Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 2 5 1984 <br />mox 55P,^:v,903 <br />of the proposed project starting with Carter and <br />Associates, and if a suitable fee cannot <br />be reached, to negotiate with Sippel & Masteller <br />Associates, and then with Lloyd & Associates, if <br />agreement cannot be reached with the number two <br />firm, as recommended by Utilities Director Pinto. <br />Under discussion, Administrator Wright advised that <br />Attorney Brandenburg, Utilities Director Pinto, and OMB <br />Director Barton will negotiate a price and bring it back to <br />the Board for acceptance. <br />Attorney Brandenburg explained the negotiation process. <br />Negotiations are begun with the top ranked firm. If we are <br />unable to reach a suitable arrangement, we break off <br />negotiations with them, and proceed with the second ranked <br />firm, and then, if necessary, negotiate with the <br />third -ranked firm. We cannot negotiate simultaneously with <br />all three firms. In addition, once we have broken off <br />negotiations with a firm, we cannot go back and renegotiate <br />with that firm. A committee was set up by the County <br />Commission to review the submittals of all the engineers and <br />come up with what is called a "short list" out of the 12 or <br />14 submittals that were received. The law requires that we <br />must hear public presentations of at least three firms. <br />After.a short list of four firms was completed, Beindorf & <br />Associates decided they had too much work pending and <br />withdrew their submittal. After the three presentations <br />were heard, the committee voted to rank them according to <br />their capabilities, as shown in the above memo. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />The Motion was voted on and carried <br />unanimously, (4-0). <br />13 <br />