My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/13/1986 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
8/13/1986 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:03 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:49:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/13/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
E I <br />Larry Lattimer and Joy Matthews.of Dean Products (Southern <br />Steel) advised that there would not be a problem with equipment <br />or interfacing if the change in sub subcontractors took place. <br />Ms. Matthews reported that a member of the team did a site <br />inspection of Phase I, and assured the Board that the exact <br />equipment will be provided on Phase II. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Lattimer if they went to any <br />other source to prepare their bid, and Mr. Lattimer advised that <br />Dean Products prepared their bid inhouse. <br />Mr. Neil Schopke concluded the General Contractor's request <br />by urging the Board to allow the substitution. <br />Warren Speakman of ESI presented his reasons for remaining <br />on the job as the detention electronics sub subcontractor for <br />Phase II as well as Phase 1, and apologized to Mr. Crosby for his <br />offensive language over the telephone. However, he felt that in <br />every other way he has been cooperative in an effort to give the <br />County what they purchased in Phase I, and believed his company <br />is capable of doing a good job on Phase 11 as well. Mr. Speakman <br />admitted that he did give a verbal quote of $165,000 before the <br />July 2nd meeting to both Dean Products and Willo Products, but <br />stated he would abide by the the Commission's decision, and <br />emphasized that he is not asking to be relieved of this job, <br />because he felt the terms of the document could be worked -out. <br />Mr. Crosby advised that if the Commission did not allow the <br />General Contractor to change sub subcontractors, Neil Schopke has <br />advised that he would not honor his contract because they would <br />have a sub subcontractor who they feel would be running the show <br />Ray Stroud, Patrick Carroll and Ben DiPalma of Frizzell <br />Architects, presented their arguments for remaining with ESI. <br />Their recommendation to keep the same firm for both Phase I and <br />Phase 11 is mainly so that both phases would have the same <br />equipment. They realize, however, that the General Contractor <br />has the right to request a change, but ultimately, it is the <br />Board's decision. <br />53 <br />BOOS <br />i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.