Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

1 members are viewing this topic
>Guest

Page 2 of 2<<12

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Bids on Courthouse, Prevailing wage again< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 11
jimhanson Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 08 2003,4:27 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yes, that was what I meant--$10 an our more fore each hour for every man on the job.

--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie.  If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
danbelshan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 263
Joined: Aug. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 08 2003,5:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

AnswersPosted on Oct. 08 2003,3:09:pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan -

How did this latest bid come up - by Gabrielson or A-P?  Are they just telling the board what the lowest bid is, recommending approval, requesting any discussion or input?  The media doesn't provide much insight (big surprise).


It looks like the other commisioners are just rubber-stamping these deals.  Is this what's happening?  Are you the only one concerned about this?

I'm not looking for everyone's opinions about the board on this one.  I simply want to hear from Dan as to what happened.


To answer your questions, including direct quotes from my audio tape:
This work was bid before and the bids came in too high. This was a rebid.
Tim Clark of A&P handed out a sheet of paper at our meeting with the names and amounts of three low bidders in three catagories and recommended their approval as low bids.

The motion was made by Comm. Mullenbach and seconded by Comm. Springborg.

Chr. Behrends: "Comments. I just have one question,were there any local bidders that bid on these packages?"

Tim Clark: "We tried to break it apart to make 'em smaller so some of the smaller local guys could get it but we didn't, we didn't get much _."(couldn't understand that word).

Chr.Behrends: "Any other questions or comments for Tim?"

Belshan:"Tim, ah, we bid this before. Where were we--I can't recall exactly what the bids were, did these come in under?  Didn't we bid and we refused to take those?"

Tim Clark:"Yeah, it was over budget, there was a little bit of misunderstanding I think with the some of the scope of work and bid documents.  We broke it apart, we could get better coverage, more people bidding, genearate more interest, um cleared up any questions that they might have had ah previously, and rebid it and I think it turned out pretty good."

Belshan: "What was that total before, when we didn't have it broken apart?"

Tim Clark: "Ah, right offhand I don't remember the exact dollars."

I then asked if these were bid prevailing wage items. Tim said they were.

I asked if they had to be prevailing wage and Tim replied,"That was the direction I was given."

The Chair asked for any other questions or comments and there were none.  The vote was 4 to 1 to approve. My vote was no, and I asked that it reflect that we didn't have to go prevailing wage on this bid.

Did we have any of the info ahead of time?  I didn't.  The Chairman asked if there were local bidders, so it doesn't look like he saw the bid info ahead of time either, but you'll need to ask him if he saw any of the bids or bid info before it was passed out at the meeting.  I am out of the loop on this, and saw no bids or info other than the one sheet of paper passed out at the meeting for us to approve.  The Courthouse grounds committee is currently Chairman Behrends and Vice Chair Mathiason.  They don't ask my opinion on Courthouse matters.


--------------
Go to danbelshan.com for my newsletters.
Go to Dan Belshan on facebook to get the latest.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
shaker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 435
Joined: Aug. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 09 2003,12:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Chr. Behrends comment: I have just one question, were there any local bidders that bid on these packages??
 Now I have one question, If Behrends and Mathiason are on the courthouse grounds committe--SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE SEEN THE BIDS, SHOULDN'T THEY KNOW WHO BIDS, OR DO THEY JUST TAKE TIM CLARKS WORD ON THIS. I guess I would think that they would be takeing an active interest in this process seeing as how they are the ones on the grounds committe.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
12 replies since Oct. 08 2003,12:29 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 2 of 2<<12
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Bids on Courthouse
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code
Emoticon Emoticon Emoticon Emoticon Emoticon Emoticon Emoticon Emoticon Emoticon Emoticon Emoticon