My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/19/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
11/19/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:55 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 12:43:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/19/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r -1 <br />NOV 191980 am 45 PAUF?S9 <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED HOW LONG THE CHANGE PROPOSAL <br />HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED <br />THAT HE SENT THE ORIGINAL SKETCH TO THE ARCHITECT BACK IN JUNE. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE HAS VISITED THE COURTROOM <br />AREA, AND IT LOOKED AS IF THE DRYWALL WORK WAS PRETTY WELL DONE. HE <br />ASKED WHAT THE HOLD-UP WAS ON THIS CHANGE ORDER. <br />MR. KONTOULAS REPLIED THAT THE ARCHITECT DID NOT GET THIS <br />BACK TO US. HE STATED THAT BASICALLY THEY ARE FINISHED UPSTAIRS WITH <br />THE DRYWALL EXCEPT FOR TWO WALLS IN THE TWO COURTROOMS. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AGAIN EMPHASIZED THAT HE FELT THE <br />CONTRACTOR AND ARCHITECT SHOULD BE FORMALLY ADVISED OF THE PROBLEM. <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT HE HAS WRITTEN LETTERS ABOUT <br />THIS AND EVEN ARRANGED TO HAVE A RESIDENT ARCHITECT UP HERE TO TRY TO <br />SPEED UP THE SITUATION, WHICH HAS HELPED SOME; HAVING AN ARCHITECT <br />IN MIAMI, HOWEVER, CAUSES A SITUATION THAT JUST TAKES TIME, AND, IN <br />ADDITION, SINCE WE HIRED THE FIRM, THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE OF ARCHI- <br />TECTS WITHIN THE FIRM. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE BROUGHT UP THE WORDING ON THE PROPOSED <br />CHANGE ORDER, NOTING THAT IT SAYS THE PROPOSED CHANGES MAY RESULT IN <br />ADDITIONAL TIME AND THEN GOES ON IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH TO SAY THAT <br />ADDITIONAL TIME WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONTRACT. HE FELT THE `WILL" <br />SHOULD BE CHANGED TO It MAY. It <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT MR. KONTOULAS SHOULD TELL US WHAT <br />TIME GENERALLY SHOULD BE EXPENDED, HE STATED THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM <br />WITH CHANGING ItWILL If TO It MAY HOWEVER, HE BELIEVED THIS IS OPENING <br />THE DOOR FOR THE CONTRACTOR TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL TIME. <br />MR. KONTOULAS EMPHASIZED THAT IN ORDER TO MEET OUR TIME <br />SCHEDULE,.HE WOULD RATHER NOT DICKER ABOUT ADDITIONAL DAYS RIGHT NOW. <br />COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF MR. KONTOULAS ANTICIPATED <br />THAT THIS JOB WILL GO OVER CONTRACT, AND MR. KONTOULAS ANSWERED THAT <br />ON THE COURTHOUSE PROJECT, IF THIS CHANGE ORDER WERE APPROVED, WE <br />WOULD BE $231)665 OVER THE CONTRACT SUM, AND ON THE ADMINISTRATION <br />BUILDING, WE ARE $118,000 OVER. HE BELIEVED THIS IS DUE TO LACK OF <br />INFORMATION, INCOMPLETENESS OF DRAWINGS, ETC. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.