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
saving approximately $8,000 and $5,000 of that is going into a <br />performance bond by Dean, which will give the County additional <br />assurance that this subcontractor will complete. He pointed out <br />that Willo's proposal specifically states "ho bond." <br />Administrator Thomas asked Mr. Crosby about his use of the <br />word "synonymous" when referring to Dean Products and Southern <br />Steel, and Mr. Crosby explained that the contract can be made out <br />to either one, Dean Products or Southern Steel. He agreed that <br />the County should have proof of that. <br />Ray Stroud of Frizzell Architects stated that Dean Products <br />is not on the approved list, but Southern Steel is. He wished to <br />state that at.no time did he say to anyone, including Norman <br />Dean, that Will,o had a lock on this job. However, when you are <br />bidding a job where there is already a portion under construction <br />and you are adding to it, especially in the detention area, the <br />subcontractor on the first phase does have an advantage, and he <br />could have said to someone, "Yes, it would be nice to have him, <br />but we have competitive bids." Frizzell felt there were <br />advantages to having Willo on this job because we would not have <br />to stock two sets of parts. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if the architect had drawn up the <br />specifications in such a way that it would be the same common <br />parts, and Mr. Stroud said they had not, because in competitive <br />bidding, you have to allow people to bid their own comparable <br />equipment. Southern Steel and Willo do not have comparable <br />equipment in the operation of some of their doors. If we have to <br />go to a different subcontractor for Phase Il, it is very possible <br />that we would have to stock items for that hardware in addition <br />to the items that we are already stocking for Phase I; however, <br />that would depend on what subcontractor was used. He stressed <br />that the approved subcontractors' list is to prevent bid <br />shopping, and the day after the general contractor's bid was <br />awarded, Willo phoned asking who was listed for the detention <br />work, and he told them that they were and that we would be using <br />�si <br />71 <br />BOOK 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.