My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/9/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
6/9/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:18 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:38:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/09/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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
Fr— <br />JUN 9 1987 <br />BOOK l68 PACE 493 <br />with the bid as required in the Bid specifications and the bid <br />did not meet the specifications. <br />The other bid was submitted by Paragon Electric of Vero Beach <br />in the amount of $24,750.00. The 5% Bid Bond was included. <br />The recommendation is to award to Paragon Electric per the <br />attached memo from Lynn Williams. <br />Background <br />The transformer in the Administration Building is no longer <br />manufactured and is at least 25 years old. Also, it is possibly <br />part of the problem with the power outages and computer problems <br />in DP. <br />Source of Funds <br />Funds are budgeted in Account #001-220-519-066.39• <br />Bid Data <br />The Transformer Replacement Bid was advertised on May 4, 11, 18, 1987• <br />Bids were received Wednesday, May 27, 1987 at 2 P.M. 2 Bids were <br />received. <br />TO: Carolyn Goodrich, DATE: May 28, 1987 FILE: <br />Purchasing Manager <br />CFR:OM4' i'� <br />intendent, <br />Buildings & Grounds <br />- <br />SUBJECT: Transformer Replacement Bid <br />REFERENCES: <br />After review of the two bids received for the Administration Building <br />Transformer replacement project I recommend that the project bid be awarded <br />to Paragon Electric, with the following justification: <br />1) Paragon is the only bidder providing the required bid bond of 5%. <br />-- 2) Review of the Bids show that B&W requires others to make all <br />secondary connections. This does not meet the specifications, as <br />the project is "turn -key" with all connections to the existing <br />buss -bar to be made by the contractor. <br />3) Although B&W is considerably lower in their bid they did not <br />review or discuss the specifications design or requirements for <br />coordination with myself or the Engineer. Due to the difficult <br />nature of this project and the potential for problems, I feel <br />this is`crucial. <br />4) Paragon spent several hours of time evaluating and planning the <br />sequence of the project in order to reduce the possibility of <br />problems. In fact, an addendm to the specifications was <br />generated due to Paragon's discussions with the Engineer. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.