5/2/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

g00Kcy f'AGE to Barth, the second bidder. Barth's references came up fairly good and they have performed work for the County in the past. He had notified Adnan of the recommendation. Adnan's attorney had contacted Mr. Kafer and was advised of the reference checks. The attorney was present and wished to be heard. Vice Chairman Ginn was displeased to have received additional backup at the last minute because it is difficult to read the documents during a meeting. She had read part of it and, according to a letter from Summit Construction, it looked like some of the bids did not contain all of the proper documentation and they have requested the County Attorney to review the entire process. She asked Director Davis for his opinion. Director Davis advised that Summit's complaint was that an acknowledgment of the third addendum was not submitted with Barth's bid. Staff has considered that but the County has the right to accept the bid that is in the best interest of the County. Staff feels the acknowledgment came a little later than the bid date, but the County should not pay $7,000 more to the third bidder simply because the acknowledgment was not submitted with the bid. In response to Vice Chairman Ginn, Mr. Wer advised that the third addendum is basically clarification of the plans and specifications. To clarify, Chairman Adams understood that Adnan (the first bidder) had an incorrect total, and Barth (the second bidder) had not submitted the acknowledgment of the third addendum. Summit was saying their bid was complete and should be considered because they followed all the rules. Both Vice Chairman Ginn and Commissioner Stanbridge wanted to table the matter until they had time to read the information and think it through. Chairman Adams inquired if the Board would hear the Adnan attorney if he wished to speak, and the Commissioners agreed they would. Jonathan Ferguson, attorney with Gonano, Harrell, and Ferguson, 1600 S. Federal May 2, 2000 82