Laserfiche WebLink
ASSOCIATES,. p,A. \ <br /> KIMBALL \ <br /> <br /> March 10, 1989 <br /> <br /> Michael Ruffin <br /> County Manager <br /> Cabarrus County <br /> P. O. Box 707 <br /> Concord, NC 28026-0707 <br /> <br /> RE: Additions & Alterations <br /> Cabarrus County Jail <br /> Dear Mr. Ruffin: <br /> <br /> This correspondence is being forwarded in an attempt to avoid <br /> further delay on the owner-proposed contract revision of the monitor <br /> system, which remains pending due to the following items. <br /> <br /> The A/E on February 9, 1989, forwarded to the owner the owner- <br />requested monitor revision cost breakdown, received by the A/E from <br />the prison equipment contractor January 25, 1989. <br /> <br /> The A/E noted that the four-monitor system orginally specified <br />for the facility could perform the task of viewing all cameras, uti- <br />lizing the signal switcher originally specified. <br /> <br /> The owner has noted, however, that delayed viewing of the isola- <br />tion cells (only two cameras per monitor) is necessary to provide ade- <br />quate staff supervision, thus necessitating the additional monitors <br />and switching capability. <br /> <br /> The owner contends that the A/E should have been aware of the <br />delayed viewing requirement for the isolation cells and as such should <br />be held financially responsible, thus resulting in an additional delay <br />in approving this contract revision. <br /> <br /> Regarding the owner's contention that the A/E should have been <br />aware of the delayed viewing requirement, the A/E references the A/E <br />letter of May 18, 1987, to County Manager Charles McGinnis, in which <br />the A/E noted that camera supervision of cells is not recommended by <br />our office because the American Correctional Association's standards <br />advise against cameras as a substitute for staff supervision. <br /> <br />DZ90310.1 <br /> <br /> ARCHITECTS <br /> ENGINEERS <br /> 3 <br /> <br /> II <br /> <br /> <br />