Laserfiche WebLink
08/27199 16:13 $503 373 4367 M C LEGAL f~ 001/007 <br />Marion County Legal Counset <br />530 Center ~treet NE, Suite 312 <br />Salem, OR 97301 <br />(503)588-5220 <br />Fax: 373-4367 <br />FACSIM{LE TRANSMITTAL FORM <br />August 27, 1999 <br />To: Billy Wasson, CHSQ project coordinator 588~5237 <br />Ben C. Fetherston, Jr. 585-3978 <br />From: Michael J. Hansen <br />Marion County Legal Counsel <br />Re: P/K contract amendments. Comment of suggest P/K revisions <br />T'~TAI. IVUMBER OF PAGES (including this sheet): Seven <br />Ben and ~illy, <br />Attached is the amendment I drafted with suggested changes from P/K and my written <br />connments in the left hand column. Let me elaborate: <br />I(1)(2) { used the definition of "Ovefiead" offered by P1K, without changee If I <br />understand the effect of deleting equipment owned or leased by the <br />Contractor, this item would no fonger be part of overhead. The owners <br />would be charged for this, I assume as a direct cost. I recall some <br />criticism of the state for its easterri Oregon jail canstruction costs, when it <br />paid rental rates for old equipment ovmed by the contractor and wound up <br />paying several times the cost of comparable equipment. Is this a good <br />idea? <br />II(2)(4}(2) We can delete this language. ~ut, the Owner must evaluate such items <br />as functionality, utility, economy, etc. P/K offers to provide information. lf <br />the owners are willing to evaluate these items for themselves, then P/K <br />should provide information on these items under the next paragraph as a <br />new section It(3)(8). Owners will need the data to do an. evaluation. I <br />assume here that acceptance or rejection of a VECP is within the <br />di~cretion of the owners without chal{enge by the contractor. <br />