3/28/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 9 �AGL 7?8 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Change Orders 17, 18, and 19, as recommended by staff. Mr. Glenewinkel next addressed the close out of the Cummings' contract for the project, referring to the following letter dated 3/14/95: CENTEX ROONEY March 14, 1995 CCNSTPUC.TION COMPANY Mr. Sonny Dean Director of General Services Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Re: Closeout of the Indian River Courthouse Project Dear Sonny: In order to assist you in your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for the close out of James A. Cummings' contract for the construction of -the Indian River Courthouse and to review' all outstanding issues related to that contract, I offer the following recommendations and opinions: 1. It is our recommendation that the County not pursue liquidated damages against the contractor and that final payment be made per our recommendation as well as that of the Architects (copies attached). Our basis for this recommendation are the result of two factors. First, it is our opinion that while not required under the terms of the contract, the County has not truly been financially damaged by the delay in the completion of the courthouse. Second, it is our opinion that the contractor has taken severe financial loss, due to no fault of the County, on this project and would file a claim against the County in an attempt to recover general condition cost and approved time extensions for the delays. Should this happen, -we feel the contractoF could substantiate delays for at least half of the total delay of approximately 101h months. Should this be the case, it could end up costing the County additional funds. See attached Exhibit "A' which provides a theoretical cost projection in the event of a claim with the contractor. 2. We are also recommending (except for items addressed in #3 and #4 below) that the County not seek reimbursement against the Architects and Engineers for the minor changes which resulted in the contract. The construction contract had a total of $638,023 of additions to the contract resulting from errors and omissions in the documents and Owner changes. Of this, approximately 3 % or $388,000 is a result of the Architect and Engineers documents to which we feel the Architect and Engineer, under the terms of their contract, could be held directly accountable for no more than $55,000 (See Exhibit attached). The balance would be considered added value. The percentages of 46 MARCH 28, 1995