUNTY'S dedicated account for

this grant in the following amount:

CITY $ 6,202

V.

CITY WAIVES RIGHT TO APPLY FOR FUNDING

Pursuant to CITY Council Resolution 3801 dated the 22nd of January, 2002, and the

Application Waiver, both attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes as Exhibit "B",

CITY delegated to COUNTY its right to apply for funding under the JAIBG and committed its

required cash match to COUNTY.

-4-

1 1

VI.

TRANSFERRED FUNDS

CITY agrees to have its initial CJD funding and local match funds, described in Sections

III and IV supra, directly transferred to COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement in the following

amount:

CITY $ 62,023

VII.

FUNDS TO BE REIMBURSED

The following amount reflects the portion of the CITY'S transferred funds, described in

Article VI supra, which shall be returned to CITY, for the purchases more particularly described on

Exhibit "C". attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes, under the reimbursement

procedures set forth in Articles VIII and IX infra.

CITY $ 13,755

XIII.

PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS OF CITY

COUNTY and CITY agree and acknowledge that CITY shall be responsible for purchasing

all equipment and supplies, more particularly outlined in Exhibit "C", on its own behalf. Once CITY

has purchased said equipment and supplies, CITY shall be solely responsible for providing to

COUNTY all necessary documentation to receive reimbursement in accordance with all applicable

JAIBG. County, and CJD guidelines and procedures. Any use of this equipment/supplies shall

comply with at least one of the twelve (12) enumerated JAIBG program purposes.

-5-

12

IX.

REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES

Given the nature of the JAIBG reimbursement funding and the COUNTY'S role as lead

agency for Phase IV of the project, the CITY agrees to expend these funds in accordance with

relevant Federal, State, and cm requirements. In addition, COUNTY and CITY agree the

following procedures shall govern all of CITY'S requests for reimbursement under the grant.

(A) City Requests Payment in Advance to Purchase Equipment and/or Supplies Pursuant to an

Invoice:

(1) CITY shall provide to COUNTY, in writing, notice that said equipment been

requisitioned and actually received by CITY pursuant to a valid purchase order;

(2) Such written notice to COUNTY shall include a copy of the appropriate invoice or

other necessary documentation to confirm the purchase amount for the specific item

ofequipment;

(3) COUNTY shall request on CITY'S behalfan advance payment from the cm for the

purchase amount indicated on the invoice or other documentation described in (2)

above within fifteen (15) days of receiving a written request from CITY;

(4) COUNTY shall disperse said advance funds for the purchase amount to CITY

within twenty-one (21 ) days of receipt of funds from CJD; and

(5) CITY shall provide documentation to COUNTY within thirty (30) days of receipt

of funds from COUNTY that all vendors' invoices have been paid in full with the

CJD advanced funds.

-6-

13

(B) City Requests Reimbursement for Actual Payment of Equipment and/or Supplies Pursuant

to a Receipt:

(1) CITY shall provide to COUNTY, in writing, notice that equipment and/or supplies

described on Exhibit "C" have been purchased and payment has been made to the

vendor;

(2) Such written notice to COUNTY shall include a copy of the appropriate receipt or

other necessary documentation to confirm the purchase and payment for the specific

item ofequipment and/or supplies;

(3) COUNTY shall request on CITY'S behalf reimbursement from the CJD for the

amount reflected on the receipt or other documentation described in (2) above within

fifteen days (15) days of receiving a written request from CITY; and

(4) COUNTY shall disperse said reimbursement funds, for the actual amount paid, to

CITY within twenty-one (21) days ofreceipt ofreimbursement funds from the CJD.

(D) All Other Reimbursement Requests by City:

(1) CITY and COUNTY agree that all other reimbursement requests made by CITY

shall be handled by COUNTY as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with

all JAIBG, County, and CJD policies and procedures.

CITY agrees and acknowledges that no reimbursement shall be made herein until the cash

match described in Article IV has been received by COUNTY and deposited into the dedicated

account for this grant. CITY also agrees and acknowledges that reimbursement shall not exceed the

total allowable expenses, as defined by CJD policy and procedures.

X.

-7-

14

APPLICATION OF TRANSFERRED FUNDS

COUNTY agrees to expend CITY'S transferred funds, described in Article VI supra, during

Phase IV of the project in accordance with Exhibit "A" and any further determinations made by the

JCEC Executive Committee on behalfof the Dallas County JAIBG Collaboration.

COUNTY has no obligation to provide any additional funds under this Agreement, even if

the JAIBG funds are insufficient to fully accomplish the priorities set forth in Exhibit "A".

In the event JAIBG funds remain upon completion of the project set forth herein, as

determined by COUNTY, COUNTY may expend such funds on other eligible projects under the

grant in COUNTY'S sole discretion.

XI.

UNIFORM GRANT AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS

COUNTY and CITY agree that all services provided and/or goods and materials purchased

with transferred and equipment funds, described in Sections VI and VII of this Agreement, shall

be managed to meet the requirements of the Uniform Grant and Contract Management Standards

(UGCMS) promulgated pursuant to Section 783 ofthe Government Code and the Common Rule of

OMB Section 36, more particularly described in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated

herein for all purposes.

XII.

RECORDSIRIGHT TO INSPECTION

COUNTY and CITY agree to establish a set of records that comply with the requirements

ofgrant funding from the State ofTexas, Office ofthe Governor's Criminal Justice Division. CITY

-8-

15

further agrees that the State of Texas, Office of the Governor's Criminal Just'ce Division, and

COUNTY shall have the right of timely and unrestricted access to any books, dccuments, papers,

or other records created pursuant to this Agreement in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts,

transcripts and copies of such documents. This right also includes timely and reasonable access to

CITY'S personnel for the purpose ofreviewing, interviewing, evaluating and monitoring related to

such documents.

XIII.

RETENTION OF RECORDS

COUNTY and CITY agree to maintain any and all records created pursuant to this

Agreement for a minimum offive (5) years after the termination ofthis Agreement. Ifany litigation,

claim, or audit involving these records begins before the retention period expires, COUNTY and

CITY shall retain the records and documents for not less than five (5) years or until all litigation,

claims, or audit findings are resolved, whichever is later.

XIV.

AGENCY

COUNTY and CITY agree and acknowledge that each entity is not an agent of the other

entity and that each entity is responsible for its own acts, forbearance, negligence and deeds, and for

those of its agents or employees in conjunction with the performance of work covered under this

Agreement.

XV.

INDEMNIFICATION

COUNTY and CITY agree that both COUNTY and CITYshall each be responsible for

their own negligent acts or omissions or other tortious conduct in the course of performance

-9-

16

of this Agreement, without waiving any sovereign or governmental immunity available to

either COUNTY or CITY under Texas law and without waiving any available defenses under

Texas law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to create or grant any rights,

contractual or otherwise, in or to any third persons or entities.

XVI.

AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATION

This Agreement shall not be amended or modified except by written agreement executed by

duly authorized representatives of the Parties.

XVII.

ASSIGNMENT

The Parties shall not sell, assign, transfer or convey this Agreement, in whole or in part,

without the prior written consent of the Parties.

XVIII.

WAIVER OF TRANSACTION FEE

COUNTY agrees that CITY shall not be charged any transaction fees to access the Dallas

County Juvenile Information System.

XIX.

NOTICE

Any notice or certification provided for in this Agreement to be given by either Party to the

other shall be required to be in writing and shall be deemed given when personally delivered or

within three (3) business days after being deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,

certified, return receipt requested or registered addressed as follows:

-10-

To COUNTY:

County JudgeMargaret KeliherAdministration Building - 2nd Floor411 Elm StreetDallas, Texas 75202

17

xx.

SEVERABILITY

To CITY:

City ManagerTom HartP.O. Box 53001Grand Prairie, Texas 75053

Ifany provision ofthis Agreement shall be held invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining

provisions hereof shall not be affected or impaired, and such remaining provisions shall remain in

full force and effect.

XXI.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement, including all Exhibits, constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties

hereto and supersedes any other agreement concerning the subject matter ofthis transaction, whether

oral or written.

XXII.

VENUE AND GOVERNING LAW

This Agreement shall be expressly subject to the sovereign inununity of COUNTY and the

governmental immunity of CITY, Title 5 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as

amended, and all applicable federal and state law. This Agreement shall be governed by and

construed in accordance with the laws and case decisions ofthe State ofTexas. Exclusive venue for

any legal action regarding this Agreement filed by either CITY or COUNTY shall be in Dallas

County, Texas.

-11-

18

XXIII.

NO TIDRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY ENFORCEMENT

It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of the tenns and conditions of this

Agreement and any right of action relating to such enforcement shall be strictly reserved to

COUNTY and CITY and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create any

rights for any third parties.

XXIV.

FORMAL COURT APPROVAL

This Agreement is expressly subject to and contingent upon fonnal approval by the Dallas

County Commissioners Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF by their signatures hereon each of the undersigned represents

and warrants that they are the duly authorized agents ofeach entity and have full right and authority

to enter into this Agreement. This Agreement is to be effective upon the signature of both

COUNTY and CITY.

-12-

19

EXECUTED THIS DAY OF , 2003.

COUNTY OF DALLAS:

BY: Margaret KeliherCounty Judge

Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM*~

BY: Janet Ferguson DateAdvisory Chief, Civil Section

CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE

'S: ~Ja:>BY: Tom~ Date BY:

City ManagerDate

*By law, the District Attorney's Office may only advise or approve contracts or legal documents onbehalf of its clients. It may not advise or approve a contract or legal document on behalf ofotherparties. Our review ofthis document was conducted solely from the legal perspective ofour client.Our approval ofthis document was offered solely for the benefit ofour client. Other parties shouldnot rely on this approval, and should seek review and approval by their own respective attorney(s).

-13-

20

Exhibit APhase IV Scope of Work

Task

Task lA - Ongoing & Maintenance Operations

Task 18 - Data Translator

Task 2 - Project Management.

Task 3 - Record Consolidation

Task 4 - Reports

Task 5 - Technology Refresh & Analysis

Task 6 - Juvenile Profile & Navigation

Task 7 - Application Functionality

Task 8A - Electronic Filing to the DA

Task 88 - Electronic Filing MC to DC

Task 9 - District Attorney Functionality

Task 10 - Juvenile Department Functionality

Task 11 - Juvenile Intake Functionality

Task 12 - District Court Functionality

Task 13 - Addition ofIn-County Police Depts.

Task 14 - Hardware/Software

Task 15 - Expenses

Completion Dates

July 1,2002 - June 30, 2003 (12 months)

12/14/2002

July 1,2002· June 30, 2003 (12 months)

10/31/02

11/15/02

12/31/02

12/l5/02

12/15/02

3/l5/03

3/31/03

10/l5/02

2/15/03

2/28/03

9/l4/02

6/30/03

6/30/03

6/30/03

Total Project Costs

Amount$ 598,802.16

$ 39,636.00

$ 159,105.04

$ 35,764.96

$ 55,402.04

S 21,711.17

$ 143,641.68

S 64,719.68

S 18,214.88

$ 17,686.40

S 15,203.76

S 157,062.08

$ 19,711.24

S 37,287.04

$ 28,846.40

S 18,275.22

$ 7,200.00

$ 1,438269.75

Phase IV Deliverable Statements

Task IA • Ongoing Operations & Maintenance of JIS- System Administration and Security

Routine Updates of Agency data into JISOngoing support of Agency Administration Function· Police, Municipal Courts, ISDsOngoing support of County Administration Function - DA, JUV, CTSHelpdesk Management & User Satisfaction SurveyTrouble Resolution for Helpdesk TicketsChange Management - Generation ofchange orders for out of scope issues causing new developmentAgency/User Training & DocumentationDatabase Performance TuningProblem Resolution of Data InconsistenciesOngoing support and integration of remaining agencies that are not JIS certifiedWeekly audits of incoming manually and uploaded recordsOngoing support of Record Retention and ExpungementDisaster Recovery and Backup ManagementRoutine Maintenance and Periodic Upgrades to hardware and softwareOngoing VPN SupportMonthly reporting of Issue Management, User Satisfaction, and JIS metrics

21

Task 1B - Data Translator

- Review and redevelopment of the data translation process

• Review and redevelopment of the database translator for importing records from police and municipal court agencies

Task 2 - Project Management- Monthly status reports

Task 3 - Record Consolidation- Analysis of the Record Consolidation Process- Business Requirements Review & Documentation• Development of a true consolidation process for records

Capability to consolidate archived records

Task 4 - Reports• Development ofAdditional Reports (not completed in Phase III)

One-time set-up & Implementation of additional reportsCurfew Violations ReportTruancy ReportOutstanding Warrant ReportOutstanding Wanted ReportJuvenile Department Referrals ReportIBR ReportSchool Notifications Statistical ReportMonthly Intake ReportDA Disposition ReportDA Summary ReportDA Offense Count Report

Task 5 - Technology Refresh & Analysis• Connectivity Analysis - True redundancy requirements & implementation for load balancing/sharing• 1IS Backup Analysis - Implementation of Stage II of the backup process (back-up of1IS system at Dallas Police). Research

viability of expanding database back up to replicate both the application and the database.- Migration of the existing database to SQL 2000- Investigation of the possible migration to the Windows 2000 environment

Task 6 - Juvenile Profile & Navigation- Revisit navigation and improve for user efficiencies

Redesign offense/arrest sections with capability to drill down for more detailCapability to add multiples (victim/witness, etc.) without saving firstService Report # to display in the District Court SectionAdditional java scripts to validate actions by usersAddition of a "Wanted section" in the Juvenile Profile similar to "Warrants Section"Expand Offense and Arrest SupplementsCapability for supplements to show in the offense/arrest sectionCapability to change the UCR codes based supplement filingsCapability to eliminate record if offense/arrest is rejected and this is the only record for the juvenile in JISImprove "Referring Juvenile To" in the arrest sectionAddition of Stolen PropertylEvidence SectionCapability for offenses without arrests (such as at-large-filings and runaway off~nses)

Capability for agencies to update directory information

22

Task 7 - Application Functionality- Basic & Detective Search expansion

Capability for automatic removal of warrant flagsJuvenile Identification Section additionsFirst Offender Program Section additionsOffense, Accomplice, and Complainant Section additionsNIBR reporting capability

Arrest & FIR Section additionsSchool Section additions and expanded print capability

Task SA - Electronic Filing to the DA- Electronic filing ofcases to the DA and routing to and from Police and other in-county departments including DA liaison- Electronic communications between the DA and Juvenile Intake- Capability to copy & update CaseWorker

Task 8B - Electronic Filing MC to DC- Electronic referrals from Municipal Courts to District Courts

Task 9 - District Attorney Functionality- Revisit DA screens and navigation to increase speed of processing and improve user effectiveness

Direct access to DA information without drilling into Juvenile ProfileDate received to automatically populate with current date but also be editableMandatory fields for date DA received, date of offense, and othersAdditional fields in DA Section (paragraph code, alleged code, text field for Reason for Reject)Predefined format for JD (cause number)Capability for DA to print all notifications at once (witness/supplements, etc)

Task 10 - Juvenile Department FunctionalityVictim Services Functionality

- Automation/Consolidation of Referral Forms - Electronic generation, tracking, notification, andreporting for direct victim services - preformatted forms and email notifications and automatedstandard documents with the capability to print and mail or email to victims

- Parental Notification FunctionalityAutomation of Parental & Victim Notifications - Preformatted letters and email notifications

Automated standard documents (both English & Spanish versions with Affidavit) with the capability to print and mail or emailMediation Department Functionality

- Automation of mediation referrals from Juvenile Dept.Complainant Restitution - Electronic generation, tracking, notification, and reporting of complainant/victim noticesdevelopment of additional screens and database functionality such as Mediation Notification & Confirmation letters &Notification of Restitution Awarded letters

- Set-up, on-boarding and training of the dept. (approx. 6)

Probation Department Functionality- Probation Conditions on-line - Additional screens & drop down menus for standard probation

conditions. Generation of required terms and conditions document for District Court.- Capability to display Exhibit A and other probation conditions- Set-up, on-boarding and training of the probation dept. (approx. 130)

Community Services Restitution (CSR)- Automation of referrals from probation to CSR_ Electronic generation, tracking, notification, & reporting ofjuvenile community services restitution

- Online scheduling of onsite work crew lists_ Notification to field Probation Officers of offsite community service attendees_ Administration screens of approved offsite community service agencies

23

Victim Impact Panel (VIP)- Automation of referrals from probation to VIP- Electronic generation, tracking, notification, & reporting ofjuveniles required to attend VIP- Online attendance recording- Notification to field Probation Officers of VIP scheduling- Ability for field Probation Officers to print preformatted flyers/notifications

Juvenile Detention Functionality- Automation/Consolidation of Referral Forms - Electronic generation, tracking, notification, and reporting for in-house

services- preformatted forms and email notifications and automated standard documents with the capability to print and mailor email to various service depts.

Task 11 - Juvenile Intake Functionality- Intake Log-in Iirocess Automation

Generation of login, tracking and monthly intake screening reports- Intake Log Search Capability

New search screen for intake to search intake log (name, screener, date, time, etc.)- Automation for processing preformatted letters and forms required by Juvenile Intake -Notification ofRights, Pre-admittance

Form, Detention Authorization, Record of Release (to parents), and Parental Notice (as required by statute)

Task 12 - District Court Functionality- Automated State Forms Generation - Offenses without arrest - capability to pre-populate the state forms and print- On-line finalization of Probation Conditions - training for Judges to modify Probation Conditions

Task 13 - Addition of In-County Police Depts.- Includes the E:ommunity College Police Departments: Brookhaven, El Centro, Mountain View, Cedar Valley,

Eastfield, Northlake (Richland Community College already on JIS)- Includes Dart Police, DFW Airport Police, Dallas County Hospital District Police, Wylie, and Glen Heights Police- Includes initial work with agencies regarding JIS, training of agency personnel & follow up. Does not include any data

mapping or data conversion activities.

Task 14 - Hardware/Software- For the purchase of hardware and software to support the ongoing operation and additional functionality for the Juvenile

Information System including additional servers, computers, memory and hard drive storage space, and optical storage unit,and associated software to complete the application

Task 15 - Expenses- Including travel (local mileage and out-of-county travel cost related to JIS), research expenses, and all other necessary

goods and materials

24

EXHIBIT "B"

25

RESOLUTION NO. 3801

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE,TEXAS, WAIVING THE CITY'S ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR A SEPARATEGRANT THROUGH THE JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCKGRANT PROGRAM, NAMING DALLAS COUNTY AS THE RECIPIENT OF THEWAIVED FUNDS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THEJUVENILE CRIME ENFORCEMENT COALITION CREATED BY DALLAS COUNTY,AND AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR IDS DESIGNEE(S) TOREPRESENT THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE AND SERVE ON THE DALLASCOUNTY JUVENILE CRIME ENFORCEMENT COALITION.

WHEREAS, the Federal Appropriations Act for 1998 allocated funds to the JuvenileAccountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) for the purpose of providing those funds to stateand local governments to develop programs that promote greater accountability in the juvenilejustice system and is continuing this program for its fourth year; and

WHEREAS, the Criminal Justice Division (CJD) of the Office of the Governor willadminister the JAIBG for the State of Texas and has notified the City of Grand Prairie of itseligibility for award of$55,821; and

WHEREAS, the award of JAIBG funds requires a ten percent local cash match, whichwill total $6,202 for the City of Grand Prairie; and .

WHEREAS, recent community planning efforts have identified the need for improvedcoordination among jurisdictions and branches of the juvenile justice system, especially in thearea of information collection and sharing; and

WHEREAS, jurisdictions within Dallas County wish to collaborate in using JAIBGfunds to develop and implement an integrated data processing system linking law enforcement,prosecutors, probation officials and Child Protective Service; and

WHEREAS, Dallas County shall serve as lead agency for the project and will submit aconsolidated application for JAIBG funding to CJD; and

. WHEREAS, the City of Grand Prairie waives the right to .directly apply for JAlBGfunding yet desires to participate in the collaborative effort and authorizes Dallas County tosubmit a consolidated application for JAIBG funding to CJD for the purposes of developing andimplementing an integrated data processing system; and

WHEREAS, the City of Grand Prairie agrees to provide the required ten percent cashmatch, totaling $6,202, to the collaboration effort; and

WHEREAS, the City of Grand Prairie agrees to participate in the Juvenile CrimeEnforcement Coalition created by Dallas County, and appoints the Chief of Police or hisdesignee(s) to represent the City of Grand Prairie to serve on the Dallas County Juvenile CrimeEnforcement Coalition.

26

RESOLUTION NO. 3801

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THECITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS.

SECTION 1: THAT the City Council of the City of Grand Prairie, Texas,waives its individual eligibility and authorizes Dallas County to submit a consolidatedapplication to the State of Texas, Office of the Governor, Criminal Justice Division, for fundingunder the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant program for the purposes ofcreating anintegrated data processing system for juvenile offender and child abuse cases in Dallas Countyand agrees to provide the required ten percent cash match of$6,202 to the project

/ SECTION 2: THAT this resolution shall be in full force and effect from andafter its passage and approval in accordance with the Charter of the City of Grand Prairie and itis accordingly so resolved.

PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRANDPRAIRIE, TEXAS, this the 22nd DAY OF January, 2002.

~~.Mayor, Grand Prairie, Texas

ATTEST:

~c!:'o/~City Secretary

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

27

EXHIBIT "C"

USE OF FUNDS: Not to exceed $13,755

The City ofGrand Prairie will use the JAIBG funds to improve access and use ofthe JIS as follows:

(1) Digital Photo Manager and Crimescene software from Data Works Plus: $13,755

Estimated Total: $13,755

28

Dallas CountyJUVENILE DEPARTMENT

Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

MEMORANDUM

June 2,2003

Dallas County Commissioners Court

Michael K. Griffiths, Director

Recommendation for Award of Contract for Operation and Enhancement of theDallas County Juvenile Information System and Development of the AdultInformation System

Background of Issue

Commissioners Court authorized the release of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2003-0961338 for Operation and Enhancement of the Dallas County Juvenile Information System (JIS)and Development of the Adult Information System (AIS). The RFP was released on April 23,2003 and was distributed to a total of 21 organizations. A pre-bid conference was held on May2, 2003, with 8 organizations represented. pnly three proposals were received by the May 15,2003 deadline: InfoIntegration, Inc., Schlumberger, and The Harbour Group. The purpose ofthis briefing is to request Commissioners Court approval of the recommendation to award thecontract for Operation and Enhancement of the Dallas County JIS and Development of the AISto Infolntegration, Inc.

Key Issues of Technical Resources, System Maintenance and JIS/AIS Integration.

Three key issues during this RFP process have been to ensure that the level of technica Iresources currently working on the JIS/AIS project remains available, that the JIS continue tooperate with no break in services, and that the current knowledge of the JIS be efficientlyleveraged into the AIS. The Harbour Group is currently contracted through June 30, 2003 forthe JIS and AIS. Two staff members (Project Manager and Senior Consultant) are responsiblefor overall project management and for documenting the work flow and business processes thatare being automated in the two systems. This information is then forwarded to a developmentteam of four people with different areas of technical expertise who actually develop the specificprogram modules within the system. An operations manager is responsible for ensuring that theJIS is available on a 24 by 7 basis. The members of the development team are then called uponwhen needed to fix any problems with the system. This team has been together for over twoyears and has developed a strong knowledge of both the juvenile and adult justice systems inDallas County as well as the JIS and AIS systems. Key to developing the AIS is leveraging theknowledge gained in developing the JIS. The team estimates that as much as 60% of thestructure of the JIS will translate to the AIS. Retaining the knowledge gained by this technica Iteam was a goal of the JIS/AIS RFP process. These staff members are a combination ofemployees ofThe Harbour Group and resources provided by two different subcontractors ofTheHarbour Group.


