My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2001 07 23
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2001
>
AG 2001 07 23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 4:52:59 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:45:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
7/23/2001
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
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
MooreC NanAilen <br /> <br />July 13, 2001 <br /> <br />Cabarrus County <br />County Governmental Building, Room 230 <br />65 Church Street <br />Concord, NC 28025 <br /> <br />Re: Project No. ODA 001476, Cabarrus County Exposition Park <br /> Bid Protest- Financial Impact on County <br /> <br />William H. Gammon <br />Attorney at Law <br /> <br />T 919821 6252 <br />F 919 835 6552 <br />billgamrnon @mvalaw.com <br /> <br />Moore & Van Alien PLLC <br /> <br />Suite 1700 <br />One Hannover Square <br />Post Office Box 26507 <br />Raleigh. NC 27611-6507 <br /> <br />Dear Sirs: <br /> <br />I am writing to follow up on'the bid protest our firm filed on Wednesday afternoon (7/11/01) on <br />behalf of the Charlotte office of Beers Construction Company ("Beers") with Cabarrus County (the <br />"County") on the Exposition Park project (the "Project"). As time is of the essence, we are quite <br />interested in hearing how you intend to deal with our protest. <br /> <br />I believe it is important for the County to focus on the financial impact to your citizens should you <br />elect not to contract with Beers, the low bidder on the Project. In doing so, you should keep in mind <br />the following facts: (1) Beers, a responsible offeror, submitted the low bid on the multi-prime · <br />version of the solicitation, in a timely fashion; (2) Beers, again a responsible offeror, submitted the <br />low bid on the single-prime version of the solicitation, again in a timely fashion; and (3) the only <br />reasons that the Beers bids were not accepted were either violations of the Solicitation's own <br />provisions or violations of the North Carolina General Statutes. <br /> <br />The financial impact to the County of the County's improper actions will be a significant amount of <br />money, no matter whether the County elects to go with the multi-prime or single-prime delivery <br />system. Your constituents surely should not bear such a financial burden due to the above-mentioned <br />violations. Beers is preserving its bids and its work papers that evidence these financial impacts to <br />the County, and can supply them for your review. <br /> <br />We Iook forward to your timely response to the Beers bid protest. <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC <br /> <br />William. H. Garnlmon "' <br /> <br /> Charlotte, NC <br /> Durham, NC <br />RALIX396284_ I Charleston, SC <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.