Loading...
2001-132-Minutes for Meeting March 19,2001 Recorded 3/30/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 132 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *CJ2001-132 * Vol -Page Printed: 04/05/2001 14:50:59 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Mar. 30, 2001; 8:09 a.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 14 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KEOP�CCJHE AP� 200! MAK Ju hi u 01 mr� iU lam 13: Q(4 0_1hr CnUNTYtCLRK �) >i�L r t tai i.. L_ i4' :CO NTY CLE�f'K Pm'i :'Li Boawd o mmissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF MEETING Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2001 The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a decision regarding a bid protest on the Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project. Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis Luke and Mike Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Susan Mayea and Jennifer Scanlon, Commissioners' Office; Susie Penhollow, County Clerk; and Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel. Also attending were Doug Cline of L & H Grading, Inc. and Jim Baker of JAL Construction, Inc. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. Rick Isham gave an overview of the meeting held the previous Wednesday, March 14, 2001. There was a hearing on a protest that was filed in respect to the Solid Waste Knott Landfill Cell 2 improvements. The apparent low bidder at the time the bids were opened was L & H Grading, and on February 28 the Board issued a notice of intent to award the bid to them, and gave a fourteen -day period for other contractors to file protests. One protest was filed by JAL Construction. At the meeting of February 28 there was oral testimony given; only one document was received into the record, and it was a copy of the bid that was submitted by TGL, Inc., a proposed subcontractor in this project. There was some discussion about what that particular bid constituted. Minutes of Meeting Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Quality Services Performed with Pride Monday, March 19, 2001 Page 1 of 14 Pages Mr. Isham further explained that the bids are all in the record. There are two areas that are protested. One is whether the subcontractor disclosure form had been properly completed primarily regarding the subcontractor who would be providing the liner. The liner is a four-part process. The County's bid form broke that liner portion into four elements. L & H said they requested a bid from TGL for just line item #8, which was the liner, and testimony from TGL was that it was an "all or nothing" bid. One of the arguments is whether a bid is responsive if it is not for all of the work that the subcontractor was proposing to provide. The statute says that the subcontractor shall be listed who "will be performing the work". An argument of JAL is that it was shown, for whatever reason, that the subcontractor would not be performing the work because, as was clear from the evidence and an affidavit that was submitted, TGL does not split the liner work into component parts nor does JAL agree to provide just one part of it, for a number of reasons. They indicated the only reason L & H listed TGL was to list the liner; but in actuality a general contractor would contract directly with the liner company to provide the liner. Mr. Isham stated that in going over the bids, he also looked at the issue of technical compliance of the administrative rule that the County must follow. It indicates that three pieces of information must be provided. These are the subcontractor's name and address, the subcontractor's board registration number, and the subcontractor's dollar amount for the job. It doesn't say that you have to disclose what it is that the subcontractor going to provide. The first question is, when there is a protest, are we required to look beyond those basic elements. In the bid specifications, it appears that it is almost the same - the name, address, and telephone number of the subcontractor; the subcontractor's registration number; and the anticipated dollar amount of the subcontract. The County added the following: if no subcontract subject to disclosure is required or anticipated, the bidder shall so indicate by entering "none". Early on in this process there was a bidder who didn't submit a contract disclosure statement, and the question was whether in the absence of having no subcontractors, could you not submit something. It was decided they would have to submit the document even if they had no subcontractors so the County would know that they had met that response element. Minutes of Meeting Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Monday, March 19, 2001 Page 2 of 14 Pages On the subcontractor disclosures that were submitted to the Board for the purpose of making an intent to award, L & H Grading's subcontractor disclosure form listed eight subcontractors. Only three of these showed their CCB number. JAL Construction's subcontractor disclosures listed three subcontractors, and all show the CCB number. Commissioner Daly indicated that a supplier does not necessarily have to have a CCB number, unless they are installing the material. Rick Isham stated that the second issue in the protest is the gravel. Per testimony, no one is listed in L & H Grading's bid that would be supplying gravel. Testimony was given that they had a source of gravel that would meet the specifications set forth in the bid document. If you are purchasing a rock resource in place, and you're not a supplier and you're not a contractor, you are basically selling land to the contractor. Mr. Isham said that in his opinion regarding the rock issue, if you are actually providing and crushing your own rock, the failure to list that is probably not an issue. The rock will be seen later in the processing of the bid document, and if it doesn't meet specifications it could be rejected. Commissioner Luke said that by the same token, if a supplier is listed and their rock isn't to specifications, you can reject that also. Mr. Isham said yes, if you