8/1/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ivey were trying to play some game, he would have recomputed his figures so that he was still the low bidder. Discussion continued at length regarding the Board's options re forfeiture of the bond, etc., as well as the possibility that Mr. Ivey could go to court. Mr. Ivey stated that he personally felt the County hadn't been hurt because if he hadn't turned in his bid, the County would have had to redesign and rebid the whole project in any event because all the bids were substantially higher than the estimate, but Commissioner Eggert pointed out that Mr. Ivey's original bid falls within the architect's estimated cost of construction. Commissioner Bird noted that Mr. Ivey's new bid, which he claims is what the figure should have been, is in the middle of the other bids, all of which are from reliable companies and all of which are considerably over budget It, therefore, is his inclination to tell the architect that he has missed his mark in the design of the building with the result that we ended up with a cadillac when we had ordered a buick, and possibly we should have him redesign the building so it would come in under budget. His concern would be about incurring any future architectural fees for redesign, and he asked how the architect felt about this. William Bibo of Stottler, Stagg 8 Assoc. stated that the architect feels they have brought the proper bid to the county irregardless of the "no -name" sheet which Mr. Ivey just presented, and he felt it is interesting that sheet shows the building permit was based on $1,000,000, not $1,800,000. Mr. Bibo believed they would require additional funds to redesign. Administrator Chandler informed the Board that we have a fixed cost contract with Stottler, Stagg, and the fixed cost specified is 1.3 million. It spells out that if all the bids are in excess of that fixed cost and we reject, then the architect will redesign at no expense to the county. Conversely, if we PilOK 77 `gI 501 AUP, 1989 59