ALC-Highway Commission Review and Advisory Subcommittee
Video
Transcript
3 documents
Bills discussed (1)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB336
Act 416
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…nderstanding of this project. Obviously with the passage of SB336 and with the consideration of the House resolution for a co…”
|
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND BRIDGES IN … | Rice | Notification that SB336 is now Act 416 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're going to get started with our business today. I think as everyone knows, we're here to look
at the RFP response to the oversight consulting
services project that was created through legislation this prior session. With that, I think what we want to do is just go ahead and I think there's some other meetings that are going to bump up to this pretty quickly, and so let's go ahead and let everyone get started and we'll kick things off with Ms. Thayer. Jill Thayer Bureau of Legislative
Chair
Unverified
7:07
Research and I'm just going to go over briefly with
y'all what you have in front of you and then the vendor is here so they're going to go into the details of their proposal I'm not going to get very deep into that but there are a couple of things I wanted to bring to your attention. So as you all know on May 20th of this year is when we released the RFP. It was posted on the OSP website and we emailed it to 11 different vendors that we believe did this type of work. The deadline for proposals was June 14th and we received the one proposal from Guidehouse and this subcommittee met in June and made the
determination to move forward with just one proposal which brings us to today um so today you're going to hear from guide house and then it's up to you to make a determination of whether or not you want to extend a contract to them if you decide that you're going to do that then i will take the next week or two to negotiate a contract with them that contract will be on the agenda for the policymaking subcommittee on august 21st and they will review it and make a recommendation to the full legislative council at its august 23rd meeting if council approves it
then director garrity will be authorized to go ahead and execute the contract and you'll have a consultant um so what's in your binder you should all have a binder and it is you should have a copy of the rfp that we put out you have my um something called a response checklist that I did after I went through and it's just a little table that looks like this and it was me checking the basic components of the proposal to make sure that it was responsive and it was so you knew that
at your last meeting and that's why you were okay to go forward you also have a bigger summary table where I tried to go through their proposal and pull out for you the key factors that you need to look at so that if you didn't have time to go through the entire thing it's highlighted for you there, and Guide to House is going to go into that in more detail. There is one variation that they've asked for from the RFP that I want to bring to your attention. With regard to Section 1.20, which is basically the risk allocation in a contract, our standard language is to say that
the vendor will indemnify and hold harmless the Bureau from all liability. They've asked to pull back from that just a little bit they're not pushing it all the way back to us but what they are asking for is that their liability be limited to any fee that they've earned under the contract so that we wouldn't ask for anything beyond that no punitive damages um no special damages anything like that um i have talked uh over this with director garrity we're both okay with that if
that's something that this subcommittee decides that they want to do we don't pay a vendor until we've received an invoice for services that are already completed and rendered I cannot anticipate any scenario in which we would need to pursue anything in court and the other provisions that they have regarding copyright lost profits don't apply to us and so we're okay with it if y'all are and if so then that would be incorporated into the contract once it's done but I will need you to let me know if you're okay with it other than that they did respond to all the numbered
paragraphs of the RFP and said that they were fine with them and we did check all of their references Billy Parrish made the phone calls to all of the references we have seven standard questions that we ask every single reference and you have a table in your binder that shows the question that was asked and each vendor or each references response overall they were they were all good and you've got those there and billy can answer questions if you have any about a specific
reference um and then other than that once you hear from guide house your motion today if you decide to make one would be to authorize the bureau to enter a contract with them and authorize chairs to approve that final form so i will take any questions thank you do we have any questions from members senator hickey you
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
11:34
recognize for question i don't and i know we're going
to hear from them but i do want to go back at some point about that indemnity i understand that may be okay
for this contract but i don't want to set any precedence in the future if that's standard language that we've been using i don't really see any reason that we need to vary from that so what i want to make sure is that staff is that we come back to
Chair
Unverified
12:05
that at the end because i do want some discussion on that and placing that in this contract would be for this contract only we would continue um to include that standard language in
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
12:14
any rfp going forward my worry my worry is is that we if we vary from it from this one will the next one
ask us for the same thing so that's just a
little bit of concern in the future. Thank you. All
right. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? All right. And also members inside your binder, there's a list of the references and then do you all have any questions on
those? Okay. All right. Seeing none, I think what we'd like to, again, I know we're on a little bit of a time constraint because some of the committees
are set up to meet this afternoon. We'll go ahead and have the presentation by Guidehouse of their proposal. In that, members, you know, as best we can, unless it's just an urgent question that, you know, has to be answered
immediately, let's allow for a full presentation, then we'll circle back up and have questions. With that, you all are recognized to come to the table
here and begin your presentation and if you could and this
just will probably help speed things along just
everyone if they could just go ahead and recognize yourself for the committee and for the record and then you'll be recognized automatically go ahead and proceed Sorry.
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
13:50
My name is Todd Hoffman. I'm a partner with GuideHouse. I'm Gaurav Medin, managing director with GuideHouse. I'm Sagar
Sagar Gokhale
Unverified
13:59
Gokhale. I'm a manager with GuideHouse. Raquel Momberg. I'm
Speaker 27
14:03
a director with GuideHouse. All right. You guys
Speaker 15
14:07
are recognized. I'm not sure who's going to kick off first.
Speaker 29
14:10
Thank you. And we have someone that needs to be on a
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
14:16
conference call, is that right? Can you give us just a brief moment, please? Thank you.
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
14:43
Maybe he's tied up. Hello, you reached for the follow-up side. Yeah. So we'll go ahead and get started. Good and good. So we're going to go into a little more deeper introductions around our background. As I said, I'm Todd Hoffman, a partner with GuideHouse. I lead our
south region. I've got 32 plus years of experience. By education, I'm an accountant. I also have my Master Lean Six Sigma certification. I'm also a green belt. I have deep expertise in operational and financial assessment business process improvement work. Specifically for the state of Arkansas, I've actually done and led projects here. I led the DF&A work we did back in 2016. and I also led the work under the direction of the governor and the transformation efforts that were completed back in February.
My role in this project is I will be the engagement
Speaker 40
15:57
engineer by background. I co-lead with Risha, who unfortunately wasn't able to be here with us, our capital projects and infrastructure practice for GuideHouse. Combined, we both have, I think, over 40, 50 years of experience working with different departments of transportation in the construction industry and working on capital improvement projects, not only in transportation, but also for state and local governments and the private sector. Hi,
Speaker 27
16:19
I'm Raquel Momberg. I'm a director with GuideHouse.
I've spent the last seven years with GuideHouse and formerly PwC helping governments, both local and state, solve some of their most important problems. I focus on everything from strategic planning to organizational assessments, business process reengineering, project management. Before that, I spent almost 10 years working for city government, and my last position was the chief of staff to the IT commissioner in the city of New York. Hi, my name is
Sagar Gokhale
Unverified
16:49
Sagar Gokhale. I'm a manager with GuideHouse, as I mentioned earlier.