intended to purchase the rock as a supply and it met the minimum disclosure amounts. In the JAL bid, companies like Cascade Gardens and Tomco Electric were not listed. One would assume that either JAL is going to do that work predominately with its own forces, or the cost is relatively small in relation to the overall project bid. In a large contract you won't see what might be considered a significant contract for a subcontractor, as it is relatively small given the total dollar amount of this project. The question is that you have information that, when looking behind the bid, says that the first tier subcontractor that wais listed by L & H is unlikely to do the work. JAL has made the argument that you have to basically be in the position that when you get your notice to proceed, they have the contract in place with that first tier subcontractor. Minutes of Meeting Monday, March 19, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Page 3 of 14 Pages JAL's argument is that L & H Grading did not have enough of a contractual relationship with TGL in order to list them as a subcontractor. What L & H has said is that they asked for a bid only for line item #8. This is the crux of the dispute between TGL and L & H. TGL has put an affidavit into the record that says if L & H had asked for a bid for just line item #8, they would not have received the bid from TGL, because TGL would not quote for less than all of the work. There is a dispute on what was said on that basis, because TGL did provide a quote for all of the work with the liner, and subsequently confirmed that they will not contract with L & H for that reduced amount of work because their bid was not just for a portion of the liner work. This is notwithstanding the fact that the estimator for L & H has said that was all he had asked for; this is also contained in the record. Some additional information was received. A supplemental document was received from L & H Grading, which was exactly consistent with what was said in the meeting. Mr. Wilkinson's argument was also added, and in addition there is a letter from JAL Construction regarding their position. All of this information came in before the 12:00 noon deadline, and is all in the record. What JAL Construction did is supplement the testimony of the hearing with the affidavit of TGL, which puts into dispute whether L & H received a quote in response to an indication that they wanted TGL to bid for only one of the four items that make up the liner. TGL said that if that had been requested, they would not have provided a quote. Plus, they indicated in their affidavit that they would not act as a supplier because they are not in the supplier business; and that a supplier would have dealt directly with the contractor for the purpose of submitting a quote for the liner. What it gets down to is a fairly narrow issue, going to the responsiveness of the bid, and whether, given the evidence the Board has received, who bears the burden of showing that they in fact had a subcontractor whom was going to do the work. Mr. Isham then read from ORS 279.027 (3) (a): "Shall submit to the public contracting agency a disclosure of any first tier subcontractor that will be furnishing labor or materials". Minutes of Meeting Monday, March 19, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Page 4 of 14 Pages He said what there is before the Board is evidence that TGL will not be supplying the labor or materials that was listed in L & H Grading's subcontractor information. Commissioner DeWolf asked if L & H knew TGL's feelings at the time of the bid. Mr. Isham said this is known only to L & H, but it comes down to a matter of who has the burden of making sure that their subcontractors are on board. He said sometimes subcontractors do have disputes with their general contractors, and normally the County doesn't see that on the front end of the bid; it is seen during the course of the bid. Mr. Isham stated that the one thing that seems to relate to this issue is substitution of a first tier subcontractor. Under ORS 279.322, a prime contractor whose bid is accepted may substitute a first tier subcontractor that was not disclosed. When a subcontractor that is not disclosed under that section fails or refuses to execute a written contract after award, the contractor must execute a purchase order or whatever other document to complete the contract that's in process with the subcontractor. Commissioner Daly asked that in regard to the contract, would it have to have been written and signed by both parties? Mr. Isham replied that the ORS says that when the subcontractor who has been disclosed fails or refuses to execute a written contract with the contractor after having had a reasonable opportunity to do so, after the written contract, as based on the general terms, conditions, plans and specifications for the public improvement project, or the terms of that subcontractor's written bid is presented to the contractor by the prime contractor. Mr. Isham said that what he thinks this anticipates is that the contractor in fact has the work. This could be a purchase order, it could be an acceptance noted at the bottom of the formal written bid, or the subcontractor could have a contract that is twice as big as the general's contract. Mr. Isham then brought up one last item. The County adopted the State's general rules for contracting because they are the model rules. The whole subcontractor disclosure issue is very new, in existence for only about two years, and it will be a while before everyone is familiar with it. He stated that regarding substitutions, substitutions of affected first tier contractors shall only be made in accordance with ORS 279.322. Minutes of Meeting Monday, March 19, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Page 5 of 14 Pages Mr. Isham said that agencies such as the County do not have a statutory role or duty to review, approve, or resolve disputes concerning such substitutions. However, agencies are not precluded from making related inquiries or investigations of complaints in order to enforce the contract provisions. Mr. Isham