Laserfiche WebLink
Stroud explained that while the the systems will work together <br />and the _doors will open, some of the parts in those doors are not <br />the same and this might mean a cost of $5,000-$7,000 to stock <br />additional parts for the total job. He felt that the Board <br />should keep in mind that if something goes wrong with a.door, you <br />can't go to just one source. <br />Commissioner Lyons understood that if the Board should <br />decide that we find our situation with this contractor untenable <br />and were to go to the second highest bidder, we would be Looking <br />at a different make of door hardware and some $10,000 in <br />additional parts plus an additional $7,500 contract price. <br />The Chairman called for a recess to allow County Attorney <br />Vitunac time to research the County's options in this matter. <br />After the meeting was called back to order, Attorney Vitunac <br />advised that the County has the following three options: <br />1) Contract with Schopke without Wi-llo and allow him to <br />substitute a different contractor with different parts; or <br />2) Contract with Schopke only if he uses Willo, or; <br />3) Rebid the job with different specifications, and perhaps <br />specifying Willo or specifying something a Kittle tighter. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked on what basis we could reject <br />Schopke's bid, and Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board could <br />reject the bid if they decide after hearing this information that <br />they do want compatibility all the way through because of the <br />life and maintenance problems that might occur otherwise. <br />Mr. Crosby stated that if the Board does not allow him to <br />change subcontractors, they would be taking away a right of the <br />general contractor as set out in the August, 1976 edition of the <br />AIA Document A201, Paragraph 5.2.2, which states: "The <br />Contractor shall not contract with any such proposed person or <br />entity to whom the Owner, or the Architect, has made reasonable <br />objection under the provisions of Paragraph 5.2.1, and further <br />the Contractor shall not be required to contract with anyone that <br />he has any reasonable objection." Mr. Crosby stressed that his <br />73 <br />BOOK 64 PAGE. 903 <br />