I've been with the firm just a little over a year, but prior to that, was working in
city government in Chicago, leading out on strategic planning and leading a number of large organizations in the education space, either with non-profits or with Chicago Public Schools. And my focus is on organizational transformation and operational efficiency reviews. Thank
Speaker 22
17:21
you. So let me go to the next slide and just a
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
17:25
little brief about GuideHouse. So GuideHouse
was actually formed May a year ago. We're formally PwC, PricewaterhouseCoopers Public Sector, which I've actually spent my entire career with. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Sorry about it. There you go. Okay, thank you. I'll just repeat that then. So let me tell you a little bit about Guidehouse. We actually, Guidehouse was formed May 1 of last year. We actually came off the platform of Price Waterhouse Coopers. I've been with PwC my entire career. Basically, what does that mean? That means
we were already a formed unit that actually came off a platform and became a new organization. All employees came, all partners came. We're well over 2,000 people in 20 locations around the country doing management consulting and IT consulting work for state and local government as well as the federal government. We have deep expertise, as I mentioned, in organizational strategy and business process improvement and transformation. And as I mentioned as well,
we also know Arkansas. We've been working with Arkansas since 2016. The reason why I mention it again is because if hired, we would take that information that we've learned as we've done deep dives in many, many executive branches and take that expertise and bring that to this project. So we'll walk you a little bit
Speaker 40
19:02
through our understanding of this project. Obviously with the passage of SB336 and with the consideration of the House resolution for a constitutional
amendment for the increase or the extension of the gas tax, it's very clear that this body here in Arkansas continues to recognize the need to invest in the transportation infrastructure. What is also clear with the approval by this body of doing an independent assessment of approving things like autonomous vehicle pilot testing and your want to consider looking at the legislation, the governing legislation for RDOT, it's very clear that you're future-focused and you're also looking at efficiencies and protecting the taxpayer, and we applaud those
things. How can we help? How can we, this team right here in Guidehouse, help? As is evident through a representation of our firm here, we bring varied skill sets. I'm an engineer by background. I've been in the construction industry my entire life. We have organizational change management experts. We have accountants. We have forensic experts. We have all the expertise that is needed. And what we want to do is come here and help Arkansas do an independent holistic analysis and an assessment of RDOT to figure out where efficiencies can be gained, especially when
more money is being infused into the infrastructure of the state. At the end of the day, when we wrap up this engagement, what we want to leave you with is not, you know, a piece of paper that's going to sit on a shelf. We want to come up and give you an assessment, a true independent assessment of where RDoT sits today, come up with practical, implementable recommendations within your own environment, and give you a long-term implementation roadmap with key metrics identified and a timeline identified so that this body and the state can then actually take those recommendations
and implement them in the future. So as an example, what I'd like to do is it's easy to talk about, you know, an efficiency study or to talk about doing an assessment. So what does it truly mean? And to be able to walk you through what this assessment truly means, I would like to walk you through a case study of where we have done this before. As I mentioned to you, Riz and I have been working in the transportation industry for a long time within our careers. We work for Texas Department of Transportation, Colorado Department of Transportation, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the Texas Department of Transportation.
So we have seen varying operating models, varying sizes, centralized, decentralized. But there was this one case study that fit very closely with what Arkansas is trying to do, which is doing an efficiency analysis. How do we gain efficiencies in the processes we're currently using? So what I'd like to walk you through in this case study that you have on the slide in front of you, is what really did we focus on? So the key things, we focused on six key aspects during the study. One was funding, and I tie funding with strategy, which is what are your different funding sources,
whether it's state funding, whether it's state tax funding, whether it's federal funding or different grant programs that may be available for the improvement of the infrastructure. How are those funds looked at? How are the efficiencies between using funds for different projects? How is it looked at at the state level? And how is that funding then allocated to the different needs? And we understand that, you know, you're decentralized, you have ten different districts, and there
are going to be very specific challenges within your districts. How is this funding then distributed to address the needs of the state as a whole? So that's one aspect of what we looked at. Then we looked at the organizational structure. Obviously, like I mentioned, there are certain functions that are probably going to be centralized within RDOT, and there are certain functions that are probably decentralized. And there's never a right answer. You can't be all centralized, nor can you be all decentralized. But again, given our experience working with different departments of transportation, we have seen certain trends of where certain functions are better serving the needs of
the state or the needs of the community if they're centralized and vice versa. So we will look and do an analysis of the organizational structure and whether that organizational structure is flexible enough with enough documentation and with enough detail so that the ten different districts can function uniformly to serve the state. Then we look at the next level, we start looking at projects. So what are the key performance metrics currently that the state is looking? How are you measuring cost? How are you measuring cost overruns?
How are you looking at the schedule, schedule delays? How are you monitoring that? What kind of technology are you using to monitor your projects? How are you reporting on those metrics? And what decisions are being made against those metrics? It's easy to collect data, but what's the action that's happening after that? So we will do an analysis to see what the data is telling us regarding the performance of projects and the vendors that are being used to do the work in RDOT. Then we look at personnel.
Now, one of the biggest challenges we've seen across the Departments of Transportation is obtaining talent, retaining talent, and the knowledge management transfer. So it seems to be a trend throughout the country where in the Departments of Transportation, there is an aging personnel group that is slowly starting to leave the workforce. And then there's a tough time. The DOTs are having a tough time recruiting newer talent because the private sector starts absorbing this talent. So what are the efficiencies? What are the processes RDOT uses in obtaining that talent, retaining the talent, what kind of performance measures and what kind of incentives are being offered to actually attract that talent in?
So we will look at the people side of this as well. And we did in this particular case study. Another key thing that we did, this was a decentralized organization, a DOT that we looked at. We looked at equipment and vehicles. So, of course, you know, whether your vehicles are owned, whether they're leased, whether they're rented, what is the mix? what is the sharing that happens between the different districts, what is the downtime on the equipments. These are all areas where you can start looking at efficiencies and seeing what is the right model for RDOT, given the current situations. And then finally, procurement. We know that, you know, the state has already done a procurement study for the state procurement department.
We will do a similar analysis for RDOT to see how is procurement being done, what is the lead time between procuring a vendor and the work actually commencing, what kind of metrics are you using? Are you using a low-cost bid? Are you using the best value bid? and there are reasons to use both and there's a mix of both. So we will look at the efficiencies and we will look at what RDOT is currently doing to then propose what should be done or what our recommendation would be in the roadmap to do that. So how did we do that? In this particular case study, we had, it was a Department of Transportation
with I believe 14 different districts and we did 11 site visits. So we went and looked and interviewed about 118 to 120 different people all through the state with different districts to gather the information. We got a truckload of data, so we asked for literally everything. We asked for the performance management tools, we asked for access to their systems, we asked for access to the policies, the procedures, their administrative write-ups, their performance management, their people management.
