6/14/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The original contracf was for $795,682.80. This was decreased by Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $4,21338 to anew contract amount of $791,469.42. This Change Order is a decrease in the amount of $11,869.94 which gives a new and final contract amount of $779,599.48. Retainage in the amount of $77,92730 has been withheld to date per the contract on prior payments of $701,345.65 leaving. a final balance due of $ 78,253.83. The Contractor will be appearing before the Board of County Commissioners to request that the Board of County Commissioners grant an additional amount to Change Order No._ 2 in the amount of $5,09236 for the work associated with the channel lining protection material and the installation of stone for the same. His claim is attached This change order was previously denied by staff during the construction of the bridge. It is staffs _opinion that this work should have been included in the bid price bid for the Armorflex material, which was Item No. 530-78-2 Rip -Rap (Articulating Block)(Bridge),1201 Square Yards at $70.00 per Square Yard for a total of $84,070.00. Staff cites the following sections from the contract in support of our position that the work under this change order should have b= included in the original bid for the Articulating Block Rip -Rap: Page GC -3, Addendum No. 1, dated 6/2/93, "Examination of Site, Plans, Specifications & Regulatory Permits" Section 7; and GC -6, Addendum No. 1, dated 6/2/93, Section 14 "Interpretations of Plans and Contract Documents". These sections are attached to this agenda. It is staffs position, then and now, that the contractor must accept the risk involved with this work placed on him by the contract, as he is in the position to determine the costs involved with this work and to allow an addition to this item skews the open bidding process. Staff is of the opinion that all costs assn aced with this work it= Otherwise the wording of the contract is meaningless. Staff would lice to extend its appreciation to the contractor and the attentive and diligent manner of proceeding with the construction of this bridge. The personnel for the contractor were extremely cooperative and we wound recommend the contractor be awarded future work by Indian River County if they are the successful bidder. This matter is merely about an interpretation of the plans and specifications and does not bear whatsoever on any' ssatisfaction we might have with the conduct of the contractor, or his employees. To his credit the contractor proceeded on construction of the bridge after staffs denial of this claim and continued to cooperate with staff until all work was completed- - AT MHAMMS A YM Alternative 1: Approve Change Order 2 without the additional amount rued by the contractor, and the final pay application to the contract, and release the retainage to the contractor. The Staff recommends the Board direct the Chairman to execute the change order on its behalf. Alternative I Approve the Change Order with the additional amount requested by the contractor, and approve the final pay application. Staff recommends Alternative 1, funding to be from account number 101-158-541-067.60. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, to approve Change Order 2 as set out in Alternative 1 in staff's memorandum. Under discussion, Randy Cropp, representing Murphy Construction Company, Inc., explained that ordinarily he would not argue over $5,000, but he felt this instance was unusual. He 37 JUN 14199 400K 92 fAr,E 6,36