Laserfiche WebLink
5. OLD BUSINESS (Cont'd <br />Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend <br />Council, wanted to re- amplify a statement he made before <br />in reference to our commitment to the people of this com- <br />munity and with all due respect to .the people in the com- <br />munity and the forthcoming Bicentennial activities, it would <br />be a real shame if we fall down on our commitment to the <br />community. He knows that we are doing what we possibly <br />can, but that it would be a shame if we did not meet the <br />commitment. President Nimtz advised that this is part of <br />the pressure we applied on the HUD officials, but what we <br />are doing is the only solution available. <br />Mr. Brownell said he talked to our HUD representative this <br />morning and outlined the procedure we sent to HUD in a <br />letter. We have not had a reply, but.the representative <br />agreed we can proceed and we will receive a letter from <br />them. <br />Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Chenney <br />and carried, to reject the bids received on Plaza Park <br />Contract No. 1, and rescind the conditional award by the <br />Redevelopment Commission of Plaza Park Contract No. 1, <br />to Arco Engineering Construction Corporation, in amount <br />of $240,322.63, as proposed, which was conditionally <br />awarded subject to HUD approval and Commission Legal <br />Counsel approval. <br />Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Chenney <br />and carried, to re- advertise the Plaza Park Contract No. <br />1 with the modified plans and specifications as prepared <br />by Lawson Associates. <br />f Bid Bond Requirement, E -7 Project: Mr. Conrad Damian, <br />Chairman of the E -7 Advisory Committee, responded to <br />Ms. Conchita Washington regarding her request to consider <br />waiving the bid bond requirement for this project, and <br />itemized the reasons they do not believe it appropriate <br />to change or waive the bid bond requirement at this time. <br />The Committee made a thorough investigation of all aspects <br />of the bond regulation and arrived at the following con- <br />clusions: <br />1) At the present time bonding companies have not signi- <br />ficantly changed their requirements for bonding con- <br />struction companies. <br />2) The bonding requirement has not proven itself to be <br />discriminatory in this project. We have been having <br />excellent minority participation in the E -7 Project <br />with 13 out of 32 awarded contracts being performed <br />by minority contractors. <br />BID BOND REQUIRE- <br />MENT RETAINED, <br />E -7 PROJECT <br />