Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses staff on large consultant-omission change orders and errors-and-omissions rates
Summary
Board members pressed district staff about a nearly $300,000 consultant‑omission change order and asked for data on errors‑and‑omissions rates and consultant billing practices.
Board members raised concerns about a sizable change order listed as a consultant omission for the Lloyd Estates project and sought explanations and recourse. One member called the nearly $300,000 change order “disheartening” and asked staff whether the district could recover costs from the consultant.
District construction staff explained the omissions were design errors — conditions shown on as‑builts or missed in design reviews — rather than purely unforeseen site conditions. Staff said some additional work, such as rooftop‑unit relocation and structural reinforcement, was required and should have been identified in design; the district’s counsel is exploring potential recovery but the district currently lacks a specific policy for pursuing consultant recoveries in every case.
Board members also asked for comparative metrics. Staff noted Broward’s errors‑and‑omissions rate is significantly better than national averages and that the district’s A/E firms generally perform “by a factor of four” better than typical industry averages. Members nonetheless urged continued discipline in design, tighter pre‑construction inspections, and follow‑up on whether the district’s prime consultants (AECOM) billed for time‑impact analyses and whether there was duplication of effort with other consultant contracts (Atkins).
What happens next
Staff said they will follow up with counsel about recouping consultant fees where feasible and will provide the board with comparative statistics on errors‑and‑omissions rates and billing by consultants for time‑impact analyses. Board members requested confirmation that there was no double‑billing for TIAs and that contractors acted within the scopes of their contracts.
Provenance
Topic introduction excerpt (transcript block 123): “Board member comment. That's me. So, I just want to point out and have a huge concern here. And I will say that we did not do very well on on our, consultant omissions and errors this month. We have $727,807.71 And point out that Lloyd Estates, this is a change order, which is a consultant omission for almost $300,000 So I, it's disheartening to me.”
Later excerpt (transcript block 213): “I remember 1.8 and that the average nationwide was five-eight percent. Is that correct? Yeah. Errors and emissions happen. It's ugly... Our a and E firms do better by a factor of 4 than national averages.”
