3/3/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

On Monday, February 24, 1992, Prince filed suit requesting that the Court declare the contract award to Guettler & Sons, Inc. void, and enjoin the Board from entering into an agreement with Guettler. The Court today granted Prince's motion to shorten the time to take depositions of Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Guettler & Sons, Inc.'s corporate representative, and the other individual Board members. These depositions will take place_negt Wednesday and Thursday. On Wednesday, March 11, 1992, the Court will then year Prince's Motion for a Temporary Injunction. Therefore, by March 11th, the Board will know -- one way or another -- the Court's view of the merits of Prince's actions. Prince requests that the Board simply decide not to enter into a contract and/or issue Guettler & Sons a notice to proceed until the March 11th hearing. I understand the Board could consider this request as soon as its March'", 1992, meeting. I will not repeat Prince's assertions about the impropriety of Mr. Scurlo'ck's activities. It is sufficient to say that his activities strike at the heart of governmental trust generally and the integrity of the competitive bid process specifically. Both the rights of the County taxpayers, by losing the benefit of a bid approximately $50,000.00 less than the Guettler & Sons bid, and Prince, a Florida contractor with extensive experience constructing golf courses throughout Florida, have been violated by the tainted bid -process. County staff have said the Count"ust now contract with Guettler & Sons and proceed with the work. Nevertheless, the County need not rush to sign a contract or issue Guettler & Sons a notice to proceed. By the.very terms of the contract documents, the Board reserved its right not to act precipitously. The County could have delayed the award for sixty (60) days after the bid opening; and the Board does not require the contractor to commence work for twenty (20) days after issuing the notice to proceed. The Board contemplated delays in starting the work; if the Board grants this request and chooses not to act before March 11th, it will be acting within the scope of the contract documents. Prince asks merely that the Board wait until March 11th and start anew with Prince, Guettler & Sons, or another responsive contrac- tor depending upon the Court's ruling. Too many questions have been raised about the propriety of the award to Guettler & Sons to rush the contract award process any further. The risk of further injury to the taxpayers of the County, while the ques- tions regarding the bid remain unanswered, is too great to now allow the contract to proceed. MER/ybf Sincerely, Michael E. Rile Cummings, Lawrence 16 & Vezina, P.A.