1/2/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F_ JAN BOOK Recognizing the cost differential between contracting with a firm versus an individual, I am of the opinion that value of retaining a firm exceeds the cost differential. Considering that the four projects will be in progress at the same time, I believe the total resources of Proctor Construction can more effectively manage the projects. They are in a better position to deal with the time demands of scheduling, inspections, documentation, etc. As such, they are also in abetter position to anticipate and minimize problems normally associated with projects of this nature, which could otherwise result in increased construction expense in the form of change orders. It is my recommendation that Commission approve Proctor Construction Company and authorize staff to prepare a final contract. Funding for the service will be provided each project account. Chairman Eggert asked what percentages of the cost would be allocated to each of the projects, especially for the two libraries where they have sweated blood over the budgets. Administrator Chandler advised that 39.8% would be charged to Phase III of the Jail; 24.4% to the Health Dept. Building; 24.5% to the Main Library; and 11.3% to the North Library. Commi ssi-one-r---B_ir-d-was-pI eased to see the recommendation was for a local contractor who has an excellent reputation. While he was sure this contractor will do a fine job for the County in looking after these projects, it still went a little bit against the grain, after paying an architect and a general contractor, to have to go pay a watchdog to see that we are getting what we are supposed to get. Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that Martin County hired a construction management firm for $420,000 for their new courthouse/administrative buildings and they shout up and down that they have saved more than they have spent by the lack of problems, better material, better bidding, etc. In fact, they feel they saved that much right up front. 42 1