We looked at a very data intensive process where we actually looked at everything that was available, that was given to us, to then identify, One, is that sufficient? Is that accurate? And two, are those processes actually being followed in the field? Because what tends to happen in organizations that have been in existence for a long time is that you have policies and procedures, but then what's actually being done in the field does not really reflect what those policies and procedures are. So again, there are efficiencies to be gained by improving those policies and procedures,
the standard operating procedures, and also making sure that they're being enforced at the different levels of the organization. So we did that. So in this particular study, what we identified, there were 30 key issues that came up where efficiencies could be gained. To respond to those 30 key issues, we identified 59 specific recommendations, and we came up and what we did was we consolidated those 59 recommendations to come up with four business improvement projects. So again, this is one thing, right?
One thing is just saying, here's what's good, here's what's bad, here's what should be done differently but then to actually make that manageable how do you package that how do you create projects within the recommendations so that they can actually be implemented in the future so we created four different packages and you know just to give you an idea one was the project management oversight the framework and reporting so we took all the issues and challenges that we identified you know the excuse me the 30 key issues and we said what is your project management structure how do you actually do the performance management
of your projects, how is that reported, and what are the executive dashboards that are available, and how is decision making made against that. And we came up with specific, a step-by-step process of how can you achieve that ideal state. So that was one. Similar concept. When we do this, by the way, what we do when we create these business projects, so basically consolidating our recommendations into something that's biteable, like a size that can be implemented pretty quickly, we identify what are the issues that are addressed, we identify what are the efficiency targets that we're looking to garner from this, what is the ease
of implementation because that's going to probably direct some of the decisions that are made by this body. And then what are the potential cost savings or what are the efficiencies of these recommendations. The second recommendation, big recommendation of the business improvement project was the asset analytics. So doing an assessment on the performance, the data that was available on the performance of equipment and vehicles, you know, from downtime to getting parts for repair, how How is that being sourced? So looking at basically your inventory of your assets to figure out how to optimize
the use of your vehicles and equipment. So we came up with a five-step process of exactly what they should consider and what are the key metrics associated with it. And finally, the last two were sourcing and procurement. I've already mentioned, you know, in this particular state there seemed to be a lack of competition in certain aspects of the construction industry. So how do you actually promote? Now, this is something that was really not a part of the Department of Transportation's job. But the fact is that if you don't have fair competition in the market, then you're going to pay a higher price for whatever it is that you're procuring.
So how does the state of Arkansas look at what is competition in the key aspects of the construction industry to see if that can be influenced for a certain aspect? And then, of course, procurement, looking at low bid versus best value. and then finally we came up with a human capital improvement plan plan which included how do you recruit talent how do you train talent how do you do a performance management on talent and how do you give them the incentives so that they feel that they're part of a great organization and can feel that they can
have a career here so that's just to give you an idea of and you know in a nutshell kind of show you that we have done exactly what you're looking for before and this is probably something very similar to what we propose to be doing for RDoC. And you're going to see these same steps identified in our
Speaker 51
30:17
approach and methodology by Raquel and Sagar. Great. So
Speaker 27
30:24
before we get into the steps of what we would be doing, we thought it would be important to go through how we think about the challenge and the RFP that you presented and how we
think about it. So we have used Guidehouse's target operating model, which is on the slide in front of you, is actually a similar model that we use when we did the Arkansas Transformation Project. We use it both with DOTs and transit agencies, but also with a host of other agencies as well. So just to walk you through how we think about a project like this, we always start at that question of, you know, what is RDOT trying to accomplish? This is not a strategic planning exercise, and we recognize that, and we wouldn't spend
a significant amount of time on this, but we do think it's important to confirm based on the documents that we've read, the 2017 to 22 plan, any annual reports to make sure that we're all on the same page. What is, you know, has the mission, the vision, any of the six pillars that we saw in that the last 2017 to 2022 plan changed. In that plan are notes six areas, which a number of objectives around them. In addition to sort of asking those types of questions, we also propose to do a quick
service offerings project as well. Sometimes it's actually a sort of obvious step that is not so obvious. And that is when we've helped agencies document what exactly they offer, it's sometimes rather enlightening. And it could even be not just the main sort of services that RDOT offers, but from a procurement perspective. We oftentimes see if the procurement office documents the offerings that they are responsible for, it's actually very different than what the business thinks that they're offering.
So after we do this sort of rapid kind of foundational assessment, we get into the real meat of what you all are looking for, which is assuming that we all know what RDOT is trying to accomplish, how do you accomplish that? And that is through the operational capabilities. And so you sort of naturally came about these in the RFP as well. Stepping through those quickly, There's process, organizational structure, people capabilities, and then technology. So Gaurav mentioned a little bit about process.
We oftentimes will document processes where they haven't been documented. It often becomes very clear where there are bottlenecks or maybe one district office is actually working really well through a process, but it's just not consistent and standard through other ones. In organizational structure, we ask the question of how are you actually structured to best deliver your services? So the questions on central versus decentralization, different units that you have and where they're sort of fit within the structure.
In people capabilities, as Gaurav mentioned, it's the first time that five generations of a workforce are out there right now. That means that you're going to be anticipating retirement. You're also going to potentially be needing new skills. And so you want to not only plan for the wealth of information that your soon-to-be retirees have, but also you may be pivoting and you may be looking at some new skills that you need to be acquiring to keep up with sort of the changing DOT. And then finally, with technology, we have been recently working with a DOT where the
project managers are using Excel to fill out all their information. And it's incredibly burdensome for them and cumbersome. And by coming up with a few quick, low-cost technology solutions, it may be that you take some of the burden off of the project managers or other folks at RDOT. And then finally, we have on here the regulatory and statutory review, which we have to say we don't see as often as we should. When you oftentimes lay out something like a procurement process and you need 30 days here and 60 days here and 30 days,
you're already so far behind where you want to be. And so you can do a bunch of process efficiencies and improvements, but at the end of the day, if you can actually work to make regulations less burdensome while maintaining compliance and the oversight that you need, you may actually see the biggest change right there. So coming out of this organizational or operational capabilities assessment, we have a wealth of information. We're already starting to gather recommendations with both the subcommittee, with RDOT, with the governance team that we have,
and we then move into our recommendations, which would not only be built on everything that we've learned up until this point, but all of the work that we've done with other clients, as well as leading practice research that we could do. So we have connections. You all have connections with other states to get into sort of what's working well for them. How expensive are their capital projects compared to yours? You know, some of these questions. And our goal at the end is to come out with a very actionable, specific report. I worked for the government and nothing drives me crazier. It's like the test I
give to say, you know, is this going to work within the realities of Arkansas or wherever we are working. And so we tend to have some quick wins, like you could basically go out right now and in 30 days implement some of these. You'll have some medium solutions and some things that are going to take a longer period of time. The other thing that I think is really important that we've been able to help our clients with is we're going to go through this whole process together and then we want to set you up. So whether that's with project management, templates,
Figuring out who the executive sponsor is or sponsors, which is really important for a project like this. We want to set you up so that as we walk away, as your consultants eventually leave you, which, you know, they do, that you're able to continue on and implement some of the recommendations that we have come up with. So that's how we think about a project like this. And the team that we then put in place, we can walk through with you as well. We are combining both folks with a very deep DOT transit background along with management consultants who have done organizational technology assessments for a whole host of different governments and in some of our past lives for commercial clients as well.
