RM 05-07-76 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. OLD BUSINESS (Cont'd racts- -the answer by Mr. Crighton was that they would not be ntil this matter is resolved. Mr. Butler advised that he believed t is within the Commission's province to, at this point, withhold ny Notices to Proceed to Newbill Construction Company, until this s cleared through the Commission. he Chair requested this motion and it was duly made by Mr. Robinson, econded by Mr. Cira and carried, as stated by Legal Counsel. s. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter, asked several ques- ions on this discussion relating to sufficient funds remaining in he contract to pay the subtractors if the contractor would not fulfill is obligations, or would we be taking a risk that we may have to dip nto city money to make good on the payments? Mr. Crighton advised that we do have outstanding money on that contractor- -that is, money hat we owe the general contractor, and unless some arrangement is inade that the contractor pay his subcontractors, we do not release these funds. In case of nonpayment, we would return the check to he city controller and pay the subcontractors directly. Commissioner Wiggins added that this is standard procedure, and is very productive or getting people paid; the general contractor does not get paid ntil the subcontractors get their money. r. Gene Evans, Executive Secretary, Civic Planning Association, raised further questions on: Commissioner Robinson indicated that the contractor was permitted to transfer the performance bond from one ehabilitation job to another; may we assume that staff is satisfied with the contractor's performance before the performance bond is trans - erred; and are those performance bonds that Commissioner Robinson was referring to? Mr. Crighton advised this contractor has not started n any of our projects yet; the ones being discussed are for the E -6 roject, but those are non- bondable contracts. The contracts Com- missioner Robinson is referring to -- recently awarded to Newbill Con - truction- there were three, #11, 12 and 18, in Southeast Community Development Project, and he had singular performance requirements for ach house. In other words, he would have to complete one house before e could be moved to another one, and if the performance would not be p to par, the contractor would have to forfeit the remaining contracts. Mr. Butler suggested to the Chairman that in`the interests, certainly of homeowners involved, Community Development, Commission, City, and verybody, that not too long a hold be put on this, and that it might be a good idea to have a report back to the Commission at the next meeting, so that if there are problems with the quality of Newbill's work in the E -6 Project or with respect to the payments, the Commission can make a decision either that he is not a contractor who could get he job done and then take the next steps to get other contractors on he job, or make the decision to release the Notice to Proceed to the contractor on the Southeast contracts. Mr. Crighton agreed that he can have this report by the next Commission meeting. A unanimous vote was received and all Commissioners were in favor of a report to be de by Mr. Crighton at the May 21 Commission Meeting. The Chair re- quested the report be submitted for the next Agenda, and thanked Com- missioner Robinson for bringing this to the Commission's attention. - 5 -