7/2/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J U L 2 1966 BOOK 64 F,a 904 objection to Willo has been a total lack of cooperation since day one. Ben DiPalma, Project Supervisor for Frizzell Architects explained that he denied Mr. Crosby's request to change the subcontractor from Willo to Dean Products because that name did not appear on the list of approved subcontractors. To this day he has not seen any proof that Dean Products is Southern Steel. He had been pleased also to see the job go to Willo, because the compatibility is very important. He stressed that his reason for refusal was for sticking to specifications. Commissioner Wodtke felt that we must have a general contractor and subcontractors who can go out and build this project and get along with each other. Mr. DiPalma stated that they have no objections to using Dean Products if the Board so chooses, but he did object to the alleged misinformation that he has heard this morning. Commiss`-- _ ,:,-ran felt that the architect could have avoided this whole thing if he had written into the specifications that the detention electronics must be thus and so, but in defense of the architect, Mr. Crosby pointed out that Frizzell has done everything reasonably possible to keep the bid open so that the County would receive the best price. He noted that he has seen what can happen when a subcontractor thinks he has an "in", and shuddered to think what that price would have been if only one supplier was listed. Attorney Vitunac asked Mr. Crosby point blank whether Schopke would continue the contract if Willo was kept as the detention subcontractor, and Mr. Crosby said they would not because the County would be taking away a right.granted in the contract. He stressed that if Schopke had received any cooperation from Willo, they would not be here today. Commissioner Lyons asked Jim Barnes of Willo Products if Mr. Crosby's claim that Willo was holding him up was true, and Mr. Barnes answered that he did not think so. He stated that they do 74