1/20/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and the county is in contract in that it specifically says the civil engineering is reimbursable to the architect. The idea and the negotiation was that County Engineering was going to do this work, but months went by and with their backlog, there were no people to do the work; so, he went to Administrator Wright and said he was stopped dead, and since CCL was already on the golf course and knew the layout of the drainage, etc., the Adminis- trator told him to use CCL. Architect Block emphasized that the county is in contract with CCL through him. Chairman Scurlock commented that he is just looking at how CCL became involved without a request for proposals, and he felt that just putting this under a sub -contract and having it reim- bursable to the architect is a way of circumventing advertising and going through the selection process. Architect Block did not know if that process is right or wrong, but confirmed that is how it got done. Chairman Scurlock asked if Architect Block had authorization in writing to move the building, and Mr. Block noted that the bill for that move has not been presented to the Board. The bill being considered at this time is for the original location of the building. He further noted that the clearing was part of the original contract, and Guettler cleared a different area; so, rather than having to eliminate trees from another area, the site was moved about 1001. The Chairman continued to try to determine who specifically authorized moving the building, and Mr. Block stressed that he did not authorize it; there was a lot of input as to putting the maintenance building in a different location, and it was a joint effort by staff. The Chairman believed the point is that there are too many leaders involved. There is a formal process that is to be followed through the chief executive of the County, and any changes should be authorized in writing. This has not happened on 19 JAN d r BOOK 1