RM 02-20-76 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6. NEW BUSINESS:(Cont'd e. of Housing, 1) to Lahey, Attorney at proposed agreement. between Dept. of Redevelopment and Newbill y SECD: Mr. Brownell read Mr. Keith P. dated February 19, 1976, Director, Bureau Redevelopment Commission, and 2) to Mr. Charles Law, representing Mr. Newbill, outlining a Due to a misunderstanding concerning performance bond requirements, the Newbill firm is unable to provide bonds for contracts #11, #12, #15 and #18, simultaneously. They have, however, been able to provide bonding for contract #15, for work at 721 East Broadway, in the Southeast Project. Rather than forfeiting $1,022.40 (10% of the bid amounts for #11, #12 and #18), it has been suggested that the LPA retain $250.00 and shorten the work completion time per contract to two weeks. The letter to Mr. Lahey verifies telephone conversation of Feb. 19, 1976, concerning Newbill Construction Company's acceptance of a proposed contract procedure agreement. The plan to be accepted: A: The Dept. of Redevelopment will retain $250.00 to be forfeited for contract default. B: Work on contract #15, at 721 East Broadway, must be completed within ten (10) working days from the date of issuance of the notice to proceed. C: Upon certification of final inspection, Mr. Newbill has 72 hours in which to provide bond on the second unit. All four structures must be completed within their respective ten (10) working day periods, or the retainer will be kept by the LPA. As soon as the Newbill Company provides us with a certified check for $250.00, we will return the original bid check in the amount of $1,478.50. It must be understood that this procedure does not set precedent for any contracts in the future, and that this is a singular situation that will not be repeated. PROPOSED AGREEMENT APPROVED, NEWBILL CONSTRUCTION SOUTHEAST CD PROJECT Commissioner Wiggins asked Mr. Crighton to refresh his memory- - if this is the firm that was quite low in their bid and was a new firm that we weren't sure would be able to hack it in the first place? Mr. Crighton advised, "Yes, that is true. The Commission 'conditionally awarded' contracts #11, #12, #15 and #18, to Newbill Construction Company, in Commission meeting of January 2, 1976. The firm had ten days to provide a performance bond and couldn't come up with that at that time and they requested an extension which was granted him. As of February 10th, he had provided the singular bond on the one contract. At that time, Mr. Crighton said he notified the contractor that he was subject to forfeiture of $1,022.40 on his contracts that he did not provide bonds on. The contractor con- tacted his attorney, his attorney contacted Mr. Butler, and the outlined agreement was negotiated. 12 -