Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 14 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Jail
Continued from page 1
Pointing out that the difference between the two bids is only $2,890, Mr. Biegel told the board, “I come down to protecting your interest. We’re going to get the best response with Baugham. He (Mark Johnson, Baugham’s contract negotiator) knows the capacities of the system that is already there. He knows that the capacity is sufficient to heat one level. He was able to tell me where there is a dry well that will have to be moved. He made clear to me that a new 200 ampere service will require a new 400 amp panel.
“I was impressed with that,” Mr. Biegel told the supervisors. “Because of his experience with other jails, he could tell me about potential cost savings by eliminating redundancies in the way doors were designed. My recommendation is Baugham. I’m convinced the Board of Supervisors can get the best product at the least cost from Baugham.”
Board members agreed to take no action that evening and to meet again on March 26.
At that Monday meeting they passed a resolution stating the board’s concern that all bids were over budget, and that bids were not1 comparable. The resolution further says that “competitive sealed bidding has led to the problems stated above, is not practicable in a project where there may be various methods of completing the called for design, and is not fiscally advantageous to the public.”
The new date for opening the bids submitted for competitive negotiation will be April 16, with the board expecting to award a contract April 24.
96.0%