10/22/1980 (4) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O CT 2 21980 PAGF 28 COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO REBID. ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT FEEL IT ACTUALLY HAD TO BE REBID AND BELIEVED THAT THE BOARD CAN DETERMINE THAT THEY NEED IMMEDIATE ASSIST- ANCE. HE NOTED THAT HE HAS NOT REVIEWED THE CONTRACT WITH THE CURRENT CLEANER. THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE CONTRACT WITH CLEAN -RITE HAS A 30 -DAY CANCELLATION CLAUSE, AND FELT IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT WE SHOW CAUSE. HE COMMENTED THAT CLEAN -RITE SERVICED THE 2001 BUILDING AND DID A GOOD JOB, BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THEY REALIZED THE MAGNITUDE OF THE JOB IN THE COURTHOUSE AND ANNEX, ETC. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF THE ADMINISTRATOR FELT THEY MIGHT CEASE SERVICE IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT OF THE LETTER OF CANCELLATION, AND MR. NELSON STATED THAT IF THEY SHOULD, WE COULD TAKE UP THE SLACK IMMEDIATELY WITH COAST TO COAST JANITORIAL SERVICE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER LYONS, TO EXERCISE THE CANCELLATION OPTION WITH CLEAN -RITE, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING A NEW CONTRACT WITH COAST TO COAST JANITORIAL SERIVCE. DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT WHETHER THE CONTRACT WOULD BE AT THE SAME FIGURE BID BY COAST TO COAST, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT BE SATISFIED IF WE HAD TO RENEGOTIATE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT ONCE YOU AWARD A BID, THAT TERMINATES THE BIDDING PROCESS AND NOW WE ARE CONTRACTING WITH ANOTHER PARTY BECAUSE OF THE EMERGENCY THAT EXISTS. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT THIS ACTUALLY IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE GONE OUT AND BID THE JANITORIAL CONTRACT. WE DO NOT HAVE TO BID IT, BUT FELT IT MIGHT GIVE US MORE AVENUES. HE WAS CONFIDENT THAT THE CONTRACT WOULD BE AT THE SAME FIGURE PREVIOUSLY BID BY COAST TO COAST. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE BID WAS BASED ON DATES OF CONSTRUCTION AND MOVING OF THE OFFICES. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.