05/19/1999 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes

Home Browse Search

.MINUTES May 19, 1999 7 BOARD OF HEALTH Mr. Cassanelh stated, "No, no I'm saying, am I correct by saying that he's saying that there is no need for two additional trailers?" Mr. Cram responded, "He said "it is our belief...". Hear me out. All I can do is quote their words. I'm not going to put words in their mouth, okay, "that a contract change order..." Can I abbreviate and say, CWM? "...to provide more trailers is not warranted." This is what it says and this is the letter that was dated February 10th." Mr. Esper added, "So he's saying then that his original RFP with two trailers..." Mr. Cram interjected, "No, no, hold on, wait a minute. His original RFP was for..." Mr. Esper stated, "Well, you say three, but, listen I'm not going to sit here and argue with you whether it was two or three. Please hear me out. The bottom line is well produce affidavits, well produce contracts and RFP's at the time of the contract submission and at the contract signing that say two trailers and one back-up. Now, I'm not going to argue semantics as to when this change occurred or how it occurred or why it occurred because that's not my business. I'm telling you that I have an RFP that said two trailers and a back-up. No, it didn't even say a back-up, it said two trailers. Then, after our meeting with the review board, prior to our being awarded the contract, they asked us if we would provide a back-up trailer. A back-up. Now this is all documented. This isn't just off the top of our heads. And in all honesty, that's not why we're here tonight. I'm not here to argue whether the original RFP said two or three or whether you want to pay $40,000 in order to do this or whether you want to put an RFP out. I would just like a solution to the problem. At this point in time this is the pleasure of your Board. You can do as you see fit. I just need... We've been trying to work within the scenario here and not have to go to... Like you go to your lawyers. We have our lawyers. I don't want to have to go to our lawyers. I don't want to have to put it in my lawyers'hands and have him sue the Town for an overcharge, plus costs, plus damages to get our $40,000 because it's going to cost me money to do it. But, I'm certainly not going to sit here and play games and argue three trailers or two trailers. The RFP said two trailers. That's the way it is. Additional back-up was added on in the contract. I'm sorry to say but that's the way it is. Now, the Board can make a conscious decision as to, is it beneficial, can a contract come back less if it's gone out for bid. Are the people doing their job that the Board feels that they are comfortable with the job the people are doing? Other than that, and if they are not, then so be it. We will let you know in due time, very quickly, as to our response. If it is going out for RFP, we will then put our notice in that we will terminate our contract and we will decide whether or not we want to bid on the RFP. But, I will tell you, emphatically now, that we will proceed with litigation relative to the overcharge cost plus damages. And that's it." Mr. Doherty stated, "That's fine. But you know what? If you fail to perform the work, we'll just pull your bond because that's what its there for. You were awarded the contract in order to save the Town money. That was the wisdom of the Board of Selectmen. The contract also states "at a minimum" such equipment will be provided. It doesn't say "at a maximum". It doesn't say you are limited to two." Mr. Esper stated, "I think you should go back and read your contract." J