3/11/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAR 111981 BOOS 46 PAGE 50 SNODGRASS STATED THAT WHEN THEY BID THE JOB, THEY HAD ONLY THE PLANS TO GO BY; IN NO PLACE, OTHER THAN THAT ONE SYMBOL DOES IT INDICATE FIRE WALLS, AND AT THAT TIME, THEIR SUPERINTENDENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLANS. THE DISPUTE CONTINUED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF THE ARCHITECT DID INDICATE THE FIRE WALLS ON THE PLANS, WHY WOULD HE APPROVE ANY CHANGE ORDER FOR THE COUNTY. MR. KIRSCH STATED THAT THERE DEFINITELY WERE SOME UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS WHICH NEITHER HE NOR THE CONTRACTOR COULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF. DISCUSSION THEN FOLLOWED AS TO IDENTIFYING THE UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS THE ARCHITECT CONSIDERED TO BE VALID CHARGES AND AUTHORIZING A CHANGE ORDER ON THOSE, IT WAS NOTED THAT WE NEED A DOCUMENT WHICH WILL SERVE TO MOVE THIS JOB ALONG AND TO DEFINE OUR DIFFERENCES. MR. SNODGRASS CONTINUED TO CONTEND THAT EVEN IF ALL THE CEILINGS HAD'BEEN TORN DOWN, THEY STILL WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT THE FIRE WALLS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SHOW ON THE PLAN. HE SUGGESTED THAT TO GET THIS THING MOVING, THE COUNTY GIVE -THEM AN ORDER; THEY WILL PROTEST IT; THEY WILL DO THE WORK; AND THEN THEY WILL DEMAND THAT THE FULL MATTER BE ARBITRATED. THE BOARD CONCURRED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THERE IS AN ARBITRATION PROCEDURE SET OUT IN THE CONTRACT. MR. KIRSCH STATED THAT HE WOULD WRITE UP AN ORDER, BREAKING OUT FROM HIS LIST ANYTHING THEY CONSIDERED UNFORESEEN. COMMISSIONER BIRD QUESTIONED, IF WE STILL ARE GOING BY THE SAME SET OF PLANS THAT THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT UNDERSTAND BEFORE, HOW CAN WE EXPECT HIM TO UNDERSTAND THEM NOW WITH THE NEW CHANGE ORDER, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT BEING ASSURED THAT THE FIRE WALLS WILL BE TOTALLY BUILT AND NOT HAVING THE CONTRACTOR COME BACK A MONTH OR SO FROM NOW STILL SAYING HE FEELS SOME WALLS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, AND WE STILL HAVE ONLY HALF OF THE FIRE WALLS BUILT. 01