11/22/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK PAGE 84U During the meeting Mr. Jeff Barton stated he was attending the Court Technology III Seminar in San Diego and would make a trip to Stancil's facility to review their alternative. The minutes dated July 27, reflected Keyword's proposed reduction in pricing to $28,000/room or $196,000 for a "mini -central" to record up to 8 participants excluding all transcription equipment and tapes. The minutes reflect that at present the Fourth District of Appeals does not accept audio/video tapes, only transcriptions and a decision would be made after Mr. Barton's return. The minutes also state the County Commission would provide the funding regardless of the system agreed upon. PCS later received a letter from Mr. Dean conflicting the funding for the recording needs but not the systems to be chosen. It was also made clear a bid for these needs would be required before this dollar amount could be expended. Upon Mr. Barton's return, Mr. Barton asked PCS to look into a business entity, Dolman Technologies. PCS again complied and continued our consulting that was outside the scope of our contract. On August 5, PCS wrote Mr. Dean to discuss several issues including a brief mention of our initial contact with Dolman Technologies and reiterating any addition to our contract would be at 10% over outside costs, plus $35/hr for PCS labor and $50/hr for consulting. PCS received a sales brochure from Ms. Deborah Dolman and providing a letter to Mr. Dean on August 16, 1993 recapping 5 alternatives to solve the unfunded recording needs of the new courthouse. PCS's first mention of Dolman systems was a unit COST of $60,000/room. PCS received a letter from Mr. Barton dated Aug. 16, 1993 and was asked by Mr. Dean to attend a demonstration of the Dolman system. Again PCS provided these services without billing to assist the County in an unbiased review of the technology presented. At this meeting PCS witnessed a presentation of a Dolman court reporting system. PCS asked several questions of the Dolman "team" and at the request of the County provided information concerning the facility to Dolman and requested a quotation on the Dolman systems. At this meeting, it was made clear the 4th and 5th VCR's could be added for the Attorney's benefit and the Court Logging system was an extra to the AN system. On Sept. 20, PCS forwarded to Mr. Barton and copied Mr. Dean a Sept. 6 letter penned by Dolman Technologies referencing Dolman's reduction from $60,000/room to $52,895/room and detailing the items to be included which were designed by Dolman after having performed the onsite demonstration. PCS's letter also reiterated our fee of 10% for any addition to our contract desired by the County, the estimated 5% fee to modify the cabling to accommodate the Dolman system and all of the "ars gratis" services provided by PCS to review the various options the County had reviewed to solve the "missing" audio recording needs in the courthouse. After Mr. Dean's review of this letter, a meeting occurred in Mr. Dean's office to place a firm limit of $250,000 on the system. PCS returned to our office and was very frank with Deborah Dolman in that the County wanted the system designed and quoted by Dolman in the Sept. 6 letter; however the price would have to allow for PCS's installation costs, PCS's 10% markup and still be under the $250,000 funding limit. On October 6, 1993, Ms. Dolman revised her pricing structure but not her de igni to reflect "a sole -source, non -bid price through PCS's contract". This document was sent under cover of PCS dated October 6 to Mr. Barton and copied to Mr. Dean reflecting a price of $245,125 for the only system ever discussed for Indian River County by Dolman and only forwarded by PCS to the County *for their review. Along with the only option from Dolman's letter chosen, two transcription units for $4,620, totaling $249,745.00. On Nov 18,1993, PCS and the County amended PCS' contract to increase the funding amount to provide for increases in the fiber count, underground cable placement, a second CCTV station at the Jail, a. matrix switch for the Courthouse -and assistive listening devices for the Courthouse. PCS had continuously been available for any concerns or comments surrounding the A/V recording system BUT WAS NEVER APPROACHED BY ANYONE FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY stating the DOLMAN PROPOSAL as being insufficient. PCS was told the County would be forthcoming with a change to our contract for the A/V recording system but the funding issue had to be worked out since it was never allotted for in the construction budget. On February 9, 1994, FOUR months after our last communication on the issue we received a phone call from Mr. Dean's secretary stating they needed "some description" of what the Dolman system was about in order to prepare an agenda item in time for the board meeting agenda cutoff. PCS suggested the letters that had been sent previously; however these letters did not "describe" the system ALTHOUGH THE DOLMAN NOVE MER 22, 1994 24