Laserfiche WebLink
6. NEW BOSINESS (Cont'd <br />Commissioner Wiggins said this, now, in essence, will give the <br />contractor an opportunity to get established as a contractor in <br />this area. Mr. Crighton advised the firm has never had to supply <br />bonds before and it is not unusual for a bonding company to restrict <br />b nding to one contract only. The bonding companies want an exper- <br />i nce record. <br />Tie Chair asked Mr. Crighton what his experience has been with <br />tie contractor's work, and if it has been all right ?' Mr. Crighton <br />a vised Newbill Construction Company has worked in our E -6 Project <br />aid has had three or four contracts, and that each contract consisted <br />of six homes in that Project. The E -6 Approval Committee has been <br />s tisfied with the contractor's work and has awarded him additional <br />c ntracts. <br />C )mmissioner Robinson asked how many contractors bid on this Project <br />b sides this concern -- the contracts on the Southeast CD.Program? <br />M * Crighton said he believed there were four (4) other bidders on <br />tat. Commissioner Robinson further asked, "'Isn't this' taking un- <br />fair advantage of the other bidders if you allow this to happen <br />f r this one contract? Mr. Crighton said he really can't say; he <br />is not in position to make a statement on that. The Commissioner <br />a ded, "He knew the rules for the ball game, so I can't see why there <br />s ould be preferential treatment." <br />Mr. Crighton advised apparently what had happened as far as the word <br />isunderstanding' in his letter is that earlier on the Revenue Shar- <br />i g Project, we had no contract at that time, and many of the smaller <br />firms weren't able to get bond. We had allowed singular performance <br />b nds in commitment - -as long as they had a commitment letter from their <br />b nding company that they would issue additional bonding with two of <br />o r contractors, but this procedure had been stopped under Community <br />D velopment, because of the Commission's concern primarily with getting <br />w rk done within a reasonable period of time,and apparently Mr. Newbill <br />f It the old procedure was still in force. The Chair added, that be- <br />f re the contractor put up a bond issue before he started each contract. <br />C mmissioner Robinson said if he had to put it all up in one chunk, <br />it would cost him more money, and to me, this is unfair to the other <br />P ogle who bid. <br />Mr. Lindstaedt asked if there is a standing bonding that is used toward <br />t ese projects, or is it that everybody bids and takes a chance on <br />ether or not they will receive bonding or not? This is a rather hap- <br />hazard sort of way of going about a business. This is my thought; maybe <br />I'm wrong. Commissioner Wiggins responded that the procedure on the <br />part of the bonding company might be in this regard, and he supposed <br />there is a certain amount of gamble here, because it is quite possible <br />they wouldn't know in advance whether or not they were going to get the <br />bid and the bonding company might not be willing to put up the.bond <br />until after they have, in fact, the bid. Mr. Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV re- <br />porter asked, "When was the last time the Commission ever revoked that <br />rule and actually collected the money ?" Mr. Crighton and Mr. Brownell <br />both responded that they didn't believe we ever have done that. Mr. <br />Caesar added, "It doesn't look like you will ever do it in the future <br />hen either ?" <br />- 13 - <br />