29

JIS/AIS RFPpage 2

The three respondents to the RFP proposed different combinations of the current staffresources. Infolntegration is owned by the previous Project Manager and employs the formerSenior Consultant, who both recently resigned from The Harbour Group. Schlumberger'sproposal included an exclusive agreement with The FMJ Group, which has provided threemembers of the technical team, one of whom has recently resigned. The Harbour Groupproposed the current operations manager, who is provided through a subcontract with LazoTechnology, and one member of the development team who is an employee. The HarbourGroup also proposed to retain the Project Manager and Senior Consultant hiredwithin the pastsix weeks to replace the two resignations. During the proposal interviews, all three applicantspledged to bring on board as many of the other members of the team as possible. There arequestions about potential non-compete clauses in some of the team member's employmentagreements. We consulted with the District Attorney's office on the general issue of noncompete clauses. In order to provide a formal legal opinion, the specific agreements andsituations must be researched in more detail than time permits for this evaluation. The reviewcommittee agreed that proposals would be evaluated based upon the staff resources identifiedand without considering the ramifications of potential non-compete clauses.

Proposal Review Process

The proposals were evaluated by a review panel consisting primarily of members of the JCECExecutive Committee. John Hennessey, County MIS Director, also participated in the proposalreview. Irvin Hicks evaluated and scored the MIWBE documents. Members ofthe review panelinterviewed all three respondents on May 23. Following the interviews, the review panelindividually scored the proposals, using a standard scoring instrument and the following criteria:

Prior Experience with Similar ProjectsTechnical ResourcesTransition PlanOperation of the JISEnhancements to the JISDesign and Development of the AISDallas County MIWBE

Total

15 points25 points10 points10 points15 points10 points15 points

100 points

The proposed cost of the project was evaluated within the following criteria: technical resources I

transition plan, operation of the JIS, enhancements to the JIS, and design and development ofthe AIS. Proposals were required to present the cost per hour for each staff resource, includingthe administrative and indirect costs and profit. When subcontract arrangements wereproposed, applicants were required to show the administrative, overhead and profit amounts fo rboth the subcontractor and the lead applicant to determine the total of these costs for each staffresource. Since each response proposed different enhancements to both systems that requireddifferent levels and amounts of staff resources, and different levels of operational support, it isnot accurate to simply compare the total project cost listed in each proposal to determine thelowest bid. Cost comparisons focused on operational cost, transition cost, cost of staffresources, and administrative and indirect costs and profit.


30

JIS/AISpage 3

Infolntegration. Inc. was scored as the best proposal by all nine reviewers. and had the highestaverage score. The evaluation scores were as follows:

Infolntegration, IncThe Harbour GroupSchlumberger

Proposal74.448.446.8

MIWBE399

Total77.457.455;8

The review panel found that Infolntegration had the most complete response to the RFP. Thetechnical resources in Infolntegration's proposal had the broadest knowledge of the JIS itself,the business process involved in both the juvenile and adult systems and how to leverage theJIS into the AIS. Infolntegration proposed to use its own staff, with no subcontractarrangements. Not using subcontractors produced the lowest levels of administrative andindirect costs and profit. Infolntegration did pledge during the interview process to attempt toemploy all of the current staff resources. The review panel determined that even if none of theother resources could actually be secured, Infolntegration provided the resources that can best

... ensure the JIS continues to operate and that both the JIS and AIS projects continue to progressappropriately. Infolntegration had the most comprehensive level of operational support, notransition costs. the lowest monthly project management costs, the lowest administrative andindirect cost, and the lowest profit margin. Overall, Infolntegration submitted the "lowest andbest" bid. .

Attachment A provides a list of the review panel, a summary of the cost of each proposal. theMIWBE scores, and a copy of the evaluation instrument. Attachment B contains the transmittalletters and the vendor statistical report from each proposal to provide a summary of eachrespondent's proposal.


The JIS currently has over 1,400 trained users and is the primary system for processing juvenileoffenders for 32 agencies. including the Dallas Police Department. The JIS is used by thejuvenile section of the DA and the Juvenile Department on a daily basis as part of the routinework processes. It is critical that the JIS be available on a 24 by 7 basis and that there be nodisruption in the system due to transition to a new contractor. This work will occur during thecontract period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. The JCEC Executive Committee will continueto provide general oversight and guidance for the project. Dallas County MIS Director JohnHennessey serves as a non-voting member of the JCEC and has been involved in all phasesof this project. Juvenile Department staff will manage the work of Infolntegration, Inc. in closecollaboration with Mr. Hennessey.

In the proposal, Infolntegration recommended the next steps to take in enhancing the JIS andcontinuing the development of the AIS. The specific tasks for the JIS will be prioritized andapproved by the JCEC Executive Committee. The next components of the AIS to be completedwill be finalized by John Hennessey, in consultation with the District Attorney's office.


31

JIS/AIS RFPpage 4

Fiscal Impact

The JIS-related services requested in this RFP are completely funded from the JuvenileAccountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG). Seventeen jurisdictions in Dallas County thatreceive JAIBG funds pool their funding for this project. The total JAIBG award to Dallas Countyjurisdictions for the collaborative effort is $1,451,009, with a cash match of $161,224, for totalfunding of $1,612,233. Dallas County's share of the award is $412,504, with an associated cashmatch of $45,834, which are the only Dallas County funds required for this project. Otherparticipating jurisdictions are responsible for their cash match. It is projected that $1,323,760will be allocated for the JIS services. The remaining JAIBG funds are returned to theparticipating jurisdictions and used primarily to assist in their accessing and using the JIS. TheAIS is funded by a combination of a Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) grant throughthe Criminal Justice Division (CJD) of the Governor's office and the Local Law EnforcementBlock Grant (LLEBG). There will be $333,000 available from the CJIS grant for work on the AIS.The amount of LLEBG funds available for the AIS project have not been finalized.

The contract will provide for Infolntegration to be compensated only for the actual time spent onthe project at the rates listed in the proposal. Staff are negotiating rates with Infolntegration.Infolntegration will maintain time sheets and other supporting documentation to justify all costs.Payments will be disbursed upon the completion of specific project components and submissionof the appropriate documentation of work completed.

Legal Impact

Juvenile Department staff are preparing a contract document that will be submitted to AssistantDistrict Attorney Janet Ferguson for her review and approval. The contract will require thesignature of the Dallas County Judge.

Performance Bond

The RFP required that the selected contractor secure a performance bond for the entire valueof the contract. Infolntegration has proposed a compensation system where they will only getpaid once specific deliverables are completed, tested and accepted as functioning by DallasCounty. The compensation for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the system will bemade on a monthly basis after the system has properly operated for the prior month. Thiscompensation system will provide Dallas County with adequate protection and should make aperformance bond unnecessary. Infolntegration estimates that requiring a performance bondwill add a total of $26,500 to the annual cost of the project.

Project Schedulellmplementation

The current contract expires on June 30, 2003. The contract with Infolntegration will be for theperiod of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004 and coincides with the term of the JAIBG. The JISis currently in operation and must continue to operate without disruption. The enhancementsto the JIS must be completed within this contract period. The CJIS grant is for the period ofOctober 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004. Work on the next phase of the AIS will becompleted within this contract period.

2600 Lone Star Drive, Box 5 Dallas, Texas 75212 (214) 698·2200

32

JIS/AIS RFPpage 5

Performance Measures

There will be specific deadlines for Infolntegration to complete the different enhancements tothe JIS and development of the AIS. Additionally, the following measures and goals will beapplied to the ongoing operations of the JIS:

• A Help Desk to respond to problems will be available on a continuous 24 by 7basis

• Help Desk calls during regular business hours will be responded to within 4 hours• At least 80% of all problem issues will be resolved within 5 days• The JIS will be available to users 98% of the time (no more than 14 hours of down

time within any calendar month)• At least 85% of users will express satisfaction in an annual user survey

MIWBE

Irvin Hicks scored the MIWBE portion of the proposals. Both Schlumberger and The HarbourGroup received 9 of the possible 15 points for submitting the EE-01 documents and for usingcertified subcontractors. Infolntegration has submitted the documents requesting certificationfrom NCTRCA as a woman-owned business. The certification process can take up to 90 daysand as of the proposal scoring, the certification was still pending. Infolntegration received threepoints for submitting the EE-01 documents. .

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Dallas County Commissioners Court approve the recommendationof the JIS/AIS Proposal Review Committee to award a contract to Infolntegration for theOperation and Enhancement of the Dallas County Juvenile Information System andDevelopment of the Adult Information System and that the Dallas County Judge be authorizedto sign the contract and related documents on behalf of Dallas County.

Recommended by: 1 \CJ.J. UfflkJi"lMichael K. Gri 5, Director


33

ATTACHMENT AJIS PROPOSAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

JCEC Members

Martha Hawkins, Dallas Public Schools

Theressia Washington, Wilmer-Hutchins Independent School District

Vicki Maderas (for the Honorable Deanna Burnett), Carrollton Municipal Court

Sally Lannom, Dallas Police Department

Capt. Robert Jones, Irving Police Department

Shelton Stogner, Dallas Challenge Truancy Enforcement Center

Gary Arey, Dallas County DA - Juvenile Division

Randy Wadley, Dallas County Juvenile Department

Dallas County Staff

John Hennessey, County MIS Director

34

JISfAIS RFP SCORES TABULATION

Reviewer InfoIntegration Schlumberger The Harbour Group

John Hennessey 75 42 40

Randy Wadley 70 48 43

Gary Arey 75 45 37

Theressia Washington 85 50 60

Martha Hawkins 73 36 39

Shelton Stogner 80 57 66

Vicki Maderas 70 41 44

Sally Lannom 64 38 30

Bob Jones 78 65 77

Average 74.4 46.8 48.4

MlWBE 3 9 9

Total 77.4 55.8 57.4

35

COST COMPARISON

Info Integration Schlumberger The Harbour Group

Project Management $144.75 hourly $78.00 hourly $79.34 hourly$6,296 monthly $14,624 monthly $12,694 monthly

Consultant $135.79 hourly $131.50 hourly $93.35 hourly

Hourly charge for 4 $103.28 per hour $128.132 per hour $100.18 per hourmembers of the average average averagedevelopment team

Operations Manager - $90.94 per Manager - $65.00 per Manager - $102.92 perhour hour hour489 staff hours per 535 staff hours per 240 staff hours permonth month month$347,807 total $667,556 total $292,362 total

Transition 0 $60,701 0

AIS $332,958 $325,000 $317,270

Average hourly $20.60 $41.56 $29.67administrative andindirect cost and profitfor 7 primary staffresources

36

ATTACHMENT 8

TRANSMITTAL LETTERS AND VENDOR STATISTICAL REPORTS

37

May 15, 2003

Mr. Phillip VasquezPurchasing AgentDallas County Purchasing Department509 Main, Records BUilding, 6th Floor, Room 623Dallas, Texas 75202

Dear Mr. Vasquez,

InfoIntegration, Inc. is pleased to present its response to Dallas County's request forproposals for continued operation and enhancement of the Dallas County JuvenileInformation System (JIS), as well as the design and development of the AdultInformation System (AIS). In this response, we demonstrate our knowledge of theexisting applications and development efforts and our command of the necessary pathforward to accomplish the goals and objectives established by Dallas County.

Infolntegration, Inc. is a newly formed, woman-owned business with a focus onproviding innovative client solutions. Since our incorporation in late April, we haveregistered with the Texas Building and Procurement Commission Centralized MasterBidders list, submitted the required documentation to become a Qualified InformationSystem Vendor, and applied for minority certification with the North Central TexasRegional Certification Agency - certification # 14690 pending. By providing businessand technology strategies, solutions, and services, our goal is to help companiesmanage the complexities of today's integrated world. Infolntegration's objective is towork with clients to streamline and increase information sharing so that they can maketimely business decisions with the right information, in the right place, at the right time.

Our years of business and technology consulting experience have enabled us to deliversuccessful projects that help clients achieve their objectives in an efficient manner. Ourmost recent experience has been leading the JIS and AIS projects for Dallas County.Members of the Infolntegration team have participated over the past 30 months in theredesign and development of Dallas County's Juvenile Information System (JIS),including Phases II through IV, the gap analysis for Dallas County's Adult InformationSystem (AIS), and the first phase of AIS development. We participated in thecompletion of deliverables within the above-mentioned engagements, including ProjectManagement, and have gained considerable experience with integrated justice systemsand those currently under development and operation within Dallas County. Oursubstantial experience with integrated justice systems in Dallas County, as well asexisting working relationships with every agency using the existing application sets usapart.

Infolntegration, Inc. Dallas C01.mty RFP NO. 2003-096-1338Page 3 of99

P. O. Box 12368 Dallas, Texas 75225 V: 214.457.1620

www.infointegration.com

May 15, 2003

38

~ Infolntegration

Our President, Tonya Brenneman, has over 20 years of experience ~nd knowledge inguiding organizations and their leadership teams towards improving bottom-line resultsand building long-term competitive effectiveness and advantages. She will serve asboth the Engagement and Project Manager for this effort. She is an expert in analyzingexisting operations and implementing the strategies, processes, and tactics to improveoperational and organizational performance. During her consulting career, she haspioneered the design and delivery of innovative change management programs thathave generated millions of dollars in productivity and operating efficiency gains, costreductions, and earnings growth. Her participative leadership style combines expertisein strategic planning, organizational leadership, training, and marketing with outstandingproject management, communication, and interpersonal relations skills. Clients she hasworked with include Dallas County, Brunswick Corporation, Promotional ProductsAssociation International, GTE Directories International, DuPont, Chase ManhattanBank, Marathon Oil Company, Baker Energy, Texas Utilities, LL&E, United MeridianCorporation, Shell Chemical Company, Conoeo, and Texaco.

Dan Rhodes, who will be Infolntegration's Senior Consultant on this engagement, is anexperienced consultant with over 6 years of active participation in consultingengagements in a diverse range of industries. He is familiar with a variety of consultingconcepts, practices, and procedures. He possesses a strong background in strategy,business process improvement, and business and organizational change. He is highlyproficient in translating business needs into tangible recommendations and specificfunctionality-oriented deliverables.

Over the past 26 months, Dan has been involved in Dallas County's efforts to redesign,develop, and implement the Juvenile Information System (JIS). He also worked on thegathering of the business requirements and initial development of the Adult InformationSystem (AIS). He is very familiar with rapid application development methodology andplayed a critical role in efficiently transforming business and user requirements intofunctionality that the development team could understand. He also followed up thedevelopment by creating online user documentation. In addition, he led efforts to addnew agencies to the system, including those both internal and external to the DallasCounty Juvenile Department. As a result of his extensive participation with agenciesand departments on both the front and back end of the process, Dan maintains strongworking relationships with current JIS users from all agencies.

The Infolntegration team will support the Project Manager in ensuring that the needs ofJIS and AIS system users are met, and that application functionality and developmentcontinue to progress. Infolntegration anticipates securing arrangements with individualswho have direct experience with the previous JIS and AIS projects upon awarding of thecontract. These team members reside in close proximity to Dallas County and will beonsite as required by JIS and AIS project tasks and deliverables.

Project CostsInfolntegration has developed the following budget for the JIS Executive Committee touse in deciding the scope of work and deliverables that will be funded during the next

lnfolntegration, Inc. Dallas COWlty RFP NO. 2003·096·1338Page 4 of99

May 15,2003

39

$182,229.94$165,577.60$341,801.54

$ 0.00

$ 12,399.92$ 76,086.64$ 6,492.00$ 58,921.89$216,983.08$ 92,867.84$139,296.30$603,041.67

§> Infotntegration

Phase of work. As always, there are more requests for functionality than there will begrant dollars to fund the continued development. Based upon prior experience anddevelopment of similar functionality, we have estimated the resources involved toaccomplish what we believe to be the highest priority user needs. All .. of theseenhancements will require more definition and user involvement to further refine thedeliverables and timelines. The estimated costs of each project component are asfollows:

Operations:Operations (first 6 months - July to December, 2003)Operations (second 6 months - January to June, 2004)

Total Operations

Transition Plan:

Enhancements to the JIS:Required Legislative ChangesTechnology Redundancy and RefreshCaseworker Production Integration .System and User Administration ImprovementsAdditional Juvenile Department FunctionalityAdditional Police Department FunctionalityAdditional District Court Functionality

Total JIS Enhancements

Additional JIS lmp-rove-mi:mts: Additional ReportsAddition of Truancy & JP CourtsOther Dallas County AgenciesAdditional Hardware for Juvenile DepartmentGrant Administrator

Total Additional JIS Improvements

Project Management:

Expenses:

Total JIS Operations and Enhancements

$ 40,430.08$ 73,340.62$ 34,791.60$ 98,025.00$ 47,250.00$293,837.30

$ 75,559.50

$ 3,500.00

$1.323.752,01

lnfolntegration has identified several system improvements and recommendations thatwe would like the JIS Executive Committee to consider as it finalizes the priorities forPhase V. Total cost for these improvements is $293,837.30. These are detailed in thisproposal and include the following:

- Additional reports to further the online reporting and statistical generationcapabilities of JIS

- Addition of the Truancy and Justice of the Peace courts- Addition of other agencies including University of Texas at Dallas (UTD)

Police, Southern Methodist University (SMU) Police and the CharterSchools

Infolntegration, Inc. Dallas COWlty RFP NO. 2003-096-1338Page 5 of99

May 15,2003

40

~ Infolntegration- Additional hardware (desktops and printers) for the Juvenile Department- Addition of a Grant Administrator to support JIS and agency interface

In addition to costs associated with JIS Operations and Enhancements as outlinedabove, estimated costs for continued Design & Development of AIS include thefollowing:

Design/Development Magistrate and Warrant Module: $332,958.02

As previously mentioned, we have applied for QISV certification with the State of Texas.The pricing for this project represents our discounted QISV rates offered on governmentrelated projects. The estimated hourly cost breakdown for each resource is as follows:

Project Manager - $144.75/hrOperations Manager - $90.94/hrDevelopment Manager - $104.40/hrSenior Consultant - $135.79/hrSenior Web Developer - $1 08.88/hr---Web Developer/Security Administrator - $90.94/hrSenior Database Administrator - $108.88/hrNetwork Administrator - $90.94/hr

We understand that this project will be based on the availability of grant funds. and thatall work must be completed on or before June 30. 2004. We are confident, from bothbusiness and financial perspectives. that we can deliver the services andenhancements outlined in this proposal. In order to maximize the efficient use ofavailable grant dollars to create the necessary functionality. we are submitting ourproposal as the prime contractor, as a minoritylwomen-owned business, and do notcurrently envision the use of any subcontracting firms. We would be willing to explorediscussions relative to alternative pricing models that would require deliverables to bemet prior to payment for the effort expended.

We are excited about helping to bring Dallas County's JIS and AIS systems to an everhigher level, and we look forward to a continued working relationship with DallasCounty. Should you have questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to contactme by phone (214.457.1620), by fax (214.520.0434), or via e-mail at the followingaddress: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Tonya M. BrennemanPresidentInfolntegration, Inc.

InfoIntegration. Inc. Dallas County RFP NO. 2003-096-1338Page 6 of 99

May 15,2003

41

IreDALLAS COUNTYCOMPANY NAME: INFOINTI:GRATJON,INC.

Veador Statistital Report ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 12361, DALLAS, TEXAS 75225:~~>l9%o(~)

IDlUIf:IIt ,.0-TIme ElDploYlDC1lt TELEPHONE: 214.457.162'oot

MALI: WHITE BLACX mSPANlC NATIVE AME1I. ASIAN PA(]Jl'. ASIAN INDIAN OTHER

~

Proftuionall 1

T~

SIIoo WOIbrs

0ffic0ICIericaI

Cnft WOIbrs (Skilled)

0penIives (Semi Skilled)

Laborrn (UJoItiI1ed)

Service WOIbrs

lOTAL 1

fIICatMtL 0.T.J n.AINIlD:

WIlr1'Il"""'-'"

I'IlOOlJC11l]N

FEMALE WHlD BLACK WSPANlC NATJVJ: AMJ:1L ASIAN PA(]Jl'. ASIAN INDIAN OTHER

flCialIIlIfIDopn 1~

Proftuionall

Technici_

SIIooWorbn

Office/Clencal

CnU\ Woricen (SkiDed)

Openotive-(Sani Skilled)

Laborrn (llnskillod)

Service Woriten

lOTAL I

FCIUoW.QN.11:E-XIt TaAINEES:

\IIIllTEcaJ.AR

I'IlOOlJC11l]N

lOTAL 2

- ..... 0..: Minority-Owned Finn CertificaliCllIlSicD.tuntlD.le~k~ s:-"tS-:-t'4Issvcd by NCTIlCA

A

Women-Owned Firm CertificaliOllIl 14690 (pending)Issvcdby NCTRCA Typed Name lWld Title: tONYA M. BRENNEMAN, PRESIDENTX

InfoIntegration, InC. Dallas COWlty RFP NO. 2003-096-1338Page 97 of99

May 15,2003

42

Schlumberger

May 15,2003

Phillip Vasquez, Purchasing AgentDallas County Purchasing DepartmentRecords Building509 Main Street, Room 623Dallas, Texas 75202

Re:- SchlumbergerProposal-foJ: Operation and Enhancement of the Dallas County JuvenileInformation System and Development of the Adult Information System .(RFP No. 2003-096-1338)

Dear Mr. Vasquez:

Schlumberger is pleased to respond to the Request for Proposals for Operation and Enhancement of theDallas County juvenile Information System (lIS) and Development of the Adult Information System(AIS). We understand that Dallas County's successful development and implementation of the JIS haslead Dallas County officials to recognize that the same concept for an integrated data system could alsobe applied to the adult criminal justice system. We further understand Dallas County has determined thatthe basic design of the JIS could be used as the foundation for a similar Adult Information System andhas completed an initial "gap analysis" and Phase I of the requirements to leverage the JIS into AIS.

To maximize efficiency, Dallas County plans to develop the AIS in tandem with the ongoing operationsand the continued enhancements to the lIS. Many systems developed for the JIS will transfer to the AISwith minimum modifications. By combining the JIS and AIS projects, Dallas County can leverage thefunding sources available for these two projects.

In an effort to ensure that we minimize issues related to transitioning these projects to a new servicesprovider, Schlumberger has enlisted the services of The FMJ Group LLC and OC3 Technology, Inc.Both are highly qualified MlWBE partners capable of performing significant and meaningful portions ofthe work with full responsibility. The FMJ Group LLC has played a key role in the development of theexisting lIS and the AIS and has agreed to partner with Schlumberger, on an exclusive basis, to maketransition and knowledge transfer as efficient as possible. We have enlisted the services ofOC3Technology, Inc., who has a working knowledge of the lIS and AIS environments, and together with TheFMJ Group LLC, our proposal is in complete compliance with Dallas County's desired M/WBErequirements.

Our proposed solution addresses the listed requirements and stated objectives identified in the RFP. Itprovides detailed information on our experience with similar projects and our skills set. We have also .provided descriptions for each of the key areas of delivery; Transition, Operations and Enhancements toJIS and the Development of AIS.

Dallas CountySchlumberger Proposal lor Operation and Enhancement 01 the JIS and Development oIlhe AISCommercial in Con/idel1C8

Page 3

43

Schlumberger Overview

Founded in 1927, Schlumberger Limited (NYSE: SLB) is a global technology services companyconsisting of three business segments: first, Schlumberger Oilfield Services, one of the leading providersof technology services and solutions to the international petroleum industry; second, SchlumbergerSema,an IT services company providing consulting and systems integration services, and network andinfrastructure solutions and third, the Other business segment which principally comprises the Cards,Terminals, Meters North America and NPTest activities. With our North American Headquarters locatedin Houston and New York, the company recorded revenues of$13.5 billion in 2002, of which $3.0 billionwere in information technology services. Schlumberger employs approximately 78,500 employees andoperations in over lOO countries. The combined IT solutions that Schlumberger provides are networkand IT support, outsourcing, IT consulting and system integration, and security services for public andprivate sector clients.

Schlumberger strives to become a true business partner, with a culture of doing whatever it takes todeliver agreed upon service levels on time and within budget. Simultaneously, we promote a corporateculture of flexibility to help our customers adjust in the face of unexpected changes. Furthermore, webelieve that retaining existing and key personnel is fundamentally important. We believe thatmaintaining this knowledge base is critical to delivering high service quality. By combining the skills ofexisting JIS/AIS delivery staff, with a proper knowledge transfer methodology, we can ensure theimproved use of technology.

