My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/28/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
3/28/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:10 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:21:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/28/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
increased cost are extremely low by any standards of the industry. In other words, while <br />there were an unacceptable number of minor errors and changes to the documents, the <br />over all design of the basic system and building was well done. The County should <br />understand that everyone has contributed financially to this project. The Architects and <br />Engineers were not compensated for the air quality changes or audio visual changes made <br />by the County. Additionally, everyone has accepted their own cost for the extended <br />duration of the project. Our rough estimate of these costs are as follows: <br />Contractor 101A mos. 0 45,000/mos. = 472,500 <br />Arch/Eng. Design Fee on Air Quality changes = 15,000 <br />Project Administration 101h mos. 0 6,000 = 63.000 <br />78,000 <br />Program Managers 101h mos. @ 16,000 = - 168,000 <br />All of these firms have agreed not to attempt to recover any of these costs if we can just <br />close out the project per our recommendations. <br />Again, if you would visit Exhibit "A," you will note that the Architect and ourselves are <br />giving up any claim to recover our extended cost as a result of pursuing liquidated <br />damages against the Contractor. This, in the Architect's case, would off set any cost the <br />County would have against the Architect. <br />3. The Contractor has notified us of his request for arbitration of two issues. The first is <br />the failure and repair of the infiltrator beds in the amount of $278,000. The second issue <br />is an approximate $30,000 millwork issue which a formal request has not been received <br />yet, but the contractor has advised us he does intend to arbitrate. <br />Both of these issues will continue to be resolved under the arbitration process and we feel <br />the County has an excellent chance at defeating both of these issues. Should the County <br />be found liable under either of these issues, it is our opinion that they would have legal <br />recourse against the Architects and Engineers. <br />4. Finally, we recommend that the County issue, as soon as possible, a Purchase Order to <br />Mid -State Mechanical for the completion of the air quality changes to the building. This <br />Purchase Order in the amount of $64,986.00 is mandatory to make the system operate <br />properly. See -Exhibit "C" for a complete list of work involved in this change. We feel <br />that we have negotiated a fair price with Mid -State and must use them to maintain the <br />integrity of the new building warranties. The Architect and Engineers have agreed to <br />contribute to this cost based upon their share of responsibility. The amount of their <br />contribution has not been determined at this time, but we feel the work can not be <br />delayed. We will continue to evaluate what we estimate the cost split should be and <br />make our recommendation to the County upon our completion. <br />47 GOOK 94 PAG.,7 <br />MARCH 28, 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.