11/24/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOV 241" 198 nn p BOOK �U F'A.GF. 180 Chairman Scurlock had some concerns about the proposed contract and the way it is structured. There is.a reference made to a percentage, but in looking through the contract, he sees line items but not a percentage relating to construction cost. There is reference to $200,000 as the construction estimate, but does that mean if the construction cost turns out to be $500,000, the total fee still will be $16,860? Public Works Director Davis advised that it is a fixed fee not -to -exceed cost; however, if the final cost is half a million, then the scope of work is not as staff has written it. Staff was given specific instruction not to have a half million dollar project; they were told that the Board wanted a very simple, basic facility, and that is how they prepared the scope of the contract. Question arose as to the judges, etc., wanting a different type facility, and Director Davis advised that their plan is to prepare a questionnaire which they will distribute to all the Judges, Public Defender, State's Attorney, etc., so they have an opportunity to give some input as to their feelings about the courtroom. Commissioner Eggert commented that she is always super cautious on hourly fees, i.e., whether the $78 per hour man does the work or the $28 per hour man, and per hour rates are what is set out for "additional services." Director Davis believed on all our contracts that is the way additional services are handled. Discussion continued, and Chairman Scurlock asked why we reference the $200,000 cost at all and not just have a flat fee that is not related to the $200,000. Director Davis agreed that reference could be deleted, but noted that if you don't include some kind of a scope and some kind of an estimate, the architect will have a free hand. He stressed that in our negotiations, it was made very plain to the architect that what was wanted was a very simple fifth courtroom. 38