Schlumberger shares Dallas County's visions for the lIS and the AIS. We are well positioned toparticipate in a number of key areas, and aim to become a "thinking partner" in the development of thestrategic road maps for these systems. Our proposal contains IT strategies, technologies, and bestpractices that will result in positive change. Additional advantages include:

• Our continued commitment that Dallas County is our "Flagship" Public Sector account in NorthAmerica and maintains the highest level of executive support

• Strategic "Thought Leadership" and a "Trusted IT Advisor" approach, which allows DallasCounty executives to focus on your long-term business needs

• A flexible relationship, that has proven to be "Proactive" and "Responsive" to user agencyrequests, strategies, planned IT budgets, and technological changes

• An already proven transition strategy, which provides a working environment for incumbentstaff to seamlessly transition knowledge to Schlumberger

• The leverage of Schlumberger's extensive pool of Public Sector consulting competencies tocost-effectively provide high quality application services "on-demand"

• Commitment to work with Dallas County to develop and expand the JIS and AIS concept andknowledge share to other governmental agencies as required

• A demonstrated track record of proving that we are the customer service leader in theInformation Technology marketplace and that impeccable references, quality and attention todetail are the Schlumberger way of doing business

Related Experience

Leveraging more than 22 years of Public Sector experience, Schlumberger and its subcontractors, TheFMJ Group LLC and OC3 Technology, Inc., provide a broad portfolio of services and technologies that.enable government operations to run more securely, cost-effectively and efficiently. A sample ofprojects include; The FMl Group LLC having 3 years of experience in the development of core JIS

Dallas CountySchl(;mberger Proposal for Operalion and Enhancement 0/ the jlS and Development 0/ Ihe AISCommercial in Confidence

Page 4

44

functionality and AIS design. Schlumberger, having delivered a government web portal that serves morethan 60 million people. We have provided government systems that enable web-based corporate andcivilian records management, student aid information and have completed complex systems integrationprojects for hundreds of state and local agencies. With over one million cards delivered, we are theleading provider of security and smart card technology to the U.S. Department of Defense. Specificrelated experiences include the following contracts:

• P~dLl' ('''lIIH'. TV.:.il~ Dallas County, Texas is one of the Nation's leaders in proviaingeGovernment services to its citizens. In March of 2002, Schlumberger was selected as DallasCounty's information technology outsourcing services provider and was awarded a five-yearcontract valued at $40 million. The services cover a 24x7x365 service desk, which handles over3000+ calls per month, technical support for over 3300 PCs and 80 servers and full support ofData Center operations. We also provide disaster recovery services, applications developmentand support, telecommunications services and are currently developing the County's strategic ITroadmap. The FMJ Group has spent the last 3 years developing core applications functionalityfor JIS and has been an integral component of the AIS roadmap design .

• LI,.'t' COllllt\'. Florilb . In December of 2002, Schlumberger was selected as Lee County'sinformation technology services provider and awarded a five-year contract valued at over $35million. The services cover a technical support for over 2500 PCs and 70 servers and fullsupport of Data Center operations and support for 125 applications. We also'provide help deskand disaster recovery services, telecommunications services and are available to consult onvarious IT related issues.

• University of Texas Medical Branch - In 1999, Schlumberger was awarded a four-year contractto provide a wide range of services to support the IT infrastructure of the University of TexasMedical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston. The contract covers Service Desk support for 13,000users, desktop support for 4,600 deskteps, support for 72 servers, Exchange e-mail support for13,000 users, secure internet access, secure remote access and support, technology refresh, widearea and video network support.

• 2002 Olvmpic Games - For the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Games, SchlumbergerSema wasawarded a $300M contract for the information services "prime contractor" and had overallresponsibility for the planning and control, quality assurance, project management, design,development, implementation and operation of the 2002 IT services solution. We managed20,000 tasks over three years, deployed 4,500 workstations and 550 servers and 145 Unix boxes,developed, tested and integrated over 50 major applications, ran 32,000 miles of optical fibercable, supported 15 million web site visitors, 14,200 desktop phones, wrote 3.5 million lines ofcode and supported an on site IT staff of 3000.

Schlumberger's Solution

Our proposal provides detailed information on our approach for Project Management, Transition,Operations and Enhancements to JIS and the Design and Development of AIS. Our solution will alsoinclude and detail the benefits of the following key components:

• fJ:illccr t\L!!J;;:,g~~lll~D.L - with the vast resources of Schlumberger and our in-depth experience inproject management, we will provide the key management resources to assist in developing thevision and the goals of these programs. Our processes will be aimed at enhancing the interactionwith the Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC), the user agencies and the SchlumbergerProject teams currently performing Outsourcing Services for Dallas County. We will also planan expanded role of interaction with law enforcement, municipal courts, schools, social servicesand other groups as the AIS development expands its user base.

Dallas CountySchlumberger Proposal for Operation and Enhancement of !he JIS and Development of the AISCommercial in Confidence

Page 5

45

._'!~~'.:}.~'J:JJ}::.<LJ!...'=,~_- Utilizing our already proven transition methodologies, and leveragingthe knowledge of key subcontractors, we will work with the incumbent service provider to ensurea seamless transition of resources and services with minimal impact to Dallas County and theuser agencies. In an effort to gain JCEC consensus, it is our intent to coordinate with theexecutive committee to review and prioritize those tasks identified within this proposal andreallocate and prioritize resources/tasks if requested.

• ,1l2pli ...."ti"n De" ell1pmclH - Incorporating the services of The FMJ Group LLC and OC3Technology, Inc., we will capture the incumbent knowledge of several years experience in thedevelopment of JIS and by adding the Schlumberger applications development methodologies,we will continue to enhance the JIS and provide efficient approach to the development of AIS.

• tl.lulti Level Service Desk and Support 't\fodel - Utilizing our existing integrated network of firstand second level help desk support services, we will provide operational support for the JIS andresponsive support for user agencies, This model will provide support on a 7x24x365 basis andwill be governed by detailed service levels.

• Remote Contr,-)I tools and Self Support Porral-- Utilizing OUr leading edge remote controltechnologies and our innovative web portal, we will deliver desktop productivity tools and selfhealing capabilities directly to the end user.

• Real-Time Network \1oniloring - Utilizing our complex network and hardware/softwaremonitoring tools, we will monitor the JIS and AIS servers and communication links, which willprovide additional improvements in system availability.

Summary of Costs

The costs for this effort can be summarized as follows:

Project Management Transition JIS Operations JIS Enhancements AIS Development Total

$175,488 $60,697 $667,556 $408,141 $325,000 $1,636,882

Fiscal Capacity

Reported revenues for Schlumberger Limited were $13.5 billion in 2002, of which $3.0 billion were ininformation technology services. Schlumberger has the fiscal capacity to provide the requested servicesto Dallas County as stated in this proposal.

Funding for Services

Schlumberger understands the funding for the services requested in this RFP expire June 30, 2004. Allwork assigned and agreed upon will be completed by that date. The level of development to the AIS willbe limited to the tasks defined within this proposal.

Subcontractors

Schlumberger will be the prime contractor responsible for all operations, enhancements, anddevelopment services. Schlumberger's team includes The FMJ Group LLC and OC3 Technology, Inc.

The FMJ Group LLC is a Texas Corporation, based in Dallas. They are a minority owned firm certified'with NCTRCA # IMDB I6587Y0903 and currently supports the development efforts for JIS and AIS.

Dallas CountySchlumberger Proposal lor Operalion and Enhancement of the JIS and Development ollhe AISCommerCIal In ConfiClenc8

Page 6

46

OC3 Technology, Inc. is a Texas Corporation, based in Dallas. They currently provide support for PhaseIV JIS and their NCTRCA certification is pending.

Contact

Schlumberger's contact person for questions or further information on this initiative will be:

Chris Campbell, Account ExecutiveOffice: 972-789-7735Cellular: 214-636-1557Email: [email protected]

Your Business Alliance with Schlumberger

This opportunity to provide additional support to Dallas County and the JCEC is very important toSchlumberger. With our North American operations based in Texas, all levels of Schlumbergermanagement are committed to continuing a long-tenn and growing relationship with the County. Ourfocus has, and will remain on providing excellent service delivery and guiding the County to only investin IT technology when an increase in customer efficiency can be realized. A senior level accountexecutive has been assigned to Dallas County to provide a single point of contact for customer care.

Our role as Dallas County's IT outsourcing service provider allows us a unique opportunity to add thisscope of work to existing services already contract. Weare committed to work with Dallas County toprovide separate reporting for costs and associated service levels. We will manage this effort as a totallyseparate activity while at the same time leveraging core technology offerings such as our service desk.We canalso ensure a seamless relationship and shared synergies with the Dallas County IT Outsourcingcontract. We will negotiate this contract in accordance with the preferences of Dallas County, but offer achance to streamline the organization and look forward to future cost savings if the integration ofservices proves beneficial. We believe that cost savings can be realized in subsequent year contracts andwill be prepared to work with Dallas County to identify these areas as appropriate. Lastly, we willremain flexible in our approach to this contract.

Schlumberger appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to Dallas County. Thank you for yourcontinued interest and trust in Schlumberger's products and services. Please be assured ofSchlumberger's total commitment to support your RFP decisions and we look forward to a long andmutually beneficial relationship.

Sincerely,

/:;~-;Z~Martha ThomasGeomarket Manager - North America West

Dallas CountySchlumberger Proposal for Ope<ation and Enhancement of the JIS and Development of the AISCommercial in Confidence

Page 7

47

~DALLASCOUNTY COM'At4Y "'AME: Sc:hlumbcrger -Vea_ SUtisdcal Repett

ADDRESS: 5599 San Felipe Suite 1#400 Houston. Texas 77056 ---............-.~ , ...n- E...-,- -,...,.,--........... TELI'HOI'IE: (713) 513-3000

MALE W1Uft IlACX IIISPAIIIC ""nvEAMI.. ASIAN PAaP. 4SIAIf JIIlDIAII Ollila

............. 41 7 II- -

........... 21S 27 35 89-

T........ SI 8 14 IS- -SoIoo ....... 10 1

0lIWC1IriaI 4 1 -o.a .....(SYooI) -o,on.;..(SooIi....

........~savaWOllICDS

TOTAL 321 37 56 117--....,,,--~--

FEMALE _m I&.ACIt HISP""'.c ""nvl AMIa. ASIAN PACIf. ASWIIIiIOIAIlI 0TIlCa

J 0lI0i*....... S 1 1 1-

{'t........ 41 10 7 2S-fp'

.,

~". ' 13 is 6T........

Sob ....... 3 I

0lIceCI0riaI IS 4 S 1-

c........(SYaI)

o,c,-o(SmiSYalI

LoIoonn lu.lo1lall

Scrnttw_

TOTAL 77 30 20 27·

- '._",,__0'

a.,COl..J.AA_.....

TOTAL

c....o.: MiIloriIy-Owncd Firm Ccnificatiol. /J'Y~

~lI"l.s_.., IICTat'A Sipalllre/081r. 7')/' ~'n.WOlNDoOwIlCd ,n1 CcnilicaIialI'

,-..,IICTat'A TwedN_ and illll:

X NoD-MinariIy 0wMd r_ Martha Thomas, Qeomarlcel Manager, NAW

SOFT

48

tl DALLAS COUNTY COMrA"'Y "'AMI: The FMJ Group LLC -Vnder SQUIticU Ibpeft

ADDRESS: 5916 Birchbrook Drive. Suite liDS Dallas, Texas 7S206 ---........_--........ ' ..n-E'r'_ -(-""~...... nu,1fOIWE: (214) 373-4221

MALI: W1IITI IUCX ftlSPAI'fIC ""nYc .uta. Ast.uI PACW. ASWt""-'" OTHq -~ 1 I -......... 2 I 2 -T.......

-Woo .......

~

o.t .....~

~CSooi...

