RM 05-21-76 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[:1 7. OLD BUSINESS (Cont'd hrough Mr. Butler's office yet. He didn't know what the situation onstitutes on the advance as he has not as yet responded. The otice to Proceed was issued to Newbill Construction on 9th of April o do some emergency work which included replacing a hot water heater hat was leaking and also some laboratory fixtures that were leaking. hese were part of the contract specifications, and checking with ewbill, he was assured on approximately April 20th (checking several imes before with them), that the work would be completed by April 1; and on April 22, Mr. Schaller said he went into the structure nd the work had not even been started. Mr. Butler asked if that was he one he had talked to him about and Mr. Schaller answered in the ffirmative. Mr. Butler said he had instructed Mr. Schaller to go head and give the contractor a specific deadline of a day or two, nd that if he didn't do it, to get somebody else to do it. That mount has now been deducted from his contract. Mr. Schaller advised hat has been done, and on another contractor the plumber was hired o do the work and that work has been accomplished -- within the same ay the plumber was contacted. he Chair's response was that we do have a record of nonperformance, nd it looks like the longer it goes, the worse it gets. ommissioner Robinson said he has one more question to ask and then e will mace a motion so we can move on: "If we would take action nd say, right now, today, and cancel out the contract Newbill thought e almost.had, would this make it twice as hard for you to get the oney for these other people who had done work for him in the past n this other contract, or do you still want that lever over his head or two weeks, hoping you can get the money out of him? Mr. Crighton dvised the only lever we are holding right now is this check for 11,347 and that it is his opinion that if the Commission takes action oday and would rescind those contracts, that there would be a Notice f Dispute filed, by the contractor. Mr. Butler advised he is aware f that. Further statements followed as to whether or not we could ebid these contracts or how long they could possibly be tied up. Mr. utler advised that would depend on whether he was able to obtain some ind of injunctive relief or not, and that his recommendation would be hat the Commission move to require Newbill Construction Company to ob- ain all documentation that has to be obtained in order to get the four 4) contracts executed by the next Commission meeting, and the performance ond, time payment bond, if not done by that time, the Commission will escind those contracts; withdraw the award of the bids on Rehabilitation ontracts ll /SECD, 12 /SECD, 15 /SECD and 18 /SECD. he motion, as recommended above by Commission Legal Counsel, Mr. Butler, as made by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Cira and unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS Contract Set No. 4; for Rehabilitation Contract Nos: 30 through 37, BIDS a. n Southeast Communit Development Pro ram: Commission approval was REJECTED, 'equestea lo reject all i s received on Contract Set No. 4, for Re- CONTRACT abilitation Contract Nos. 30 through 37, per recommendations of the SET #4, outheast Advisory Committee as the bids received were in excess of # 30 THRU he acceptable bid limits on the work required. # 37, SE - 14 - CD PROGRA