Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-02-1981
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1981
>
Agenda - 02-02-1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2016 9:49:18 AM
Creation date
9/19/2016 9:46:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/2/1981
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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
/ <br /> ^ . `� ��� . <br /> . <br /> ^ � : <br /> - - -� ' _ .�' - —_ - <br /> ` <br /> � 1981 <br /> February , <br /> Page 2 <br /> ' • consultants for testing +h� +i | / area as well as concrete during times <br /> pay <br /> that it is being placed on the Job' This is standard in all construction <br /> r«»tnacts and is at the e d|scrw+ion of the Architects/Owner. We would u|d hmve <br /> no other way +ode�e 0 |ma if they are meeting the specification requirements <br /> fs <br /> without these tests. In addition County additional expense <br /> to Duke Power for providing |oct 1cal service to the building and <br /> it includes furnishing the transformer. This latter expense would be in <br /> the area of $1,500.00 and this is simply our mstlma+e' We are requesting g <br /> underground service and the for the <br /> difference between overhead and underground. The overhead service <br /> would <br /> be <br /> f'~~^ i.e. no charge, and the underground would cost due to trenching. <br /> . <br /> We do recommend strongly the County underground to the building. <br /> As in the Grady Brown Project, if rock is encountered during excavation or drilling of elevator r, <br /> an additional expense will be necessary. <br /> We have reviewed all the bids with the bid documents and find no apparent <br /> overlapping of bids between prime contractors. The windows were bid by <br /> Roanoke Iron Company and the other companies did not include them in their <br /> bid. On our tabulation sheet we show an amount of $243,500.80 for the low <br /> ^ the actual base bid is $2O5j000'00 <br /> =�~~' of the ~— equipment. Mr. Gledhill , we advise to sign a <br /> ~'- -- -- by Iron at $205,000'00 and then we shall add the <br /> � -- ��"`=-^ with Roanoke | r <br /> $38,500.00 as a change order. This Th| would cover all the windows and instal- , <br /> lotion of these in the building. <br /> . � <br /> Having reviewed all the bids we would recommend to the County the low bidders <br /> as follows: <br /> | ` <br /> General Contractor: Security Building Company <br /> Jail Equipment: Roanoke iron & Bridge, Inc, <br /> Plumbing: Condor Mechanical Contractors, Inc. <br /> Heating & Cooling: Comfort Engineer, Inc. <br /> Electrical : Pendergraph & Thomerson <br /> Kitchen Equipment: Gardner-Benoit. <br /> Should there be any questions we would be happy to discuss them with you <br /> NIPPA <br /> • Jos,' L. Nassif /) <br /> /tecf <br /> '—' <br /> { ' <br /> �� � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.