So starting at the top, we have the oversight team, which Todd and Riz, who unfortunately couldn't be here today, sort of are filling that role. Riz from the DOT side and Todd from the transformation and organizational assessment side. I'm also on there as project oversight. So I am responsible for helping provide strategic direction for the project, doing deliverable reviews, coming to meetings where needed. And then we have your sort of core day-to-day team.
So Sagar, who's sitting next to me, is the day-to-day project manager. He is the man on the ground, your main contact. You get to know him really well. And then underneath him, we have a team that we've put into three work streams. And we did these work streams thinking about the project, thinking how we would run a project. So we've got the sort of Oregon people team, a process technology team. And then because we know it's important, this is a specialized agency DOT, we have a capital projects and infrastructure team who's done work at DOT.
And then behind our team, we've got a whole host of subject matter experts, Gaurav being one of them. This is a pretty comprehensive assessment. So you are going to be looking at people capabilities. And Kristen Centani did the work at CDOT. you are going to be looking at CP&I and other DOTs, and that's where Riz and Grav come in. So we're able to tap into folks, whether we need them to just brainstorm with you, get on the phone, advise, come in for a workshop, provide that sort of extra level of, oh, we've done that,
have you guys thought about this as you go through the project. So that's a bit of an overview as we sort of see the project, and now we can get into the steps that we'll actually take and how we
Sagar Gokhale
Unverified
38:42
do this. All right. Thanks, Raquel. So Raquel was talking a little bit about how we think about an assessment
like this within the DOT space and the team that we're going to have on the ground. And I wanted to talk a little bit about what the execution looks like. And first and foremost, it's sort of centered on the objectives. And as we understand it from the RFP, right, it's an objective analysis of RDOT's processes,
procedures, projects, expenditures, appeals, procurement, identifying leading practices that hold particular promise for RDOT and help optimize potentially its operations, and then identifying some operational and regulatory recommendations. So it's centered there, but then really starts or can be executed in three phases that start with what we're calling phase zero, which is project planning. And this is a foundational step for any of the projects in which we engage because we really need to align on expectations, confirm requirements, and our timeline.
So we're going to start there, and because it's so foundational, you know, we have a rigorous approach to our project planning. And so within the first 30 days, we want to be able to present our project schedule that will identify the tasks and durations and some of the shared responsibilities between us, potentially this subcommittee, BLR, RDOT, but also provide a project management plan that, you know, crystallizes those objectives, our approach, essentially what we're going to deliver in terms of the report itself, the criteria for acceptance,
our communication protocol, and our risk issues management protocol as well. So all of that will be embedded within a project management plan. After we have that solidified, crystallized, and agreed upon, then we'll move on to phase one, which is a current state assessment. And this is the heavy lift. This is the meat of the project. And this is where we're really trying to understand RDOT's strategic position, the supporting operational capabilities, and the regulatory environment. And so right around that 120-day mark, we want to be able to identify and
deliver a current state report that provides you a viewpoint on RDOT's strategic position, its operations, and some of the regulatory risk that it might face. We also want to be able to identify some of those initial opportunities to streamline operations. You know, we'll get into this with phase two on the recommendations. That timeline's a little bit condensed, but that's because in many respects, we've already identified some key opportunities for recommendation to help optimize, potentially optimize RDOT. And then the last thing we're going to try and deliver is like
a specific focused analysis on the procurement processes and also the expenditures, because we understand that that's a particular area of interest for this subcommittee. So we want to embed that within that current state assessment. And then finally, we move on to phase two. And this is really an opportunity, it's a two-fold opportunity here. One, it's an opportunity for RDOT to think about reshaping its future state and how it can operate in the future to further its mission and achieve its vision long-term, but it also provides an opportunity for this subcommittee
and BLR to achieve the objectives that were identified in the RFP itself. And we believe that this process, and we'll talk about it in a little bit more detail, is a highly collaborative process. So when we get to the point where we have that recommendation report and that roadmap, you know, potential draft legislation, you know, where it makes sense and testimony where that's necessary, you know, we have everybody sort of around the room holding hands saying, yeah, we agree that this is the right set of recommendations. But as Gaurav mentioned, as Raquel mentioned,
you know, we don't want this report to just sort of sit on a shelf and gather dust. And so what we've seen typically when we deliver reports like this is really sort of for those recommendations to be implemented and to be successful long term is to make sure we have the right structure, the right governance structure around it, the right executive sponsorship, the right infrastructure around it, the right project management infrastructure around it so that you can actually see those recommendations be implemented, and then a set of metrics that sit behind it
to make sure you're tracking the progress of it at the same time. Like Raquel mentioned, at some point, your consultants are going to leave, and so we want to make sure we leave you at least with some guidance around, okay, if you actually want to implement these recommendations, this is the infrastructure you need in place to actually move that forward. There we go. So wanted to take just a little bit of a deep dive into those three phases, just so you know at a little bit more of a granular level what those phases are going to entail.
So the first one, phase zero project planning, you know, this is again sort of our work right at the initial stages to work with BLR, potentially members of this subcommittee, and RDOT to define you know, objectives and outcomes, validate our approach, and agree on our timeline. We've got to have that set before we start to execute. So we traditionally do this in three ways. We hold a kickoff meeting in which we confirm our objectives and areas of focus. We identify the key stakeholders as part of this particular engagement.
We schedule interviews and working sessions, and then we request critical documentation and data, right? As Gaurav mentioned in our case study, we collected a wealth of information, And this is the time period for us to actually find a way to go out and get that information and schedule time to do that. We also use this as an opportunity to understand whether it's appropriate to involve external stakeholders in the process as well, because we may want to have a conversation with them and maybe secure some information from them as well to help inform our current state analysis.
