Laserfiche WebLink
'.Indian River Co, i <br />"'4/2/92 - - <br />Page =Two <br />" His example of the Fort Pierce Main Post Office is filled! with <br />false and misleading statements. It is a matter of Public Record <br />E; ;that the original contract amount of $3,365,000 was increased by <br />j .,$45,697 (1,390 of the contract) through the issuance of sixteen <br />? change orders by the U.S. Postal Service to meet requirements of <br />local governmental agencies and utilities, <br />-the architectural design and to include owner orequired change ochangeseot- <br />additions. The project was completed WITHIN THE CONTRACT TIME and <br />ready for occupancy on 11/21/90, not late and in June, 1991 as <br />Mr. Davis states. He says also that "quality of construction <br />resulted in work being rejected and reconstructed". What work <br />When? Rejected by whom? Another completely false statement! Nei--: <br />ether the owner or the architect has ever voiced any cos we received from the <br />mplaint <br />with regard to quality. In *fact all comment <br />architect and. owner on this project were very positive with <br />regard to the quality of the construction and the supervision of <br />the project. We received final payment of retainage monies imme';. <br />diately after completion with no extended wait because we per=. <br />formed so well! Poor•quality., poor supervision, poor contractor <br />I THINK NOT! <br />"Similar change order requests were reported fdifferent'I <br />architectural firm on the City of Cocoa Housing aAuhority, <br />Modernization of Peter Young Complex" says Mr. Davis. We NEVER <br />requested a change order from the owner. To the contrary, since. <br />our bid had come in over $100,000 UNDER their budget, the owner;. <br />decided to spend more and upgrade the project, all at the owner's <br />Initiation. By the way, the project was finished WITHIN CONTRACTL <br />TIME. - <br />iM1 <br />j <br />•I <br />If the "staff has concerns that selection of this contractor mai.' <br />not be in the best interest of the county" then what are they? <br />All concerns expressed so far are without merit.. <br />G & S Contractors, Inc, is currently constructing the Indian' <br />.,?,.t ' River County Housing Authority's Orangewood Park Apartmentl:}. <br />Project. The Building Dept.issued a 'Stop Work' order on 3/16/92* <br />because ONE, not several as the memo implies, subcontractor,; the;' <br />painter, did not have a current Indian River County Occupationall. <br />license. The painting subcontractor left the job that day and has' <br />not returned. G&S began performing the painting with the full: <br />knowledge of. the Building:Official resolving the problem in a�! <br />matter of days,�,Please note that the <br />licensed in Brevard Count dapplied <br />subcontractor isl <br />, River* <br />County license that should�beissuedfortlwithanIndian <br />noteIsfact that this <br />project is now 60% complete and scheduled to be <br />complete FIVE 'MONTHS ahead of the contract time. Our bid :was <br />$100,000 lower than the 2nd place bidder, saving the owner a lot ' <br />of money! We have TWO superintendents and a foreman managing this <br />project. Attached is a memo,from Mr. Guy Decker, Executive Direc- ! <br />60 <br />APR 0 7 1992 MOO ,Ut J, i u <br />