Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elevator Rehabilitation Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court delays decision on Ed B. Keys elevator rehab; staff to re-check procurement routes
Summary
The court discussed an architect addendum with KFW Architects for rehab of the Ed B. Keys building elevator, debated whether to use a professional services exemption or procure an elevator company directly, and asked staff to take another week for due diligence.
Tom Green County Commissioners Court considered an addendum (AIA document B102-2017, Exhibits 14/14A) with KFW Architects to design rehabilitation work on the Ed B. Keys building elevator, but deferred final authorization pending further procurement review. County staff said the elevator’s control components and parts are obsolete and that a substantial rehabilitation — likely costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars — is necessary.
Why it matters: The elevator serves a public building and staff and commissioners emphasized liability, safety and warranty concerns. Discussion focused on whether the county must engage its own engineer under procurement statutes or whether the elevator vendor’s in-house engineers and stamped designs could be used to expedite repairs.
Key points from discussion: County staff explained that parts are obsolete and that the project would include control upgrades, pump and wiring work, and interior refurbishment. Several commissioners questioned whether hiring an architect and separate engineering consultants would duplicate work the elevator manufacturer would perform and raise costs. Staff noted the county currently holds a maintenance contract with Advanced Elevator Company; that contract’s terms could restrict third-party work while Advanced Elevator is under contract. An amount of $16,500 for preliminary architectural services was mentioned as part of the proposal. The court asked procurement and legal staff to re-examine whether the county could procure an elevator vendor or must use an architect-led process.
Outcome: The court asked staff to return in one week with additional procurement options and clarifications before taking action.