Once we've had that kickoff meeting, that series of kickoff meetings, then we start developing a project schedule and reporting process, right? So we're going to go through and identify all the activities, all the concrete tasks, the durations, our responsibilities, and those potentially could be shared. And then we want to develop a status reporting protocol designed to inform all of the stakeholders around the progress of our project against the plan. So we'll make sure we detail that out for everyone. And we'll make sure that that's also accepted by the subcommittee, by BLR, and RDOT as well to make sure that that's acceptable to everybody.
And then the last step, absolutely critical step, is establishing that governance structure. We will help support the identification of a governance team. We'll create a governance team briefing schedule and then potentially have some interviews with specific governance team members and potentially some focus groups as well just to secure that insight. And this is absolutely critical to ensure that the project all the way through not only has the appropriate oversight, but also that there are key champions of the project throughout
the lifecycle of the project. We also would, this is also a real great opportunity to also build some executive sponsorship within RDOT as well, because remember when we get to that recommendation stage, we want to make sure that there is support and buy-in to take the report recommendations and start thinking about building the infrastructure to then implement. Once we've sort of accomplished phase zero and we have our project schedule, project management plan, our reporting cadence and structure governance team, then we get into the current state assessment.
And this is really the meat of the meat of this particular project. And it's essentially going to be comprised of four different parts. So there's going to be a current state findings report, and that's where we're really going to provide a view into the strategic position of RDOT, the supporting business processes, technology, infrastructure, workforce, and then the regulatory environment under which RDOT operates. We're also going to perform a gap analysis to identify, you know, where is RDOT right now, and where could the organization be based on our experience, based on some leading practices,
based on some of the challenges and pain points that the organization is facing as it executes on its mission. And this is really the foundation, frankly, of where our recommendations are going to be based on. To the extent, and I think Raquel mentioned this, if there's a need to provide some support documentation, if a process hasn't been documented, it's absolutely critical, we'll work to provide that documentation as well, again, where it makes sense. And then we understand there needs to be a bit of a focused analysis on the procurement process and some of the expenditures, so we want to make sure that we include that as part of that current state analysis.
And we're going to accomplish those four things by looking into these key task areas that are listed below, those six task areas, and I'm going to turn it over to Gaurav to talk about that a little bit in terms of, you know, how do we approach that and how do
Speaker 40
47:44
we think about that. Thanks, Hagar, and I know we're running a little long, so I'll keep this brief, but like we mentioned in our case study, we had six focus areas. Does that mean that these are the same focus areas for our dot? Probably not or probably so But what we do is we will start with these six focus areas because based on our experience
We have seen that this is where efficiencies can be gained So the six focus areas you see on your screen is where we'll start But as we start getting into that phase zero and
Speaker 39
48:13
phase one planning and talking to people We might modify this to actually address the needs
Sagar Gokhale
Unverified
48:21
of our dot So our final phase then is really our recommendations. We talked a little bit about reviewing our current state challenges, and that's going to be the basis of our recommendations. We're going to identify some leading practices, and that's based on our research and our knowledge
base around, you know, similar position, departments of transportation, but also our in-house knowledge and institution, knowledge base and institutional knowledge. And so with folks like Gaurav, Riz, and some other partners within our firm, we're going to draw upon that expertise and that experience to identify some leading practices that show some particular promise here in Arkansas. And then finally, we're going to collaborate on recommendations. Again, we don't want to just leave you with a report. We want to leave you with something that you can actually implement and realize some of
the benefits. And so this is going to be an iterative process. We're going to work with the folks at RDOT to ensure that the recommendations actually satisfy some business need. It makes sense for RDOT. We're also going to work with this subcommittee and BLR to make sure that our recommendations, you know, potentially advance some viable legislative changes, not something that's just kind of ideal that has no, you know, no real probability of actually, you know, coming to fruition. And so while we're looking at advancing those recommendations in that collaborative fashion,
we're also going to create an impact and feasibility analysis. So to the extent that it's possible, we'll put together a cost-benefit analysis around our recommendations. We'll also do a qualitative analysis as well to understand, you know, how complex are recommendations actually going to be? What's the level of disruption? Is there sufficient buy-in? Is there sufficient staffing and resources to actually execute on those? And so we want to make sure we provide that context and information as well because when we get to our final deliverable here in terms of the recommendation report,
that future state recommendation is going to be a prioritized set of recommendations based on that impact feasibility analysis. And it's going to span the six operational areas or the six task areas that we had on the previous slide. We're also going to provide some key performance indicators. Again, you can have a set of recommendations, but you need some way to monitor whether those recommendations are being implemented and how well. And so we'll be able to provide guidance around that. And then, again, where necessary and where appropriate, we can support with some draft legislation and testimony.
And so that sort of encapsulates how we plan to or how we propose to execute this project.
And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Todd just to close
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
50:57
us out. I know we're a little bit over time here. Yeah, so hopefully we've been able to show you today how we attack projects that are similar to the one in the RFP. Hopefully we've been able to communicate with you how we structure projects, where we bring kind of business process and org assessment type of expertise, and we link that together with the Department of Transportation experience,
so that way we're thinking about it and challenging each other from both sides to make sure we get the best answer possible for Arkansas. And hopefully also we've been able to show today that we do know Arkansas. Many of the methodologies and tools and things that we've discussed, we actually have used in the previous work that we've done here. And obviously there's been reports that have been implemented and lots of good work that's being done here. So hopefully we will provide that same level of experience to this project here. So with that, I'll conclude and open it up for questions, Senator.
All right. Thank you very much and appreciate
the presentation. I just got to have a couple of questions just real quick. So in your view with, you know, stakeholders and those that are going to be involved in the process, would that include some discussions with maybe vendors or contractors also? It
wasn't specifically mentioned. I assumed it was, or maybe I just kind of missed it.
Speaker 40
52:14
Yes, it is. And in that case study, we actually did. We had three workshops with external vendors, with the Asphalt Association, and with three or four critical external parties that were not only vendors
but were tangentially involved in the success of the Department of Transportation. Got you. And then I think the
state assessment, I think there's a portion that dealt with that. It doesn't specifically talk about legislation. And, you know, there's the independence issue
that we have here in Arkansas that may be a little bit different than what you see in other states. I'm assuming we'll be looking at some of the more recent legislation that's been passed that RDOT
is able to utilize or hinder or help RDOT depending on their kind of their view of
that legislation that'll be part of I guess the state assessment is that
right that's correct okay all right and then my last is we do have I'm not sure how unique our structure here is in the state and I just wonder a little bit about folks that maybe have hired you in the past I mean are they coming from what I really hope that we have which is this purely independent you know look into RDOT or was it, you know, has more of your clients in the past been actual, you know, DOTs
that were looking for efficiencies, willing to hop on board for efficiencies and that sort of thing or, you know, or I guess, you know, the governor's office and maybe some in cases.
