6/13/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the joint recommendations set out in the above memo. JAIL - PHASE II ELECTRONICS Administrator Chandler reviewed the following: BACKGROUND: In March 1988 Indian River County entered into a contract with W. R. Frizzell Architects to design Phase III of the Indian River County Jail, and to subcontract with Buford Goff and Associates to design the electronics for Phase III. Goff is to also "provide interface points to existing security system installed in phase two", at a total cost of $32,220. This contract does not includer any work on Phase II electronics as they existed then, or now. At this time, all the Contractor's work in Phase II was under warranty. Since completion of the project (Phase II), the electronics have not performed up to standards. In December 1988, this writer informed the County Attorney of the problems and "strongly recommended that you officially put Schopke on notice that we are going to start litigation and notify their bonding company". Mr. Vitunac brought this to the Board and they authorized to take whatever legal action was necessary to resolve the problems and proceed with notification of the bonding company as per the original contract. After a sincere attempt to get the problems resolved with Schopke Construction Company, which failed, the County Attorney's Office notified Frizzell to proceed as per the contract by giving Schopke notice of action against his bonding company. The procedure requires: 1. Notify the Contractor that the owner has exercised his rights under the contract to make corrections to the work and that the Contractor is responsible for all cost incurred by the Owner in making referenced repairs. 2. The Contractor be notified that he nor his Subcontractors will be allowed access to the jail to make any further repairs. (Limited only to the electronic controls). 3. Notify the Bonding Company of the action taken. The bonding company (The Hartford) has responded to this action. 65 Boo C ' z DATE: JUNE 7,-1989 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER r COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR C:f DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - PHASE II ELECTRONICS BACKGROUND: In March 1988 Indian River County entered into a contract with W. R. Frizzell Architects to design Phase III of the Indian River County Jail, and to subcontract with Buford Goff and Associates to design the electronics for Phase III. Goff is to also "provide interface points to existing security system installed in phase two", at a total cost of $32,220. This contract does not includer any work on Phase II electronics as they existed then, or now. At this time, all the Contractor's work in Phase II was under warranty. Since completion of the project (Phase II), the electronics have not performed up to standards. In December 1988, this writer informed the County Attorney of the problems and "strongly recommended that you officially put Schopke on notice that we are going to start litigation and notify their bonding company". Mr. Vitunac brought this to the Board and they authorized to take whatever legal action was necessary to resolve the problems and proceed with notification of the bonding company as per the original contract. After a sincere attempt to get the problems resolved with Schopke Construction Company, which failed, the County Attorney's Office notified Frizzell to proceed as per the contract by giving Schopke notice of action against his bonding company. The procedure requires: 1. Notify the Contractor that the owner has exercised his rights under the contract to make corrections to the work and that the Contractor is responsible for all cost incurred by the Owner in making referenced repairs. 2. The Contractor be notified that he nor his Subcontractors will be allowed access to the jail to make any further repairs. (Limited only to the electronic controls). 3. Notify the Bonding Company of the action taken. The bonding company (The Hartford) has responded to this action. 65 Boo C