County rejects asphalt binder on 700 South after inspection; contractor dispute could delay opening

Adams County Highway Department staff announced they have formally rejected asphalt binder placed on the County Road 700 South project after on‑site inspection found the binder layer substantially thinner than contract specifications and insufficient cross slope.

Staff reported that a farm truck drove onto the newly laid binder and the surface failed, with the truck’s wheel punching through into the base. Field checks found binder sections specified at 3½ inches that measured around 1¼ inches in places; other spots had “less than a third” of the required thickness. Inspectors also said the paving exhibited virtually no cross slope (the contract called for about a 2 percent cross slope).

“Since Brad is gone, we both discussed it and decided that we’re going to reject that binder asphalt that they have put down,” Highway Department staff said. The project prime contractor is Fleming; the paving subcontractor was identified as E & B Paving. County staff said they notified Fleming and scheduled a meeting for Wednesday with Fleming and the subcontractor to resolve the issue.

County staff said the rejection will likely cost at least a week in the contractor schedule if corrected promptly; if negotiations do not resolve the problem it could cause greater schedule slippage. Staff noted that the county’s contract with Fleming contains liquidated‑damages provisions and that any damages will be pursued through the prime contractor (Fleming). Staff also said they will undertake forensic testing and additional sampling of other paved areas to confirm whether the defect is limited to the observed 85‑foot stretch or more widespread.

Commissioners and staff discussed enforcement options and the tradeoffs between pursuing aggressive remedies and maintaining a working relationship with a local prime contractor. Staff said Fleming is contractually responsible for its subcontractor’s work and that Fleming will be expected to address the remedy and any timetable impacts.

County officials asked county counsel to be present at the contractor meeting and said the county would consider removal and replacement of the defective sections at the contractor’s cost if necessary. Staff also noted that independent inspection and more on‑site presence during seasonal paving may be options to reduce the risk of recurrence.