8/13/1986 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A U G 13 196 BOOK 65 FA,F. 16 Attorney Vitunac pointed out that Schopke is under contract with the County, and the county has the right to approve substitute subcontractors or sub subcontractors; however, Schopke's contract with Dean Products or ESI is another matter. After almost two hours of allegations and counter allegations by the representatives of the firms involved, the Commissioners clearly indicated their annoyance at being asked to referee the differences between the general contractor, architect, subcontractors and sub subcontractors, and felt that it should be up to the the architect and the general contractor to resolve these problems. Chairman Scurlock did not particularly care who does the job and was only concerned that qualified people are on the job, that compatible "quipment is being used, and that the job is done in a timely fashion. Commissioner Wodtke could not see how we were ever going to get a jail built unless these people can get along together, and asked Mr. Stroud what difference it would make to the County who installs the equipment as long as it was compatible equipment, and Mr. Stroud stated that it would not make any difference if the same equipment was used and was wired the same. Patrick Carroll, President of Frizzell Architects, saw no reason to change their recommendation after what he has heard this morning, but was very upset at the allegations. Commissioner Wodtke stated he would make a Motion on the basis that the architect has said that if all the equipment is compatible, it would not make any difference who installs it. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board allow the General Contractor, Schopke Construction Company, to substitute a firm, which is either on the approved list or acceptable to be added to the approved list, to install the detention electronics on Phase (l of the Jail. 54