7/2/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 1 86 UL 9 BOOK 64 [A money, and Mr. Crosby answered that he could not say that the County specifically did that. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that Item #4 in the above letter suggests to him that some sort of collusion took place, and he wanted to get this cleared up, because this Commission has been absolutely open. He pointed out that the County even redid the specifications and rebid the job in order to receive more competitive bids, and that effort resulted in a savings to this County of approximately $850,000. He maintained that Item #4 suggests some concerted effort by either the County staff, the architect, or both, to rig this thing so that one supplier (Willo) would get the contract. He asked Mr. Crosby point blank if this was true. Mr. Crosby emphasized that he is not saying that the County deliberately went in collusion with anybody; he is just saying that possibly some innocent statements were made that might have been misconstrued. Chairman Scurlock repeated that this Commission is wide open and if we need to get a Grand Jury to investigate this matter, we want some names so that we can go over to the State Attorney's Office and do what has to be done. Mr. Crosby recalled that the cut-throat attitudes during the bidding process on Phase I were not in evidence during the bidding on the second phase of the Jail, which led him to believe that a lot of people thought that maybe Willo did have a locked -in situation. Commissioner Wodtke understood that even if the general contractor changed to a sub -contractor with a lower price, it would not save the County one dollar because the County would still have to pay the general contractor the amount in the contract, but Commissioner Scurlock understood that a sharing can be negotiated when allowing them to use a substitute. Mr. Crosby advised that the County was offered a credit back of $3400 if Dean Products was substituted, as they would be 70