My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/16/1983
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1983
>
11/16/1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:02 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 3:43:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/16/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
175
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
NOVI 1933 <br />. V5 PAGE2,59 <br />Z. The required engineering services could be put out for bid with the following <br />disadvantages: <br />a. A new firm will be unfamiliar with the landfill site and will have to <br />perform an extensive amount of work that has already been completed. <br />b. Submittal of an application will be delayed for a period of time that <br />may not be acceptable to DER. <br />RECONINENTDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Agreement Addendums for the professional services of <br />Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., be approved and that the Board authorize <br />the Chairman to sign the Addendums on the County's behalf. <br />Utilities Director Pinto presented staff's <br />recommendation. <br />Commissioner Scurlock questioned continuing long term <br />relations with firms without having some type of <br />renegotiation. He was., not questioning the firm's <br />performance, but felt we should take advantage of the <br />competitive market. <br />Administrator Wright agreed, but felt that in this <br />particular case, it would be best to continue with the <br />present firm. <br />Director Pinto explained that the firm had done a <br />considerable amount of work on the original permit <br />application with the Port St. Lucie office. However, when <br />it came time to work with the Orlando office, we had to <br />start all over again. If we were to switch consultants at <br />this time, much of the work would have to be redone and we <br />would end up paying twice for the same job, and he felt -that <br />it would be best to retain these consultants. Mr. Pinto <br />reported that they had negotiated the terms of the agreement <br />to a point of where they have agreed on a not to exceed <br />amount, which is basically, $50,000 for the two Specific <br />Service Agreements. <br />Mr. William Simpson of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, <br />Inc., pointed out that this particular contract did not <br />include a markup on the hydrogeological survey. They put <br />71 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.