further said the County is not yet in that stage because there is not a contract; but the County is in a stage where a protest is filed based on the County's notice of intent to award the bid. If the County were at the contract stage, the role of the agency is not to resolve any dispute between the general and the subcontractor as it relates to substitution. Commissioner Luke asked if there is anything in the specifications that says one contractor has to do all phases of the liner. He further said that the testimony from TGL was that they had not worked with L & H for a long time because of problems with L & H's previous management. He then asked, would it be fair to assume that L & H hadn't bid with TGL for a while? Rick Isham replied that testimony was that they had not worked with L & H for a long time. Commissioner Luke then said that it is fair to assume that they didn't know how each other bid. Rick Isham said that he recalled that TGL hadn't bid on an L & H job for about ten years. L & H has indicated that they have been under new management since 1996. Commissioner Daly asked if there hadn't been some testimony that someone from L & H had taken someone from TGL out for coffee. Mr. Isham said that was after the fact, after the bids were opened; they apparently went to a Shari's restaurant and discussed the liner. Commissioner DeWolf stated that it seems to him that the problems the Board faces is that there is nothing written for either side to supply that spells it all out. One person says they asked for a bid only on one part, and another says they were asked for a bid on all four parts. The Board only has an affidavit after the fact. The only time that has any impact on this issue is the time period before the bid. He said that he has asked for evidence from the beginning that one side or the other can prove what was actually asked, and no one has done that. Minutes of Meeting Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Monday, March 19, 2001 Page 6 of 14 Pages Mr. Isham said that it appears pretty clear that the requests were probably done over the phone, and there is likely no written record. Commissioner Luke stated that the Board would not be here if the general had done the same thing he has done on other jobs; that is, installing the liner entirely by himself, as he is qualified to do so. He would have only been required to list the supplier. Commissioner Daly asked for the date and time of the bid opening. Mr. Isham said it was February 15 at 2:00 p.m. (A general discussion of the timing occurred, based on the time shown on the TGL fax to L & H. It was determined that the time shown on the faxed document could be in error, depending upon how the fax machine was programmed, so therefore could not be relied upon.) Rick Isham said that if he had to ascribe burden of persuasion, he feels that someone should be able to show up at a protest to demonstrate that they properly listed the subcontractors who will perform the work. In his opinion, the general has the higher burden of proof, and should list those who will be doing the work. In this case, the subcontractor does not appear to be on board with this contractor. If it didn't matter, the contractor could list people he never even called or perhaps never intended to use. Commissioner DeWolf said that the JAL attorney said he did not know where the $128,000 figure came from. Then he said later that he needed to correct himself, that this was listed as four different elements, and the $128,000 - the same number that is in L & H's bid package - was there. If L & H in good faith believed that TGL would perform the one part, and intended all along to do the other three aspects of that work, clearly there is a communications problem. Commissioner DeWolf said that he can fully believe that L & H believed that TGL would perform just the one part, and that TGL fully believed they were bidding to perform all four parts. What do you do in that case? Both of them in good faith believed something completely different from each other. Minutes of Meeting Monday, March 19, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Page 7 of 14 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that he disagrees. There is a higher standard now for general contractors, but there is also a higher standard for the subcontractors to be clear in their bids and what they are bidding on. If you go by the logic that the general contractor is the only one who should be responsible, a subcontractor who knew what he was doing could screw up the best bid. That's a different standard, and he feels that is unfair. Rick Isham replied that first of all the County does not have a contractual relationship with the subcontractor. The County's contractual relationship is with the general contractor, so therefore the duty is on the general contractor to properly complete the subcontractor disclosure statement. There are a lot of valid reasons to substitute another subcontractor, and the County has no duty to get involved with that process. Using that same logic, if there is a dispute between a subcontractor that has been listed and the general contractor, why would the County assume that it would be involved in resolving that dispute? JAL has been careful to say that, dispute or not, it's the issue of whether L & H has been responsive. If you fail to submit your subcontractor disclosure form, your bid is automatically non-responsive and it would be thrown out. Commissioner DeWolf asked that if the contractor believes it is responsive - and up until the time the intent to award was announced, it appears that TGL was willing to do a scope of work for L & H Grading, albeit a different scope from what L & H thought - at what point did L & H become non-responsive? Certainly not up until the bid was opened, according to the evidence. It seems that what the Board is looking for is to get the job done, and it must rely on the general contractor. If L & H believed in good faith that they had a subcontractor that was willing to do the work, how is that non-responsive? After the fact it can be said that it is