Laserfiche WebLink
October 18, 2004 Page 650 <br />hired to provide the on-site management service. Other issues addressed <br />during discussion included duplication of services, single prime versus multi <br />prime bidding and liability ieauea. <br />Ma. Sifford reported that in jail projects recently bid both single and <br />multi prime, the lowest bid was single prime. Examples of such projects <br />included the jail facilities in Cumberland and New Hanover Counties and a <br />Juvenile Detention Center in Tayloreville. <br />Marilyn Porter, County Attorney, advised in the multi-prime bidding <br />situation the County would be acting as the general contractor thereby <br />contracting with each contractor individually and assuming the liability. <br />Or, she said, the construction manager could request to become an "at risk" <br />construction manager which requires approval from the State Office of <br />Administration. Further, she reported the current contract with Ware Bonsall <br />would have to be amended if the project is bid multi prime. In closing, she <br />reported only one of the construction management firma interviewed qualifies <br />to be "at risk." <br />Ma. Sifford pointed out that none of the construction management <br />proposals were "at risk" proposals. She stated staff would need to produce <br />another request for proposals specifying that service if the Board wished to <br />have a construction manager at risk. <br />John Day, County Manager, suggested that these ieauea be investigated <br />and discussed in a workshop setting at a later date. <br />Commissioner Carpenter questioned the schedule for the jail project. <br />Glenn Ware of Ware Bonsall Architects confirmed the project should be ready <br />to go out to bid in July 2005. <br />(E-2) Sale of First Onion Building (Cabarrua Sank Building) <br />Marilyn Porter, County Attorney, reviewed a Memorandum dated October 4, <br />2004, outlining the significant differences between the original offer of <br />$1.2 million by Danny Boet LLC to purchase the First Union Building and the <br />upset bid of $1.3 million by Allen Craven. The major differences included: <br />(1) the Craven offer did not include the specified term regarding exterior <br />guidelines (i.e., all exterior improvements shall meet the guidelines of the <br />Secretary of the Interior for remodeling and reconstruction of historic <br />properties); (2) the Craven offer provided for a due diligence period of six <br />months, up to the date of cloning, with cloning proposed for 180 days after <br />entering into a contract with the County; and (3) the Boat offer provided a <br />due diligence period of 60 days from final acceptance of the offer with <br />closing proposed to occur within 120 days from the time a definitive <br />agreement ie entered into. Ma. Porter reported the Board had three legally <br />permissible options: <br />(1) Officially accept the Bost offer, declaring that the Craven offer was <br />not a valid upset bid due to substantive changes in the contract terms <br />and omission of a technically required provision. <br />(2) Accept the Craven offer, stating the Board is willing to assume the <br />risk of business terms more favorable to the Buyer in exchange for the <br />higher price. Start the next upset bid term of ten days. Be prepared <br />to have the Craven offer be the final bid or have a higher bid, using <br />the precedent set for more lenient business terms for the Buyer. <br />(3) Reject both the Boat offer and the Craven offer for the reasons stated <br />above and start a new upset bid process at a minimum of $1.3 million. <br />Direct County counsel to draft a form contract that all bidders must <br />unequivocally use, with the only permitted change being the price <br />offered. The risk with thin option is that no bidders come back at <br />this time. Both parties currently appear highly motivated, but that is <br />not a guarantee. <br />In closing, Ma. Porter advised that Option No. 3 was recommended by the <br />Institute of Government. <br />Commissioner Carpenter asked to be recused from voting due to her <br />employment with Wachovia Bank (formerly First Union). <br />IIPON NOTION of Commissioner Carruth, seconded by Commissioner Privette <br />and unanimously carried, the Board voted to recuse Commissioner Carpenter <br />from voting on the Bale of the First Union Building. <br />