My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/2/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
7/2/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:31:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/02/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
J U L 21991 <br />DATE: JUNE 28, 1991 <br />TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER <br />COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR <br />FROM: TERRANCE G. PI O <br />DIRECTOR OF UT <br />SUBJECT: <br />SUBJECT: 82ND AVENUE <br />boor 83 Fact 77 <br />Background: <br />In November of 1990, the Utilities Department had proposed a change <br />order to an existing contract for the extension of a sewer force <br />main from the West County Wastewater Treatment Plant to the landfill <br />and the state correctional institute. The change order for $174,971 <br />and $26,000 for fittings represented approximately 16,300 feet of <br />sewer pipe. <br />The change order was not approved, and the project was redesigned <br />and placed out for bid with the following result: After removal of <br />any engineering responsibility for the contractor and tightening of <br />the specifications, the unit price was reduced from $8.50 to ".Jr* <br />per ft. Because the correctional institute is now not interested in <br />connection to the sewer line, we eliminated approximately 6,000 ft. <br />of line. The Public Works Department agreed to an open cut access <br />to the road, which amounted to a $6,300 reduction for eliminating a <br />jack and bore. <br />After adding back into the project engineering, administration, and <br />surveying, the total project was reduced approximately $100,000, <br />with a true savings of approximately $39,000. <br />The bid price, as indicated in the agenda item, shows total prices <br />ranging from $86,000 to $180,000, which indicates that the final <br />results of any bid are hard to call. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that he has some serious prob- <br />lems with this particular item. It came before the Board <br />previously on last November and was withdrawn at his request in <br />that he had a strong feeling that extension of unit prices is <br />something that should be done very cautiously. In addition to <br />everything else, the unit price was approximately a year old, and <br />since there has been a down grade of the economy, he felt there <br />could be some substantial savings. At that time, he accordingly <br />called around for verbal quotes and was led to believe there <br />would be as much as a $2.00 per lineal foot savings from the <br />price requested to be extended. <br />Commissioner Scurlock further advised that he has some <br />backup material which he agrees with to some extent, but it shows <br />a $39,000 savings and he feels that actually the savings is far <br />beyond that. The original contract before any modifications was <br />$200,000. The bid we have now is $86,000, and that is $100,000 <br />some odd dollars difference. It should be noted that the scope <br />of service has been changed - pipe that was to be extended to the <br />correctional facility is omitted, etc., but the fact of the <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.