1Aonn(Uool6lt

SElMaWOIICDS

TOTAL 2 I I 2 I

_00J.,__ ca&.M

--FEMALE .1IfR IUQt ICISPAfCIC ""TlVC AMIlL ASWOl 'ACIf'. ASIMIIlilDIAN 0THaI

0IId0III ......

~~~~~~~

,.;..·r.......

u.......

~

c... w....~)•.

Opentjwc.($aoi SUW)

1..IIIo<...1~)

s.......w........

TOTA1. "--OM-n.... ,.,.....

_CIIUAII

-.n_

TOTAL 2 1 I 2 I

CIoodIOoc MinorilJ-Ow" ;1IlI'lCcnificaIioI'

SpaW~ £/1:., f?"",~(5/1~/()3X -..,NCUCA(MDB 16SSTY0903W-.ow.d;_C~' '''T_'_-..,NCUCA T"ed Name IIldT*NoHflllllrity o-.l f'_ TJ Mand - Senior Excc:urive Vice President

50FT

49

Transmittal Letter

May 15,2003

Mr. Phillip VasquezPurchasing AgentDallas County Purchasing Department509 Main, Records Building, 6th Floor, Room 623Dallas, Texas 75202

Dear Mr. Vasquez:

The Harbour Group, Inc. (THO) is pleased to present our response to Dallas County's request forproposal to provide the continued operation and enhancement of the Dallas County JuvenileInfonnation System (nS) and the development of the Dallas County Adult Infonnation System(AIS). THG welcomes the opportunity to continue our business relationship with the county that isbuilt upon a track record of successful projects based upon shared Dallas County and THGresponsibilities. THO has amassed a team of law enforcement and information technologyprofessionals which have proven track records in delivery of multiple successful projects of thisnature. In addition to the technical expertise required, THG also offers the necessary businessacumen to efficiently and effectively complete the project and identify additional opportunities forDallas County to expand the use and functionality of the JIS, thus maximizing your investment.

THG is an Advisory Consulting firm offering businesses direction and navigation through growthand change. We are a provider of business and technology consulting, offering strategic, operationaland implementation solutions. Our mission is to objectively support decision-making and aid ourclients in achieving current and future business objectives by integrating their business andtechnology strategies.

Since our inception as a Dallas based corporation in 1996, The Harbour Group has experiencedtremendous growth and continues to increase its capabilities to design and implement business andtechnology solutions

THG CllnJidcntiu\ Dm:ument 05/14!O3

~o

Service Offerings

Our Advisory Consulting & Technology Delivery Services encompass a variety of service offeringswhich allow us to leverage our knowledge to analyze strategic, technology, infrastructure, projectplans, approaches and assist our clients in attaining their current and future business objectives. TheHarbour Group's objectivity, technical expertise, industry knowledge and project managementskills have proved to be instrumental in transforming clients' businesses and ensuring short andlong-term results. When partnering with The Harbour Group our clients access advisory andconsulting expertise in the following areas:

Business Consulting Services

Being able to fully leverage technology throughout your business is the key to gaining thecompetitive edge. To effectively accomplish this, technology and business processes must bedesigned by business people and implemented by technologists. The Harbour Group's businessconsultants assist companies and organizations with a broad range of strategic, tactical, operational,and implementation issues.

~ Business Strategy

~ Business Process

~ Change Management

Technology Consulting Services

Involved with technology long before the inception of the Internet, our consultants understand thecrucial balance between business and technology. Skilled in creating and implementing solutionsthat support decision making, The Harbour Group can assist you in achieving your current andfuture business objectives through the use of appropriate technologies.

~ IT Strategy~ IT Integration> Implementation Support;;.. Technology Delivery Services

Our Implementation Support and Technology Delivery Services focus on planning and executing asuccessful project and achieving the charted objectives. Project management and implementationleadership are competencies of The Harbour Group. We have extensive experience in designing andplanning for project implementations.

Both our project management and change management methodologies run throughout the life of theproject. We feel this is key in the successful delivery of all business and technology initiatives aswell as their integration into any organization.

THG Coolidt:nti>ll Om:umCnl 05/14/03

51

Assess Plan Implement Integrate... , .••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ; <4 ••••••••• ; •••••••••••••

· .· .: :

· . .· . .· . ........................................................•••••••1 , .................•••••••••••••• ,; u ••

Prior Experience

The Harbour Group, Inc. (THG) has a proven track record of success in delivering complex,large-scale projects for Dallas County, governmental entities, and private sectororganizations. THG is committed to delivering cost effective business and technical solutions toour clients. THG and its partners have consistently delivered the promise of enterprise widesolutions which require integrating strong project methodology, and resource support.

The Harbour Group, has experience, with governmental entities and through its partners,Defenbaugh & Assoc. has extensive criminal and juvenile justice experience.

The Harbour Group from a technology expertise is a Microsoft certified development partnerand an Oracle development partner. We have extensive expertise contained within the teamand the company in the Microsoft SQL 2000 platform and SQL programming as well asactive server pages. We implement security solutions for Windows NT and server NTplatforms.

PartialL~tofRekvantClientProjec~:

:;. Trade One Marketing ,. Verizon Information Services:;. Dallas Bar Association ;0> Promotional Products Industry Association International;- General Motors Parts ';.- Mattress Giant;. Dallas County :;. Waste Management

; Houston ISD ;. Verizon Internet Operations

The JIS-AIS project will require the skill sets of a core team of business and technologyprofessionals and the ability to draw upon a flexible ring of consultants to handle projectchanges or additions. While The Harbour Group has a large resource pool (over 100 professionals)to draw from, we have also chosen to partner with two Dallas based minority owned businesses,Lazo Technologies, LTD. and Business Control Systems, LP, to provide the County with the depthof expertise needed to rapidly implement a flexible solution. Leading this team will be Mr. Gary A.Williams, President of Harbour Advisory Services. His role is defined below as the ProjectExecutive. The additional resources described comprise the core team needed to assume operationof and complete the requested enhancements to the JIS. All resources, which are not officing at theHenry Wade Juvenile Justice Center, will be working in a collaborative developmental environmentcreated at THG offices in Addison.

THG Cnnlidt'nliJI Dncumcr.t ll5/14/03

52

. . .!:~;P:{.;.r

ff :'m~irl<~~y~

, ~. ~;,. ~:nli:: (_~j1:T"C:

I[~;='~~Jr-·- =f"J(:>:'~~~iff,'".\ ~ ;,~C,i~: .. l

Clielll Rdariol/sQUillity Assurallce

Sub-contractor Re/ariOllsEmployee Relarions

COntraCT Management

Day-to-day Project ManagemenTProject Commwlications

Accountable to Client InterfaceAgencies Liaison

Cost & Expense ,Wana elf/ent

• System iAdministration I

• Helpdesk IManagement - 24/7 iOn-Site I

• Webmaster .,,;1

• Security

Ii

Project ExecutiveG.WiIliams

Project ManagerB. McMillian

• SystemArchitecture

• Web Development

• DatabaseAdministration

• Data Mapping &Integration

• Report(s)Development

~ ~ 8(; f~'J~

oj ::::'~;!l-;~~"'-:;"

• Training

• UserDocumentation

• SystemDocumentation

-.- ( .f~Q .J14':.?'"~Efh~

" ~1<;"~(;"~

,. Both of the minority-owned companies The Harbour Group is partnering with todeliver this project have experience with database conversions, Web and applicationdevelopment, Web-enabling legacy systems and networking solutions

THG Cllnlidt'nlial Document 05/14103 Pagc:7oi!OJ

53

Project Costs

The Harbour Group is an approved Qualified Information Services Vendor (QISV) with the State ofTexas. The pricing for this project is directly inline with our discounted QISV rates offered ongovernment related projects

THG understands that the available funding for the 12 month period is $1,656,760 for both the JISoperations, JIS enhancements, and AIS development. Due to our current knowledge of theCounty's needs, the depth of our experience with similar projects and our overall projectmanagement skills, THG is estimating the total project cost at $1,411,890. Detailed below are theestimated prices of each major project component:

Project ManagementAIS DevelopmentOperation of the JISEnhancements to TIS

$152,328$317,254$292,362$802,274

This proposed funding level leaves a cushion of $244,870 to be utilized in other identifiedenhancements, hardware refresh,~or extensions to the JIS initiatives.

We understand the funding authorized for each project component may be adjusted by DallasCounty once work actually begins. The estimated cost breakdown of each resource is as follows:

Project ExecutiyeProject ManagementOperations ManagerDevelopment ManagerConsultantSystemIDB AdministrationWeb DeveloperSr. Web DeveloperSNIE Design AnalystChief Technology Officer

$ 155.91$ 79.34$ 102.92$ 110.08$ 93.35$ 115.98$ 84.21$ 90.45$ 169.34$ 145.46

The design for a new AIS has been created from work of the JIS tearn coupled with Dallas Countylaw enforcement and administrative users to identify the "gaps" between the legacy AIS system andthe new JIS system coupled with additional functionality defined by the user tearns.

AIS will continue to need facilitation for prioritizing the user requirements identified forimplementation and integration with existing systems and external data base resources. Inorder to effect a successful outcome to this development, THG will provide extensive lawenforcement experience by utilizing our partners, Defenbaugh & Associates, to handle thejuvenile and criminal justice experience both on a local and national level. Coupled with thebusiness acumen will be the necessary technical design and architectural resources to deliver arobust and timely solution to the priorities of the user community for these systems.

THG's combination of law enforcement expertise and technical delivery expertise provides a backdrop for the successful completion of another phase of AIS development.

THG Cnnlil1t'mi<J1 Dm;umenl 05;14/03

54

THG understands that the commitment of Dallas County to the contractual relationship regardingthis RFP is from July 1,2003 to June 30, 2004. If the services provided continue at the same highlevel of ethical and corporate commitment that THG has delivered to date the contract can beextended up to four more one year increments.

THG has and continues to deliver value added services to Dallas County. THG has 100 plusprofessionals spread across our three offices in Dallas, Austin, and Houston which providetechnical depth in the delivery of our services to the County. We are a Texas based companyheadquartered in Dallas with strong ties to the community. We have been able to form astrong working bond with the County and to deliver when others have been unsuccessful inthe two major projects for which we have been selected. We honor our commitments to ourWfMBE partners and have successfully achieved our stated goals for partnering to theCounty on each audit. THG was founded as a company which sought balance in three keyareas. Our clients, our consultants, and our company must all achieve their goals of value,growth, and profitability. It is in this balance that we strive to continue our relationship withDallas County and to further our mutual success.

If the County should have any questions regarding this RFP response, please contact Mr. BubbaMcMillian at 972-560-6435 or Mr. Gary Williams at 972-726-1920.

Sincerely yours,

~.~Mr. Gary A. WilliamsThe Harbour Group, Inc.

THG Cllnlh1t'ntJ~1 Dm;umcnt 051 I~i03

,-,

~~ DALLAS COUNTYCOMPANY NAME: ~ Harbour Group

Vendor SlallstlCll.l ReportADDRESS:4115 Centurion Way. Suite 200. Addison, Texas 75001(prime/subs performing >19... of initiative)

Pennanent Fuji-TIme Employment TELEPHONE: m·S60-647S

(not oan Ii melleme/seasonal)

I MALE WHITE BLACK HISPANIC NATIVE AMER. ASIAN PACIF. ASIAN INDIAN OTHE

OfficialsiManagers 6 I

Professionals 55 6 4 3 I

TechniciaDs

Sales WorIa:rs

OfficeIClerical

Craft WorIa:rs (Skilled)

Operatives (SemiSkilled)

Laboren (Unskilled)

SERVICEWORKERS

TOTAL 61 6 , 3 I

FORMAL D-T·J--

TRAINEES:_.

- -WHITE COLLAR

PRODUCTION

FEMALE WHITE BLACK HISPANIC NATlVE AMER. ASIAN PACIF. ASIAN INDIAN OTHE:

Officials! Managers I

ProfeSiioDilS----·-- 14--_. -I ---- - - 1--- I J

Technicians

Sales Workers I

OfficeIClerical I I

Craft Workers (Skilled)

Operative·(SemiSkilled)

Laborers (Unskilled)

Service Workers

I TOTAL I17 I I I 2 I I I I I IFORMALON·THE·JOB

TRAINEES:

WHITE COLLAR

PRODUCTION

TOTAL 78 7 7 4 2

Check MinOrity-Owned Firm Certification /IIssued by

,.,One:

~NCTRCA ~-SignaturelDate: 5-14-43

Women-Owned FU'lTl Certification /IIssued by Typed Name and Title: Gary Williall\l/ PannerNCTRCA

X Non-Minority Owned Finn

THG Cnnli,knlial Do<:umenl OS/14/03 P~ge62(\f 10J

CEO/PRESIDENT

,

o DALLAS COUNTYcntD'Mn "'-UoI1:: LolO TECHNOLOCIES t LTD.

v.......~..- ..- 611 II • HOClClNG8IltD LANE DALLAS, rx 75247..........~ .....~_,..,~e...-,- T'IUl'III:lIl!I ( 214) 652-9898OIIII~-" •

MAUl -.JS -.....ex -- ~ _r_ -- ~

- 6- l&- 1 1r_

1 5-- I

.-0IIl_~

O'-<J-i.... 3

.-~

:_......

-.-: i' .

'lOUL 6 ~ 13 1 ..... '.

-.....~ .. . "..-- ll-". ..

- 9F'EMAl.& - .....at -- lW.J1n.uc&. -.vI,'-. -- cnaa

~'"- 1 1- ...:1" ..

- 'L' ,

1" .... - -<.... ._. _.-- I "'. , " .'1- 2

'.'

.. : .t·.QIjI-~)

awe ,-- '.'

"~«-.. ""

--TOTAL 2 . 8 I" I

--_.---- 6

- 5

TO'tAt. -a....o.c-. ~"'-~,

f'-...............

X HMMB18524Y0304_., IICftCA~ ---- "'It -W___~I

-~ ~.' T)pNK-. ....T. TOM LAZO SR.

THG Clntidt'nlj;jl Dm:ument 05/1 ~1ll3 Page 7101' 101

57

r:D' DALLAS COUNTYCOMPANY NAME: Busl_ Coatral S,..~LP

Vendor Slamdc:al ReportADDRESS: 3939 Beldi.. R.-d. Suite 450, AddIJ_ T_ 75801

(prime/subs perfonninc >I~ of initiali""l

Permanent full-TIme Employ_lSI TELEPHONE: t71-:41-13n(not oan time/torno/seasonal)

MALE WHITE BLACK HISPANIC NATIVE AMER- ASIAN PACIF. ASIAN INDIAN OTHER I

Orr",ialsIManagers 3 3 IProCessionals S 3 2 ITechnicians 14 S 3 2 ISales Worten 3

Orr",eIClericai I I

Cnfl worten (Skilled)

Opend_ (Scmi Skillod)

l.a.bor= (UnsId1Jod)

SERVICE 1WORXERS

TOTAL :4 12 3 4 1

FORMAL Q.T·JTRAINEES:

WHITE COLLAR

PRODUCTION

fEMALE WHITE BLACK HlSPANIC NATIVE AMER- ASIAN PACIF. ASIAN INDIAN 0THEll

Officialsl Managers 2 I

ProCessionals 4 I

I Technicians 2 I I,Sales Wori=s 1

OrtieelClericai 7 4

Cnfl Wori=s (Skillod)

Operati",,-{Scmi Skillod)

Laborer> (Unskillod)

Service Workers II TOTAL I 16 I 6 I I I 2 I I I

FORMALON·THE·JOB

TRAJNEES:

WHITE COLLAR

PRODUCTION

1IVIAL 40 18 3 0 6 0

Minorily.Qwnod FlClIl CeniflCatioll IIwuod by NCTRCA

~X

BFDB 17S96Y0803Yes

SignalureIDate:

Women-Owned FIIlD Certifie.tion IITyped Name and Tide: Dianne Ferguson!.ssued by NcrRCA

Non-Minority Owned Fum PreSidenl

THG CnnlidcOlial Dl1(;umcnl 05/14/03 Page 79 nl" I () I

08

DALLAS COUNTYFacilities Management

Date:

To:

From:

Through:

Subject:

June 10, 2003

Commissioners Court

Jim sarrett('11Assistant Director

Dan savageC\)&Assistant Administrator for Operations

Lease Renewal

BackgroundDallas County entered into a lease agreement with the State of Texas by Court Order 96-843. This leaseapplies to 575 square feet of space and allows the Texas Department of Human Services (TDHS) the useof this space for an automated telephone switching room. The lease was originally at 575 sq ft for $10.62per sq ft or $508.88 per month. The original lease term began May 1, 1996 through June 30, 2003. TheState has asked for a one year extension of this lease.

Impact on OperationsThere would be no impact to operations.

Financial ImpactThe new lease rate is $11.04 per year at the rate of $528.92 per month with adjustments allowed forConsumer Price Increases.

Legal ImpactA copy of this extension has been sent to the District Attorneys office, Civil Section for review.

RecommendationThe Assistant Director of Facilities recommends this lease extension. If the Commissioners Court is inagreement, a Court Order will be placed on the next available agenda.

Recommended by

JS/rs

600 Commerce, 9th FloorGeorge L. Allen Sr., Courts Building Dallas, Texas 75202

(214) 653-7175Fax (214) 653-6822

59

EXECVTIVE DIRECTORlUndall H. Riley

April 28, 2003

Texas Building and Procurement Commission

CHAIRMA;'IiTom Beard

COMMISSIO;'IiERSStuart S. Coleman

Noe FemandezBob Jones

Mary Ann Newman· BuckleyRichard (Rick) Salwen

Dallas CountyThe Honorable Margaret Keliherclo Mack RichardsonDallas County Facilities411 Elm Street, 3rd FloorDallas, TX 75202-3117

Dear Judge Keliher:

Re: Lease 324-9560-E3B-DALLASTerm: 06/01/1996 through 06/30/2003LEASE RENEWAL

With reference to Lease Contract 324-9560-E3B-DALLAS, the Texas Building andProcurement Commission hereby renews this lease by extending the term throughJune 30, 2004.

The monthly rental payment shall remain $528.92 for 575 usable square feet at $0.92per square foot per month or $11.04 annual rate, unless adjusted in accordance withthe terms of the lease contract.

In signing this amendment, the Lessor certifies, the leased premises to be occupiedshall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances,codes, rules and regulations.

This lease amendment is by mutual agreement between Lessee and Lessor. If youhave any questions, please contact Gayla Davis at 512-475-2438.

TEXAS BUILDING AND PROCUREMENTCOMMISSION APPROVED:

Gene V. MorrisonDirector, Facilities Leasing Division

GVM:GDD:ac

APPROVED BY:

Honorable Margaret Keliher

Date: _

cc: Mr. Frank Bogar, Department of Human ServicesTexas Department of Licensing and Regulation

Ouestions or concerns l8Qarding this transaction or service should be directed to: Building and Procurement Commission, Leasing Division, P.O. Box 13047, Austin, Texas 78711·3047, 512·463-3331,PhOne, 512046303311. Fax. Formal wrrtlen complaints may be directed to: Customer ServiCe Representative Building and Procurement Commission, P,O. Box 13047, Austin, Texas 78711·3047, 512

936-3000, Phone, 512·936-2637, Fax.

1711 San Jacinto Blvd.• P.O. Box 13047. Austin, Texas 78711. (512) 463-3035. www.tbpc.state.tx.us

60

DALLAS COUNTYHUMAN RESOURCES/CIVIL SERVICE

June 4,2003

To:

From:

Subject:

Members of Commissioners Court

Mattye Mauldin-Taylor, Ph.D.Director of Human Resource Management/Civil Service

PEBC Bylaw Changes

BackgroundThe Public Employee Benefit Cooperative (PEBC) Board of Governance has recommendedchanges effective January I, 2004, to the PEBC Interlocal Agreement that embodies the PEBCbylaws. The Interlocal Agreement (Attachment B) is revised with the following changes:

1) Acknowledge Denton County as a participant2) Provide an additional Board seat for any IOOO-member participant who

has been a PEBC member for at least one year3) Recognize the structure of the Board and the unique position of Dallas

and Tarrant Counties as PEBC founding members4}" Identity participant withdrawal provisions5) Update language (See summary of changes in Attachment A).

Impact on OperationsNone expected.

Financial ImpactNone anticipated.

RecommendationThe Human Resources/Civil Service Department recommends Commissioners Court approve thechanges to the PEBC Interlocal Agreement (referred to as "the bylaws ") and authorize theCounty Judge to sign the Agreement on heha{fofthe County.

Recommended by:

Attachments

509 Main StreetRecords Building

Dallas, TexasEqual Opportunity Employer 214.653.7638

\IABS 1\DATA1\GROUPS\PRSONNL\Briefings 2003\PEBC 2004 Bylaw Changes briefing 061 003.doc

61

mm1Public EmployeeBenefits Cooperative

Interlocal (Bylaw) ChangesEffective January 1, 2004

Summary Statement

The PEBC Interlocal Agreement (referred to as Bylaws) are revised to acknowledgeDenton County as a Participant, to provide for a 7th Board seat for Participants withat least 1000 employees who have been PEBC members for at least one year, torecognize the structure of the Board and the unique position of Dallas County andTarrant County as the founding members of the PEBC, to identity Participantwithdrawal provisions and to otherwise update language as approved by the PEBCBoard on May 28, 2003.

Changes

This document summarizes the changes to the PEBC Interlocal Agreement (Bylaws)that were effective January 1, 1998. The Interlocal Agreement document should beconsulted for complete language. The reference location is listed first in italics.

1. Title: Name corrected to Public Employee Benefits Cooperative of NorthTexas (Assumed name certificates filed in 2001.)

2. Whereas & 1.1(a): Adds Denton County.

3. Whereas & 1.2(b): Adds language that the purpose is for joint purchase andcentralized management of employee benefits.

4. Whereas & 1.2(b): Adds language that centralized management andstandardized processes enable Participants to better control employee benefitscosts.

5. ,. 1(b): Clarifying language to allow for other governmental employees toparticipate in the Participant's benefits program as permitted or required bylaw as the responsibility of the Participant under same terms and conditions asParticipant's employees. (IE probation departments)

6. 2. 1(a): Adds language recognizing the structure of the Board and the uniquepositions of Dallas County and Tarrant County as founding members of thePEBC.

7. 2. 1(b): Provides for a 7th Board member from a Participant with at least 1000employees who has been a Participant for at least one year and has neverbeen involuntarily removed as a PEBC Participant. Additional changes are:

Attachmellt A

62

• Changes quorum to 4 Board members with at least 1 member eachfrom Dallas County and Tarrant County Commissioners Courts.

• Affirmative vote must be by majority vote provided one vote each isfrom the Commissioners Courts of Dallas County and Tarrant County.

8. 2.2(a): Clarifies that the Board can adopt "operational" policies for tt"1e PEBCand its interaction with Participants. (IE New Member Guide - listsoperational items including forwarding eligibility, annual enrollment roles, etc.)

9. 3. 1(c): Clarifies that Participants agree to pay administrative fees adopted bythe Board and approved by the Participants.

10.3. 2(a): Requests that Participants make at least a 3-year commitment to PEBCmembership.

11.3.3(a): Voluntary Withdrawal Provisions

(i) Clarifies that Participants can withdraw at the end of a plan yearwith 180 days notice to the Board.

(ii) Provides that a withdrawing Participant is required to pay its PEBCcost share thru the end of the plan year.

(iii) Provides that a withdrawing Participant is responsible for itsfinancial commitments under the Agreement, even if payable afterthe end of the benefit period.

(iv) Provides that all PEBC service vendor agreements end at theeffective date of withdrawal (also in contracts).

(v) Provides that a withdrawing Participant loses Board seat at date ofnotice of withdrawal.

(vi) Provides that a withdrawing Participant cannot reapply for PEBCmembership for two years.

(vii) Provides that, on the effective date of withdrawal, Participantsforfeit all benefits of PEBC membership including access to website,resources and materials.

12.3.3(c): Provides for involuntary removal at Board discretion, with 60 dayswritten notice for:

(i) Failure to pay financial obligations while a PEBC Participant.

(ii) Failure to adopt PEBC plan designs.

(iii) Failure to execute PEBC approved agreements in a timely manner.

2

Attachment A

63

(iv) Failure to abide by the terms of the Agreement.

13.4. 1.' Adds language in the event of conflict between terms of this Agreementand any other agreement, the terms of this Agreement prevail unless otheragreement expressly provides otherwise.

3

Attachment A

64

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COOPERATIVE OF NORTH TEXASINTERLOCAL AGREEMENT

This PUBLIC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COOPERATIVE OF NORTH TEXASINTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement"), is made and entered intoas of the date specified herein by and among the Counties of Dallas, Denton and Tarrant, and theNorth Texas Tollway Authority. Other local governments may participate in this Agreement as setforth below. All local governments participating in this Agreement shall be referred to collectively as"Participants."

WIT N E SSE T H:

WHEREAS, the Participants believe that a good employee benefits program is necessary torecruit and retain a quality workforce and by this Agreement for the joint purchase and centralizedmanagement of employee benefits, Participants are better positioned to control benefits costs and offeremployees a quality benefits program; and

WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act (the Act), Chapter 791 of the Texas GovernmentCode, as amended, authorizes local governments, as defined by the Act, to develop regionalcooperative programs and to enter into interlocal agreements for the performance jointly of servicesand activities that each party thereto is authorized to perform separately, all to be done for benefit ofthe parties thereto; and

WHEREAS, the Act authorizes the establishment of an administrative agency for the purposeof managing and implementing the affairs of the participants under the interlocal agreement; and

