Laserfiche WebLink
$545 for relocation costs and on August 8th the architect <br />accepted their relocation by letter, with a copy to the county. <br />On August 21st, they met on site with the site representative who <br />agreed with the trailer relocation; the architect sent out Change <br />Order #4, in regard to these costs, among other things, which was <br />approved by the Board on September 16th, but not signed by the <br />Chairman because it had not been signed by the contractor first. <br />However, on this change order the costs for the trailer <br />relocation ($545) had been zeroed out, and, therefore, they sent <br />the Change Order back to the architect for correction. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that the item went to zero because <br />the Board did not approve that item. <br />Mr. Shimp continued to review in great detail the confusion <br />involved with Change Orders #4, #5, and #6 which were sent back <br />and forth over a period of 81 months, all relating in some part <br />to the $545 cost of relocation of the trailer, which cost the <br />Board continued to delete. He stated that they are appealing to <br />the Board to approve what is clearly due RSH. They placed the <br />trailer in a place that was for the convenience of the user and <br />did not interfere with any construction activity involved in <br />their work. It did interfere with something outside the scope of <br />their work. <br />Mr. Shimp then addressed the Chairman's objection to the <br />last paragraph in his letter, which stated that there would be an <br />additional $600 charge if they were required to appear before the <br />Board to defend this item. He believed the Chairman stated that <br />the Board did not demand that anyone attend, and he agreed that <br />is correct. Mr. Shimp believed if the Board will reconsider the <br />relocation cost he is appealing, they will approve it, but in the <br />event the Board does not, he requested that the exact term and <br />article they are using to reject the item be made known. As to <br />the Chairman's objection to their contacting the County's <br />auditors, Mr. Shimp stated that RSH did not contact them; the <br />MAR <br />. I9�� 57 <br />BOOK 67 FvI F 51 <br />