Commission approves $164,752 change order for Justice Center; mesh, detention doors cited

Hamblen County commissioners approved change order No. 23 for the Justice Center construction contract, adding $164,752 to the project cost to cover security and wiring work and a credit for a small staff parking lot.

The change order, presented by Jaren Dolwater of Burwell Construction, bundled three potential change items: a revision to a 12-space staff parking lot (PCO 85), electrical circuitry work tied to detention doors (PCO 96 / construction change directive work), and added mesh over openings into recreation yards (PCO 98). Dolwater said the full package as presented adds $164,752 and brings the total contract value to $95,038,489.11.

County staff described PCO 85 as a removed scope for the 12-space lot after design and site constraints made the originally proposed retaining-wall solution costly; the contractor negotiated a credit of about $8,298. Dolwater said engineering review found the proposed entrance grading would have required guardrails and other work that raised the price to roughly $193,000 before the credit.

The largest single component is electrical work and security-related items tied to detention doors and security systems. Dolwater and staff said a prior construction change directive (CCD) authorized early work so the contractor could continue without delay; the CCD carried a ceiling of $192,493 and the county has verified $130,560 of that amount to date. The change order allocates an additional $138,560 into the contract as part of that CCD accounting.

The mesh item (PCO 98) would add interior mesh on three sides of several recreation yards where existing mesh hole size could allow contraband; the cost presented for that work was $34,490. Sheriff’s staff and other security representatives raised concerns that the originally installed mesh openings were large enough to permit small items or to be exploited by drones, and asked for a tighter-mesh interior layer.

During discussion Commissioners pressed staff on why the electrical work was not shown on original plans; county staff and the construction manager described it as required electrical power that was missed in the design documents and therefore a design omission. When asked about financial recourse, the county attorney (present) said the claim could be pursued in litigation but that the county would likely remain financially responsible for work that was required for a functioning facility (described by one speaker as “unjust enrichment” in procurement terms). The attorney said any report on litigation or negotiations would come after negotiations conclude and could not be dated at this time.

Chairman Tim Horner and other commissioners asked when outstanding CCD amounts would be reconciled; staff said remaining CCD costs still need to be vetted and that a follow-up presentation (including PCO 98 details) would come to the committee next month.

Commissioners did not postpone the vote. The change order was placed into the contract and the county will proceed with the added security and electrical scope while staff continues to examine potential contract remedies and to reconcile CCD documentation.

The county’s contract manager said the contractor must provide receipts and labor records for CCD work and that the CCD functions as a ceiling — if field costs exceed the CCD they are the contractor’s responsibility until vetted and approved.