non- responsive because the subcontractor can't do the work; but the same would hold true if that business went bankrupt and couldn't perform, or if all the employees got Legionnaire's disease and died. Minutes of Meeting Monday, March 19, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Page 8 of 14 Pages Mr. Isham said that obviously the County can do a project with the general absent any disclosure whatsoever of subcontractors, and did it this way for years. The County would award a contract, have a subsequent meeting with the contractor at which they would been shown the subcontractor list, the County would go through a qualification process of the subcontractors, and off the general contractor would go on the project. The legislature has imposed these new duties on agencies such as the County, making the County primarily act as the court of whether this law is being complied with. Commissioner DeWolf said, so the County can do that, but it can't resolve a dispute between the contractor and the subcontractor. Mr. Isham stated that the County's contract actually follows the Oregon Department of Transportation's rules, although what the County has in place may be a little bit clearer than the way this is written. He said he has spoken with the Road Department regarding this issue. Commissioner Daly said that it sounded to him like Mr. Isham's recommendation is that L & H's bid was non-responsive. Mr. Isham replied that in the context of the protest, it was non-responsive because they did not list people who will do the work. While this allows a subcontractor to possibly be a snake in the grass, and a subcontractor could pull the plug on the general contractor's bid by saying they wouldn't do the work after all, it doesn't mean that the general contractor and the subcontractor don't have some problems that they can work out in some way. What you have here is a subcontractor who says that he didn't bid just for line item #8, that instead he bid for the whole project. Commissioner DeWolf asked why the burden of proof isn't on JAL to prove that L & H is lying. Everything else in American justice is that you're innocent until proven guilty. Here this situation is being switched, and we are saying we're going to assume that L & H Grading is non-responsive since now, after the bid has been opened, the subcontractor is saying he won't perform the work shown on the contractor's subcontractor disclosure form. Minutes of Meeting Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Monday, March 19, 2001 Page 9 of 14 Pages Rick Isham said he thinks it goes to who has the primary burden of proof. Initially JAL had the burden of proof to come forward and show why they believe the bid from L & H is non-responsive. They showed up with the subcontractor L & H listed, who now says he will not do the work for L & H. The statute says you must list people who will do the work. Once JAL proves that, then it's back to L & H to show that what TGL and JAL say is wrong. Basically what L & H says is that their guy asked TGL on the telephone for a bid for line item #8, and got faxed a document from TGL with four prices listed on it. They chose one price out of the four and listed it on their subcontractor disclosure document. Commissioner Luke stated that when the bids were turned in at 10:00 a.m., were they broken out by section at that time? Timm Schimke replied that there is a list of twenty -some items that make up the general contractor's bids. These four liner items were broken out in the general contractor's bids. He said that he believes both parties acted in good faith, but that L & H should have confirmed with TGL their scope of work before listing them in that manner. Rick Isham stated that one of the reasons for substitution is clerical error. If a mistake resulting from an inadvertent clerical error occurs and you are unable to contract with the subcontractor because of it, you can substitute a subcontractor. He further stated that post -contract there's a rule that the Board doesn't get involved; this now is the law. The legislature changed the old way of doing business. Mr. Isham then asked, what is in it for Deschutes County? This has not helped the County at all. The whole reasoning behind this legislation appears to have been to stop bid shopping, which may not even be an issue in this situation. Commissioner DeWolf stated that he disagrees with this process. He said that the reason he fundamentally disagrees is that he doesn't think you can know the heart of someone with 20/20 hindsight. He stated that he draws a line of demarcation when those bids were opened. Prior to that time, no one has shown that L & H didn't have a subcontractor who was able and willing to do that work. No one has been able to prove that; they said so afterwards. That makes it all circumstantial evidence. Minutes of Meeting Monday, March l 9, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Page 10 of 14 Pages Rick Isham explained that there is evidence in the record of a subsequent meeting between L & H and TGL for the purpose of getting agreement from TGL to provide for a portion of the job. That is evidence that can be viewed as being consistent with JAL's position. Commissioner Luke said that he disagrees, because why would L & H even meet with TGL if L & H knew before the bid opening that TGL wouldn't do the one thing. Why would you go have coffee with them to discuss the contract if you knew before the bid was even opened that they weren't interested in doing the work for you? Commissioner Daly stated that if TGL intended to do all or nothing, it seems as though they would have said something on the document they sent to L & H and others. Commissioner DeWolf replied that this is a "maybe", too. It is all conjecture, since there is no real written evidence. Rick Isham stated that there are also some good reasons to support the L & H award. One is that there is a history of legislation to protect subcontractor switching after a bid has been given. This is not likely a case of bid shopping. Commissioner Luke said that obviously many mistakes were made, and overall