Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Contracts Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council rejects Hedrick Brothers change‑order request for Pelicano Law Enforcement Center

2515369 · January 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council voted to reject a contractor request for approximately $713,000 in additional compensation tied to material and labor cost escalation on the Joseph Pelicano Law Enforcement Center, citing contract language and state law constraints.

The council voted to reject a contractor request for additional compensation related to material and labor cost increases on the Joseph Pelicano Law Enforcement Center construction contract.

Hedrick Brothers Construction had submitted a request (change order number 42) seeking roughly $712,895.90 to cover price increases it said occurred between bid and execution. Staff and the city attorney told council they reviewed the contractor’s documentation, and while many of the contractor’s cost increases were supported by backup materials, the city’s fixed‑price contract language did not provide for post‑award escalation and state law limits retroactive additional compensation in the cited circumstances.

Hedrick representatives told the council they had incurred contractor subcontractor price increases during a long lead time before a final notice to proceed; they said staff and engineers had vetted the final, reduced figure they submitted. City staff said they had previously rejected an earlier, larger request and that the city had made change orders for city‑requested work and design errors where contract provisions allowed.

After extended discussion—including technical and legal memoranda in the meeting packet—council voted to reject the requested change order. Staff said the likely appropriation source, if council had approved it, would have been prior‑year general fund surplus; council members cited state statutory limits on retroactive compensation as a major factor in the decision.

What happens next: staff and the city attorney indicated they will continue to meet with the contractor to attempt an administrative resolution but that the legal constraints identified during the meeting limit council’s lawful options absent a contract amendment and additional findings of public purpose.