But I mean, do we, have you had any history with, I guess, a DOT structure the way that we
Speaker 40
53:41
are here? Yes. So we've had a mix of both where we've been hired by the Department of Transportation themselves, but we've also been hired to do a very similar assessment for the legislature in different states, where we also did provide testimony at the end with our recommendations.
So we've actually worked in both environments. All right,
because for me, I mean, this whole thing boils down to a very independent look at what's happening. I mean, I have my biases, other people in this room have their biases, and none of us are, you know, purely correct on what we think is happening or what can be improved. And so, like I said, I
just want to make sure there was some, you know, similar situation that you may have found yourself in. So with that, do we
have any other questions from members? Senator Hickey, you recognize for a question.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
54:23
Yes, thank you for being here. Of course, you probably heard my worry, of course, about the indemnity agreement the way that you do,
and I don't mind you all asking, but from our standpoint, that's the standard language that we use. I'd like for you all to revisit that to see if we could get that corrected, because otherwise, from this point forward, anybody that we did a contract with, if they ask us to change it to the same language you all have, then how are we not going to do that? So I really don't like the thought about changing that. But in addition to that, on page 57, I don't know if you all have that,
but it's under the RFP, how you answered the question for failed projects. Okay. I guess the thing is, we had asked you, of course, if you had any failed projects or anything, and it appears to me that you just wrote the sentence, Godhouse does not have any suspensions, debarments, or significant litigation to disclose.
Does that mean you do not have any, or does that mean you don't have
Speaker 80
55:39
any to disclose to us? Well, we're not. It's
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
55:41
significant to me. I understand. I mean, we're a pretty large organization. So, I mean, to our knowledge, which is how we answer this, it's the words we have here. I mean, it's, you know, I can tell you personally in the projects that I've worked on for 33 years, I have not had any of these issues personally, but I can't speak to, you know, a partner that's
in another location so no i'm talking
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
56:06
about for guide house for the past three years because guide house is the one doing the contract understand i understand price water but so guide house according to this has been in business for three years is that correct that house has been in business for 15 months we broke away from price water house coopers okay so in the 15 months i understand with price water house coopers y'all may have had multiple things. And I'm not talking about a return check or something to that nature where
you're having to file a suit on somebody. What we're talking about is litigation of that or failed contracts. Go ahead. We just will, personally, we, and I'm going to say something, I mean, with these other contracts that the agency does through the executive branch, we get people all the time that do not disclose some type of litigation that they were in. and then, you know, they come before the procurement director, and then, of course, you know, they want to get that kicked out.
So if we've got that in our RFP, you know, I think it's up to us to decide whether or not it was significant or, you know, if we'd like to know that, or I
Speaker 27
57:17
would, let me put it that way. Can double confirm, we have our contracts manager who sort of oversees all of any sort of litigation that would come through our suspension, so this is the language he provided. It was certainly not meant to be sort of sneaky in how he wrote it. We could double confirm, but I think that we do not have anything to, in the last, you know, since Guidehouse has been inception, that we would report on here.
So we could double confirm that just to make sure that the language, but we had gotten this from our contracts team. Mr.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
57:46
Chair, that would be fine with me if it would be okay with you and the others that before the AOC subcommittee meeting, if they could actually meet that qualification of the RFP. Because like I say, our other state agencies are having to do that all the time. And contracts and huge companies, they are being, you know, they'll lose the contract because of that. So I do wish that we would comply with that in the form that it was done.
and then one other thing Mr. Chair again with the indemnity agreement I would like for them to look back at it and like I say look at it from our standpoint because if we change it for you all we're going to have to do that for the next company and personally I'd rather not do that and I don't know if I'll vote for that whenever it gets before ALC with that left out I'm going to think on it
I'm not willing to stop anything in here because I if this committee wants to go forward with this, I'm more than willing, but I want to revisit that. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
58:48
Do we have any other questions? Senator Hammer,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
58:57
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Y'all have been in business 15 months. Was that your testimony just
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
59:04
a minute ago, or did I misunderstand that? We have been in business as Guide House for 15 months we've been in business as price
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
59:10
warehouse coopers for over 150 years okay and i notice in reading the summaries um on the references there seems to be a consistency of being able to maintain
the people that start on the projects it seems like get a high turnover rate and then i go over to page one and it talks about that for additional support beyond the five months for drafting legislation the rates would be applied as listed on here again what what uh what what allowments allowances do you make that if a person leaves the project in five months but yet we need you to stay on and you have to play catch up because somebody leaves the project um do we have that
it's not going to end up costing us above the contract because you had a turnover rate or you had somebody leave the project once they started I'm happy to take
Speaker 40
1:00:00
this but yes we can make that assurance that if if there is turnaround and if there is a turnaround of staff within our organization and we have to bring up somebody else up to speed that will be on our dime and not on the state's
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:00:12
dime. Okay and you have the people picked out to start on this project and do you feel fairly certain they're gonna be here for five months? Yes,
Speaker 97
1:00:19
yes we do and that's the chart that you see in the proposal. Okay, just
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:00:23
want to make sure. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Representative Dalton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I don't know that I necessarily heard it in your presentation or that it's specifically within the exact language of the RFP, but in your analysis of RDOT
and Arkansas Transportation System overall, will you be doing like an audit of the road miles, traffic counts, usage cost
of those types of facilities throughout the state? Yes, sir. And yeah, I apologize that we didn't mention it,
Speaker 40
1:01:10
but again, even in that case study when we got the data, We actually got the data on the usage of roads, the traffic, congestion, pricing. We did a lot
Speaker 109
1:01:21
of analysis around that very specific topic. And then your recommendations from that point
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:01:27
forward will go kind of based off that on how much road is being utilized,
what's not being utilized to its full capacity and that sort
Speaker 40
1:01:35
of thing. Absolutely. And that also probably should or could potentially dictate how the funding is distributed to your different assets. So when we talk about that funding stream, one part of that analysis to figure out how is RDOT looking at its funding and how it is distributing the funding to the projects, that would be one aspect. We look at the usage of your roads and your bridges to figure out where you should be spending more money. We also look at trends, like if there are industries in the region and if there is a
growing industry. We also look at those trends to see that should you be thinking differently if the usage is not, you know, at the peak usage is at 80%, but you know that there's an industry, a growing industry that's going to actually require further usage, we will build that into our recommendations as well. Okay. Thank you. Do we have the questions?
All right. If we can, can we go to, I guess, attachment A, and it's the price proposal
sheet? I just want to make sure we're all on the same page on the timeline and everything else. So, I mean, our understanding of this is that, you know, this is, the 647 is for the full project, right? It's
for the, it's, it's, yes, for the full project, correct. For the full project, and it'll be paid out based on timeline or kind of whatever the further negotiation is going to be between. Usually we line it up against milestones and deliverables, yes, sir, that would be
agreed upon. All right, and the one thing
that is here is on the five-month project and for the additional
support beyond the five months for drafting legislation and that sort of thing. I'm trying to find it in our deal, but I think what we asked for the submission to be based on was longer than the five months, right? So it goes through December 31st of, what was the date? I
meant to jot that down and then I don't have it in a place. So 2020? So how does that going to work with the five-month limitation? Does it make sense?
