7/14/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J U L 14 1993 =ter st PW to trial. He then asked Attorney Young to give the Board a breakdown of some of the specific items. Attorney Young concurred with Attorney Brandenburg's recommendation and felt very strongly that what Attorney Brandenburg has reported represents a settlement of only those hard dollars which they felt at the outset represented the sole responsibility of the county in a worst case situation. He also confirmed that if we did try the case, a great deal of money would have to be expended not only on his fees, but also on expert witness fees. Mr. Young then gave the Board a brief breakdown of how they arrived at this settlement, stating that they tried to take issues that were separate and distinct from the professional fees which were part of the claim by the architects, and"work out a settlement regarding those separately. The contractor had a claim for some $72,000 for additional firewall construction within the Administration Building, which he took the position was not adequately detailed on the construction drawings and in the bid documents. Our position from the very beginning was that we had responsibility only for those hard dollar costs involved with the actual installation of the wallboard that was fire rated, not the work done on the ceilings, in the electrical mechanical area, and the painting area, which almost doubled the amount of that claim. Of that original $72,000 claim, somewhere around $30,000 was plugged into the settlement for that particular item. Mr. Young continued that the contractor also took the position that his firm was not required to paint a number of finishes which were described on the contract documents as being "existing finishes." The claim on this element alone was $41,000, and since the attorneys believed there was a considerable dispute as to whether this item was or was not E W W W