Browse
Search
2013-456 Planning - McGill Associates for Water, Sewer, Design Services, Surveying/Environmental and Water/Sewer Construction $142,000
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Contracts and Agreements
>
General Contracts and Agreements
>
2010's
>
2013
>
2013-456 Planning - McGill Associates for Water, Sewer, Design Services, Surveying/Environmental and Water/Sewer Construction $142,000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2013 11:17:47 AM
Creation date
11/13/2013 10:16:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/15/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agreement
Agenda Item
7a
Document Relationships
2016-299 Planning - Martin McGill - Amend existing contract and services
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Contracts and Agreements\General Contracts and Agreements\2010's\2016
2017-103 Planning - Martin McGill - Amendment to existing services agreement 2016-299
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Contracts and Agreements\General Contracts and Agreements\2010's\2017
Agenda - 10-15-2013 - 7a
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2013\Agenda - 10-15-2013 - Regular Mtg.
R 2013-456 Planning - McGill Associates for Water, Sewer, Design Services, Surveying/Environmental and Water/Sewer Construction $142,000
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Contracts and Agreements\Contract Routing Sheets\Routing Sheets\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CHANGES THAT COME UP AFTER CONSTRUCTION BEGINS ARE CONSIDERED <br /> "OTHER ENGINEERING RELATED ACTIVITIES" AND ARE PAID BY THE HOUR <br /> 10.Will this be paid out of the county funds, or from the state money. If state money they have to <br /> fill out more forms <br /> IT COULD BE PAID AT LEAST PARTIALLY FROM THE SRF LOAN. <br /> 11.The project may be funded by an EPA Grant and/or a Clean Water State Revolving Loan. <br /> One of the requirements of the RFQ is to verify that our firm has the ability to receive funds <br /> from these sources. <br /> We have attempted to call both the EPA and the State authorities and were told to contact the <br /> Grantee (Orange County in this case) for further clarification. As such, could you please <br /> verify what the requirements, if any, are for our firm to receive funds from said sources? Our <br /> firm is a North Carolina Corporation licensed as shown herein. THE FIRM SHALL NOT BE <br /> DEBARRED BY THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLIN, AND CAPABLE OF MEETING THE <br /> INSURANCE AND BONDING REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED IN THE RFQ <br /> 12.1 was wondering why the County is seeking engineering services for construction phase <br /> services as it appears the design engineer's original contract of 2004 included it. Is it a <br /> funding requirement to rebid or just the County's desire? IT IS NOT A FUNDING <br /> REQUIREMENT. IT IS BEING RESOLICITED IN PART DUE TO THE CURRENT <br /> ENVIRONMENT AS WELL AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT HAS LAPSED SINCE THE <br /> ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED <br /> 13.Was the RFQ sent to select firms as well as posted to the web site? IT WAS SENT TO FIRMS <br /> ON OUR BID LIST AS WELL AS ADVERTISED ON THE COUNTY AND STATE IPS <br /> WEBSITE Just wondering if the County is seeking to work with new firms that can offer <br /> multiple resources and services to the County. SEE #12 <br /> 14.1 noted the project construction has been bid and bids were opened today. Can you provide <br /> the uncertified bid tab? Knowing the contractor the selected consultant would work with will be <br /> helpful. A COPY OF THE UNCERTIFIED BID IS ATTACHED <br /> 15.Please clarify the design review -would that include the specifications? YES <br /> 16.A concern exists with indemnifying another firm from their sealed design plans. This would <br /> take significant review of not only design plans but the planning data used to develop the <br /> design plans. I believe many consulting firms and their risk managers/insurance companies <br /> would share this concern. We are not even sure if the NCPE board rules would allow that. If <br /> the intent is to indemnify the design firm from construction of their design, that is a little <br /> different. One can perform a constructability and a regulatory compliance review (for design <br /> criteria) but to indemnify the design firm is not typically requested. Additionally, given the <br /> project has been bid based upon sealed design plans and contract documents from the <br /> original design firm, things are pretty much set and any design or contract modifications would <br /> need to be after contract award through change orders, field or work directives. Please <br /> consider this concern and clarify the statement if appropriate. SEE #7 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.