Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridge Change Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves multimillion-dollar change order for Washington Street bridge replacement; staff defends pricing review
Summary
The Indianapolis Board of Public Works on Aug. 13 authorized a $3,066,142.76 change order for the Washington Street over Little Eagle Creek project with Pontum Contractors Inc., bringing the contract to about $6.18 million and adding roughly 150–157 days to the schedule, after DPW staff said in-field conditions required full replacement rather than rehabilitation.
The Indianapolis Board of Public Works on Aug. 13 approved change order No. 2 for the Washington Street over Little Eagle Creek project with Pontum Contractors Inc., adding $3,066,142.76 to the contract for a new not-to-exceed total of $6,181,237.65 and extending the project’s substantial/final completion by roughly 150–157 days as stated in the meeting record.
Jason Watt, DPW’s administrator of construction, told the board that the work was originally intended as a rehabilitation of the existing structure, but "in the field after several attempts to try to salvage the existing structure ... that was not feasible," and the team moved to a full replacement. Watt said the replacement structure is being assembled off-site as part of an accelerated bridge-construction approach, and he said the project team expects to receive that structure in about a month and to reopen the bridge to traffic later in the year.
When a board member asked how staff judged the competitiveness of the additional work, Watt said the team "review[ed] them against historical bid data" and compared unit prices ("we try to find comparable bid costs for price per linear foot or square yard"). He said there was "a little bit of a negotiation and back and forth" and that the contractor and the precast supplier had been "very cooperative and transparent." Watt praised Pontum as "an excellent partner for the city."
Why it matters: The change order more than doubles the contract value reported at the meeting and adds months to the schedule; the board asked for the pricing review because large in-contract additions can raise questions about competitiveness and oversight. DPW staff reported they performed comparative and historical cost reviews and engaged in negotiation before recommending approval.
The record contains a minor inconsistency: during presentation staff stated both "150 days" and later "157 days" as the added time; the board approved the change order by voice vote with no recorded opposition. The board did not change the contractor for the work; the approved action authorizes the director to execute the change order with Pontum Contractors Inc.