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
1:03:44
Yes, sir, it does. And so let me try to answer it this way. So we looked at the RFP and we can scope out based on what you laid out exactly how based on our experience how long it takes to do these types of projects which is how we came with our fee okay on the drafting piece of that we have no idea if that's you know you know if it's going to be you know 10 10 drafting sessions five four we have no idea okay so that's why we incorporated a rate card and then therefore we would use that
rate card for any of that additional outside the five months so what won't be
in your deliverables then will be the legislation, right? Is that what you're saying? Am I reading that right? That's correct. I
Speaker 27
1:04:29
think it won't be in the deliverable. I mean, within the five months, I would say, if we were, you know, within five months quickly drafting, we could incorporate that into our timeline. For anything sort of past the five months, and as Todd said, we don't want to tell you it's going to be a certain amount of money
if we don't know how much time it's actually going to take. than beyond that five months. It's not in the price fee, but it's in our timeline of saying that we would support that and we would make sure that you all knew what the level of
effort was. Okay. But in your deliverables, there's going to be a legislative recommendation. You're just saying they're not
going to be fine-tuned recommendations. And the fine-tuning of those recommendations will be something that goes beyond what you think your five-month study is going to be.
Speaker 40
1:05:16
Agreed. And honestly, what we didn't want to do was, we didn't want to pick, I mean, we knew that you wanted to present this back to the subcommittee December of 2020, but we don't need an entire year to do this study. We need five and a half months, and whatever recommendations we come up with, with the draft language that could be incorporated into legislation, will be there within the first five and a half months. But knowing that, you know, processes like these could potentially take a lot of back and forth between different departments and different governing bodies, that if you need additional support past that five and a half months where we get this study completed and
and turned over to you then we will be we will be
able to support you okay all right senator hammer i believe it's the next one up and i'll get you in
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:06:01
just a second senator hammer go ahead thank
you thank you so let me give you just an illustration it's a 647 000 contract let's just say y'all are really good you get to that point where you're ready to give us tentative legislation and you've only spent $500,000 of the 647, would we get a credit of $147 toward the fine-tuning of the legislation,
or is it going to be 647 no matter what, and then the detailed legislation work out is going to be on top
Speaker 27
1:06:34
this? I think so. So the 647 includes an estimate of travel that we noted we would do sort of within consultation of the team. So the 555 is what we think would take for five months with the team for the project expenses. And then on top of that, we've noted it's about $92,000 in estimated travel.
So that would only be billed upon actual travel. We would not bill you that straight travel of the 92. But the project cost is what we think it would take for the team that
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
1:07:10
we have for five months. But to focus on the travel piece, if it took us $130,000 to travel, you would only be
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:18
charged $92,000. Right. But your interpretation is, at the end of the day, no matter what, there's going to be $647,474, and we're going to pay additional in order to get the ready-to-submit-for-vote legislation.
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
1:07:35
to find and typically this is what it takes to do these kinds of projects if we finish in four months instead of five and a half we're not going to we're we're not going to charge you that time we're saying that based on our experiences and we've done this many many times we think that is a fair fee to do it but if y'all's documentation is all together and we can do it quicker, we'll do it quicker. But we're saying that it's going to take five and a half months to do this.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:08:05
All right. To the chair. can i ask the chair a question yes sir in the legislation or advice who's going
to be monitoring their work hours is that going to be the bureau doing that does that right okay all
right and then the bureau um and and the group will also get together
on how that's to be monitored i think it's one i think one thing we do need to probably cover so i think if i'm understanding things right there's some unknown in the drafting of the legislation and so you didn't budget that inside of this contract so that you know it's done in a different way I understand what you were doing but now in the scope of work it actually does say however though that what you
were bidding on was assistance with draft legislation based on recommendations adopted by subcommittee, and then also that it will, you know, carry on, you know, December 31st, 2020, or whatever it may be. So, I mean, I'm assuming that's a further discussion that you're going to have to have with the Bureau, you know, after this meeting, but those are concerns, and I think concerns that probably members will share, and I think I understand the point of what you were
trying to do. We just need to make sure we understand what the final outcome of that's going to be especially before that policy making and there may be some further
just to make you aware committee there'll be some further negotiations between the bureau and guide house i think they'll have to come about because of that um with that i think i have who was up over here i'm sorry y'all are passing it off
so chairman why don't you hit it off and then we'll thank you mr chairman i've sat here and
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:10:10
listened to you guys and i'm a little lost you keep talking
about a five month and i talked to some of the bureau staff and they seem to think that's what y'all think y'all can do it in is five months but the contract terms are december of 2020 so that would mean if you started today that's a whole lot more than five months in that contract and it goes back to what the chairman's talking about and i'm sure that'll be worked out in negotiations on the legislation, but you bid to that date at this $600,000 price. So just because
you can do it in five months doesn't mean we should pay over those five months if the contract spans there. And I just want to know what
Speaker 40
1:10:56
y'all's thoughts were on that. So honestly, what we were trying to do was be efficient with the taxpayer dollars. So because we think we can do the assessment in five, five-and-a-half months to actually be precise, what we want to do is price it for that. So I'm going to stop you
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:11:09
right there. Sure. So you made a comment you want to be efficient for the taxpayer dollars, but you're saying you can do it in that five-and-a-half months,
so why are you going to charge more
Speaker 109
1:11:18
for the legislation? Right. So, yeah, what
Speaker 40
1:11:21
I was going to say was this, right? If we had stretched the same stream of work out for one year, that number for us would have been much higher. So instead of giving you a padded number of, say, a million dollars for a whole year, we said let's do what we know we can do very effectively, quickly in five and a half months and then provide ongoing support as needed by the state. So instead of giving you a bigger number up front and us having the work done in five months
and just sit around and wait but still give you a bigger bill, we thought it's better to kind of give you a smaller bill for what we can do in five and a half months and then provide you the option for ongoing support as needed. So that was the thought. Obviously, I don't think it came across that way, and we're happy to go ahead and negotiate and talk that through with
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:12:15
your team. Representative, if you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I understand exactly where you came from
and where we're at right now, so I'm not going to go back down that road. but um just the thought that i had was as you're going forward you may look at a a new total maximum bid amount as it exceeds that five month if you're going to be billing for it above that and get that number to us because when i look at this i see 647 000 is the maximum bid amount i'm I'm not expecting to pay more than that at all.
