2/21/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J • m RECOMMENDATION AND AGREED THAT INSTEAD OF THE OWNER FURNISHING THOSE THINGS, THE CONTRACTOR WILL FURNISH THEM AND ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS CHECK UP ON THE CONTRACTOR. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT QUESTIONED WHETHER ARTICLE 1.7.9 MEANS THAT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES ARE•ADDITIONAL SERVICES. ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT HE COMPARE THIS WITH ARTICLE 1.1.5. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE GENERAL CONTRACT, THEY AGREE TO PRO- • VIDE PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS WHILE ARTICLE•1.7.9 REFERS TO A DETAILED ESTIMATE. MR. KONTOULAS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IF A PRE -CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE BASED ON THEIR PRELIMINARY IS DESIRED, THE ARCHITECTS WILL CHARGE EXTRA FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO HIRE A PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATOR. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT THE CONSULTANTS WILL MAKE A SPECIFICATION ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO THE BUILDING, TYPE. OF WALL COVERINGS, ETC., .BUT THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAILED ESTIMATES - THEY ARE TALKING IN BALLPARK FIGURES. COORDINATOR THOMAS NOTED THAT ALL THIS CAN BE CONTROLLED BY THE BIDDING PROCESS. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THE JOB COULD BE DONE PRETTY WELL ON A R BALLPARK BASIS, AND NOTED THAT IF YOU WANT TO GET•DOWN TO MORE SPECIFICS, IT GETS MORE EXPENSIVE. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE ARCHITECT HAS AGREED TO DELETE ARTICLE 4 AND ARTICLE 5 IN REGARD TO DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES. HE COMMENTED THAT WE PAID THOSE ON THE FIRST PORTION OF THE CONTRACT, AND ACTUALLY HAVE PAID THEM $20,000 SO FAR. CHAIRMAN WODTKE DISCUSSED PAYING THEM FOR SUPERVISION, AND MR. i KONTOULAS STATED THAT IS PART OF THE NORMAL CHARGE AND THAT.IS WHY WE STIPULATED HOW MANY DAYS THEY WILL BE HERE, I.E. 2 MAN VISITS A MONTH DURING CONSTRUCTION. HE CONTINUED THAT THE COST OF SUPERVISION IS USUALLY ABOUT 1/3.. FEB 2 11979 55 1y° J