4/12/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

whether Frizzell should provide that as part of their agreement with the county and why we have to take it a la carte and pay extra. Mr. Disney contended that cost will be offset by reduced construction costs because the electronics bidder will not be designing it and can offer you a package. The state of the art is constantly changing. Chairman Scurlock believed you cannot keep up totally with state of the art, but you can find something that will provide the function. He asked Lieut. Baird if all jails in the state have electronics problems. Lieut. Baird advised there are common problems, but it seems some follow certain contractors and subcontractors. He, therefore, believed we don't want those that try to put in the cheapest things they can find which can result in high maintenance costs. Chairman Scurlock felt if the architect is going to tell us he cannot do the specifications clearly enough to accomplish our purpose without going out and acquiring these services for $36,000, apparently we have no alternative. Mr. Disney stated the architect can provide updated specifi- cations, but they feet this alternative will do a better job during construction and cause Tess problems, and he will not have to come back to the Board and say the contractor impacted him and he needs additional payment. Commissioner Bird noted there is always the possibility Buford Goff could be responsible for some mistakes, and then we will just have another entity to point the finger at. Mr. Disney clarified that Buford Goff would be a consultant to Frizzell Architects. They carry liability insurance. The county attorney could file suit against Frizzell, and they would, in turn, go after Buford Goff to recoup the county's money. Administrator Balczun advised that they discussed this in the Jail Committee meeting, and the clear impression is that the APR 12 1988 42 BOOK .72 PACE 42