Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Change Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission questions crew quarters change orders, OPM oversight as temporary certificate issued
Summary
The commission received multiple project change orders for the airport crew quarters, questioned owner’s project manager oversight and noted remaining punch‑list items that are holding the final certificate of occupancy (CO). The building has a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO).
The commission discussed several project change orders and remaining punch-list items for the airport crew‑quarters project during the Aug. 12 meeting, raising questions about authorization, oversight and final signoffs.
Sean Cormier of CHA Consulting, the project owner’s project manager (OPM), told commissioners that four posted proposed change order costs required explanation. Architect Ethan Griffin described why design adjustments occurred in the basement support and retaining-wall areas. Cormier said he would review records to identify who authorized each change and produce supporting documentation to the commission.
The commission was shown four principal PCOs (proposed change orders): a steel‑column revision in the basement for modular-box support ($31,737.29); added height to a retaining wall because of constructability/site conditions ($11,817.79); an electrical service rework that resulted in a 600‑amp solution to satisfy the inspector (discussed at roughly $42,699 in the meeting); and a split‑rail fence to meet safety/height needs ($3,455.76). Commissioners repeatedly asked why some costs were incurred before the commission had formal notice or authorization and asked the OPM to produce the paperwork showing authorizations, quotes and any credited deductions.
Project staff said a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) has been issued and that punch‑list items remain. Those items included arc‑fault stickers for electrical equipment, arrival of back‑ordered EV charging equipment, reseeding/hydroseeding that failed due to watering limitations (to be resprayed in cooler months), and submission of sewer as‑built drawings. The OPM said the as‑built sewer documentation was expected from the site engineer but had been delayed; the OPM will follow up to obtain and circulate them.
Commissioners sought the full change‑order log, copies of contractor requests and authorizations, insurance and E&O certificates for the architect and OPM, the contract expiration date (noted in the meeting as 06/30/2025) and whether liquidated damages or other delay penalties apply; meeting discussion cited a retainage/penalty clause of $1,000 per calendar day beyond the completion date. The commission asked CHA to provide a consolidated change‑order package and contract documentation for review.
