My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/2/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
7/2/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:02 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:35:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/02/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
80
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
JUL <br />This writer, having been the- one -responsible person- <br />for <br />erson-for Schopke Construction's bid was quite surprised on bid <br />day (May 20, 1986) to hear rumors that regardless of who <br />was listed on the list of subcontractors, that the County <br />was going to use Willo Products. <br />This rumor has since appeared to have some credibility <br />since: <br />1) Scope Sheets were received by the G.C. from three <br />different..Detention Subcontractors. However, only one <br />(Willo) quoted. <br />2) Upon.asking the other two subcontractors why they <br />did not quote, one replied that he did not want to <br />waste his time and money since a party in the Archi- <br />tect's office informed him that only Willo was going <br />to be approved. <br />3) This writer has also heard secondhand that the <br />desired Detention Control Subcontractor was told that <br />any monies he lost on Phase I could be made up in <br />Phase II. <br />4) Never in all my days of construction have I seen <br />an Architect and Owner so determined to stick with a <br />given subcontractor. This determination of the Archi- <br />tect and Owner is carried over and reflected in Willo's <br />uncooperative attitude and inflated price (approximately <br />$54,000 over the other two subs). <br />Therefore Mr. Dean, all we want is the chance to prove <br />our ability as a General Contractor using those subcontrac- <br />tors that have priced this project fairly and without con- <br />sideration for any possible previous deals struck. <br />We sincerely hope this problem can be cleared up with- <br />out involving alot of research and investigation into what <br />we believe is an unfair and illegal situation. <br />We have as General Contractor offered the County a <br />lower and fairly priced cost for construction. We admit <br />to sticking our necks out to some degree in an effort to <br />take advantage of a competitive market. This is not tal <br />be confused with bid shopping, since I never approached l J <br />any sub about lowering their price until it was suggest�d, <br />in your presence, by Mr. DiPalma at our meeting on Wed- <br />nesday, June 25, 1986. <br />Sincerely,. <br />Victor Cros y <br />Project Manager I <br />VC/js <br />cc: Mr. Ben DiPalma, W.R. Frizzell Architects <br />Mr. George Maxwell, Attorney -at -Law <br />Mr. Earl Spencer, Hartford Insurance <br />65 <br />2 1986 BOOK 64 F,�UE 895 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.