WHEREAS, the governing bodies of the Participants find (I) that any payment orperformance by the Participants will utilize current revenues legally available to the parties; (2) thatthis Agreement will benefit the public by improving retention and recruitment of qualified employees;(3) that centralized management and standardized processes enable Participants to better controlemployee benefits costs; and (4) the division of duties between the participants constitutes adequateconsideration;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Participants in consideration of the premises and other good andvaluable consideration hereby contract and agree one with the other as follows:

ARTICLE I

PARTICIPANTS, NAME, PURPOSE, STATUS

Section 1.1. Participants

(a) The Participants in the PEBC shall include (i) Dallas County, Denton County,Tarrant County, and the North Texas Tollway Authority; and (ii) any otherlocal government that, subject to the approval of the respective governingbodies of the Participants, subsequently join the PEBC by approving thisAgreement.

(b) A Participant may perm it other governmental employees to participate in theParticipant's benefits program as permitted or required by law as the

.Attachment B

Section 1.2.

Section 2.1.

6!::)

responsibility of the Participant under this Agreement and on the same termsand conditions as the Participant's employees and/or retirees.

(c) No participant shall contract with any entity to receive services under thisAgreement without the review of the Board and approval of the Participants.

Name, Purpose

(a) The Participants hereby create the Public Employee Benefits Cooperative ofNorth Texas (hereinafter referred to as the" PEBC").

(b) The purposes of the PEBC are to enable the Participants to jointly purchaseemployee benefit products and services and to allow for centralized, costeffective administration of employee benefit programs.

ARTICLE II

BOARD OF GOVERNORS, POWERS AND DUTIES

Creation, Selection of Board of Governors

(a) The Participants hereby create the Board of Governors (hereinafter referred toas the Board) for the purpose of administering and governing the affairs of thePEBC. The Board is hereby designated and appointed by the Participants asthe "Administrative Agency" for the PEBC as permitted by Chapter 791,Government Code. The structure of the Board recognizes the uniquepositions of Dallas County and Tarrant County as the founding members ofthe PEBC.

(b). Effective January I, 2004, the Board shall consist of not more than seven (7)appointed members selected from the Participant's governments as follows:

(i) Two (2) members from each of the Dallas County and Tarrant Countycommissioners courts.

(ii) One (I) member each from Dallas County and Tarrant County otherthan a member of the governing body.

(iii) One (1) member from a Participant group's governing body (otherthan Dallas County or Tarrant County) provided the Participant group(I) has no fewer than 1000 active employees at the effective date ofPEBC membership and (2) has been a Participant for not less thanone year, and (3) has never been involuntarily removed as aParticipant.

(iv) A quorum shall be four (4) members of the Board with at least one (I)member each from the commissioners courts of Dallas County andTarrant County.

2Attachment B

Section 2.2.

66

(v) All affirmative votes of the Board must be by majority vote providedone (I) vote each is from the commissioners courts of Dallas Countyand Tarrant County.

(vi) Board appointments are for a two (2) year term.

(vii) A Chairperson will be elected from the active members of the Boardto serve a one (I) year term.

(viii) The Chairperson shall be elected on a rotating basis between theParticipants.

(ix) A Vice-chairperson shall be elected from the active members of theBoard to serve a one (I) year term.

(x) The Vice-Chairperson shall not be from the same Participant as theChairperson.

(xi) Each member of the Board shall have one (1) vote.

(xii) Any Participant may, at any time for any reason, replace theirappointed member to the Board.

Powers, Duties of the Board of Governors

(a) The Board shall have the power to adopt operational policies for the PEBCand its interaction with Participants.

(b) Subject to the approval of the Participants' respective governing bodies, theBoard may obtain operational, technical, consulting and other support to assistit in carrying out the duties and purposes of the PEBC. Such support, if paid,is subject to funding and/or funding authority provided and/or delegated bythe Participants.

(c) Subject to the approval of the Participants' respective governing bodies, theBoard shall have the following specific responsibilities:

(i) Establish a common benefit plan and program to be offered toemployees and retirees of the Participants.

(ii) Review, evaluate and monitor benefits and their utilization andrecommend to the Participants needs or changes.

(iii) Manage the procurement process for the contracting of serviceproviders that may be needed for services delivered through thePEBC.

(iv) Manage the renewal of all contracts.

(v) Negotiate rate and benefit changes.

3Attachment B

Section 3.1

Section 3.2

67

(vi) Advocate new services and benefits that are consistent with thePEBC's mission and responsibility to each Participant.

(vii) Appoint Committees as needed.

(viii) Perform other activities that may, from time to time, be necessary tocarry out the purpose of the PEBC.

(ix) Carry out contractual responsibilities.

ARTICLE III

PARTICIPANTS' OBLIGATIONS, TERM, WITHDRAWAL

Participants' Obligations

(a) The Board will present to each Participant for their approval agreements withvarious service providers that are necessary to deliver service consistent withthe mission of the PEBC. Each Participant shall pay its actual share of thefees specified in such agreements.

(b) For self-funded benefits plans, each Participant will be responsible for paying100% of the variable claims cost for its respective employees.

(c) Each Participant agrees to pay administrative fees that are adopted by theBoard and approved by the Participants.

(d) Each Participant shall not allow benefits offered by the PEBC to be offered toits employees from a source other than the PEBC.

(e) Each Participant agrees that it will offer its employees and retirees only thoseoptions for "core benefits" approved by the Board. Core benefits may bemandatory or optional. Each Participant may offer its employees and retireesbenefit options other than "core benefits" at their discretion.

(f) Each Participant agrees to follow the operational guidelines for PEBCparticipation adopted by the Board.

(g) If there is a failure on the part of a Participant to perform its obligations asrequired by this Agreement or other agreements in support of this Agreementwhich causes penalty or cost, such penalty or cost shall be the soleresponsibility of the Participant that failed to perform.

(a) This Agreement shall be effective on the date of its execution by the InitialParticipants named herein and shall continue year to year.

(b) Participants are requested to make a commitment of not less than three yearsto PEBC participation.

4Attachment B

Section 3.3

Section 4.1.

68

Withdrawal

(a) Any Participant may withdraw from the Agreement and the followingprovisions shall apply:

(i) A Participant may withdraw from the PEBC effective the last day ofthe then in-force plan year by providing written notice to the Boardno later than 180 days prior to the end of the plan year in which theyintend to withdraw.

(ii) The withdrawing Participant must pay its pro-rata share of PEBCadministrative costs for the balance of the plan year no later than sixty(60) days following notice of withdrawal.

(iii) A withdrawing Participant shall be responsible for its financialcommitments incurred under this Agreement even if suchcommitments are payable after the end of the benefit period.

(iv) All agreements with service vendors or other providers entered into asa result of Participant's membership in the PEBC shall terminate onthe effective date of withdrawal.

(v) A withdrawing Participant shall lose any Board seats it holdseffective the date of notice of withdrawal.

(vi) A withdrawing Participant shall, on the effective date of withdrawal,forfeit all benefits of PEBC membership, including access to website,resources and materials.

(c) At the discretion of the Board, a Participant may be involuntarily removedfrom PEBC membership. upon sixty (60) days written notice, for any of thereasons stated below and the provisions of Section 3.3 (a) (ii-vi) shall apply.

(i) Failure to pay its financial obligations while a PEBC Participant.

(ii) Failure to adopt PEBC plan designs.

(iii) Failure to execute PEBC-approved agreements with vendors andservice providers in a timely manner.

(iv) Failure to abide by the terms of this Agreement.

ARTICLE IV

MISCELLANEOUS

Entirety of Agreement

5Attachment B

69

The terms and provisions of this Interlocal Agreement constitute the entire agreementof the undersigned parties and by the lawfully authorized representative with thestipulation that various agreements will be approved to carry out the mission of thePEBC and such agreements may supplement provisions in this Agreement. If there isa conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any other agreement between twoor more of the Participants, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail unle.ss the otheragreement expressly provides otherwise.

Section 4.2.

Section 4.3.

Section 4.4.

Section 4.5.

Governing Law

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws ofthe State of Texas and venue shall be in the State of Texas and the County of theParticipant that legal action is being brought against.

Severability

In the event that one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall forany reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, suchinvalidity, illegality or unenforceability of the Agreement shall be construed as if suchinvalid, illegal or unenforceable provision has never been contained herein, but shallnot affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement, which shall remain in force andeffect.

Execution in Counterparts

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts by the execution of a separatesignature page by each Participant, indicating the date of actual execution by eachParticipant, and, after full execution hereof in such manner, the same shall be deemedto be one and the same instrument.

Effective Date

This Agreement is effective January I, 2004.

SIGNATURE

Participant: The County of Dallas

By:Name:Title:

Margaret KeliherCounty Judge

Date: _

Approved as to form:

By: _

Dallas County District Attorney's Office

6Attachment B

70

DALLAS COUNTYHUMAN RESOURCES/CIVIL SERVICE

June 4,2003

To:

From:

Subject:

Members of the Commissioners Court

Mattye Mauldin Taylor, Ph.D.Director of Human Resources/Civil Service

Review ofNepotism Policy

BackgroundIn March of this year, Commissioners Court requested a review of Dallas County's NepotismPolicy and written confirmation from each elected official/department head that he/she was incompliance with the applicable Nepotism Policy. The Nepotism Policy was reviewed with theCivil Section of the District Attorney's Office and a Letter of Compliance was sent to all electedofficials/department heads. Attachment A lists all elected officials/department heads who signedthe Letter of Compliance. Attachment B lists all elected officials/department heads who did notrespond after three requests. Attachment C is a draft of the Nepotism Policy with the proposedchanges..

Operational ImpactRevising the policy will provide policy direction and clarification to elected officials/departmentheads and staff. The signed letters indicate compliance with the policy.

Financial ImpactNone

Legal ReviewRevisions to the general Nepotism Policy were reviewed with the Civil Section of the DistrictAttorney's Office. The Sheriffs Nepotism Policy is currently under review and will be submittedfor approval to the Sheriffs Civil Service Commission in July.

RecommendationsThe Human Resources/Civil Service Department recommends Commissioners Court approve theproposed revisions to the Nepotism Policy and acknowledge receipt ofall Letters ofCompliancefrom the elected officials/department heads listed in Attachment A.

Recommended by:

Attachments

509 Main StreetRecords Building

Dallas, TexasEqual Opportunity Employer 214.653.7638

Q:\Briefings 2003\Policy Nepotism_review and policy 061003.doc

71

Attachment (A)

2. ASHBY, ANNE 134 CIVIL DISTRICT COURT3. BARKER PHIL COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO.64. BARNARD, JEFFREY 1. INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC SCIENCES5. BARRETT, JIM FACILITIES MANAGEMENT6. BOWLES, JIM SHERIFF7. BLACKINGTON, KEN mSTICE OF THE PEACE 2-28. BROWN, RYAN OFFICE OF BUDGET AND EVALUATION9. BURSON, LYNN COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALSlo. CALHOUN, CYNTHIA COUNTY CLERK DEPARTMENT11. CANTRELL, MIKE ROAD AND BRIDGE DISTRICT 212. CERCONE, AL mSTICE OF THE PEACE 3-113. CHANDLER DANNY SECURITY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT14. CHILDS, DAVID TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR15. CLANCY, DANIEL COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO.116. CLEMSON, ALLEN COMMISSIONERS COURT ADMINISTRATION17. COEN, JEFF 254 TH FAMILY DISTRICT COURT18. COLLINS, GEORGE R IV-D FAMILY COURT #119. COOPER, GERRY mSTICE OF THE PEACE 2-120. COX, JOE 160"1 CIVIL DISTRICT COURT21. CREUZOT, JOHN C. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO 422. CROWDER ELIZABETH REVIEW OF NEPOTISM POLICY23. CUNNINGHAM, VIC 283KlJ CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT24. CULBREATH-LISTER, BETTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES25. DESHAZO, NIKKI PROBATE COURT26. DUPREE, MIKE CONSTABLE PRECINCT 527. EVANS, DERICK CONSTABLE PRECINCT I28. FOX, LISA COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 10

i 29. FRANCIS, ROBERT CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO.330. FULLER TOM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO.531. GOTHARD, MICHAEL CONSTABLE PRECINCT 232. GREEN, JEANETTE PUBLIC DEFENDER33. GREEN, SALLY IV-D FAMILY COURT #334. GREENBERG, MARK COUNTY COURT OF LAW 535. GREENE, KAREN 282N1

) CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT36. GREENE, STONELL B. VETERAN COUNTY SERVICE OFFICE37. GRIFFITHS, MIKE mVENILE DEPARTMENT38. HAMLIN, JIM DISTRICT CLERK39. HARRIS, FRANCES 302Nl

) FAMILY DISTRICT COURT40. HARTMAN, MERRILL 192"u CIVIL DISTRICT COURT41. HAYNES, CATHARINA 191~1 CIVIL DISTRICT COURT42. HEMBRY, LISA COUNTY TREASURY43. HENNESSEY, JOHN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS44. HICKS, IRVIN. MINORITY/WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISES45. HOLZWORTH, DONALD PUBLIC WORKS46. IGRISAN, ANGELA CHILD SUPPORT47. JACKSON, JIM ROAD AND BRIDGE DISTRICT I48. JASSO, mAN mSTICE OF THE PEACE 5-249. JOHNSON, RICHARD 303 Kl

) FAMILY DISTRICT COURT50. JONES, DIANNE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 11

72

At tachment (A) cont ...

-52. KELIHER MARGARET COUNTY JUDGE53. LEATHERS, JOHN GRAND JURY54. LEWIS, MARlLEA 330'" FAMILY DISTRICT COURT55. LOESSBERG, RICK PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT56. LOPEZ, CARLOS 1161H CIVIL DISTRICT COURT57. LOVING, JOE PROBATE COURT #358. MAULDIN-TAYLOR MATTYE HUMAN RESOURCES/CIVIL SERVICE59. MAYFIELD, KENNETH ROAD AND BRIDGE DISTRICT 460. MCDANIEL, LANA 203KU CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT61. MCKAY, RON DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATION62. MONTGOMERY, SALLY COUNTY COURT AT LAW 363. MURPHY, MARY 14 1H CIVIL DISTRICT COURT64. NANCARROW, MARK 204 1H CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT65. PETTY, MICHAEL JUSTICE OF THE PEACH 4-166. PORTER VIRGINIA AUDITOR'S OFFICE67. PRICE, JOHN WILEY ROAD AND BRIDGE DISTRICT 368. PRICE, ROBERT E. PROBATE COURT #269. RANKIN, MARY LAW LIBRARIES70. RANKIN, SUSAN 301:>1 FAMILY DISTRICT COURT71. RICHARDSON, RICK CONSTABLE PRECINCT 372. ROACH, DONNA JURY SERVICES73. RODEN, JANE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO.874. RODEN, RUSSELL COUNTY COURT AT LAW 175. ROSE, CHARLES JUSTICE OF THE PEACH I-A76. ROSS, PAT FAMILY COURT SERVICES77. SAVAGE, DAN ENGINEERING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT78. SEIDER STEVEN JUSTICE OF THE PEACE 3-379. SEPULVEDA, LUIS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE 5-180. SHERBET, BRUCE ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT81. SHOLDEN, JOHN 304'" JUVENILE DISTRICT COURT82. SIMS, KENT TAX COURT83. SKINNER, R.L. CONSTABLE PRECINCT 484. STRICKLIN, CLIFF CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO.285. TAITE, RALPH COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO.486. THOMPSON, CHRIS COMMUNICATIONS AND CENTRAL SERVICES87. WARDER, JANICE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO.188. WHITNEY, BOB JUSTICE OF THE PEACH 4-289. VASQUEZ, PHILLIP PURCHASING90. WOODY, BRUCE W. COUNTY COURT AT LAW 491. WYDE, DANIEL L. COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO.3

73

Attachment (B)

1. Adolph Canales2. Andrew Leoni3. Bill Hill4. Bill RlIea5. Brenda Green6. Carlos Lo z7. Charles Stokes8. Che I Lee Shannon9. Cleo has Steele10. Crai Fowler11. David Evans12. David Kelton13. Derick Evans14. Faith Johnson15. Hen Wade16. Ja Patterson17. Jim Bowles18. Jim Te19. John Nelms20. Karen Jolmson21. Keith Jolmson22. Keith Dean23. Kristin Wade24.MaIlll Alvarez25. Ma Miller26. Neil Pask27. Sandra Ellis28. Susan Hawk

Justice of the Peace %AIV-D Famil Court #2District Attorne162' Civil District Court256 1 Famil District CourtCoun Court At Law #268 1 Civil District Court305 Juvenile District CourtJustice of the Peace 1-2255 Famil District193re Civil District Court44 1 Civil District CourtConstable Precinct 1363' Criminal District Court292" Criminal District Court10 1st Civil District CourtSheriffJustice of the Peace 3A195 Criminal District Court95' , Civil District CourtCoun Criminal Court No. 9260" Criminal District CourtCoun Criminal Court of A sCriminal District Court No.5194 Criminal District CourtCounty Criminal Court No. 2Justice of the Peach 3-2291,t Criminal District Court

74

Attachment (C)

DIVISION 6. NEPOTISM*

*State law reference(s)--Nepotism, V.I.C.A., Government Code § 573.001 et seq.

Sec. 86-241. Prohibited according to applicable law.

The hiring of employees shall not violate the laws against nepotism as containedin the state law or other applicable laws.

(Admin. Policy Manual, § A(2.13»

Sec. 86-242. Immediate family members enumerated.

Applicants who have any of the following immediate family members presentlyworking for the county will not be allowed to work in the same department: husband,wife, child, stepchild, brother, sister, nephew, niece, stepbrother, stepsister, parent,stepparent, cousin, grandparent, grandchild, uncle, aunt and any person serving asparent/guardian, or any relative living in the same household.


Sec. 86-243. Additional persons classified as immediate family.

The remaining relatives to be included in the term "immediate family" are: parentin-law, child-in-Iaw, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Applicants who are related to any ofthese immediate family members who are presently working for the county may work inthe same department unloss thoy but will not be allowed to work in the same section ordivision, 9F nor maya supervisory relationship exists; nor may future intradepartmentaltransfers result in such relationships. A section or division is defined as a formalorganizational structure or unit that has been formally established by the Office ofBudget and Evaluation.


Sec. 86-244. Becoming relatives after employment; restrictions.

Employees tAat who become relatives after employment will be restricted intransfer and promotion as stated in section 86-243 (Le. may not work in the samesection or division and no supervisory relationship may exist).


Sec. 86-245. Consequences for Violations.

Employees who become relatives after employment with Dallas County mustmeet the criteria outlined in Section 86-243. It is the employee's responsibility toconform with this policy and failure to do so will result in termination.

I\ABS1IDATA1IGROUPS\PRSONNLIPolicies\Pending and Proposed\Nepotism Policy 060203.doc

75

Date:

TO:

Through:

From:

Subject:

DALLAS COUNTYCOMl\-IUNICATIONS & CENTRAL SERVICESRECORDS MANAGEMENT

May 30,2003

Commissioners Court

Dan Savage, Assistant Administrator for operation~ -IChris Thompson, Director Communications & Central ServicesC,

Margaret L. Anderson, CRM, Records Management Officer JrA--

Destroyed shelving write-off

BACKGROUND OF ISSUE

The Auditor's office recently sent an asset inventory report that included two items (number 55261 and 49054) thatneed to be deleted from the County's inventory. In 1997, when the Records Center moved from the old Harry Hineslocation to the 2121 French Settlement location, the old, broken shelving was left behind. The book shelving wasmoved to the new Records Center. This shelving later collapsed and was sold as scrap metal. The CommunityService program ased some of the usable sections. Other departments claimed usable sections and moved sections tovarious locations. The broken/unusable sections were hauled off as scrap metal. No property transfer form or otherdocull'entation can be found detailing these transactions. After the 2002 property audit, all old shelving inventory wasremoved from the department's property listing except items 55261 and 49054.

Since this shelving purchased in 1983 and 1985 and is no longer assigned to department 1024, we need to remove thesetwo items from the asset inventory for department 1024.

IMPACT ON OPERATIONS

No impact to current operations.

LEGAL INFORMATION

No legal impact.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Items:55261 - steel shelving, purchased Dec 30, 1985, cost $5,028.2349054 - 100 sections steel shelving, purchased Feb 1, 1983, cost $8,597.16

RECOMMENDATION

Remove items 55261 and 49054 from the Asset Inventory of department 1024 and write off the cost of $13,625.39.

509 Main Street Suite 608 Dallas, Texas 75202

76

C"~ "" \ I;1', -I} i ,I r--. -,.. ....

May 30, 2003

TO:

FR:

SUBJECT:

The Honorable Commissioners Court

Robbie Placino, Senior Buyer

Award to other than the lowest bidder; Annual Contract For Toilet Tissue andToilet Seat Covers: Bid # 2003-084-1323

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

On April 14, 2003, the Purchasing Department opened the Annual Contract for Toilet Tissue andSeat Covers as authorized by the Commissioners Court. Ten vendors responded and elevenbids were received for Item #1 (Toilet Tissue). Enumerated below are the list of bidders with theirrespective prices and specifications:

VENDOR AMOUNT SHEET SIZE BID SPECS

Tekno Solutions $ 23.95/es 3.75"x4S 4.5" x 4.5"Express Image Paper Co. $ 24.14/es 3.75"x4.5" 4.5" x 4.5"MAN.S. Distirbutors Inc. $ 24.23/es 4.5"x4.5" 4.5" x 4.5"CTJ Paper Co. $ 27.78/es 4.5"x4.5" 4.5" c 4.5"W.W. Grainger $ 42.35/es 4.5"x4.5" 4.5" x 4.5"Boritex, Inc. $ 28.50/es 4.5"x4.S" 4.5" x 4.5"Torrez Paper Co. $ 31.6S/es 4.S"x4.S" 4.5" x 4.5"ICS no bidPerfect Faith Comm'l $ 30.70/es 3.8"x4S 4.5" x 4.5"Unisource (1) $ 25.60/es 4.5"x4.5" 4.5" x 4.5"Unisource (2) $ 25.15/es 4.5"x4.5" 4.5" x 4.5"Unisource (3) $ 25.61/es 4.5"x4.5" 4.5" x 4.5"

The bid specifications require a sheet size of 4.5" x 4.5", two ply, recycled, embossed texture,readily dissoslves in sewer system, white, 500 sheets/ roll, 96 rolls/case. The lowest bidder isTekno Solutions at $23.95 per case while the second lowest bidder is Express Image Paper Co.with a bid price of $24.14 per case Samples were requested from both bidders.Facilities Management evaluated samples from both vendors and both showed to be noncompliant.

MAN.s. Distributors, Inc, (MAN.S.) the third lowest bidder at $24.23 per case is beingrecommended by Facilities Management for award whose sheet size is 4.5" x 4.5".

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Tekno Solutions, the lowerst bidder's sheet size is 3.75" x 4.5" equivalent to 58.59 Sq. Ft. per roll.Express Image Paper Co., the second lowest bidders sheet size is 3.75" x 4.5" equivalent to58.59 Sq. Ft. per roll. MAN.S. sheet size is 4.5" x 4.5" equivalent to 70.31 Sq.Ft. per roll whichyields more paper compared to the other two low bidders. Effectively, Tekno Solutions' price of$23.9S per case comes out to $0.409 per Sq. Ft.. Express Image Paper Co.'s price of $24.14 percase comes out to $0.4121Sq. Ft.. M.A.N.S. price of $24.23 per case comes out to $0.345 perSq.Ft.

77

RECOMMENDATION

The Purchasing Department in concurrence with Facilities Management recommends the awardof Item #1 to MAN.S. Distributors, Inc. the lowest compliant bidder for a total award amount of$218,070.00 at $24.23 per case.

Should the Commissioners Court concur with the aforementioned recommendation, an AwardCourt Order will be scheduled for the next formal agenda.

Irp

78

From:To:Date:Subject:

Billy MartinRobbie PlacinoThu, Apr 24,2003 9:39 AMRe: Toilet Tissue Bid# 2003-084-1323

O.K.! I already have MAN.S. sample on hand Anotherthing you might ask Vendor #2 is if heunderstands the inside derlivery part. Their company is in Houston..

>>> Robbie Placino 04/24 9:32 AM >>>Billy,I have requested 2nd lowest bidder for samples.

Robbie PlacinoTel. #214-653-7437FAX# 214-653-7449

»> Billy Martin 04/24 9:01 AM »>Item #1. The bid submitted by Vendor# 1 ''Tekno Solutions" at $23.95 per case has been evaluated.

The sample provided (two rolls of tissue) came in an unmarked box. The rolls were not inpaper wrappers. There is no technical data to read. "No labeling what-so-ever." Basically I don't knowwhat it is, who makes it. or any ofthe required information.....Therefore. I have no choice but to refuse itas the Vendor to award the contract too!

The next low bidder Vendor# 2 "Express Image Paper Co." at $24.14 per case didn't evensubmit a sample for evaluation. Therefore, I will have to bypass them as the contract specification callsfor a sample t? evaluate.

