My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/14/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
7/14/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:32 PM
Creation date
6/8/2015 10:53:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/14/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
r <br />"The Defendant Schopke would affirmatively assert that the <br />Plaintiff entered into a contract directly with Norman K. Dean & <br />Associates, Inc., or ESCI or both, for substantial modification to the <br />electronics control system, and that the alleges problems are associated <br />with the modification and the Plaintiff should look directly to Norman K. <br />Dean & Associates, Inc., for relief." <br />"The Defendant Schopke would affirmatively assert that the <br />Plaintiff did not properly notify Schopke of the alleged defects and <br />problems with the electronics control system and did not permit Schopke <br />an opportunity to adequately provide repairs to it in a timely manner . " <br />"The Defendant Schopke would affirmatively assert that the design <br />of the control system was made by the Plaintiff's agent, W. R. Frizzell <br />Architects, Inc., and that any alleged problems are due to a defective <br />design by the Plaintiff's agent, and are not a result of any faulty <br />workmanship in installation." <br />- Schopke files third -party action against Norman K. Dean, <br />Integon, ECSI and Frizzell Architects. <br />- Third -party defendants seek dismissal, the court denies their <br />motion. The 4th DCA affirms. <br />- December 5, 1991 - I write and request a stipulation as to <br />liability only, damages being a separate matter. <br />- January 22, 1992 - Bruce Jacobus, Attorney for Schopke, <br />informs me by telephone that he cannot agree to stipulate. <br />The attitude exhibited by Schopke in this matter is totally contrary to <br />the County's requirement of good faith which reads as follows from <br />Purchasing Manual. <br />1.1.04 REQUIREMENT OF GOOD FAITH <br />These Policies require all parties involved in the negotiation, <br />development, performance, or administration of County contracts to <br />act in good faith. <br />For Schopke to , assert that the County "did not properly notify Schopke <br />of the alleged .defects and problems... and did not permit Schopke and <br />opportunity to adequately provide repairs to it in a timely manner" is <br />blatantly. contrary to what transpired before this Board. It is a total <br />lack of good faith. <br />In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Schopke Construction <br />and Engineering, Inc., and Neil Schopke, President, be disqualified <br />forever from being a bidder, contractor, or subcontractor on any <br />Indian River County Projects. This disqualification to also apply to any <br />bids currently under consideration. A letter notice of disqualification <br />is attached for approval. <br />TPO/sb <br />61 <br />lndim Fhva Ca <br />Approved Date <br />Admin <br />2- 1.34,7 <br />Legal <br />PC - If- 92 <br />Budgel <br />-(a_ <br />Dept <br />Z-�i- sz <br />Risk Mgr. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.