And then you're saying we're going to start getting charged $425 an hour for a partner and $375 for a director. And, I mean, those can add up quite quickly. Is that going to be a cap of an extra $10,000 or an extra half a million, as you were saying?
Speaker 32
1:13:13
And we understand and we can definitely go back. having said that when we do these
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
1:13:18
types of projects when we have a time of materials rate which you just stated we typically before we start a draft and we talk with the client about it and
when they give us a project that's outside of that where you'd use the rate card we would say okay this is what you want us to do before we start we price it come back and say this is what we think it'll take and then we get an agreement we don't just like run the meter every month that's not not how it works. We will work in conjunction with the client in order to come up with an agreed-upon dollar amount before we start the drafting or whatever it is that we're doing where that rate card applies. Just at that point,
Speaker 32
1:13:55
I like your presentation. I like where you're
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:14:00
going with this. I think I'm very supportive of it overall. I just want to make sure that we're not hanging out there on the backside of it with an unknown liability. So thank you. Do we have any other questions?
all right so i think here's where we are if i'm just i mean i i understand the way you bid i i mean i completely understand what you were looking at i mean and i guess if i were going to make that proposal too and i mean i understand i think the the question or the concern is is what are we looking at in a potential maximum if we go beyond that because you know to staff's credit you guys are going to submit a report and we also have to turn around utilize the data that you have and submit a report and in the past in similar situations we've had coordination between
the entity bureau members in drafting that report and that requires some additional meeting time and so in those additional meetings since they're not budgeted you know we're going to be paying the additional travel cost and the hourly rate or whatever it may be i think what we probably do still need to do is and it's what's going to happen there's going to be further negotiations between the Bureau and Guidehouse and a final outcome that will be, you know, ultimately reviewed in the policymaking committee. My recommendation was we probably do need maximums
in place for that additional work and some greater stipulations of how that additional work is going to play out. You know, what we should expect from you and what you're going to expect from us in a way. And I just don't think it's spelled
out in what we have right here. Do we have any questions on that? Senator Hickey, you recognize
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:16:09
for a question. I agree with you, Mr. Chair, but in addition, and I want to say it again, I want to make sure with the failed contracts and the litigation that that's disclosed before policy
making, and then whatever the other one was
that we were We'll have some discussion on Yes, and we need I think just my conversation we need to have as members is with the staff I mean did we have some issues in our original writing was it the way it was supposed to be I mean I think we need to answer those questions that's probably not best done right here now but I have some just general questions about is there anything wrong with that language as proposed or is this acceptable language which I think they've indicated that it
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:16:53
is with the indemnity you're talking about the indemnity language yeah I agree with that we can we can discuss that but with the other part of the rfp
with the any type of litigation and failed contracts i do think that needs to be disclosed right now yeah
yeah very much so on that thank you and i think
you all are clear on that too so and again that will be part of your discussion with the bureau and additional information provided representative donson
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:17:18
you recognized thank you mr this kind of a question of the chairs more so than anything are we looking at just taking this and setting it on the shelf for a couple of weeks until we get back before
policymaking? Because I think that won't happen until the week of ALC, whatever that is, in August. August 21st is policymaking? Somewhere
around in there. Yeah, I mean, so I think it's what our responsibility is here is just to say that we've generally looked at
this, we approve, there's some further negotiations that need to be you know need to take place because of the discussion that the bureau has heard between the members and in guide house and then ultimately you know we're not voting for against the contract in here uh that'll be a policy making decision
but i think we're just we have outlined i think generally we what we would like some additional parameters to be uh today and so the way that if i if we need to repeat those let's do that i think the indemnity clause needs to be reviewed to make sure that we understand as members the Bureau's position on those changes and the potential impact in the future and how that may relate to GuideHouse and how we move forward with that portion. The second is just further clarification on the lawsuit issues arise, that sort of thing, and just some additional
disclosure there for the 15 months that GuideHouse has been in operations. And then the third is just taking a look at the the contract beyond this five months making sure that we have good parameters so everybody no one's going to be caught off guard uh cost wise for what what the total project
the way that it was envisioned and written is going to cost so uh i'm going to look for staff is miss thayer here if i missed anything
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:19:11
so mr chair sir um just to circle back around will we be meeting again before policy or are we making that recommendation today i
mean at this point we would be making that recommendation today those issues we pointed out there will be a motion that would that will potentially may be and voted on here in a little bit that
covers some of that okay again just that the fact there's further negotiation thank you
And so the way that it'll play out, Representative, is, you know,
after those negotiations are completed they'll bring the bureau to bring that to the the chairs here will essentially sign off
that and then it'll be moved to policy making uh is there
any questions by the committee just of me i guess all right i'll make a motion then to well we've got a motion if you know i can bring you a very detailed laid out
one if you'd like to see it at
this point i'll represent i'll recognize the vice
Speaker 135
1:21:05
chair for a motion i move to authorize the bureau of legislative research to enter a contact with guide house
for provision of consulting services to the
Representative Ron McNair
Unverified
1:21:12
highway commission review and advisory subcommittee and to authorize the chairs of the subcommittee to approve the final form of the contract to be presented to the policymaking subcommittee and the Legislative Council. Any
questions on the motion? I have a second by Representative Dodson.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion's been adopted.
Members, we have some additional business. I think we plan on canceling the next meeting of August 21st, and so that means our next meeting will be November 18th for this subcommittee. September 18th. And with that, do we have any other business come before the committee? Mr. Co-chair? Good. All right, with that, we are adjourned.
Thank you, members, for your time, and thank you for your presentation today.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Opening Remarks by Committee Chairs Senator Jonathan Dismang Representative Ron McNair
C. Summary of Requests for Proposals (RFP) Response Jillian Thayer, Counsel to the Director, Bureau of Legislative Research Billy Parrish, Legislative Analyst, Bureau of Legislative Research
D. Presentation of Proposal by Guidehouse to study the Arkansas Department of Transportation Todd Hoffman, Partner, Guidehouse Riz Shah, Partner, Guidehouse (via phone) Gaurav Menon, Managing Director, Guidehouse Raquel Malmberg, Director, Guidehouse Sagar Gokhale, Manager, Guidehouse
E. Other Business
F. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — ALC-HIGHWAY COMMISSION REVIEW AND ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE, Aug 1, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Guidehouse Oral Presentation ARDOT Review 07312019 Final version 2 PDF | Exhibit | 19 | Official source ↗ |
| Guidehouse Proposal Binder | Exhibit | 94 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Jonathan Dismang Chair
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Todd Hoffman
Unverified
Sagar Gokhale
Unverified
Speaker 27
Speaker 15
Speaker 29
Speaker 39
Speaker 40
Speaker 22
Speaker 51
Speaker 80
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 97
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 109
Speaker 35
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 135
Representative Ron McNair
Unverified