Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Green Acres Payment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables $84,117 Green Acres landscaping payment after detailed questions on charges and retainage
Summary
The committee tabled payment of Green Acres Landscaping's application for $84,117.09 after members pressed staff for detailed justification and asked how disputed costs would be reconciled against more than $200,000 in retainage.
The Smithfield School Committee on Jan. 16 tabled a payment application from Green Acres Landscaping (payment application No. 10, not to exceed $84,117.09) after members raised multiple questions about specific charges and the process for withholding retainage pending resolution of disputed items.
The payment application was brought forward after the Boyle project's in-field committee approved it on Jan. 2. Committee members asked for line-item detail for a series of charges listed as "work billed against unused allowances" and highlighted a $9,384 entry described as a cost to lower a concession window to meet ADA requirements. A project representative explained the installed window height was off by about an inch and a half and that a repair had been required; the speaker said the allocation of fault and final responsibility was still under appeal.
Members also questioned why other items appeared in the application, including a scoreboard-design change the member said had been paid for by a donor, and a large plaza line item that appeared broadly summarized with "etcetera." Committee members asked how the district would pursue reimbursement if the work was the contractor's responsibility and whether it was appropriate to pay the invoice while appeals were unresolved and significant retainage remained.
Administration and the owner's project manager (OPM) told the committee more than $200,000 remained in retainage for Green Acres and that the final reconciliation of disputed items is handled through the OPM and the punch-list/appeal process. Staff recommended approving payment with a holdback or processing under protest to preserve the district's right to reconcile disputed charges against retainage.
Given lingering questions and requests for additional detail, a committee member withdrew the initial motion to approve and moved to table the payment to allow the OPM and staff to provide requested clarifications before the next meeting. The motion to table passed by voice vote.
The committee recorded no roll-call tally in the excerpt; staff said the item will return after the OPM provides detailed breakdowns and responses to the questions raised.
