1/14/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT IS WHAT IT REALLY REFERS TO, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY STATE THAT. HE NOTED THAT WE HAVE A CHANGE ORDER IPJ REGARD TO EXTENSION OF TIME WHICH IS A CHANGE ORDER BY ITSELF THAT DOES ADDRES THIS; HE BELIEVED IT WAS CHANGE ORDER #6. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF THE CONTRACTOR HAS ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS. MR, KONTOULAS NOTED THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ARCHITECT AND THE CONTRACTOR RE THE PARAGRAPH THE BOARD IS READING ON THIS CHANGE ORDER. THE ARCHITECT SEEMS TO THINK THAT UNDER THE CRITICAL PATH OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SCHEDULE THAT HE IS NOT BEHIND BUT 13 DAYS SO FAR, AND OF COURSE, THE CONTRACTOR HAS PREVIOUSLY ASKED FOR 20 DAYS. THE ARCHITECT IS AGAINST THIS PARAGRAPH APPEARING ON ANY OTHER CHANGE ORDERS AFTER THIS ONE, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REQUESTED THAT THE MINUTES REFLECT MR. KONTOULAS11 STATEMENT. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER R, WHICH IN- CORPORATES CHANGE PROPOSALS NOS, 18, 21, 22, 25 AND 26, WITH SPECIFIC NOTICE IN REGARD TO THE COMPLETION DATE OF OCTOBER 301 1981, APPLYING ONLY TO THE ANNEX INTERIOR, AND INCLUDING OUR NORMAL STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER, THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. 0 53 4 JAN 14 19 7 x 3,