10/6/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OCT 6 F. BOOK 69 FACE 630 Mr. Dean noted that basically this is to advise that Phase 11, as of October 5th, is 90 days beyond the anticipated completion date, and it appears we are talking somewhere around the last of October before asking the D.O.C. for inspection for completion. The jail is approximately 90% complete, the only thing left being the electronics, and the architect, the jail people and he, would recommend Alternative #3. Commissioner Eggert believed the sub -contractor that was going to do the electronics was a subject of some debate prior to the beginning of this, and she wondered why there has been a problem in both phases. Mr. Dean advised we have two different sub -contractors on Detention Electronics in the two phases. He confirmed that Detention Electronics has caused the delay in the opening of both phases, and in checking around, it appears others have had the same experience. He did not know what their problem was. Commissioner Bird asked if, in this case where because of their not having the facility finished by the completion date, we have an overcrowded situation which possibly can cost us tremendous additional expense, we can go against the contractor to recoup some of that expense above and beyond the per diem penalty. Attorney Barkett advised that generally speaking you cannot. In contract law you do learn of some spectacularly abnormal cases, but the whole purpose of liquidated damages is that both parties give up the right to go to court to seek excess amounts. He noted that we can certainly review the contract, however, to see if there is any recourse. Commissioner Bird felt possibly there is a lesson to be Learned here; we never envisioned being at this point, but he did -_ not feel we have any choice at this time but to accept Alterna- tive #3 and instruct the Attorneys to review the contract in regard to the possibility of recouping additional damages as discussed. 52 10