Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streets Overlay Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Scott delays payment on overlay; commission seeks documentation after smoothness dispute
Summary
The commission tabled a $2 million pay request related to a city overlay project after contractors, the city engineer, KDOT inspectors and the city disputed whether work violated contract specifications; staff will collect documents and reconvene.
The Fort Scott City Commission on Dec. 3 voted to table payment on a contractor pay request for a recent road overlay after lengthy debate over whether the contractor followed contract specifications and whether on-site direction altered the work.
The pay request, submitted by Heck and Wicker (contractor name per packet), covered asphalt overlay and paving fabric on a heavily traveled city route. City staff and contractors told the commission that the overlay felt “bumpy” and that KDOT inspectors raised concerns about the construction method. City engineering staff said the contract addendum explicitly required a 3-inch overlay to be placed in two lifts of 1.5 inches each; the contractor said an on-site project representative authorized placing the overlay in one 3-inch lift.
Jesse (contractor/subcontractor representative) told the commission the manufacturer’s guidance recommends a maximum nominal lift of 1.5 inches when used with the specified paving fabric and that placing a single 3-inch lift on top of the fabric can lead to the problems the city is now seeing. Jason (city engineering staff) and a KDOT representative told commissioners the manufacturer’s published guidance and KDOT practice typically discourage a single 3-inch lift over the fabric on a milled surface.
City attorney Bob told the commission: “The specs are a contract. You cannot modify a written contract by an oral assertion. Can't be done. Period. End of story.” Commissioners and staff repeatedly asked whether an inspector had recorded any written direction allowing a change; staff said they would search daily inspection reports, emails and other records for documentation.
Staff and contractors discussed potential remedies if the final surface proves out of tolerance on smoothness tests. Options mentioned included profiling and diamond-grinding to meet smoothness tolerances, with earlier cost estimates for diamond grinding in the roughly $35,000–$60,000 range; staff noted the city still holds a 10 percent retainage on the contract (about $151,000 remaining on work done to date).
After discussion, a motion to table the pay request and require Heck and Wicker and city staff to provide correspondence, inspector records and other documentation passed unanimously. Commissioners said they want to reconvene the issue with additional records and potential contractor remediation options.
