|
Sections Opinion County Obituaries Wandering Minds Announcements Classifieds Legal Notices Crime Blotter Off The Wall School System EC District Office School Board Strom Thurmond Fox Creek High School News Student News Public Offices Edgefield County Edgefield Johnston Trenton Public Forums To enter you must read our Terms of Service Pundits Neal Bortz Townhall.com National Review Online The New Republic Add your online favorite by e-mailing it to us here. News links Edgefield Advertiser Aiken Standard North Augusta Star The State Augusta Chronicle Atlanta Journal United Press Associated Press FOX News Reuters CNS News WorldNet Daily Newsmax Drudge Report GoogleNews Yahoo!News New York Times New York Post Los Angeles Times Washington Times Washington Post |
Contracts
for office moves never open to bid Edgefield Construction said to have offered goods and services to gain contract Edgefielddaily.com web posted April 21, 2005 Staff reporting Questions have been raised concerning the contract to move the offices of the Probate and Magistrate Courts along with the Administrators office. The problem comes with such a large expenditure, over $74,000, and the work was not put out for bids in the public as required. Clerk to Council Barbara Stark said the phone and computer moves were done under a current contract with Southern Bell and Telco. On the construction and labor questions Stark referred us to Howard Gibson, Director of Building and Planning, who oversaw the contracts for the work. Gibson stated the work was not put up for bids and that since Edgefield Construction was already under contract with the county with the Detention Center, he simply submitted a change order to cover the cost thereby skirting the requirement of bids. There are stipulations in state law that allow such a move according to Gibson, who stated, “we couldn’t find a GC (general contractor) to talk with us on such a small job,” saying that Edgefield Construction also, "agreed to contribute materials they had in storage in order to get the job done under budget," Gibson said. Also, since Edgefield Construction was already under contract it was easier to “extend the contract to cover the move,” he said. Gibson also said they agreed to lower labor charges. Gibson stated there were only two general contractors in the county and the other available contractor they did not want to use. Edgefield Daily inquired about another local contractor, R.D.Brown Construction, to which Gibson responded, "they wouldn't be interested in such a small job." However, statements by Director Gibson that Edgefield Construction offered to contribute materials free of charge in order to have the contract extended to them are questionable under state law. No entities seeking to gain employment or provide services to county government are allowed to offer goods or services in order to be awarded such a contract. Edgefield Daily.com will follow up in our Friday edition with more information and the response of state officials regarding the move and the contracts used to perform the moves. Related stories County Council meeting, Edgefield Construction $17,000 over budget Return to
Headlines
Contact us All original material is property of Edgefield Daily.com and cannot be reproduced or distributed without the expressed written permission of Edgefield Daily.com |
|
| Contact us: Editor |
|
|
 |