Laserfiche WebLink
r BOOK 111 PAGE 4i ' I <br />In the letter, Mr. Schuh is contending that since a signed acknowledgment form for Addendum No. <br />3 to the contract was not submitted by Barth Construction, Inc., at the time of the bid opening, the <br />bid by Barth Construction, Inc. is incomplete, and should not be accepted (copies of all three <br />addendums are attached). <br />My position is that the Addendum No. 3 did not add or delete any bid items or adjust any quantities <br />but was a clarification to questions received from Contractors bidding on the project. Addendum <br />No. 3 was a response to these questions and to make it available to all contractors who obtained bid <br />packages from us. <br />Since this addendum was only for clarification and Barth Construction, Inc. did send a signed <br />acknowledgment for Addendum No. 3 when we contacted them and requested it, approximately one <br />week after the bid opening, I feel it is in the best interest of the County to accept the bid from Barth <br />Construction, Inc. as a valid bid for this project. <br />Also, I have received a protest of my recommendation from Adnan Investment & Development, Inc. <br />(copy attached). <br />The approval by the Board of County Commissioners for awarding the construction contract for this <br />project was tabled at the May 2, 2000 meeting and is understood to be on the May 9, 2000 Board <br />of County Commissioner's Meeting Agenda. <br />If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at extension 1221. <br />ATTACHMENTS: 3 <br />Acting County Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien suggested that, rather than act on this item <br />today, the Board follow a procedure authorized under Florida Statutes so we the bidding procedures <br />that were in place prior to July 1, 1994 can be used. It would require the Board to authorize that <br />procedure by a 2/3 vote and also would require 14 days public notice. If the Board adopts that <br />procedure today, then the Board can consider the award of the bid on June 6. That was his <br />recommendation. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY <br />Vice Chairman Ginn to follow the Acting County Attorney's advice <br />and bring the matter back on June 6, 2000. <br />Under discussion, Chairman Adams asked Director Davis ifhe had any comments concerning <br />this matter. <br />Public Works Director James W. Davis advised that there was no problem with putting this <br />May 16, 2000 <br />44 <br />