The next low bidder Vendor# 3 "MAN.S. Distributors Inc." at $24.23 per case is accepted as thelow/best bidder to award this annual contract to. MAN.S. has had this contract for serveral years andprovided a properly identified product that meets all of the contract specifications.

Please brief this to the court at the earliest opportunity.

79

fRObbiePlaCino - ToileiTissue Bid~2063-b84~1323, --- .. - --, , .. _-_._-----_. __ .- .. - .. - .. - .. __ ---.- ,--',., ,., ' , .. ,._-_ .


Billy MartinRobbie PlacinoFri, May 2,2003 3:18 PMToilet Tissue Bid-2003-084-1323

Item#1. Toilet Tissue Rolls, 4.5" X 4.5" , Two Ply, White, 500 sheets/roll, 96 rolls per case.The lowest bidder Vendor#1 Tekno Solutions submitted a product that was unacceptable for thespecifications set forth in the contract.

a. the sheets aren't the correct size at 3.75" X 4.5".b. their sample submitted didn't have any marking to indicate the manufactures

information or labeling. In fact it had no label/wrapper at all.

The next lowest bidder Vendor#2 Express Image Paper Co. submitted a product that was unacceptableas well.

a. The sheets aren't the correct size at 3.75" X 4.5".

The next lowest bidder Vendor#3 MAN.S. Distributors Inc. is accepted as the best bidder to award thisannual contract to. Their product is properly marked and is the correct size as indicated in thespecifications. 4.5" X 4.5".....MAN.S. happens to be the vendor that has had this contract over to past couple of years and hasperformed flawlessly. I have no reservations about accepting them as the best bidder for another year.

cc: Willa Roberts

80

i Robbie Placino • Toilet Tissue Bid# 2003-084-1323


Billy MartinRobbie PlacinoThu. Apr 24,2003 9:01 AMToilet Tissue Bid# 2003-084-1323

Item #1. The bid submitted by Vendor# 1 "Tekno Solutions" at $23.95 per case has been evaluated.The sample provided (two rolls of tissue) came in an unmarked box. The rolls were not in

paper wrappers. There is no technical data to read. "No labeling what-so-ever." Basically I don't knowwhat it is. who makes it. or any of the required information.....Therefore. I have no choice but to refuse itas the Vendor to award the contract too!

The next low bidder Vendor# 2 "Express Image Paper Co." at $24.14 per case didn't evensubmit a sample for evaluation. Therefore. I will have to bypass them as the contract specification callsfor a sample to evaluate.

The next low bidder Vendor# 3 "MAN.S. Distributors Inc." at $24.23 per case is accepted as thelow/best bidder to award this annual contract to. MAN.S. has had this contract for serveral years andprovided a properly identified product that meets all of the contract specifications.

Please brief this to the court at the earliest opportunity.

cc: Willa Roberts

-d

DALLAS COUNTYPURCHASING DEPARTMENT

Cr, '! ,.. I•.. -'I ":"'1 ,...,. -r"\

," .. , 1,1 (

June 10,2003

To:

From:

Subject:


Gloria McCulloch-Webb, Purchasing System Specialist/Analyst

Contract Extension - Annual Contract for Interpretation and Translation Services,Bid No. 2002-121-1155

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

Dallas County Commissioners Court, at their regularly scheduled session held on June 11, 2002, authorized theaward of Bid No. 2002-121-1155, with Court Order 2002-121-1155, for the period of June 15,2002 through June14,2003 to Various Vendors. The contract consisted of (4) four sections as indicated below:

Section 1:Section 2:Section 3:Section 4:

On-Site Individual InterpretersReal-Time Over the Telephone Interpreting ServicesWritten Translation ServicesAmerican Sign Language for the Deaf and Hearing-Impaired

Section 1: On-Site Individual Interpreters was approved on June 3, 2003, as pilot project to be administered by thePurchasing Department.

Section 2: Real-Time Over the Telephone Interpreting Services was awarded to Berlitz Globalnet, Inc. (currentlyknown as Bowne Global Solutions Interpretation Services) and is primarily used by Sheriffs Department, JuvenileDepartment and District Attorney Office.

SectlOn 3: Wntten Translation Services was awarded to Tizoc's International Language and Marketmg Consultantsand IS pnmanly used by the DIstnct Attorney's Office and ElectIOns Department.

SectIOn 4: Amencan Sign Language for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired was awarded to Deaf Action Center and isprimary used by the Juvemle Department and Courts.

In accordance with the contract terms and mutual agreement by all parties, the contract may be extended for anadditional twelve (12) month period based on the original prices, terms, and conditions set forth in the bId award. Asa result, of Bowne Global Solutions Interpretation Services (formerly Berlitz Globalnet, Inc.), Tizoc's InternationalLanguage and Marketing Consultants, and Deaf Action Center compliance with contract specifications, it is therecommendation of the Dallas County Purchasing Department that the county exercise the twelve (12) monthextension option contained within Bid No. 2002-1212-1155. All suppliers have agreed to extend their contract withDallas County in accordance with the existing terms, conditions, and prices set forth in the original bid award.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

For the period of June 15, 2002 through March 25, 2003, Dallas County's total expenditures for the abovereferenced contract was approximately $42,471.00

Records Bldg. 509 Main Street 6th Floor, Room 623 Dallas. Texas 75202 214/653-7431 Fax 214/653-7449

RECOl\olYlE:'l"DAnON

It IS the recommendation of the Purchasing Department that the Dallas County CommissIOners CoW1 authonzes thetwelve (12) month extension of Bid No. 2002-121-1155, Annual Contract for interpretatIon and TranslationServJces, as follows: Section 2: Real-Time Over the Telephone Interpreting Services wlth Bowne Global SolutionsinterpretatIOn Services (fonnerly Berlitz Globalnet, Inc.), Section 3: Written Translation Services with Tizoe'sInternational Language and Marketing Consultants, and Section 4: American Sign Language for the Deaf andHearing Impaired with Deaf ActlOn Center, for the period of June 15,2003 through June 14,2004.

Should the CoW1 concur with recommendations, a CoW1 Order will be scheduled for the nex.t fortnal agenda.

c: Bid File: 2002-121-1155

Records Bldg. 509 Main Street 6th Floor, Room 623 Dallas. Texas 75202 214/653-7431 Fax 214/653·7449

83

C" ... 1 - L. ,.. " r:. -,\ ~I, ( (I i

June 2,2003

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:


Willa Roberts, Purchasing Supervisor

Contract Extension: Bid Number 2002-120-1154 "Annual Contract for ResidentialMechanical Services"

BACKGROUNDIISSUE:

On June 11,2002, the Commissioners Court, at their regularly scheduled session, authorized the award ofBid No. 2002-120-1154 "Annual Contract for Residential Mechanical Services", for the period ofJune 15,2002 through June 14,2003. Health & Human Services is requesting that bid number 2002-120-1154, beextended for an additional thirty (30)days, to allow adequate time to revise the specifications effective datesJune 15,2003 through July 14,2003

Andrews Air Conditioning & Heating & Refrigeration the current vendor has agreed to extend the contractfor the above mentioned services in accordance with all ofthe existing terms, conditions and pricing set forthand awarded.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Based upon payment records, Dallas County incurred expenditures Year-to-Date approximately $32,000.00for product as outlined in Bid #2002-120-1154.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is the recommendation of the Purchasing Department in concurrence with the Health & Human Servicesthat the County Commissioners Court authorizes a thirty (30) day extension of Bid No. 2002-120-1154"Annual Contract for Residential Mechanical Services", based upon all the terms, conditions and pncing setforth, effective June 15,2003 through July 14,2003.

Should the Court concur with the recommendation, a court order will be scheduled for the next formalagenda.

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

84


O? 1;:"1 I,-' I '.J. -L~

June 10, 2003

-,,

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

BACKGROUNDflSSUE


Gloria McCulloch-Webb, Purchasing Analyst

Request for Proposals for Library Management Software, RFP 2003-090-1329

On May 1,2003, by authorization of the Dallas County Commissioners Court, proposals were opened for, RFP No. 20031090-1329, Request for Proposals for Library Management Software. The Purchasing Department received a total of four (4)proposal responses to its Request for Proposals on May 01,2003. The organization that responded was as follows: Addcon,Inc., Sirsi, Innovative Interfaces, and Dynix.

The evaluation committee consisting of the Law Library (Mary Rankin, Yasrna Holland and Andrew Escude), MIS DirectorRepresentative (Rodney Christian), and Purchasing (Gloria McCulloch Webb), met on May 30,2003, to discuss the responsesto the RFP and provide the initial evaluation and assessment of the proposals using the criteria set forth in the Request forProposals.

Based on the initial evaluation, assessment, and discussion by the committee members and in accordance with the appropriateguidelines stated in the RFP and Dallas County policy and procedures. The evaluation committee voted that two (2) of the four(4) organizations (Sirsi and Dynix) was reasonable susceptible of being selected for award in accordance to 262.030(e) andshould continue through the next phase of the Request for Proposals process.

Addcon, Inc. was removed due to the fact their proposed solution in still in the developmental stage and lack ofproject historyand customer base for this type of system. Whereas, the proposed solution submitted by Innovative Interfaces is costprohibitive and is primary based on Linux environment verse Windows.

FINAl'lCIAL IMPACT

Not Applicable

RECOMMENDAnON

As a result of the initial evaluation, assessment, and discussion, the evaluation committee is requesting permission from theDallas County Commissioners Court to continue with next the phase of the RFP process with two (2) of the organizations(Sirsi and Dynix) reasonable susceptible ofbeing selected for award in accordance with Dallas County rules.

C: Mary Rankin. Law LibraryYasma Holland, Law LibraryAndrew Escude, Law LibraryRodney Chnstian, MIS DepartmentGloria McCulloch Webb, Purchasing DepartmentRFP File 2003-090·1329

8::::J


June 10, 2003

TO: The Honorable Commissioners Court

FROM: Scott McDowell, Senior Buyer

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Third Party Claims Administration Services for DallasCounty Self Insurance Workers Compensation Program, RFP No. 2003-079-1318

BACKGROUNDIISSUE

Request for Proposal for Third Party Claims Administration Services for Dallas County SelfInsurance Workers Compensation Program, RFP No. 2003-079-1318 was opened by thePurchasing Department on March 27,2003. Eleven proposals were received from eight firms.The firms who responded were: CCS Consulting, LP, Hammerman & Gainer, Inc., CunninghamLindsey, Pinnacle Claims Service, CM! Barron Risk Management Services, The n Companies,Attenta and Alternative Service Concepts, LLC.

The proposals were evaluated and scored by committee members representing the Auditor,Sheriffs, Juvenile and Human Resources Departments. The Dallas County MlWBE Coordinatorscored the Minority Business section of the proposals. The proposals were evaluated and scoredbased on information contained in the proposals using the following criteria:

Criteria

1. Service capabilities, proven skillsand technical competence

2. Quality and completeness of proposal3. Experience and references4. Management plan, claim service standard

Philosophy and credentials of staff5. Cost of services6. MlWBE

Points

0-20

0-100-100-15

0-300-15

The evaluation committee scored CCS Consulting, LP (Review Med) as the highest rated andbest proposal. The total scores are as follows:

Firm Subtotal MWBE GrandCateeories 1-5 Total

CCS, LP (Review Med) 80 9 89CCS, LP (Argus) 78 9 87Pinnacle Claims Service 63.25 15 78.25

509 Main Street, Suite 6236th Floor Records Building

Dallas, Texas 75202·4616 Office (214) 653-7431

86

Firm Subtotal MWBE GrandCate&ories 1-5 Total

Hammerman (Review Med) 61.50 9 70.50CMI Barron 61 9 70Hammerman (Argus) 59.50 9 68.50The JI Companies 64.38 3 67.38Cunningham Lindsey (Review) 62.75 3 65.75Cunningham Lindsey (Argus) 60.75 3 63.75Alternative Services Concepts 50 9 59Attenta 48.75 3 51.75

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The annual cost of this contract is estimated at $150,000,00 and will depend on the number ofclaims filed. Currently, Dallas County is paying $675.00 per lost time claim (est. 160ea. per yr.)and $95.00 per medical only claim (est. 200ea. Per yr.). Under this new contract, Dallas Countywill pay $665.00 per lost time claim and $100.00 per medical only claim.

RECOMMENDATION

In Accordance with current practice, it is the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee andPurchasing Department that the Commissioners Court award RFP No. 2003-079-1318, Requestfor Proposal for Third Party Claims Administration Services for Dallas County Self InsuranceWorkers Compensation Program to CCS,LP (Review Med) as the highest ranked and lowest costfirm. However, the Human Resources/Civil Service Department respectfully requests that theCourt consider awarding this contract to the second highest scorer/lowest bidder, CCS, LP(Argus). It is Human Resources/Civil Service Departments opinion that Argus (the currentsubcontractor for medical cost containment) has performed successfully for the past severalyears. In addition, minimal disruption in the areas of medical review, continuity of care, referralsand evaluations could be avoided.

Should the Court concur with the Evaluation Committees' recommendation, an Award CourtOrder will be scheduled for the next formal agenda.

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

ATTACHMENTS

-COST SUMMARY

-INDIVIDUAL SCORES

C J Lt }L f qJ I U I{

Dillin County Work.....· CompenaatJon Eva_ ZOO3 . 1.t Y..,_..........CUlYllf'lQl'lilllJnds.~ C""""""",c.-y """""""&Goonw _&Goonw CCS~.IR....~

Pl~ o..m. Serw:e Con<opla Ananle w,...... ""'JR....... MtId Jle- ....on w,...... wJR~w.et 10"" CCS Conr..u1ufIQw,Alg..,1

160 IncIemnllW" Clauns 60000 i6.00000 ,"",00 150.40000 1000 00 160,00000 ",)()O 152.00000 ';000 l~.OOOOO ,..00 57.44000 ""'00 144.00000 85000 136,00000 85000 13600000 60000 1(y-).600 00 66000 10~500 UO

:roo MltOiUY OntJ' Ciatms 12500 25.00000 13000 26,00000 1;000 3000000 10500 2100000 10500 21J;lOOOO ,..00 11,80000 13000 26.00000 12500 25.00000 12500 25.000.00 10000 20,00000 10000 100000025 Report ONy 000 000 4000 1,00000 "00 '.'500 .000 1.00000 4000 1,000,00 ,..00 '.815.00 3000 7;000 2500 625.00 2500 62500 2500 62500 2>00 62500

CatCuauns 000 T & E 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 DUO225 Run on lncwrnn,tv Clalffis 32500 73.12500 .;000 101.2~OO ;5000 12J,ltlOOO 000 0.00 30000 '7,50000 30000 67.50000 63750 143,43750 63750 1<43,"3750 000 DUO

50 Run Oft MeG 0011 C'a'tTl$ 5000 2.~OO 5.500 27~OO 15000 '500 00 000 000 30000 15,00000 5000 2.50000 7.5.00 3,75000 7.500 3,75000 000 uuoAtmuM Admu'l!Slrabon F.. 24,00000 24,00000 37" 7.80000 2~OO 250000 7.50000 1,50000 3.~_DO 3.50000 3.:)0000 3,50000 6.500000 6,:.0000 650000 b :.HJOUOOa~Con~F •• 6,00000 6.00000 6,00000 600000 10,00000 10,000 00 25,00000 25,00000 10,00000 10,00000 5.00000 5,00000 5.00000 5.000,00 10,00000 lo""'l.~ 10,00000 l00wOn·lIne SfW'oItt.e 3,WOOO 3,94000 UOO,OO 1.80000 40000 400008af* MonJtonng F.. 8,00000 8,00000C~Regl""'s 2500 6,~OO

Annuolf Percaocage lncr.as. 2_1&E .... """" """" ....~FIlledF .. lJ4,lilOloo n,UKJ100

Nediul Coal Com.in....m •C.$8M~ ,... ,... ,... ,"'" 7"'" 7"'" '''''' 7"'" '''''' 7... CD200 Pr.-Aulholl1atlon 6500 • 500 "00 6500 11000 8000 7000 65.00 11000 11000 6'00PnySfQ80 R~aw 12500 l00UO 100.00 10000 7$00 10000 10000

CD'ME 1&500 10000RME "5 10000Peer R.vl.... )'"00 105 12500 l~OO 1000 7000 7500 15000 '000 '000 1,"00Ctutopr..cllC Pe.. R• .....-w 31500 31~OO 37500 31~OO

hpen .....I..Ur\e5s ,... '0000fd.eR.vl". 6500 1~00 10000 6500 85,00 6'00VOoC4lllOn~Rahab 7"'" '''''' ,- ,- ,"'" 7_ ,- n",.Impalfment Raung Revl" 7000 7000 22500 22500 75,00 225.00 22500 7000twIAuclits ,-M6KlEWts

32000 PetllOtl 100 ~7.600 00 120 000 125 40.00000 125 40,00000 000 000 125 40,00000 125 .0.00000 0""IlOOO PerEWl 550 000 360 l6,600 00 .50 404.00000 600 .00 ,.. 70,001100 550 ....00000 .00 600 5," 44,000 (I()

P.,cenl 01 Salllngs 15""'" 15.~ 15.00'1I. 1501>'t1. 15,00%

Ho...... ""P..... 550 550 03MJl102 030/UIIlI2 1050 550 S35iU1lO2 035MlO2 '50M~PPO·%>F•• 2800% 2.""'" 23_ 23_ 25,~ 20_ 23._ 23_ 2.""'"Pharmacy PPO ' % ,. F•• 10,00%- 10.~ 25_ 1000tr. 10_fV\,CCR8pfe",Olo;tllOO

o.dartKJ Repr.f>W\IabQn 6.00000 6,00000 6.00000 8.000.00 8.00000Bene6t Re"'*" Conference 3>01_ - - 315.00 37500 ]75.00 37500Conte$/.ed CaM Heanng ""'" ,,"'" ,'''' ,,...

""'00 90000MeQc.IlI o.spute Resotullon 25000 25000 50000 50000lnJonnal R.wlAlon eonter.nca 35000 35000 13"'" 13'"State Otlce of AdnWlIaVll1lI14t Heomng ""'" ''',,',, ,'''' 12_ 13"'" 13"'"

226.62500 305,6<4000 33~,225 00 17•.00000 114,00000 -247,81500 267.65000 311,31250 311.312,50 '.2,72500 t4l11.5WROM

20 S.......'ceC~~e5 15 15 ",. ,.

15 1. ,. 11 ,."10 Qu.al,l, & CompIetitneu 01' p(oposoilt , • 6 • • • • 10 10 10 10

10 Ellpen.nce & References 7 5 5 • • • • • • 10 10

" ManOilgement Plan 10 12 • , • ,.10 ,. ,. 15 "30 CaS! ,. 0 0 23 23 • • 0 0 30 )0

lot"l U •• ,. .. U .. .. SO SO .. ..• COSI Conlaillffienl hx Ihe fu '1 ~~ar IS lhe S4lfTMl and 00110 Itle Iotal

] '-I --) l \ 7 I,; II

ALTERNATIVE HAMlERMAN It HAMMERMAN ItSERVICES ATTENTA, INC. THE JI COMPANIES GAINER (2 eel bids GAINER (2 ea bids COMP~t,1ES SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

CONCEPTS submitted) submitted)

one io-l1oL&Se medical MAXIMUMreview stiff - not ReviewMed Argus POINTS so)R!NG CIUTER.IAlocal all in Austin AUOmo

SCRVlCES CAl'ABIUllES12 12 15 18 15 zorn (Proven sktIls iII1d tedlni",1

oompetena!)

QUALITY AND7 7 9.5 8 8 10 I'T'S COHPLETEtifSS OF

PROPOSAL

EXPERIfNCE a.~WI OTHER GOVERNMENTAL

3 3 8 9 9 10PTS AGENCIES OR OO~ANIES

f()R PROVIDING lHIS TYPEOF SERVICE.

MANAGEM:NT PlAN, CLAIMSERVl<5 STArI)AR[),

12 10 12 12 10 1~ rn PHILOSOPHY ANDCRfDENTIAlS Of

MAHAGEMENT STAFF

10 9 20 10 10 30PTS COST Of SERVICES

M/WBf PARnaPATJ~15PTS (Scored by County MMlBE

Offiw OrlIy)

44 41 64.S 57 52 100 PlSTOTAl POINTS SCORED PfR

COMPANY

~X';00

§~:!Q'.... '"g.c!!.'"_0

0

~0...~<

i0VI--IN~IN0

~on~

~~.01-0

~3:m<!!!.Iiit1

~9AI~

:II::J!!!.

~~0.

8....•IV

~ i0\AI

OJNNJNGHAM OJNNINGHAM ~0- VI

·-.~lf PINNlClf ClAIMSJ)~?ANIES SUBMI111NG PRClf>OSAL5 ::t-< n CCS CONSULTING, lP UNDSEY (2 ea bids UNDS£Y (2 ea bids BAARON

SERVICfS ....;J00

~g~.-- ..~-.;-~~

submitted) submitted)

3: m

'"_. <

~R'!!.':;TC

:::ulll\l

I1"JaMUM~

_ C!.0

Based 011\ of tuMI Only works wiItl:::I

Arg16 POINTS SOORING CRITERIAIII ReVIew Med

blt~oft )100

ArgllSAUOT1'EO

...D~

l:< ....III

Z:>0.

....0il

SfRVICES CAPA8lUTlES ~0

lO 8 10 15 20m (PnM!IJ slcills and technicalUI 1'1

~""-N

cOl1lpl!:lB'loe)'"-.;:i~:eo0\)~

Z~~QUAUTYAND nV)»CI>

Om...,

5 5 7 8 10 PIS OOFtFl..ETf}£SSOF!!!~;zJf;

'RllPOSA1. ~~<-~. "' ....."mnr:N~gJ

IIIa.EXPERIENCE & REFBU:NCfS

0

0)10"":>

WI 0'I1iER OO'IERNMENTAlIh

:3tjo9 9 2 2 & 6 10 PTS AGf}4QE5 OR COMPANIES 00:U (()III;l.

f()R PROVIDING nilS TYPE .... ZO:II

OfSERVlCE .c",)lo 0::>!!.

":":ur-m

MANAGEI'tNT PlAN, CLAIM WO~<AI

;"(1)cSERVICES STANDARD,~-

6 5 2 12 10 \5 fITS PHlLDSOflHY AN> ~80:::I

CJlBlENTIAlS OF ::tC'"IMANAGEMENT STAfF

.~N

'"0 .-(,oJ . -

enm28 15 15 10 25 JO PIS 005T OF SERVICES,.'TI•....Z(I)C

M/WBE PARTIOPATION ~15 PTS (Scored by County M/WflE Z

otfiQ!r <Ally) nm~

'U

'" 0<0II

:u0

TOTAl POINTS SCORED PER ~.... ]7 32 47 100 PTSN

OOMPAI'ft~

91

SCORING SHEET FOR RFP NO. 2003-079-1318

COMPANY NAME: lLS r, If' / ')l.JI1 .f. t.-

i

1'\ r:r /\Q. ~'IL k'

NAME OF SCORER: "" C r I :-.lU I c.... 1'\c,_ -; 1'\ '''- t -to, I

SERVICES CAPABILITIES, SKILLS AND COMPETENCE (20)

QUALITY AND COMPLETENESS OF PROPOSAL (10)

EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES (10)

MANAGEMENT PLAN, CLAIM SERVICE STANDARD,PHILOSOPHY AND CREDENTIALS (15)

COST OF SERVICES (30)

M\VB PARTICIPATION (15)

TOTAL:

Ja

/3

:Q It 30

---r-s:::- J> I---9

92



QUALITY AND COMPLETENESS OF PROPOSAL (to)




1/

/0

I'

/3


·5~ L+,)Th ( 'j J

~/•

TOTAL:

93


COMPANY NAME:

NAME OF SCORER:

JI L/SERVICES CAPABILITIES, SKILLS AND COMPETENCE (20)

QUALITY AND COMPLETENESS OF PROPOSAL (10) 9




MWB PARTICIPATION (15)

:.S---c.! b+~/A..I t- 3

/~

TOTAL:

94







10

/-3

~ If


TOTAL:

90


COMPANY NAME: ,)c, I"r"-u t \

NAME OF SCORER: .f" 0 r. r f {'-.J • ..... qV'--.. l:-.,(\..,ft?ll







TOTAL:

9

/3

96


COMPANY NAME: !-{~\n'}J)l' -li)~ . J { / t-II '-.1\, -('Jll f -

'- {, i ,--,( (, •

NAME OF SCORER: '[) I (,~ f \ (_'--_ CJ ,(,t tr.l I I J -..







TOTAL:

//L

Iv

97


COMPANY NAME:

NAME OF SCORER:

-) I L', .) f. 1/ J (.~ III ~ ~~

--D f \~J\ (',-, Ch('-.. ~+or\







TOTAL:

!~

/0

9

98








TOTAL:

/ <-/!

9

/~

~~Y

1J:-J- 713


COMPANY NAME: ( , I ) (/ .\..' II ~ \ t' 1'~ \f\ i' \ \ I 1\ - S:)

NAME OF SCORER: ~ r(-\ L- ( _ C ( f IlJ ·v \'''-. ..... '\. " l' r cJ i \







TOTAL:

00


COMPANY NAME:

NAME OF SCORER:

IIJ It. I ' J \ ("-.}, t. t Sl • ' ~ I (: I

[j I 1\ 1\( '- C-I "'''' +~ 0 I \




'.




TOTAL:

?

I)

1/

:2./

10


COMPANY NAME: t-l f+(1 dic",,-NAME OF SCORER: \) I <,I \ (", C,., ", t~. '\







TOTAL:

?

{i·

It

102

Score sheet for: Request for Proposals for Third Party AdministrationServices for Dallas County Sel f Insurance Worker's Compensation Program

Solicitation # 2003-079-1318

PROPOSER:

df22 4f16rc7Y~ /~J;"; )J/RJ.27/

SCORING CRITERIA MAX. POINTS POINTSALLOTTED ASSIGNED

1. Services Capabilities 20 /1Proven skills and technical competence

2. Quality &completeness of proposal 10/1)

3.

4.

5.

6

a.b.

c.

Experience & references wi other 10Governmental agencies or companiesfor providing this type of service

Management plan, claim service 15Standard, philosophy and credentialsof management staff

Cost of services 30

M/WBE PARTICIPATION 15*category scored by County MIWBE Officer OnlyCertified MJWBE FirmMlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, subContractor or supplierMIWBE employees assigned to project(EE01 Compliance)

6

6

3

/0

GRAND TOTAL

SIGNATURE~RER:DATE: ~ 7 /'

I

(I

I ..,

103

Score sheet for: Request for Proposals for Third Party AdministrationServices for Dallas County Self Insurance Worker's Compensation Program


PROPOSER:

a'c/5 &&I'c-mt7f ?(j<JJ

SCORING CRITERIA MAX. POINTS POINTSALLOTTED ASSIGNED

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6

a.b.

c.

Services Capabilities 20Proven skills and technical competence

Quality &completeness of proposal 10



Cost of services 30

M/WBE PARTICIPATION 15*cQtegory scored by County MIWBE Officer OnlyCertified MlWBE FirmMlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, subContractor or supplierMlWBE employees assigned to project(EEOI Compliance)

6

6

3

/e;

J[)

16

GRAND TOTAL;"\ -

SIGNATURE OJ SGORER:__~...,..... --=':::'~-~~~~.L=:.~====---DATE: ~/2-3"@ .//.-/

I 7 (~

104



PROPOSER:

[:,UJJ 4 ~ (~ C

1.

SCORING CRITERIA

Services CapabilitiesProven skills and technical competence

MAX. POINTSALLOTTED

20

POINTSASSIGNED

)5

2. Quality &completeness of proposal 107

3.

4.

5.

6

a.b.

c.



Cost of services 30

M/WBE PARTICIPATION 15*category scored by County MIWBE Officer OnlyCertified MlWBE FirmMlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, subContractor or supplierMIWBE employees assigned to project(EEOI Compliance)

6

6

3

7

)D

1'-/

GRAND TOTAL

105



/


1.

SCORINQ CRITERIA MAX. POINTSALLOTTED

POINTSASSIGNED

/?

2.

3.

4.

5.

6

a.b.

c.




Cost of services 30

MIWBE PARTICIPATION 15*category scored by County MlWBE Officer OnlyCertified MJWBE FinnMlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, subContractor or supplierMlWBE employees assigned to project(EEO I Compliance)

6

6

3

/P

ILj

GRAND TOTAL

SIGNATURE OFfiC~.R:-----r~.JL-=-L..-..::l~----==::::.:..-.---DATE: ~;s-!t!2

71

106



PROPOSER:

&£iaN

1.

SCORING CRITERIA


MAX. POINTSALLOTTED

20

POINTSASSIGNED

IZ


3.

4.

5.



Cost of services 30

/tJ

6 M/WBE PARTICIPATION 15*category scored by County MIWBE Officer Only

a. Certified MJWBE Firm 6b, MlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, sub-

Contractor or supplier 6c. MlWBE employees assigned to project

(EEOI Compliance) 3

GRAND TOTAL

(

107



PROPOSER:

Mt/~?t'.s


1.

SCORING CRITERIA MAX. POINTSALLOTTED

POINTSASSIGNED

/~


3. Experience & references wi other 10Governmental agencies or companiesfor providing this type of service

4. Management plan, claim service 15Standard, philosophy and credentialsof management staff

5. Cost of services 30

6

a.b.

c.

M/WBE PARTICIPATION 15*category scored by County MIWBE Officer OnlyCertified MlWBE FirmMlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, subContractor or supplierMlWBE employees assigned to project(EEOI Compliance)

6

6

3

GRAND TOTAL IV} +/__---

SIGNATURE 0 SC R:_(':::::::==;:z:~:z:...../L..-':!~'·C--£.:=:-2-:=--:::::.::-.::-.::-.::-_-__DATE: :3

08



PROPOSER:

dZ dlr~

1.



POINTSASSIGNED

15/

2. Quality &completeness of proposal lO

3.

4.

5.

6

a.b.

c.



Cost of services 30

M/WBE PARTICIPATION 15*category scored by County M/WBE Officer OnlyCertified MlWBE FirmMlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, subContractor or supplierMIWBE employees assigned to project(EE01 Compliance)

6

6

3

g

GRAND TOTAL

SIGNATURE.;;~RER:DATE: ~2;i .;..."7I .



1.

2.




POINTSASSIQNED

a'I



5. Cost of services 30 ':?-3

6 M/WBE PARTICIPATION 15*category scored by County MlWBE Officer Only

