9/30/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

{ Mr. Thomas informed the Board that he had made a mistake. In the letter received from Carter Associates, there were a number of items, and on his worksheet, he inadvertently deleted all but the first three items; so, change order (No. 10) is correct and should be just for items 1, 2 and 3, or a total of $3,420. The Chairman had questions about how we selected Carter Associates instead of CCL, and Mr. Thomas explained one of the reasons he went with them is that it involved the drainage district, which he felt they were more familiar with, and the other reason was that he was completely dissatisfied with the engineer the architect furnished. He is handling this by a direct change order to the contractor, and we will let out the bid because if he had gone back through the architect, he would have added his fee on to it. Chairman Scurlock wished to know if the architect has signed off and said CCL is out and Carter is in as he did not want them arguing about who is on the job, and Mr. Thomas confirmed that the architect has agreed orally and said that they will write a letter of confirmation. He noted that the bridge design was not in the scope of work of CCL anyway.. Board members wished to be sure we are covered on this, and Mr. Thomas advised that he did go to Assistant County Attorney Barkett and asked if he was in the clear in the manner he was handling this, and Attorney Barkett said as long as it was a change order, he was in the clear. Attorney Vitunac noted that, in other words, this is something that wasn't even in the specs for the first engineering. It is like a brand new project. It was explained that the engineer will work for Guettler, and Guettler will get a subcontractor to build the bridges; we are initiating a change order because we left the bridges out. Public Works Director Davis clarified that we are expanding the scope of work for the actual contractor who is building the 45 SEP 3 0 1986 BOOK 65 F;{ L W