Laserfiche WebLink
F_ <br />JAN 28 1981 amK 4 ?A�E.7 0 <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT THE SPACE ANALYSIS <br />PRESENTED A COMPARISON OF THE COST PER FILING INCH BETWEEN USING <br />FOUR DRAWER CABINETS AND THE MOBILE STORAGE SYSTEM, AND APPARENTLY <br />THE COST OF THE FILING CABINETS WOULD AMOUNT TO APPROXIMATELY <br />$14,000. HE DISCUSSED A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF'A <br />MOBILE STORAGE SYSTEM AS RECOMMENDED IN THE SPACE ANALYSIS, OR <br />EQUIVALENT, FOR A COST NOT TO EXCEED $16,077, <br />DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT THE NECESSITY TO GO TO BID AND WHAT <br />OTHER FIRMS SUPPLY THIS TYPE OF FILING SYSTEM., <br />DISCUSSION NEXT ENSUED ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS STATE CONTRACT <br />PRICE, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS NOT COMING <br />FROM THE STATE; IT IS A GENERAL SERVICES ACCOUNT. THE PRICES THIS <br />COMPANY CAN GIVE US WOULD BE THE SAME PRICE THAT A GOVERNMENTAL <br />AGENCY WOULD BUY IT AT. HE NOTED THAT THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE WRONG <br />IN BUYING FROM A GSA SOURCE AND NOT GOING FOR BIDS, BUT THE LUNDIA <br />REPRESENTATIVE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE BOARD DOES WANT TO GO FOR BIDS. <br />MR. NELSON CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE BID SPECIFICA- <br />TIONS VERY EXACT SO WE CAN GET SOMETHING COMPARABLE AND AS OF GOOD <br />A QUALITY. HE DID FEEL THAT THE STUDY MR. HARGREAVES HAS DONE SHOULD <br />COUNT FOR SOMETHING IN OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE BIDS. <br />CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT HE JUST ASK FOR THE MOBILE <br />STORAGEiSYSTEM SUGGESTED OR EQUIVALENT, AND THEN IT IS UP TO THE <br />ADMINISTRATOR'S STAFF TO DECIDE IF THE BIDS SUBMITTED MEET THE <br />QUALITY DESIRED. <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT ONE THING WE HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND <br />IS THAT THROUGH OUR SUNSHINE LAW AND GETTING MATERIAL OUT TO THE BOARD, <br />THIS STUDY WAS PUT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS DID REPORT THE <br />COST, WHICH REALLY COMPROMISES THE PRICING. <br />IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED--T-HAT THIS IS THE SECOND <br />TIME LATELY THAT THIS SITUATION HAS ARISEN AND WE SHOULD GIVE SOME <br />THOUGHT TO HOW TO PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE. THE BOARD MEMBERS CON- <br />CURRED, HOWEVER, THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO FOLLOW OUR NORMAL BIDDING <br />PROCEDURES. <br />64 <br />