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