Laserfiche WebLink
AUG 51981 <br />4 7 <br />WE 66 <br />THE <br />BOARD WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN <br />UNDUE EXPENSE AND <br />RAISE <br />DOUBTS <br />IN THEIR MINDS ABOUT THE CONTRACTOR. HE POINTED OUT THAT IF ALL THIS <br />COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE JOB TO BEGIN WITH, IT PROBABLY WOULD <br />HAVE COST LESS AND THEY COULD HAVE BEEN THROUGH BY NOW. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF SOME OF THIS RELATES TO FIRE- <br />WALL AREAS, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT IT DID. COMMISSIONER <br />WODTKE NOTED THAT THE CHANGE ORDER STATES "AT OWNERS REQUEST," AND <br />MR. KONTOULAS FELT THIS WILL ALL "COME OUT IN THE WASH." HE THEN TALKED <br />ABOUT THE PROBLEM REGARDING THE HARDWARE WHICH HAS EXISTED FROM THE <br />BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT. <br />SOME DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDINGA POSSIBLE DATE FOR MOVING <br />INTO THE ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT SOME MECHANICAL <br />PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN TO CAUSE FURTHER DELAY AND THAT IT COULD BE AS <br />MUCH AS ANOTHER THREE TO FIVE MONTHS. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER NO. 5F - COUNTY <br />ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,954.70, WITH THE NORMAL <br />STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING THE CHANGE ORDER THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE <br />ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHI- <br />TECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. <br />