12/26/06 – Project has been archived by TTC.

11/09/06 – Final permit was accepted

11/03/06 – TEI is working on closeout documentation. Final devices have been installed. Final approval has been obtained from Hamilton County Building Department.

10/27/06 – Final devices have been installed. Ginter to set up to get final approval

09/29/06 – Waiting on approval of revision from Hamilton County Building Department

09/22/06 – We have passed and approved (signed off and everything!) on 21 buildings out of the 22. Each building was permitted separately. The one building (grounds keeping) is on hold until the inspector sees the 501 model number heat detectors installed in the or we submit an engineering change that corrects the permit drawings with the 503 model number. They are in the process of getting the paper work together and will forward it to you. As far as the grounds building we are not being told that we can not use the building. Also we don’t believe they occupy it all day, mainly just storage and prep for the grounds care equipment.

9/12/06 – 21 buildings passed fire alarm inspection grounds keeping building approval on hold until heat detector issue is resolved.

9/6/06 – IPS adjust strobes in cottages that were coming back with a trouble condition. They were set to the wrong setting. Ginter adjusted devices.
8/30/06 – Hillcrest performed a drill test and a few troubles came back on the system. Chris and I contact IPS and Ginter to get trouble condition resolved.
8/25/06 – Hillcrest will be unable to have the cottage door delay egress maglocks repaired prior to the 8/29 test date. Test is rescheduled for 9/12
8/21/06 – Complete rewiring of audible devices in cottages so the do not sound when fire alarm system is in alarm.

04/06/06 – Mike Stiles has requested a change in the meeting schedule for 04/10 as he is out of the office on that day.

03/06/06 – Ginter email TEI that the county was requiring separate permits for each building. TEI call the Building department and clarified the situation. The county required 22 permit applications and 6 drawings. The minimum fee per permit is 257 dollars. Ginter indicated that they did not have an amount this large covered in there bid. TEI requested that Ginter submit a total for all cost so far in the project: Some of the additional fire alarm cable, additional permit fees and deletion of 10 in-ground boxes.

03/03/06 – Ginter Electric provided submittals, TEI approved submittals.

02/28/06 – Construction meeting #1, Please see attached.

02/03/06 – Ginter submitted pay application #1, TEI approved.

01/20/06 – Preconstruction at Hillcrest.

12/16/05 – County reported that this project has been approved. Wayne Trent will be project manager on this job and therefore the project is being moved to his task sheet.

02/01/06 – Ginter Electric started field investigation.

12/01/05 – Contract was approved.

11/01/05 – TEI prepared contract for Ginter Electric, Alternate #5 was accepted.

10/31/05 – Bid opening held, apparent low bidder was Ginter Electric.

10/24/05 – Issue addendum which delayed bid opening to October 31st. Addendum was the same form Re-bid.

10/14/05 – The rebid II prebid was held. No contractors showed up for the rebid. This might be expected because everyone has already been on site for 2 prebids already on this job. There can still be and will most likely be bidders on this project.

10/13/05 – The rebid has been rejected due to bond issues again and estimate tolerances. The second rebid is on the street with a revised bid opening of 10/25/05. MS has all the revised documents on the street. The prebid is 10/14/05 at 10a.m. MS will attend for TE.

10/11/05 – Project was issued for rebid.

10/05/05 – Bid was rejected by the prosecutors for basebid plus alternate because the awarding contractor complete the bid bond for only the base bid amount. TEI advise that alternate 7, which was cabling in the ground in conduit plus a spare, was very important. Since the contractor filled in the bid bond purchasing would only allow base bid. The next lowest contractor was reviewed and but there base bid plus the alternate was greater than 10% of the advertise amount. The county decided to rebid the project.

9/02/05 – Contract completed for AC Electric, base bid plus alternate 7. Submitted to Diana for approval.

08/25/05 – Bid opening held, apparent low bidder was AC Electric.

08/10/05 – Project prebid was conducted.

08/3/05 – Project was issued for Re-Bid.

