My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/17/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
2/17/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:17 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:44:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/17/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
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
FEBr- -1 <br />V; BOOK b 0 F.u-, 359 <br />REDUCE RETAINAGE ON PHASE I OF JAIL <br />OMB Director Baird reviewed the following memo: <br />TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: February 16, 1987 <br />Commissioners <br />THROUGH: Sonny Dean,ector <br />General SerAc <br />s <br />FROM: Josep A. Baird <br />OMB Director <br />SUBJECT: Reduce R.S.H. <br />Constructors <br />Retainage on <br />Phase I of Jail <br />Indian River County has received requests for payment on <br />Phase I of the Jail from Rinker ($13,219.45), Electronic Systems <br />($4,328.42) and R.S.H. Constructors ($24,589.00). In order to <br />pay these requests the County will have to reduce R.S.H. Con- <br />structors retainage balance. Currently, R.S.H. Constructors <br />contract is $3,776,223.00 and the County is holding a retain- <br />age of $206,710. <br />Sonny Dean, project manager for Phase I of the Jail has <br />reviewed the requests and feels the retainage can be reduced <br />by $42,136.87 since the project is substantially complete. <br />Director Baird explained that the invoice was to the County <br />in order to save on sales tax. <br />Chairman Scurlock commented that it seems there are a few <br />items where the architect is going to go back and negotiate with <br />the contractor. One of these was the sound system in regard to <br />some feedback and control switches. The Chairman wished to be <br />sure by approving this payment we are not putting the architect <br />at a disadvantage in negotiating. <br />General Services Director Dean stated that is not covered in <br />this, and the problem is that it has not been defined as to who <br />is responsible - one is pointing at the other. He did not know <br />of any outstanding problems the architect has indicated to the <br />contractor. There is an outstanding change order that will <br />involve about $7,000, but we have sufficient retainage to cover <br />this. <br />Commissioner Bird asked if we have background from R.S.H. <br />Constructors that these amounts are due and payable, and Director <br />Dean explained that the procedure since the beginning of the <br />70 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.