Board approves $204,000 change order after parking-lot soil problems

Oak Grove R‑VI school board members approved a $204,000 change order to a contractor’s parking‑lot contract after crews uncovered soft soil that required extensive undercutting and rock fill.

The approval followed a lengthy discussion during which district staff and the board reviewed the circumstances that produced the extra cost. District staff said the original contract was about $608,000; the change order adds roughly $204,000, making the contract approximately $812,000 in total. Staff and the board said the project used about 4,351 cubic yards of undercut that failed the proof‑roll test and required replacement material (millings and gravel) to be brought in and compacted.

Board members pressed staff and the district’s owner’s representative, FSG, on why soil testing had not identified the scale of the problem before bids were awarded and whether unit pricing in the contract made it easier for the contractor to recover additional costs later. Perry, identified in the meeting as an on‑site FSG representative, told the board that FSG reviewed the undercut quantities, the dates and depths of tests and believed the unit prices charged were reasonable for the scope of the extra work. Staff said the district had included a $50,000 contingency in the contract but the unexpected undercutting exceeded that amount.

The board discussed whether contractors had known about the soil risks when they bid the job and whether any bidder underpriced the work to win the contract. Staff and the owner’s representative said the area had been historically soft in spots; they said the full extent of depth and volume was not known until excavation and proof rolls were performed. The board also discussed whether the district should require soil borings before bidding future projects and whether change‑order approval thresholds should be set so the board can review large overages before work proceeds.

Superintendent‑level staff and the owner’s representative told the board that FSG had been on site daily, had observed the proof rolls and undercutting, and had reviewed the contractor’s invoices; FSG recommended payment and approved the change order as consistent with the work performed. Board members asked that FSG and district staff provide more documentation (unit‑price backup, haul invoices and the contractor’s rock invoices) and pledged to invite FSG and the contractor to a future meeting to explain the inspection and bidding process and to reduce the chance of similar surprises on upcoming bond projects.

Board action: The board moved, seconded and approved the change order as presented; the meeting record shows the vote tally as six in favor.