there has been very poor communications. He said he feels that L & H truly believed in their bid. If TGL said they wanted to do all or nothing, they probably were acting in good faith, too. There's no indication that the general contractor would know this. Commissioner Luke further stated that if L & H was doing what they have done on a lot of other jobs, TGL wouldn't even be listed. If a contractor lists a subcontractor and decides to do the work themselves, and they are qualified to do so, can they substitute themselves? Rick Isham said that might work, but there are only eight reasons for substitution. They would also have had to list the supplier of the material on the required disclosure form. Minutes of Meeting Monday, March 19, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Page 11 of 14 Pages Commissioner DeWolf stated that he would like to see the County do something in its bid contract process to require that this type of information be in writing prior to the bid opening, such as a written agreement between the general contractor and the subcontractor. This requirement could eliminate future potential conflicts such as this one. The County's policy should be modified to address this kind of issue so it isn't repeated. Timm Schimke said that it would be a huge undertaking to try to be that specific to avoid this kind of problem in the future. It would involve a lot of extra work for everyone. Rick Isham stated that L & H Grading could have had the four-part liner listed as one item on the bid form, and still could have listed TGL for one portion of that. Nothing would prohibit a subcontractor who is only supplying materials or a portion of the work to quote the whole activity. A statement in the form provided in these contract documents requires that contractors identify all first tier subcontractors that will be furnishing labor and materials. Mr. Isham further explained that the learning curve was this: The County put out a contract after this new law became effective, and left the first tier subcontractor stuff off. The County got a complaint, and changed the form by adding language, and looked at ODOT's process since they had the best set of forms available at that time. Changes have been made to respond to various issues as they arose. The first protest issue received was when someone failed to submit their subcontractor disclosure form; their bid was subsequently disqualified. Commissioner DeWolf said that he keeps coming back to one thing; that is, why would L & H Grading list a subcontractor that they knew would not perform the work. That blows their contract. He said he can't imagine why they would knowingly do that. Rick Isham replied that he doesn't think that they in fact listed someone that they believed would not do the work. They just weren't clear on the scope of work. Commissioner DeWolf then said that this tells him that when L & H submitted their bid, they submitted it listing a subcontractor that they felt was going to do the work. Minutes of Meeting Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Monday, March 19, 2001 Page 12 of 14 Pages Rick Isham said that the question is whether you can list a subcontractor without assuring, as the general contractor, that that person will do the work. There is no evidence that they went beyond getting the fax document from TGL. Commissioner Luke stated that until you actually sign the contract with the subcontractor, you have no idea if they are going to do the work. Just because the subcontractor bid with you doesn't mean the subcontractor has to sign a contract or perform on a contract. You are putting a higher standard on the general contractor who can then be controlled by a subcontractor who simply says he doesn't have the time now, my foreman quit, or simply I'm not doing the job. Rick Isham responded that once the general contractor relies on a bid, and it was a valid bid from a subcontractor, and that subcontractor then says no, he's going to have a problem. Because the general contractor relied on that bid, that subcontractor could be subject to a lawsuit. Commissioner Luke said, where does it say in the statute that the subcontractor has to sign a contract with the general contractor? Rick Isham replied that the subcontractor has to sign or could be subject to a lawsuit. Commissioner Luke stated that you can't even get a contractor for non- performance, and you can't prohibit him from bidding on the next job, either. Commissioner Daly stated that he feels he has to go along with what Rick Isham says in that, when looking at the statute, it is very clear that the contractor has to list subcontractors who will be doing the work. Commissioner Luke asked Commissioner Daly if he believes that L & H Grading fraudulently listed TGL as a subcontractor. Commissioner Daly said he doesn't believe there was any fraud involved at all. He said that he feels it was done in good faith, but that communication was obviously poor. Commissioner DeWolf stated that if it was done in good faith, then it was, in fact, responsive. Commissioner Daly said that according to statute, he doesn't think that it is. He said that he wants to stick strictly to the law, since he has previously claimed a perceived potential conflict in this particular situation. Minutes of Meeting Monday, March 19, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Page 13 of 14 Pages After a brief discussion, a decision was made by the Board to delay their decision until Wednesday, March 21, in order to give the Commissioners additional time to review the situation. Being no further discussion on this issue brought before the Board, Chair Tom DeWolf adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m. DATED this 19th Day of March 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tom DeWolf, Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary R. L evz A / c ael M. Daly, ommissioner Minutes of Meeting Board of County Commissioners Convened as the Contract Review Board Discussion of Protest of Intent to Award Bid for Knott Landfill Cell 2 Project Monday, March 19, 2001 Page 14 of 14 Pages