Laserfiche WebLink
� � r <br />SOUTH COUNTY _R_O__ PLANT _ EXPANSION _(RETAINAGE _REDUCTION) <br />The Board reviewed memo from Director Pinto: <br />DATE: JUNE 12, 1991 <br />TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER <br />COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR <br />FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO <br />DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES <br />PREPARED WILLIAM F. MCC <br />AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJEC <br />TA&-l-Nee� <br />BY: DEPARTMENT OF UVILITY SERVICES <br />SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT EXPANSION <br />RETAINAGE REDUCTION <br />BACKGROUND <br />On May 17, 1991, Inscho—Kirlin (the South County contractor) <br />successfully reached substantial completion of the South County R.O. <br />Plant Expansion. Shortly after the contract reached the 50% <br />completion mark, and at the Engineer's (Camp Dresser & McKee) <br />recommendation (and per the contract documents), the Board of County <br />Commissioners reduced the required retainage from 10% to 5% of the <br />total contract price. (See attached agenda item with approved <br />minutes.) This action was approved by the Board on March 19, 1991. <br />Now that the contractor has reached substantial completion, the <br />contract documents allow for an additional retaining reduction from <br />5% to 2%. After a thorough review of "quality of work" by the <br />contractor, and due to substantial completion being reached, the <br />Engineer has recommended that retainage be reduced to 2% of the <br />total contract price. <br />ANALYSIS <br />The original amount of retainage on this project (at 1o% of the <br />contract amount) was $321,000.00. As previously stated, after the <br />contract surpassed the 50% complete mark, the Board reduced the <br />retainage to 50%, or $160,500.00. The Utility Department concurs <br />with the Engineer's recommendation to reduce the contractor's <br />retainage to 2%, or $64,200.00. (See attached agenda item for <br />previous retainage reduction, attached contract agreement, and <br />Engineer's letter of recommendation.) <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the <br />Board of County Commissioners approve the reduction of retainage on <br />this project to 2% of the current construction cost. <br />Commissioner Eggert commented that we did not go below 50 <br />retainage on the construction of the Libraries, and she wished to <br />know why we should go below that figure on this project. <br />Director Pinto stressed that we are down to a virtually <br />completed stage; this was originally set up in the contract; and <br />he thinks it is fair. <br />Commissioner Eggert advised that she just wondered if we had <br />a consistent policy on this because she did feel there are some <br />JUL 1 53 BOOK 8 3 PAr G <br />