Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Change Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table $5,535 Keyesdrop change order after questioning contractor responsibility
Summary
A $5,535.13 change order for recessed lighting trim rings was presented and questioned at length; commissioners said the county should not automatically pay for possible contractor oversights and tabled the change order pending documentation of contract scope and vendor responsibility.
At item 5.23 the board considered change order No. 22 from Keyesdrop Construction for $5,535.13 related to recessed lighting trim rings that the contractor said were not provided with the ordered fixtures.
Speaker 5 explained the extra charge reflected the cost to secure and install trim rings that ‘didn't come with’ the recessed lights that were installed. Commissioners probed whether the county had ordered the wrong lights or whether the contractor failed to supply a complete kit. Speaker 7 criticized change-order practices as a recurring source of additional contractor revenue and asked why the county should pay for the discrepancy if the contractor or bidder delivered an incomplete product.
The board voted to table the change order and asked procurement and facilities staff to return with documentation clarifying whether the trim rings were part of the original contract, whether the contractor shipped incomplete materials, and who should bear the cost. Commissioners said they want written evidence before approving the payment.
Why it matters: Small change orders can add up across capital projects; commissioners signaled a desire for stronger oversight to ensure contractors or vendors are accountable to their bids and contract specifications.
What’s next: Facilities and procurement will investigate the contract documents and vendor invoices and return to the commissioners with evidence to support payment or denial of the change order.
