9/7/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sharpened their pencil and gave the taxpayers a great price on this contract. The contract contained a subtopic called Clearing and Grubbing, which means removal of the trees and vegetation and disposal of the remaining debris. The cost on that item in the contract was $50,350. Mr. Dill understood that the County may have inadvertently led the contractor to believe that the contractor could remove the debris from the road right-of-way to another facility nearby in the unincorporated area and burn the debris. Mr. Dill was certain that the Board was aware that on May 18, 1993, the Board of the Solid Waste Disposal District adopted a motion that would prohibit any temporary burn site or any other permanent burn site that would be in competition with the Solid Waste Disposal District. At "that same time that Board invoked the pending ordinance rule. Mr. Dill pointed out that the contract and bid documents make it very clear that the contractor is responsible for knowing what the laws are and for complying with those laws. The bid package was picked up by Sheltra & Sons on June 9 and returned on June 30. The County now proposes to let the contractor use the SWDD chipper or mulcher at the site of the clearing and grubbing project which will be extra cost to taxpayers. There is also the possibility of the County competing with private enterprise. The County will pay SWDD for use of the equipment and will do that work for the contractor. Mr. Dill reported that Henry Fischer has such equipment and is aware that it costs $250 per hour to rent that equipment. Mr. Dill presented two alternatives: If the County removes the subtopic of chipping or mulching from the contract, the County should put it out to bid and allow private enterprise an opportunity to do the work. The County should get a realistic price for rental of the equipment from SWDD and see if private competition could offer a better price and save the taxpayers additional money. He felt that in any case the County should put through a change order and deduct this cost from the contract. Taxpayers should not subsidize a contractor simply because there may have been a mistake in communication. The contractor has an obligation to.remove the debris. Mr. Dill's second proposed option was to make the contractor live up to the contract and remove the debris the best way he can. If the County feels there is an obligation to the contractor because of some misinformation, the County should get a realistic price from SWDD to run this equipment and use that price to put out a bid to see if private enterprise can do it for less. Mr. Dill contended that there should be an adjustment to'the contract bid price. Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that the contract documents for the project were prepared with the understanding that 49 �� 1 BOOK 9-0 F-4FIJ8 S9