3/3/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attorney Joe Lawrence of the law firm of Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina advised that he was substituting for Michael E. Riley today in the law firm's representation of Chester Prince, president of Prince Contracting Co., Inc., who has 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 or issuing Guettler a notice to proceed until next Wednesday, March 11, when the Court will hear Prince's Motion for a Temporary Injunction. To the extent the County has already entered into a contract and issued a notice to proceed to Guettler & Sons, he urged the Board to suspend construction activity on the project for a mere 8 days until Circuit Judge Charles Smith has the opportunity to consider the merits of the very grave allegations that were made in the complaint filed in Circuit Court. Attorney Lawrence understood the Commissioners have seen some of the proof of the allegations in the complaint, and if it is true, the actions strikes at the heart of the competitive bid process which the Board of County Commissioners have said shall be followed in this project and also strikes at the heart of their actions. All they are asking is that the Board allow Judge Smith to consider all the evidence and sworn statements that will be taken over the next several days so that Judge Smith can make a reasonable decision on the matter and take into account the full facts of the matter and make an independent decision whether or not the competitive bid process was followed and whether or not the actions of the Board were tainted and should be voided or not voided under the situation. Basically, the request is as simple as that. They are asking that no further action be taken on this construction contract until Judge Smith has the opportunity to consider the matter on March 11, merely 8 days from today. Continuing his arguments for an 8 -day delay, Attorney Lawrence emphasized that Prince Contracting Company has been constantly assured that the Board wants to comply with the law and their oath of office, and wants to build a golf course in full accordance with the plans that were published at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers of Indian River County. The Board's vote of 3-2 to reject Prince Contracting Company's offer to build that golf course in full accordance with the plans and specifications for $50,000 less than the -second low bidder raised certain questions. Further questions were raised once an investigation was conducted which revealed that potentially one of the Board members was instrumental in the County's pre -award investigation and that the vote was tainted in the process. Instead of slowing down the process after these allegations were made, staff proceeded to issue probably one 17 MAR 0 3 1992' i U ' �OGK v IOU