Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Bridge Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
GPA: Contractor unresponsive on Bridge 54; county staff to verify punch list
Summary
At its Oct. 7 meeting, the Northampton County General Purpose Authority heard that the contractor for Bridge 54 has not responded to requests to verify completed maintenance; staff will ask the contractor contact and prepare a current punch list and may have the county complete outstanding items and bill the contractor.
Northampton County’s General Purpose Authority was told Oct. 7 that the contractor for Bridge 54 has not responded to county inquiries and there is currently no verified status update on outstanding punch‑list items.
The matter matters because the contract language and the contractor’s responsiveness determine whether the county must complete unfinished work and then seek reimbursement. Authority members said the contract contains a recurring maintenance fee but that the county has been handling most repairs; the fee functions more like a warranty payment than an operational maintenance obligation.
Staff reported that a certified‑payroll submission from May through September indicated some work had been done but the contractor had not formally confirmed which punch‑list items were finished. The authority discussed options used previously: have the county complete unfinished items, document costs, and bill the contractor; or require a clearer written response from the contractor before taking further steps. The authority did not make a formal decision at the meeting.
Board members asked staff to clarify exactly which items remain open and to obtain cost estimates so the county can “put the pin in” the matter before the end of the year or hand it to the incoming administration. Staff said they will contact Greg (staff member) and ask him to compile a current list of outstanding work and to copy Mike on the correspondence. The authority also discussed sending a county inspector or consultant (Benish) to verify whether the punch list items have been completed.
No motion or vote on contract enforcement or chargeback was recorded; members noted the contractor (Krieger) is working elsewhere in the Lehigh Valley and that its travel and mobilization affect whether it will perform short follow‑up items on this project. The authority agreed to revisit the issue at a future meeting after receiving the status list and, if needed, cost estimates for county completion.
The authority’s discussion identified no new funding allocation or formal penalty action at this meeting; staff and the next administration will determine follow up.
