Laserfiche WebLink
13. WHEREAS, the Board now deems it appropriate to invoke in <br />writing the exemption authorized by Section ~43-64.32(b) of the <br />General Statutes by stating and clarlfying the reasons therefor <br /> <br />and the circumstances attendant thereto: <br /> <br /> NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: <br /> <br /> 1. The circumstances attendant to the employment of the <br />firm of Talbert, C~x & Associates, Inc. (now Espey Ruston <br />Company) immediately consecutive to work performed by wilbur <br />Smith and Associates in relation to airport studies, without <br />again announcing requirements to select firms qualified to <br />provide such services, are those stated in clauses one through <br />ten above. <br /> <br /> 2. The reasons for employlng Talbert, Cox & Associates, <br /> <br />Inc. Espey Huston Company) without again announcing <br /> (now <br /> <br />requirements to select firms are: <br /> <br /> a. Talhert, Cox & Associates (now Espey Buston <br /> Company) was among the five firms that responded to the <br /> invitation to submit proposals authorized upon motion <br /> by the Board on June 17, 1985, and the firm's interest <br /> and qualifications were well known to the County. <br /> <br /> b. The work immediately regulred i~volved <br /> resolving difficulties experienced with the work <br /> performed by Wilbur Smith and Associates~ and the 197:9 <br /> County experience with an earlier airport study <br /> conducted by Talber~, Cox & Associates, Inc. (now Espey <br /> Buston Company) indicated that the firm was uniquely <br /> <br /> <br />