a. Certified MlWBE Finn 6b. MlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, sub-

Contractor or supplier 6c. MlWBE employees assigned to project

(EEOI Compliance) 3

GRAND TOTAL



7

PROPOSER:

~;1VA//AI~~/1;1, / Ik6liS

1.

SCORING CRITERIA


MAX. POINTSALLOTTED

20

POINTSASSIGNED

Jf

2. Quality &cornpleteness ofproposal 10


b


5. Cost of services 30

6

a.b.

c.

M/WBE PARTICIPATION 1J*category scored by COllnty MIWBE Officer OnlyCertified MlWBE FinnMlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, subContractor or supplierMlWBE employees assigned to project(EEOI Compliance)

6

6

3

GRAND TOTAL

' .../

1 1



PROPOSER:

fJ-7-eZtt/A"-; v'C- ~c-S .

1.

SCORING CRITERIA


MAX. POINTSALLOTTED

20

POINTSASSIGNED

/)-



4.

5.

6

a.b.

c.


Cost of services 30

M/WBE PARTICIPATION 15*category scored by County MlWBE Officer OnlyCertified MlWBE FirmMlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, subContractor or supplierMlWBE employees assigned to project(EEOI Compliance)

6

6

3

I~

o

GRAND TOTAL

SIGNATURE.9.lfS~R:_--..;~~~~~ _DATE: 2/~&2

7 I

1 1 2



PROPOSER:

t17Ly J71/

1.

SCORING CRITERIA


MAX. POINTSALLOTTED

20

POINTSASSIGNED

IS-


3.

4.

5.

6

a.b.

c.



Cost of services 30

M/WBE PARTICIPATION 15*category scored by County MIWBE Officer OnlyCertified MJWBE FirmMlWBE involvement as sub-consultants, subContractor or supplierMIWBE employees assigned to project(EEOI Compliance)

6

6

3

g

o

GRAND TOTAL ?

SIGNATU~F S90RER~ ---7~~~'tY-/..:...4_~_;J'----_{ _DATE: :52-.5/t'3

I ~ !. ____

"3

THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORSCORESHEET

Proposer: CCS Consulting

Scored by: Cody Jones

CRITERIA

Service Capabilities

Quality & Completeness

Experience & References

Management Plan

Cost

MIWBE

Total

Notes:

POINTS

20

9

10

15

30

84

1) Concerned about financial liquidity ofcompany. At time of sumission of last bid, the financialstatements revealed significant liquidity issues.

2) #1 choice if Note 1 above addressed andassuming that a choice exists between per claimcost and Annual Fixed Fee cost.

1 1 4


Proposer: Pinnacle


CRITERIA




Management Plan

Cost

MJWBE

Total

Notes:

None

POINTS

17

9

7

13

27

73

115


Proposer: Hammerman


CRITERIA




Management Plan

Cost

MIWBE

Total

Notes:

Too expensive

POINTS

20

9

9

14

20

72

1 6


Proposer: Barron


CRITERIA




Management Plan

Cost

MIWBE

Total

Notes:

None

POINTS

20

10

9

14

26

79

1 ~I (


Proposer: JI Company


CRITERIA




Management Plan

Cost

MIWBE

Total

Notes:

None

POINTS

18

7

8

7

27

67

8

THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORSCORESHEET \ t

OA .iP,t-J Iv"eProposer: Cunningham & Lindsey ~f1v.5.k ~


CRITERIA




Management Plan

Cost

MIWBE

Total

Notes:

#2 choice

POINTS

20

8

9

15

26

78

19

DALLAS COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS COURTMinority Business Office

DATE:

MEMORANDUM

April 14,2003

TO:

FROM:

1. Allen Clemson, Court Administrator

Irvin Hicks, Coordinator - Minority Affairs

SUBJECT: MlWBE Review ofRFP# 2003-079-1318 (Third Party Claims Administration Services)(Management Summary)

~e following is a S¥Jlopsis of the subject narrative:

Submission ofFirm Name Points EEOI Docs (?)Pinnacle Claims Services 15 y

Attenta 3 y

Cunningham Lindsey 3 y

Alternative Service Concepts L.Le. 9 y

Barron Risk Management 9 y

Hammerman & Gainer, Inc. 9 y

CCS Consulting, L.P. 9 Y

The JI Company 3 y

c: Commissioners Court (thru J. Allen Clemson)Linda Botes'"

•flle(c: ImwbelevalsI200J·079.wpd)

509 Main Street Suite 613 Dallas, Texas 75202

DALLAS COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS COURTMinority Business Office

DATE:

MEMORANDUM

April 14, 2003

TO:

FROM:

Linda Boles,Purchasing

lrvin Hicks, Coordinator - Minority Affairs

SUBJECT:

Linda,

MlWBE Review ofRFP# 2003-079-1318 (Third Party Claims Administration Services)

Listed below is an analysis of the subject bid/RFP:

Pinnacle Claims ServicesThis' firm will perform the required duties with existing staff as well as with the following certified firm:

Firm NameArgus Services Corp.

Amount140,000 27.37

Points 6 Certified (NCTRCA) minority prime contractor3 EEO policy compliance6 Utilization of (other) certified minority vendors

15

AttentaThis firm will perform the required duties with eXlsting staff.

Points 0 Certified (NCTRCA) minority prime contractor3 EEO policy complianceo Utilization of (other) certified minority vendors

3

Cunningham LindseyThis firm will perform the required duties with existing staff.


3

1 2 1

yf/WBE Review - 2003-079-1318Page 2

Alternative Service Concepts, L.L.C.This finn will perform the required duties with existing staff as well as with the following certified firm:

Firm NameShorman & AssociatesK. A. Cayce InvestigationsReliable CourierHamilton & Associates

Amount50,2156,2773,1383,138

16.000.200.100.1


9

Barron Risk ManagementThis finn will perform the required duties with existing staff as well as with the following certified firm:

Firm NameShorman & Associates, Inc.Phoenix InvestigationsASAP ExpeditersRenwick & Assoc.

AmountTBD (S75/hr)TBD (S50/hr)TBDTBD (SI45/hr)


9

Hammerman & Gainer, Inc.ThIS finn wIll perform the required duties with existing staff as well as with the following certified firm

Finn NameShorman & Associates, Inc.Argus Services Corp

AmountTBDTBD


9

122

M!WBE Review - 2003-079-1318Page 3

CCS Consultin2, L. P.This firm will perform the required duties with existing staff.


9

The JI CompanyThis firm will perform the required duties with existing staff


3

c: Commissioners COllrt (thru J. ALLen Clemson)

[de(c: !mwbelevalsI200J-079. wpd)

May, 21, 2003

MEMORANDUM:

TO:

FROM:

123

DALLAS COUNTYPUBLIC WORKS

Commissioners Court

Donald R. Holzwarth, P.E.Director of Public Works

r

SUBJECT: Local Project Advanced Funding AgreementlDevelopment of High Level Architecture for theRegional ITS Communication Network

Background

This project will develop requirements and high level architecture of the Regional Communication Network. The designproduced will define a communication infrastructure and network topology for data and video sharing, as well as identifyspecific types of equipment and.sub-systerns to ultimately allow cities within the Metroplex to share information with oneanother as needed. The cities of Arlington, Irving and Grand Prairie along with Dallas County, NTTA, DART and theNCTCOG will be financial partners in this initial portion of the project.

Financial Impact

The cost of this developmental project is $357,533, with the percentage of participation for the agencies as follows: (I) Federal 77%, (2) State - 3% and (3) LocaI- 20%. The local share is $71,506 and will be shared by the seven agencies named above. Theamount to be paid by Dallas County is a fixed price oUIO,OOO and will be paid from 1991 Bond Funds.


There are no impacts on County operations and maintenance.

Project Schedule

The completed DeSIgn Document schedule is projected to be completed in the first quarter of 2004

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Dallas County Commissioners Court approve the Inter-local Agreement for the IntelligentTransportation System, which provides for the expenditure of a maximum limit of $1 0,000 from the 1991 Bond Fund.

Attachments: Interlocal Agreement with Texas Department of Transportation

cc: Melanie Young, P.E. TxDOT Traffic OperationsDan Rocha, Deputy Director NCTCOGSam Wilson, P.E., Assistant Director, TransportationFile (1991 Bond FundlTEA-21)

411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 214-653-7151

Development Concept

IlIiFt. Worth

TMC

gDFWWeb

Server

DallasTMC

~statewide Web Server -1lIj

~EIPaso

TMC

San AntonioTMC

©2003 Texas Department of Transportation

N(51

;ICity of Ft.

Worth TMC ~

/'[kJ .-.1lIi

C2C Browser DARTWeb Server TMC

'IICity of Irving

TMC

11M.of Arlington

TMC

~Regional Web Server

~DallasTMC

11MFt. Worth

TMC

~TxDOTServer

ITS Technology in the Dallas-Fort Worth Region

• Camera

r OMS

A LCS

I!l Satellite

III TMC

DENTON

5IMiles

RANT

N

A

OPerational f.!lm!:l.!!!;l, EMS

* ABG• Ramp Meters

• ETC• Camerar OMS

... LCS

• satellite--- . ~I", e-'''~-I; I· "'== ,._ - Aber ~~ Fiber

t-.......--------~--------~.,__~L--_4_-----~ - Vehicle Detector •••••• VehIcle Detector--.... -- Freeway C County Boundary EIEJ Lakes

rll2oo3

127

Funding Category: CMAQ

STATE OF TEXAS §

COUNTY OF TRAVIS §

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTADVANCEFUN~NGAGREEMENT

ForINTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

THIS Local Project Advance Funding Agreement (LPAFA) is made by and between the State ofTexas, acting by and through the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the "State",and Dallas County! acting by and through its duly authorized officials, hereinafter called the"Local Government."

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, a Master Agreement between the Local Government and the State has been adoptedand states the general terms and conditions for transportation projects developed through thisLPAFA; and,

WHEREAS, the Texas Transportation Commission passed Minute Order 107737 thatprovides for the development of, and funding for, the project describe herein; and,

WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Local Government has approved entering into this LPAFA bycourt order dated , which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment Afor development of the specific project.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreementsof the parties hereto, to be by them respectively kept and performed as hereinafter set forth, it isagreed as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. The period of this LPAFA is as stated in the Master Agreement, without exception.

2. Termination of this LPAFA shall be under the conditions as stated in the Master Agreement,without exception.

3. Amendments to this LPAFA shall be made as described in the Master Agreement, withoutexception.

4. Scope of WorkThe scope of work for this LPAFA is described as the Development of a High Level Architecture

for the Regional ITS Communication Network.

5. Right of Way and Real Property - N/A

6. Adjustment of utilities - N/A

7. Environmental Assessment and Mitigation - N/A

LPAFA short Qeneric.doc PaQe 1 of 5 Revised 08/8)02

128


8. Compliance with Texas Accessibility Standards and ADA - N/A

9. Architectural and Engineering Services will be provided by the State, as stated in the MasterAgreement, without exception. The State is responsible for performance of any requiredarchitectural or preliminary engineering work. The Local Government may review and commenton the work as required to accomplish the public purposes of the Local Government. The Statewill cooperate fully with the Local Government in accomplishing these local public purposes to thedegree permitted by State and Federal law.

10. Construction Responsibilities will be carried out by the State, as stated in the Master Agreement,without exception.

11. Project Maintenance will be undertaken as provided for in the Master Agreement, withoutexception.

12. Local Project Sources and Uses of Fundsa. Project Cost Estimate: A Project Cost Estimate is provided in Attachment B.b. A Source of Funds estimate is also provided in Attachment B. Attachment B shows the

percentage and absolute dollar amount to be contributed to the project by federal, state, andlocal sources.

c. The Local Government is responsible for all non-federal and non-state funding, including allproject cost overruns, unless provided for through amendment of this agreement.

d. After execution of this LPAFA, but prior to the performance of any work by the State, the LocalGovernment will remit a check or warrant made payable to the "Texas Department ofTransportation" in the fixed price amount specified in Attachment B as the local contributionfor this project.

13. Document and Information Exchange. The Local Government agrees to electronically deliver tothe State all general notes, specifications, contract provision requirements and relateddocumentation in a Microsoft® Word or similar document. If requested by the State, the LocalGovernment will use the State's document template. The Local Government shall also provide adetailed construction time estimate including types of activities and month in the format requiredby the State. This requirement applies whether the Local Government creates the documentswith its own forces or by hiring a consultant or professional provider.

14. Incorporation of Master Agreement Provisions. This LPAFA incorporates all of the governingprovisions of the Master Advance Funding Agreement (MAFA) in effect on the date of finalexecution of this LPAFA, unless such MAFA provision is specifically excepted herein.

15. Signatory Warranty. The signatories to this agreement warrant that each has the authority to enterinto this agreement on behalf of the party represented.

Paqe 2 of 5 Revised 0813)02

29


IN TESTIMONY HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed induplicate counterparts.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT- DALLAS COUNTY

By:(Signature)

Title:

Date:

THE STATE OF TEXASExecuted for the Executive Director and approved for the Texas Transportation Commission for thepurpose and effect of activating and/or carrying out the orders, established policies or work programsheretofore approved and authorized by the Texas Transportation Commission.

By:Jennifer D. Soldano, DirectorContract Services Office

Date:

LPAFA short generic.doc Page 3 of 5 Revised 08/8/02

3(~'

v

ATTACHMENT ACourt Order of Local Government

Approving This LPAFA

Paqe 4 of 5


Revised 08/S/02

1


ATTACHMENT BProject Budget Estimate and Source Of Funds

The Local Government will participate in the cost of this project which will provide to develop therequirements and high level architecture for the Regional Communication· Network. Eachparticipating agency will be responsible for a fixed amount of $10,000 for the Regional ArchitecturalDevelopment to be submitted to TxDOT upon execution of this agreement. This Local Governmentfunding participation in this project will provide for labor, equipment, materials, engineering andcontingencies. The State has estimated the project to be as follows:

DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHITECTURE. FOR REGIONAL',COMMUNICATION NEtWORK ~~,'~' .,~~.,

DescriptionTotal

EstimateCost

Federal StateParticipation Participation

% I Cost % Cost

LocalParticipation

% Cost

AssessmentDefinitionDesign

SubtotalEngineering &Contingencies (E&C)(Estimated @ 1.0% ofproiect costs)

$148,473.00 77% $114,324.21 3% $4,454.19 20% $29,694.60$87,619.00 77% $67,466.63 3% $2,628.57 20% $17,523.80

$117,901.00 77% $90,783.77 3% $3,537.03 20% $23,580.20

$353,993.00 77% $272,574.61 3% $10,619.79 20% $70,798.60$3,539.93 77% $2,725.75 3% $106.20 20% $707.98

Total $357,532.93 77% $275,300..35 , .. ~~(~.$1(},725.99 20% $71,506.59

Local participation shall be divided by the following agencies:

Dallas CountyCity of ArlingtonCity of Grand PrairieCity of IrvingNorth Texas Tollway Authority (NITA)Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)

Local Government Participation ( fixed price)- architecture $10,000.00

It is understood that the proposed improvements will be done by the State. The Local Governmentwill transmit to the State the executed agreement and a warrant or check in the amount of$10,000.00 made payable to the "Texas Department of Transportation" to be used solely for the costof improvements as shown.

I l""\Ar'"'A _L.._ ...... :_ ..1 __ Revised 08/8/02

September 25,2002SW-TO-OI2NCTCOG Communications

132

Southwest Research InstitutePurchase Order No. B44200200 10 14000

Bid Number: B44200204255LOOO

STATEWIDE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMSDEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION

TASK ORDER NO. SW-TO-012 - NCTCOG COMMUNICATIONS

Description:

This Task Order authorizes efforts to develop a high level functional and implementationdesign of a Regional Data and Video Communications System (RDVCS). This TaskOrder defines a limited scope and more direct approach than defined in the RDVCSScope Of Work (SOW) developed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments(NCTCOG) dated March 29, 2002. Although the RDVCS design produced in this Taskwill define a communications infrastructure and network topology for data and videosharing, as well as identify specific types of equipment and sub-systems, it is not intendedfor deployment efforts. Subsequent tasks must be performed to identify, test, and qualifyequipment adequate to meet the requirements that will be identified for the RDVCS. Inaddition, based on the high level functional and implementation designs completedduring this Task Order, a detailed constmction design must be developed during followon efforts. It is anticipated that an engineering firm or contractor will be identified at alater point in time to complete the detailed constmction and final RDVCS design fordeplQyment purposes.

SwRI proposes limiting the initial scope to the following agencies:

• North Central Texas Council ofGovemments (NCTCOG)• TxDOT-Fort Worth• TxDOT-Dallas• City of Fort Worth• City ofDallas• Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)• City ofArlington• City of Irving• City of Richardson

The targeted agencies will form the initial core infrastructure, or backbone, of which theremaining agencies will eventually become a part. At the conclusion of the tasksidentified for this Task Order, the scope of work may be revised to add additionalagencies.

Presently the Dallas TxDOT DalTrans, the Forth Worth TxDOT TransVISION, and theCity of Forth' Worth already have a communications network in place, which is used toshare real time video. Optical fiber cables are in place between three of the targetagencies (TxDOT-Dallas, TxDOT-Ft. Worth, and the City of Ft. Worth) and it is hopedthat in concurrence with the interagency agreements, the two fiber pairs needed tosupport the RDVCS may already be available thus helping to expedite a core

Page!

September 25,2002SW-TO-012NCTCOG Communications

133

Southwest Research InstitutePurchase Order No. B44200200 10 14000

Bid Number: B442002042551000

infrastructure. In addition, these same three agencies have a significant amount ofnetwork and communications resources in place, which lend themselves to being primarytarget agencies.

Justification:

This Task Order (SW-TO-012) is written in response to a solicitation describing theScope of Work (SOW) for a Regional Data and Video Communications System(RDVCS) for the North Texas Region, dated March 29, 2002 Version 1.0 developed bythe NCTCOG. The SOW identifies several significant tasks, including the design,construction, and the activation and operation of a RDVCS. This task order specificallyaddresses only the design of a RDVCS, as per the instructions given in the SOW.

Tasks:

The initial tasks defined for this Task Order include steps to assess and characterize theexisting network, the existing protocols and ITS standards in current or planned use, thecommunications systems, and the communications media for the targeted agencies. Thesubsequent task will establish and define key system level requirements in technical areasincluding data transmission, sharing of real-time and snapshot video, networkmanagement and security, and network backup and restoration. The final tasks willinclude those steps required to finalize a RDVCS high level functional andimplementation design based on the first two major tasks. The functional design will bedeveloped primarily from the system level requirements identified in the previous majortask and will be used to guide the implementation design. The implementation designwill include drawings, which will provide a high level view of the RDVCS architecture,network topology, communications infrastructure and redundant paths, thecommunications media, and will list the types of equipment required.

The three major tasks described above define the specific areas that will be addressed inthis Task Order. During the course of this effort, it is anticipated that the NCTCOG, orthe appropriate Technical Steering Committee (TSC), will be an active participant andwill provide the guidance and support needed in achieving a solution that conforms to thegoals and objectives established by the participating agencies.

Task 1- Assessment

• Subtask 1 - Assess Targeted Agencies Infrastructure• Review past Analysis, Studies, Recommendations, Concepts of Operation,

and Interagency Agreements• Gather inputs, existing information, and documentation relevant to the

target agencies during target agency site visits at Kickoff Meeting• Review bandwidth requirements of existing or planned protocols and ITS

Standards (TMDD, DATEX-ASN, COBRA, XML, etc.) for capacityplanning

Page 2

September 25, 2002SW-TO-012NCTCOG Communications

134

Southwest Research InstitutePurchase Order No. B44200200 1014000

Bid Number: B442002042551000

• Subtask 2 - Characterize Targeted Agencies• Characterize the existing network infrastructure, communication systems

and media, backup/restoration paths, network/communication security,network management systems, and any unique or customsystems/equipment

• Subtask 3 - Develop Preliminary Connectivity Concept• Determine if a separate infrastructure is needed for RDVCS• Develop a draft communications connectivity and information flow

diagram• Review assessment findings, observations, and draft connectivity concept• Perform follow-up target agency site visits

Task 2 - Definition

• Subtask 1 - Define System Level Requirements• Define requirements to support anticipated video channels/capacity, data

transmission and capacity• Define requirements to support network backup & restoration, security,

and network management• Define requirements to support network growth/connectivity and to

support the communications infrastructure and network topology neededfor the core RDVCS

• Subtask 2 - Document RDVCS Requirements• Prepare and submit requirements document for initial review• Requirements Review meeting• Update requirements document with input from first meeting• Second Requirements Review meeting• Revise and submit RDVCS requirements document for approval

Task 3 - Functional And High Level Implementation Design

• Subtask 1 - Design RDVCS• Design communications infrastructure and network topology, network

communications protocol subsystem, video transmission subsystem, anddata transmission subsystem

• Design network backup & restoration subsystem, security subsystem, andnetwork management subsystem

• Design external connectivity/access point subsystem

• Subtask 2 - Generate RDVCS Design Document• Prepare and submit RDVCS Design Document• Prepare preliminary equipment cost estimates for the ROVCS

September 25, 2002SW-TO-O I2NCTCOG Communications

38


Bid Number: B44200204255LOOO

• Review Design Document and preliminary equipment cost estimates withparticipating agencies and discuss recommendations for subsequent tasks

Deliverables:

Deliverables for this TO will include status information that will be included in thestatewide project monthly status reports, trip reports, revised cost and scheduleestimates should changes to work scope or schedule occur, and the items listed bymajor task and subtasks below.

Under the terms and conditions of the statewide developer and integrator contract, thedeliverables for this Task Order will be provided by SwRl to TxDOT TrafficOperations Division (TRF). TRF will then be responsible for further distribution.

Task 1 - Assessment

• Subtask 1 - Assess Target Agencies InfrastructureI. Kickoff Meeting minutes

• Subtask 2 - Develop Preliminary Connectivity Concepts2. Meeting minutes

Tusk 2 - Definition

• Subtask 2 - Document RDVCS Requirements1. Draft RDVCS Requirements Document2. Requirements Review meeting minutes (I st meeting)3. Requirements Review meeting minutes (2 nd meeting)4. Final RDVCS Requirements Document

Task 3 - Functional And High Level Implementation Design

• Subtask 2 - Generate RDVCS Design Document1. Design Document, the document will include:

• Design of core infrastructure• Recommended equipment locations• Recommended use of existing infrastructure (e.g. fiber)• High level design of proposed network• How "low speed" networks will connect

2. Meeting minutes3. Final Report, which will include:

• Estimate cost to build infrastructure• Recommended "next" projects (i.e. what needs to be done

next)• Assessment information gathered in Task 1.

P;lge 4

September 25, 2002SW-TO-012NCTCOG Corrununications

136

Southwest Research InstitutePurchase Order No. B442002001014000

Bid Number: B44200204255 I000

Estimates:

The cost estimate for the tasks identified for this Task Order is included in Attachment 1.

Page 5


37


Bid Number: B442002042551000

Schedule:

The initial schedule for this Task Order is shown in the following figure:

10 Task Namel-~tASK 1· AsseSSMeNT:

___~,M.l

I:,M! 1M3 iM4 MS IM6 M7

;. -ii SubCask 1 • Assess Tergal AgencieslntrasavclUre

~ . Sulltask 2 • Chareet8ifzeTar\l9ted-'1 :Agencies

-4- SubCaSk 3 • Develop PreMminaty , --ComectMtV Conc.pt

-6-.TAsK':i:QeiimON----'-'---- ,

--7- Sibiskf.-68iiiiesySi.iii L....." - ·-1 ~ReGUrem.nts . _I !

8- SUtxask f:ooarnentROVCS' ,Re~rem.nlS I '

--',O-TASK 3 ·OeS1GN

!J

I

III!III

iIi

11

12

Sublask 1• Design Re91ona/ DalaVideo Comrnunicalions SYSlem

Subcasl< 2 . Generale ROVCS Design II :Document !

__________!I_.:-- _

Page 6

Ir

1!

September 25, 2002SW-TO-012NCTCOG Communications

Approval:

138

Southwest Research InstitutePurchase Order No. B44200200 I 0 I 4000

Bid Number: B44200204255 1000

This TO becomes effective upon final signature and will terminate on May 22, 2004, or uponSwRl receiving a written notice from TxDOT to terminate this TO.

Submitted by SwRI .

Approved by TxDOTIFt. Worth

Approved by TxDOTlDallas

