Laserfiche WebLink
They claimed to have evidence which clearly establishes their case <br />but refused to produce it. The County had previously provided its <br />complete files to Martin/Cummings under the public records law. When <br />the County earlier had asked for very limited discovery to ascertian all <br />the facts Cummings/Martin refused to accommodate the request. <br />It is my suspicion that this "stone wall" position is based on the <br />following strategy. Infiltrator has submitted a $50,000.00 invoice to <br />Martin for the chambers it provided which has not been paid by Martin <br />but which is contained in the $277,967.00 claim. Cummings/Martin will <br />appear before the Arbitration panel and try and prove their entire <br />claim. It is highly unlikely that they will receive a 1005 award and it <br />is also highly unlikely that they will receive a 0% award. However, <br />whatever they receive will have an additional $50,000.00 kicker because <br />they won't pay Infiltrator and Infiltrator will probably not sue on the <br />invoice. If mediation had proceeded the Infiltrator claim would have <br />been part of the give and take. <br />The action of Cummings/Martin in this matter while within the bounds of <br />law is not forthright. They are using the law as a sword rather than a <br />shield. It is our opinion that the County should restrict its contractual <br />relationships to those parties who take the latter view of the law. <br />Under Section 105.04 (g) , Indian River County Code, the County <br />Commissioner may award a contract to the bidder that "is in the overall <br />best interest of the County." It is not, in our opinion and as a <br />general rule, in the best interest of the County to have a future <br />contractual relationship with a party who behaves in this manner. <br />Accordingly, it is recommended that the attached letter which expresses <br />this sentiment be approved. <br />The Board reviewed two letters of July 10, 1995: <br />LAW OFFICES <br />CUMMINGS, LAWRENCE & VEZINA, P. A. <br />1004 •DESOTO PARK DRIVE 1600 SOUTHEAST MH <br />STREET CAUSEWAY <br />POST OFFICE BOX 589 PLEASE REPLY TO: POST OFFICE BOX 1116 <br />TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302-0589 FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33302-1116 <br />TELEPHONE (904) 878-3700 TELEPHONE (305) 761-8700 <br />FACSIMILE (904) 656-0329 FACSIMILE (305) 524-6927 <br />Ft. Lauderdale <br />July 10, 1995 <br />VIA TELEFACSIMILE (407) 770-5095 <br />ILI <br />4 <br />JUL 1995 <br />Terrence P. O'Brien, Esq. vtwcl,421, <br />Office of the County Attorney M 0ouliTy fiT o ae1 , <br />Indian River Board of County Commissioners <br />1840 25th Street <br />Vero Beach, FL 32960 <br />Re: Case 33 -110 -00028 -95 -DO; <br />James A. Cummings, Inc. for the use and benefit of Martin <br />Paving Company <br />-and- <br />Indian River Board of County Commissioners; <br />Dear Mr. O'Brien: <br />Martin Paving Company and James A. Cummings, Inca object to <br />and protest your recommendation that the Indian River Board of <br />County Commissioners retaliate against the two contractors for <br />55 <br />July 18, 1995 sooK 95 PACE 755 <br />