My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/2/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
9/2/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:18 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/02/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
IN ORDER TO KEEP THINGS MOVING, A WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED TO THE <br />CONTRACTOR TO DO THIS ON A TIME AND MATERIAL BASIS TO BE CHECKED <br />OUT DAILY By OUR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PEPRESENTATIVE. THE ITEMS <br />INVOLVED ARE NECESSARY FOR THE MECHANICAL FUNCTIONING OF THE <br />BUILDING AND THE COST WILL BE EITHER IN ARBITRATION OR <br />LITIGATION; S0, IT IS NOT A SET AMOUNT, <br />MR. SNODGRASS COMMENTED RE THE POSSIBILITY OF ARBITRATION, <br />THAT THEY HAVE THREE ORDERS, AND ONE IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION, <br />BUT TWO OF THESE WERE TO DO SOMETHING ON A TIME AND MATERIAL <br />BASIS, AND IT IS THEIR ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WILL BE PAID FOR <br />THIS WORK, <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK QUESTIONED HOW THESE DECISIONS ARE <br />BEING MADE WITHOUT COMING BEFORE THE BOARD, AND ADMINISTRATOR <br />NELSON STATED THAT PROCEEDING ON A TIME AND MATERIALS BASIS IS <br />AUTHORIZED IN THE CONTRACT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO COME BEFORE <br />THE BOARD; THE ONLY THING THEY CAN'T AGREE ON IS WHETHER OR NOT <br />THIS WORK IS INCLUDED IN THE BID PACKAGE. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO POSSIBLE COST, AND MR. KONTOULAS <br />STATED THAT WE HAD ONE ESTIMATE OF ABOUT $94,000, AND IT HAS <br />BEEN NEGOTIATED DOWN TO AROUND $67,000 AT THIS TIME. HE <br />MONITORS THIS COST PLUS WORK EVERY DAY VISUALLY AND ALTHOUGH HE <br />STILL FELT SOME OF THE PRICES ARE TOO HIGH,HE NOTED THAT <br />WE MUST PROCEED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO OCCUPY THE BUILDING. <br />FURTHER DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO WHOSE ORIGINAL RE- <br />SPONSIBILITY IT WAS TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR THESE MECHANICAL <br />REPAIRS, AND AS TO THE BOARDS CONTINUING FEELING THAT THEY <br />DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION OR BACKGROUND AND THEY NEED <br />MORE ANSWERS. <br />THE CHAIRMAN REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD RETURN TO THE <br />CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDER #66. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVFD CHANGE ORDER #66, <br />COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WITH THE NORM %L STIPULATION THAT BY APPROVING <br />THE CHANGE ORDER THE COUNTY DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS IT HAS TO CLAIM <br />DAMAGES AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR OR THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS <br />OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY ARISE. <br />27 Booz 47 PAGE 364 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.