11/22/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LETTERS DID SPECIFICALLYLIST WHAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE GETTING. So after then receiving a call from Mr. Dean, PCS went to the Dolman Sales brochure and faxed this information to Mr. Dean to "get a description of the system" for use in preparing and agenda item; NOT TO NEGOTIATE IN S MINUTES WHAT HAD TAKEN 9 MONTHS TO ACHIEVE. PCS is GREATLY upset that County representatives, WITHOUT FIRST COMING TO PCS, started stating to the onsite DOLMAN technicians that there were items missing from the system that PCS WAS TO PROVIDE. PCS NEVER DESIGNED THE DOLMAN SYSTEM; we only forwarded the DOLMAN letters under our cover for the County's review. Also, we find it disturbing that Mr. Barton took it upon himself to request pricing for the additional DESIRED items and in doing so SEVERELY DAMAGED the DOLMAN - PCS relationship for both the onsite installation interaction and for future sales opportunities. After review of the change order page, the language is " The ESTIMATED cost of said system is $250,000". This leaves a wide open door for the actual cost of the system. Also the language "The typical Dolman Court System Specifications as provided by the Designer and as presented..." further seperates PCS from this situation as PCS DID NOT DESIGN this system presented BUT DOLMAN. Also, please note PCS provided services outside the scope of our contract at the County's request to review the audio and sound reinforcement problems in the County's Chambers. Ultimately PCS provided, at NO DIRECT COST to the County, but as a component cost of our Courthouse systems, an entire new microphone system and reworked amplification for this facility. We also feel it pertinent to bring to your attention at present several issues that were to have been present in the Courthouse that were either omitted by the Contractor or altered due to engineering inconsistencies that caused PCS to incur a great deal of additional labor and materials to accommodate the extensive systems installed in the courthouse. First, the "space" designer of the courtroom disallowed our positioning for cameras as desired for optimum operation. Second, after coming to some compromise here, PCS was told the Judges monitors were to be recessed in the millwork at an angle that maintained a face/face view of conference participants. Upon arriving to review the millwork, we find a "monitor elevator" had been chosen and REPOSITIONED without any consideration to our systems. Third, an evidence board and special lighting for this unit was added after PCS was "given" our compromise drawing showing the positioning of the monitors in the Courtroom.- This required the monitors to be repositioned away from the intended viewers (truly the most minor of all changes). Fourth, PCS was to be provided conduit to run from the Courtroom to the Judge's Vestibule where the electronics were to be placed. An engineering redesign caused our inplace cable plant to be relocated and in some cases replaced to move the electronics position to the Secured Vestibule. Fifth, certain electronics that were to be provided to PCS by the Contractor (microphones) have yet to arrive causing PCS to procure units to meet deadlines imposed by the County. We find it completely unfathomable that any questions arose as to what was provided by DOLMAN upon their arrival for the system installation. PCS has continued to approach the project professionally and wish this letter to refresh and/or clarify the memory of the County as to the FACTS of the situation. We appreciated the County's acknowledgement of "blame" in its first attempt to solve this situation by offering to split the cost for modifying the system to the desires of Mr. Barton; HOWEVER PCS NEVER HAD ANY PART IN THE MISUNDERSTANDING AND IS NOT FINANCIALLY STRONG ENOUGH TO DO FREE WORK AND GIVE AWAY WORK AS WELL. We also appreciate Mr. Dean's recollection of the facts concerning the it item" issue as just a means to gain a description and not a 5 minute negotiated change to a contract. We also BELIEVE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY would NEVER intentionally try to damage a MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE who has provided SO MUCH for so little compensation and in terms of our consulting time, NOTHING (as yet), We look to the County to do the RIGHT thing and rescind your letter of November 2 and its implications and release the payment to PCS as approved by the Project Coordinator. ly Bruce R. Boyd Project Coordinator NOVEMBER 22, 1994 25 Boa ��41