Laserfiche WebLink
not have anything against Schopke and would be pleased to work <br />with them on this job. He noted that he made a number of calls <br />to reconcile this matter, but was unsuccessful. <br />The Board considered breaking for lunch while Mr. Crosby and <br />Mr. Barnes discussed their differences, but Mr. Crosby pointed <br />out that both firms would use Electronic Systems, Inc. in their <br />detention system, so there would be no problem with interfacing <br />the electronic equipment. He reiterated that Southern Steel is <br />on the approved list, but admitted that the County needs to see <br />proof that Dean Products is synonymous with Southern Steel. <br />A Motion by Commissioner Lyons to award the contract to <br />Schopke as bid without the insertion of Dean Products as the <br />detention subcontractor with the understanding that any change <br />would be negotiated with the architect and brought back to the <br />Board failed for lack of a second. <br />Attorney Vitunac felt that it is up to the architect to <br />prove why he does not want the substitution of Southern Steel. <br />Mr. DiPalma continued to argue at great length that we must <br />stick with the specification documents and that Schopke bid Willo <br />as the detention subcontractor. <br />Chairman Scurlock preferred letting the substitution take <br />place because he did not feel that compatibility of the equipment <br />was a problem, but felt the change would depend on ascertaining <br />that Dean Products is a subsidiary of Southern Steel which is on <br />the approved list, and that a performance bond will be posted. <br />Mr. Barnes stated that Willo would be glad to offer a <br />performance bond. <br />Commissioner Wodtke felt that it was important to get this <br />project moving. <br />75 <br />J U L 2 1966 <br />BOOK 64 F,.Gr 9-015 <br />