Approved by TxDOT/TRF

Signature

T~e¥<j)~

Signature

Title

Date

Signature

Title

Date

Signature

Title

Date

In accordance with the terms of Purchase Order B44200200 1014000.

Page 7


139


Bid Number: B44200204255 I000

Attachment 1Cost Estimate

Page 8

September 25. 2002SW-TO-012NCTCOG Communications

Southwest Research InstitutePurchase Order No. B442002001014000

Bid Number: B4420020425 51 000

NCTCOG Regional Data. and Video Communications System (ROVCS) Design - Labor Estimates

Progrllm Analyst Designer Designer Technician Admin TotalsTASK Manager I III II I II Assistant Hours i, Costs

TASK1-ASSESSMENTSubtask 1 - Assess Target Agencies Infrastructure 2B 97 139 91 0 17 372 $61.980Subtask 2 - Characterize Targeted Agencies 0 0 144 216 0 0 360 $52,824Subtask 3 - Develop Preliminary ConnectivitY Concept 0 18 100 67 4 5 194 $29.309

TASK 2 - DEFINITIONSubtask 1 - Define System Level Requiements 7 51 128 144 0 0 330 $52,402Subtask 2 • Document RDVCS Requirements 0 18 96 87 4 29 234 $33.071

TASK 3· DESIGNSubtask 1 - Design RDVCS 7 55 234 96 0 0 392 $62.599Subtask 2 - Generate RDVCS Design Document 9 35 139 146 4 25 358 $53,402

SUbtotals: 51 274 980 847 12 76 2240 $345,593

NCTCOG Regional Data and Video Communications System (RDVCS) Design - Travel Estimates

.TASK Meals Rental Car Airline Lodging Totitis

TASK 1- Assessment $570 $520 $1,750 $1,520 $4,360

TASK 2 - Definition $240 $260 $1,000 $640 $2,140

TASK 3 - Design $210 $130 $1,000 $560 $1.900Subtotals: $1,020 $910 $3,750 $2,720 $8,400

NCTCOG Regional Data and Video Communications System (ROVeS) Design - Total Estimates

TASK Labor$ Travel$ TotalsTASK 1- Assessment $144,113 $4,360 $148,473TASK 2 - Definition $85,479 $2,140 $87,619TASK 3 - Design $116,001 $1,900 $117 ,901

Subtotals: $345,593 $8,400 $353,993

I'''gc 9

June 10,2003

To:

From:

Subject:

14

DALLAS COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS COURT ADMINISTRATION'Dan Savage, Assistant Administrator for Operations

03JUN-4

Commissioners Court

DanSaVag~Main Street Traffic Study

\ ~ ,• 1 ~

PH I: 26

BACKGROUNDThe Parking GaragelPlaza project will have an impact on traffic on Main Street,especially between Houston and Market Street. The new parking garage will be linked tothe existing garage via a tunnel under Main Street. The proposed garage is likely to havean entry and exit point on Elm Street. The current garage no longer has an exit onJackson and the entry/exit on Commerce is temporary. The ultimate capacity of both theexisting and proposed garages will be over 1100 vehicles. From safety, security, andtraffic access perspectives the final design configuration of both garages should includtwo entry and two exit points. Main Street is a likely location of at least an exit point andperhaps an entry point. Furthermore, the City of Dallas is in the process of developing anew downtown traffic plan. One item that will be considered during this process is thefeasibility of making Commerce and Elm two-way streets. If this is done, then MainStreet becomes a more likely location for entry and exit points. To accommodate thesedesign efforts, it is likely that consideration will have to be given narrowing or closingMain Street.

Main Street also bisects the two plaza blocks and a significant amount of pedestriantraffic crosses Main Street to access County facilities. The plaza design effort wouldbenefit from a narrowing or closing of Main Street to create one connected open space.

To address these concerns, I would like to have DeShazo, Tang, and Associates updatetheir Main Street traffic study. Attached is a proposal from Vidaud + AssociatesIncorporated, to engage DeShazo, Tang & Associates for this work. The effort is dividedinto two tasks. The first involves updating the traffic study and addressing specificissues relating to our Parking GaragelPlaza project. The second involves a not to exceedsum for them to present the updated study to the appropriate reviewing parties at the Cityof Dallas.

Dallas County Administration Building411 Elm Street, 3rd Floor Dallas Texas 75202-3317

Telephone (214) 653-7650Fax (214) 653-6517

142

IMPACT ON OPERATIONSThis update will be used by Dallas County to present its case to the City of Dallas toconsider narrowing or closing Main Street for the Parking Garage/Plaza Project.

FINANCIAL IMPACT .This proposal will cost no more than $16,800. Funds for this work are available in theMajor Capital Improvement Program Account No. 196.0.8110.2002.0.70132 for thiswork. A copy of the proposal is attached.

MlWBEVidaud & Associates, Inc. is a certified minority vendor.

LEGALThis work will be authorized by Work No. 25 under the Indefinite Quantity ArchitecturalServices contract with Vidaud + Associates, Inc.

RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends issuance of Work Order No. 25 to Vidaud + Associates, Inc. to engagethe firm of DeShazo, Tang, and Associates to update the Main Street Traffic study toassist the design work for the Parking GaragelPlaza project at a cost not to exceed$16,800. If the Court concurs, a Court Order will be presented at next weeksCommissioners Court meeting.

Recommended by:

Dan Savage, AssistiD.OA~inistratorfor Operations

43

INDEFINITE QUANTITYARCHITECTURAUENGINEERING CONTRACT

VIDAUD + ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED

WORK ORDER NO. 25 Date: June 17, 2003

Update Main Street Traffic Study - Dallas County Historical Plaza Garage

DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED:Consultant to provide professional transportation engineering services for an update of the MainStreet traffic analysis for Dallas County's parking garage/plaza project including the services ofDeShazo, Tang & Associates for key transporation engineering services and other responsibilities asenumerated in the Vidaud + Associates Incorporated proposal to Dallas County, dated March 20,2003.

TOTAL WORK ORDER AMOUNT: $16,800.00FUNDING: 196.0.08110.2002.0.70132

FEE BASIS:

~ LUMP SUM AS DETAILED~ LUMP SUM AS DETAILED_X_ NOT-TO EXCEED HOURLY CONTRACT

HOURLY CONTRACT

Basic Services/ExpensesConsultant Task 1 (DT&A)Consultant Task 2 (DT&A)TOTAL Work Order No. 25

$300.00$11,000.00

$5,500.00$16,800.00

GENERAL PROVISIONS: Terms and conditions of contract between Dallas County and Vidaud +Associates Incorporated. approved by Court Order 2000-1157, June 6, 2000, and subsequentlyrenewed by Court Orders 2001-2331 and 2002-864, remain in effect, but are modified by the additionof this Work Order.

This Work Order incorporates, by reference, Vidaud + Associates proposal dated March 20,2003, Proposal to Update Main Street Traffic Study for Dallas County Historical Plaza Garage(VAl Project No.20017.027).

Margaret Keliher, County JudgeDALLAS COUNTY

Russell E. Himes, CFOVIDAUD + ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED

144

•-~vai

,,-,jarch 20, 2Jc-3

Mr. Dan Swag;:A~slsialll tuliP in i~;trate r for OperJ,ien:;Dalla!, Cou.nty CommiislOners Court Administration~ 11 Elm Stree'., 3rd Floc"DaiLts. rx 75202-1H'l

Re: I'roposal to Update Main Street Traffic Study for Dallas County Historical Plaza Garage (VAl ProjectNo.2Qli17.02i)

Dear M,. Savage;

"Nt are plea~ed to submit thi" prop<'"al br professIOnal tran~portation englIleering services to assist Dallas CO-lnty""ith 'helpdale ora traffic study L)f Main Street in support (lfthe underground parking garage project at Founder's~~quare We have retained th~ ~e-:'Vices uf DeSh<lL,u, TaJ1g & Associates to provide key services for this analysis.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

QUI SWOt" or<;~rvi..::es mCludes the ~:tSks cesc"b-ed below. Fees are as shnWfI on tho: "ttac'hcd spreadsheet. The feefur -r;1sk 2 is li,ted as a '1';ot to l.xcced' Jmcunt

T ASK I \1a:n Str~I'!' I'rkltTic Study Update

1.1 Coordinate with the p,trkiflg girage desigll con<;ultants tu wnsiJer the preferred acce~s conditior.5 :Jr'thertes,l;r.

-: Oblam and incc1rporate the most curreN ir,fOrmi1i i l'n i1v~ilabl", recardiilg the Downtown Park Master Plan(ar:d Trnffic) Study currently undcrwa~'.

, R-:\ i,e the ~'r~v;,-,u:-. \'fdin SiJ.:d tli1fr;c wlalysi:. ;:0 ~du,;;t,~·:i by DT&A OJ I&A No O! 225, pubFshed O~I

1\ITI ~O, 2002) .0 a.::cc..unr for "ny r,cw t;',.ni, .::ondi(ions that evolv': from t:1e garag~ c1esi,;r: process.Ai", "pcr,t,ca;ly arlaiyzl' the scenario :r whlch E!cn alld Commerce stli:el" would be con'.crted to two.A,'. tpftic t10'1l..

'! UI:\' '; lop a ~pecdic ,eN', of n:cornrnt:ndattons to provide vehicu iar "eeess to the n(:w gc.rage. Thes.:r~';(\mmendatioI15 may inchll1e rooditici:lt:on of the surrounding !,tred system,

,.5 l: ,aluate the ill1prt( t ('fthl'! following sct;narios on the street:; and vehicular circulation plan forf)C';;ilt0Wr. Dallas.

• 'Josun: ,,1 Main ~tn:t;t hetween H0uston ~treet and Market Street• RcJuction Ifl widt,' of Main Slrc~r trom four to two Lines hetween Houston and Market Street

I 0 '0, <,',tnt the i)i oJt:lt in't)llllation, anai~/ss rnetnochdogy, and tlndmgs 1Il a 1'echnical Memorandum wnhl~'VJpri;;;t, E:iUt,hIC5 ,l'ld appendi,;;es h1r u~e anJ di~tribu(fon by Dalla< COllnt:

vidaud + associates incorporated· architecture' engineering. interiors13649 montfort drive. suite 200 • dallas, texas· 75240-4503 • telephone (972) 934-8888

14~

\lr Dan SdvageMarch ~O ~OO:;

Page :2

TASK 2 - City of Dallas Ne~otiation

;: I Mett v. ith the City of Dallas staff and policy makers and otht:r appropriate parties upon dtvelopment ofpreferred plan fur Main Strf'et to elliist support and pU·"UI~ implementation of the ~trat('gy

2~ (onduct additional trartie ~~udies a<; needl.'d to ad'lre::.s specific concerns of the City regarding thert:Lllmmendt:d :;. ..uagt: .JCLt·SS.

~u;J::;b~t~P!'oj(~(;( Managt:r

Cc. Ku::.sell Hime;;

vidaud + associates incorporated' architecture' engineering' interiors13649 montfort drive' suite 200 • dallas, texas' 75240-4503 • telephone (972) 934-8888

PROPOSAL COST SUMMARY

146

TITLE OF PROJECT AS-1VIDAUD + ASSOCIATES INC. Update of the Main Street Traffic Study13649 MONTFORT DRIVE, SUITE 200 Dallas County Engineering & Project ManagementDALLAS. TEXAS 75240972/ 934-8888 VAl Project No. 20017.0271. BASIC SERVICES DIRECT LABOR (DL) HOURS RATES $ COST $ COST $Principal 0 128.00 0.00Project Manager 3 100.00 300.00Architect a 88.00 0.00Engineer 0 88.00 0.00Cost Estimator a 82.00 0.00Specification Writer a 82.00 0.00Field Construction Inspector a 77.00 0.00QC Reviewer a 88.00 0.00Designer a 68.00 0.00Engineerina Draftsman 0 52.00 0.00CAD Draftsman a 52.00 0.00Draftsman 0 48.00 0.00Production Technician a 43.00 0.00SecretarylWord Processor a 38.00 0.00

TOTAL HOURS 3 TOTAL LABOR $ 300.00

DeShazo Tang &Associates (Task No.1) 11.000.00

DeShazo Tang &Associates (Task No. 2)(Not to Exceed Basis) 5.500.00

1. TOTAL BASIC SERVICES 16,800.00DIRECT PROJECT EXPENSESPrinting (review sets. presentations)PrintingFax TransmissionsLong Distance TelephoneMileageDeliveryPhotography (prior to Construction)Photography (dunng Construction)Postage/ShippingPresentation Matenals (vignettes. presentations. etc.)Other

TDLR Review FeeConsultant Reimbursables

2. TOTAL EXPENSES 0.00

NON·BASIC SERVICES

3. TOTAL NON·BASIC SERVICES 0.00

4. TOTAL LABOR COST (Sum of 1 and 3) (does not include expenses) 16,800.00S. TOTAL COST INCLUDING EXPENSES 16,800.00DATE SIGNATURE OF PREPARER

#.0",.s:? /l20-Mar-03 ~1 -/

147

DALLAS COUNTYOFFICE OF BUDGET AND EVALUATION

June 4,2003

To:

From:

Subject:

Commissioners Court

Ryan Brown~¥Budget Officer

Request for Exception to Hiring Freeze

BackeroundCommissioners Court instituted a hiring freeze effective March 11,2003, to address theCounty's current year budget shortfalL This hiring freeze applies to all positions exceptthose related to life-safety issues or mandated staffing ratios. Departments are allowedto reqirest exceptions for specific situations.

The Office of Budget and Evaluation has received a hiring freeze exception requestfrom Judge Jasso, Precinct 5-2. The purpose of this briefing is to make arecommendation on this request.

Operational ImpactJustice a/the Peace Precinct 5-2 (Judge Jasso)Judge Jasso is authorized five full-time positions (I grade C chief clerk, I grade 7 bookkeeper,and 3 grade 5 clerks). Judge Jasso is requesting an exception to the hiring freeze to replace avacant clerk position. Under the hiring freeze requirements, this results in 15 weeks of vacancyobligation.

Judge Jasso indicates in his request that the individual has already been hired to fill the vacantposition effective May 27,2003. Also, due to the Precinct operating with a small staff, leavingthe vacant position unfilled for any period of time outside the County hiring procedures wouldhave resulted in a backlog in his court. This position has been vacant since March 12,2003 andwould be available under the IS-week hiring freeze requirement beginning June 25, 20' . Thisrequest will allow the position to be filled five weeks early.

The Office of Budget and Evaluation recommends an exception to the hiring freeze.

411 Elm Street, 3rd Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202(71 L!.) h'\':l_h':lQO • J:'",v (71 A\ {:;,'1 {:;,1 i • h"rl~~.Qrlnllnn~~,,~'" ~~~

148

Financial ImpactThe savings realized from holding the position discussed above vacant for 15 weeks is shownin the table below.

Department Position Grade IS-week savingsJustice of the Peace 5-2 Clerk 5 8,248

Total $8,248

Recommendation

The Office of Budget and Evaluation makes the following recommendation.

Justice of the Peace (Judge Jasso) Recommends exception be granted.

21455374"e

149JUDGE F" F'REEMAN PAGE El2

DALLAS COUNTYJUAN JASSO, JUDGEJUSTlCE OF THE PEACEPRECINCT 5, PLACE 2

June 3, 2003

Budget OfficeAttns Ronica411 Elm StreetDallas, Texas 75202

Dear Ronica:

I am requesting an exemption to the hiring freezeto fill a qrade 5 clerk's poe~tion. A case backloq wouldoccur if ~e position is left unfilled. The person hasalready been hired to fill a position for which fundshave already been budqeted.

Thank you tor your attention in th1~ matter.

4)0 S Becicley Ave Daile, Texa~ 75203

(214)943-5981Fax: (214)943-3695

June 10,2003

MISCELLANEOUS

1) ROAD & BRIDGE, DISTRICT 3 - requests approval to file a Certificate ofContinuing Education for completion of 16 hours by Commissioner John Wiley Pricefrom the Commissioners Education Committee of the County Judges andCommissioners Association of Texas.

2) DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATION - requests approval for reduced cost forparking at the juror rate of $3 per day at the George L. Allen Sr. Courts BuildingUnderground Parking Garage for Ken Riney a law student who will be working probono in the 44th District Court for the summer as a law clerk intern beginning May31,2003 until July 15, 2003.

3) DATA SERVICES DEPARTMENT - requests approval to spend up to $1,000from the Data Services Maintenance Account (00120.1090.06520.2003) to havetechnicians trouble-shoot three strands ofthe network fiber optic cables in the SterrettJail that are not functioning. These were installed several years ago in an effort toplan for future growth. Now they are attempting to connect to these cables and areexperiencing problems. Recommended by the MIS Director.

4) FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - Truancy Court requestsapproval for modifications to the support offices ofAuxiliary Court B located on the4lh floor of the Frank Crowley Courts Building. The support offices and courtroomwill be assigned to and utilized by the 3ed Truancy Court that was approved byCommissioners Court on May 6, 2003 (Court Order No. 2003-774). Themodifications will entail construction oftwo workstations, construction ofa paymentwindow offthe main hallway, enclosing a door, cutting a doorway, removing a shelfand double doors, and repairs as required. The costs for these changes are estimatedat $8,000 and can be funded from FY2003 Permanent Improvement Fund. TheCounty Criminal Courts Manager has been involved in this matter and has noproblem with this request. Recommended by Facilities Management and the Officeof Budget and Evaluation.

1 :::> 1

TRAVEL REOUESTS

5) DATA SERVICES DEPARTMENT - requests approval for John Hennessey toattend a CUC Integrated Justice Meeting in Austin, Texas on June 19,2003: $273 isavailable in General Fund, Data Services Department, Conference Account, FYBudget 2003, (00120.1090.2050.2003).

6) SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - requests approval for:

a) Captain David Kuykendall to attend the Texas ATPAl2004 Grant ReviewMeeting in Austin, Texas on June 16-18, 2003 and use of a Task Forcevehicle with gas credit cards and no other expense to Dallas County.

b) Detective Thomas Reilly to attend the Texas ATPAl2004 Grant ReviewMeeting in Austin, Texas on June 17-18, 2003 and use of a Task Forcevehicle with gas credit cards and no other expense to Dallas County.

c) Captain David Kuykendall to attend the 8th Annual Leadership CommandCollege Association Training Conference in Galveston, Texas on June 18-10,2003 and use of a Task Force vehicle with gas credit cards and no otherexpense to Dallas County. Previously briefed (6-3-03) travel requestshowing Captain Lee DeVaney as the individual traveling to this Conference.

7) HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT - requests approval for:

a) Delbert Thomas, Karen Petties, Earlene Quinn, and David Blasi to attend theQuarterly Meeting of the TexaslNew Orleans Title I EMAS in San Antonio,Texas on July 31 through August 1, 2003: $856 is available in Grant Fund,Title I-RWPC Department, Conference Travel Account, FY Budget 2003,(00466.65604.04210.2003) and $400 is available in Grant Fund, Title IAdmin (Thomas) Department, Conference Travel Account, FY Budget 2003,(00466.65502.04210.2003).

EXCEPTION TO TRAVEL REOUESTSUNLESS SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED TO. ALL ITEMS PRESENTED

AS EXCEPTIONS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE APPROVED

b) Scott A. Sawlis to attend the Texas Mosquito Control Association Board ofDirectors Meeting in Huntsville, Texas on June 10, 2003 and use ofa Countyvehicle with gas credit cards and no other expense to Dallas County.(Revised travel request)

152

MISCELLANEOUS EOUIPMENT

(1)

(2)

(3)

DEPARTMENT: 1060ITEM:ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:EXPENDITURE SOURCE:PROPOSED ACTION:

DEPARTMENT: 1090ITEM:ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:EXPENDITURE SOURCE:

PROPOSED ACTION:

DEPARTMENT: 5420ITEMS:

Office of Budget and Evaluation1 - standard PC with speakers$1,650DDADDAThe Office of Budget and Evaluation requestsauthorization to purchase from their DDA funds areplacement PC. The new PC with sound card andspeakers will enable the OBE Grants Administrator tohear live audio for online conferences regardinggrants. Recommended by the MIS Director.

Data Services1 - Tivoli Storage Manager Software$6,221.50Within Budget00120.1090.02095.2003CGeneralFund. Data Services,Computer Software.FY2003)Data Services requests to replace some ffiM softwarewith a newer version that actually costs 60% less.Instead of paying the annual maintenance of $15,490(budgeted in FY2003), they would like to buy thenewest version of backup software (ffiM TivoliStorage Manager) for $6,221.50 through Q-Net (anIBM Business partner and part of the IT ServicesOutsourcing Contract). Recommended by Office ofBudget and Evaluation.

Truancy Court2 - Printers ($3,200)1 - Refurbished Mainframe Printer ($1,000)1 - County Standard Laptop w/docking

station ($2,660)8 - Word Perfect Software ($1,656)7 - Standard Desktop Computers ($11,200)1 - Postage Meter ($123)1 - Dictation System ($2,600)1 - Floor Safe ($536)2 - 5ft.Work Tables ($199)1 - Mid Volume Fax Machine ($950)6 - Secretarial Chairs ($778)6 - Side Arm Chairs ($923)1 - Administrative'Chair ($250)

(4)

(5)

ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:EXPENDITURE SOURCES:

PROPOSED ACTION:

DEPARTMENT: 00105.2540ITEMS:ESTIMATED COST:FUNDING SOURCE:EXPENDITURE SOURCE:

PROPOSED ACTION:


103

2 - Executive Chairs ($646)1 - Bookcase ($115)3 - Desk 60" ($1,147)6 - Shelf Filing Cabinets ($2,246)1 - Copier ($1,200)$31,429Within Budget00120.5420.02093.2003, $19,348(General Fund,Truancy Courts, Computer Hardware, under $5,000,FY2003)00120.5420.02090.2003, $10,881 (GeneralFund, Truancy Courts, PropertY less than $5,000,FY2003)00120.5420.07020.2003, $1.200 (GeneralFund, Truan£Y Courts, Equipment Rental, FY2003)The Truancy Court Coordinator requests authorizationto purchase furniture and equipment required for thestart-up of the third Truancy Court. This is theitemized list of equipment that was briefed on April29, 2003. Recommended by Office of Budget andEvaluation.

Road and Bridge District 4I - Fuel Management System ($20,000)$20,000New Program Contingency00105.2540.02090.2003 (Road and Bridge Fund,District #4, PropertY Less than $5,000, FY2003)Road and Bridge District #4 requests authorization toupgrade and relocate the fuel management system thatis currently stored in an outdoor shed at Road andBridge #4. The new location would be within astructural building and upgraded to include newtechnology. The system is needed to monitor dieselfuel and meet EPA compliance. Recommended by theOffice of Budget and Evaluation.

Road and Bridge District 4I - Prisoner Bus Engine ($6,000)$6,000New Program Contingency00105.2540.02090.2003 (Road and Bridge Fund,District #4, Property Less than $5,000, FY2003)

(6)

PROPOSED ACTION:


PROPOSED ACTION:

~4

Road and Bridge District #4 requests authorization toreplace the engine that is currently in the prisoner bus.The current engine requires consistent repair and isunreliable for transporting. Recommended by theOffice of Budget and Evaluation.

Road and Bridge District 41 - Phone System ($15,000)$15,000New Program Contingency00105.2540.07210.2003 (Road and Bridge Fund.District #4. Telecommunications, FY2003)Road and Bridge District #4 requests authorization toreplace the entire phone system at the Road andBridge #4 location. Recommended by the Director ofCommunications & Central Services..

TELECOMMUNICATION REOUESTS

County Criminal Court ManaKer M-0206002 requests to install a data-line cable in roomA4-3 on the 2nd floor ofthe FCCB. Installation: $132.00; no recurring cost. Recommended.

Tax Office - requests:MD-0302025 to install a coaxial cable on the 1st floor of the Records building to replaceexisting bad one. Installation: $82.50; no recurring cost. Recommended.

M-0305016 to remove the auto call forward to 7811 on the following numbers 6504,6505, 7060, 7071, 7072, 7662, 7069, and 7661. Installation; $0.00, labor covered bycontract; no recurring cost. Recommended.

M-0304020 to install a new phone cable to replace existing damaged one on the groundfloor of the Records building. Installation: $99.00 no recurring cost. Recommended.

Sheriffs Detentions MD-0303066 requests to install a coaxial cable on the 7th floor of theGACB to relocate network terminal for the department. Installation: $120.00; no recurringcost. Recommended.

UTMB -0303068 requests to install a phone line and a fax line in the 3rd floor Infmnaryat the LSJC. Installation: $90.92; no recurring cost. Recommended.

155

District Court Administration M-0302026 requests to install a phone line in thedepartment to support a fax. Installation: $66.00; no recurring cost. Recommended.

Kays Detention Facility M-0301034 requests to install a phone line to be used with a faxmachine in room A-2 . Installation: $69.20; no recurring cost. Recommended.

IT Services - requests:MD-0301050 to install two data-line cables in the basement of the NDGC room B102.Installation: $130.56; no recurring cost. Recommended.

M-0301032 to install a line on the 5th floor in the GACB server room to extend thedemarcation point. Installation: $82.50; no recurring cost. Recommended.

MD-0301057 to reroute computer cables to another wall to remove cables from floor.Installation: $16.50; no recurring cost. Recommended.

Health & Human Services - requests:MD-0302044 to re-terminate two data-lines that were damaged. Installation: $33.00; norecurring cost. Recommended.

M-0305020 to relocate extension 1837 from room 231 to room 259 and 2039 to room 231due to changes in the department. Installation; $0.00, labor covered by contract; norecurring cost. Recommended.

Public Works M-0305014 requests to relocate extension 6421 form room 410 to room 409.Installation; $0.00, labor covered by contract; no recurring cost. Recommended.

Human Resources M-0302014 requests to make changes to several multi-line phones inthe department to provide better incoming call coverage. Installation; $0.00, labor coveredby contract; no recurring cost. Recommended.

Sheriff's Release Section - requests:MD-0302013 to install a data-line cable on the 2nd floor of the LSJC B building to relocateexisting computer. Installation: $49.50; no recurring cost. Recommended.

MD-0304067 to install a data-line cable in the B building of the LSJC on the 2nd floor toprovide access to network. Installation: $58.75; no recurring cost. Recommended.

Facilities Mana2ement - requests:M-OJ02011 to install phone lines in the Vehicle Registration division for phones relocateddue to renovation project. Installation: SI32.00~ no recurring cost. Recommended.

M-OJOI048 to install phone lines to relocate Physical Evidence to the FCCB. Installation:SI15.00; no recurring cost. Recommended.

Truancy Court M-OJ02049 requests to install a phone line at two desk for clerks and online to be used for a fax on the 2nd floor of the NDGC. Installation: S99.00~ no recurringcost. Recommended.

J.P. Court, Precinct 1-1 MD-OJ02047 requests to install a new data-line cable to replacea damaged one. Installation: $82.50; no recurring cost. Recommended.

Funding for the above request is available from countywide Department 800, line item 432,Telephone Contingency.

1 dallas county commissioners court briefing agenda … · translation services; bid no....

Documents