[ back ]
Pettibone Road change orders still in dispute
(by Sue Reid - June 22, 2011)
Pettibone Road change orders still in dispute
By SUE REID
Cost overruns on the Pettibone Road reconstruction project remain in question following a special meeting Monday of Solon City Council's public works committee.
The committee once again tabled the issue, and the ordinance approving the change order with Kenmore Construction in the amount of slightly more than $86,000 was removed from City Council's regular agenda that evening.
The committee referred the issue to the city's law director by a vote of 2-1, with Councilmen Richard A. Bell and Robert N. Pelunis voting in favor and Councilman William D. Mooney opposing it.
Mr. Mooney said he believes it's a factual issue, not a legal one. "We have some disputed issues with Kenmore, but city officials have looked at this and said it is not disputable, and we owe them money," he said.
This would be the fourth and final change order associated with the project and provide the final compensation to Kenmore Construction, of Akron, for last winter's shutdown. Thus far, the city has paid slightly more than $1.5 million in change orders for the project.
"From our review, the recommendation from the administration is that these are reimbursable costs," Public Works Commissioner James S. Stanek said.
"We don't want to unjustly enrich the contractor," Mr. Pelunis said at the start of the meeting. He questioned costs over and above the agreed-upon amounts associated with the resequencing of the project.
Rick E. Capone, president of Quality Control Inspection Inc., who served as the inspector on the project for the city, said the original bid was for a 24-month project with three phases. Each phase had a change of traffic pattern, and there was one lump sum associated with that, he said. "During the course of the project, that changed."
The first phase was extended, and then phase two and three were under construction concurrently. "You had three zones being constructed at the same time, and there were increased costs to the maintenance of traffic lump sum item in addition to increased cost to other maintenance of traffic items that are paid by the measured quantity," Mr. Capone said.
"Traffic maintenance is a very complex item," he said. According to the Ohio Department of Transportation and Solon's contract, "unless a maintenance of traffic activity is separately itemized, it is paid under a lump sum. The city has 19 separate items for traffic maintenance in addition to the maintaining traffic lump sum," he said.
Mr. Bell asked Mr. Capone why, as the inspector on the job with the responsibility of making regular reports to the city, he did not inform the city of the growing overruns.
"The first time I heard of this was at the last meeting June 1," Mr. Bell said. "For a whole year and a half, we were to be advised as to what this is costing the city and its residents." During the course of last year, the city was receiving monthly reports, he added.
"We were never advised, 'you are accruing extra costs,'" Mr. Bell said. "That was the purpose of the reports."
"I can tell you that we have put this through its proper vetting process," Mr. Capone said. "This money is due to Kenmore. I apologize for the late notice."
Mr. Bell asked Mr. Capone if Kenmore was providing regular updates on the cost increases. "Were we not informed or did Kenmore hold this?" he asked.
"This is an item you can't identify until you get to a certain point in a project," Mr. Capone said. "The whole purpose and point of change order one was to resequence and accelerate the project and put it back on track.
"In March 2010, we had provided a forecast of where the maintenance of traffic lump sum item may finish up," Mr. Capone said.
Mr. Stanek said that, through the whole process, Kemore has put the city on notice with "hundreds of e-letters requesting payment. Every one of them requires us to review them and make sure they are valid, and we agree with it. That's what QCI's job is to evaluate them and make sure they are truly reimbursable costs and they will make a recommendation to us," he said.
"We've been fighting for two years what they are and are not entitled to," Mr. Stanek said. "Until we can verify the fact that they are entitled to something and it is legitimate, then that is when we'd bring it to the committee. It's not a cost until we've concluded that it is a cost, and that's when we'd bring it to the committee."
"This is a huge, complex process," Councilman Mooney said.
Law Director Thomas G. Lobe told the committee that he has a meeting scheduled with Kenmore for July 1. "It's an ongoing issue, and we are in the middle of it," he said.
"I'm completely confident in the legitimacy of the claim," Mr. Capone said following Monday's meeting. "It is an earned entitlement that the contractor should be paid."
[ back ]