07/01/05 – Diana, Gerald and TEI decided to hold off on rebiding project to gain more interest. MS contacted several contractors to find out marked conditions. The consensus was that the school at released a lot of work to be complete by the beginning of school and the contractors where very busy. It was also determined that breaking the project into several alternates would be required to make sure the project can be complete within budget.

06/28/05 – TTC and MS discussed the bids. A clarification on the addendum split up the labor versus the equipment. The bid is not over the original estimate of 298,000 however it is over the revised estimate. TE has to discuss with Diana when she returns our call. MS believes that this project should be rebid as the bids are simply too high for this type of project.

06/24/05 – Diana emailed TE today to say that the bids came in over 10% of the budget. TTC and MS to discuss with DES on Monday in a phone call.

05/19/05 – I spoke with Andy Boyd at IPS about the project. I discussed the three state term options with him which are: A) Purchasing material only and bidding out the installation to an electrical. IPS (or competitor) would be subcontractor.B) Purchasing material and IPS to set up the system and bid out electrical labor for the installation.C) Purchasing the entire project from IPS.Option C has changed because Purchasing indicated that they can only do the project if they do not use any subcontractors. I presented this to IPS and they gracefully turn this option down because they do not have the resources to complete a project of this size on there own. Option B was discussed. I ask the question, what advantage is it to the county to proceed. IPS indicated the main advantage was for them and that the cost under state term and bid day would be about the same. IPS and I agreed that this was not the best option for the county. Option A was discussed and believed to be the best solution. This makes the bidding process cleaner and only has one contractor to manage. The above is a recommendation but if you have any comments or suggestions please let me know. I would be happy to proceed the manner you prefer.

05/12/05 – TEI contact JoAnn with purchasing to discuss doing the project under state term. She indicated that IPS could not have an electrical subcontractor because the amount of the contract was to much and must be bid out publicly. Prepurchasing material was acceptable.

05/10/05 – TEI presented final drawings and Edwards material pricing. TEI indicated that the material price provided by Edwards was in budget with all the options requested but not with alternates. TEI indicated that Alternates should remain to insure the budget. TEI indicated that there where 3 way to bid the project: 1) Prepurchase material and bid out the installation. 2) Prepurchase material and ESI setup of system, bid out electrical labor to install system. 3) Purchase entire project under state term. Hillcrest indicated that they where interested in purchasing the entire project though state term because of the difficulty of trenching on the site and the responsibility to the electrical contractor.04/18/05 – TEI present near complete drawings written around a full system replacement of any manufacturer. Hillcrest review vendor options and indicated that the two favorites where Simplex and Edwards. Overall Edwards offered a security solution that could handle the need of the fire alarm system and replace the antiquated access control system. State term options was discussed and Hillcrest indicated the we receive compare the price for Edwards with almost all requested options and compare to original budget. Items to be included is: Voice System, Access control panel for each cottage, Access control software, Data base software, Computer based graphics package. Alternates for the project shall be: Voice system in lue of Tone system, Additional access control module for each cottage, Access control module for gates and upgrade spare conduit in ground with honeycomb type.3/30/05 – Vendor presentations.

03/29/05 – Vendor presentations.

03/09/05 – TEI complete field take off and composed 4 options with associated cost estimates to proceed with project. Cost estimate #1 was to completely remove existing system and replace with a new tone system of any manufacturer. Cost estimate #2 was to completely remove existing system and replace with new voice system of any manufacturer. Cost estimate #3 was to upgrade existing system Fire Alarm Control Panel with the same manufacturer, add additional devices as required per NFPA and replace all existing wiring. Cost estimate #4 was to upgrade the Fire Alarm Control Panel with the same manufacturer, add additional devices as required per NFPA and replace some of the existing wiring. Hillcrest to review options and requested vendor presentations be conducted to aid the school in there decision. TEI to continue with drawings as far as possible until decision is complete.

02/22/05 – Project Kick Off meeting. TEI to start field take off and review options. Original cost estimate presented was for a complete system replacement. TEI suggested reviewing the existing system and look at possible options.