Council approves park pavilion payment amid debate over contractor delays and testing

The Mayor and Board of Aldermen approved partial payment No. 13 to Prestige Construction Group for the city’s park and pavilion project but the decision followed an extended discussion about the contractor’s pace, outstanding change orders and who is responsible for testing.

City staff and an unidentified committee participant outlined the project timeline and change orders. According to remarks recorded in the meeting, the notice to proceed was issued Nov. 4, 2024, and the project’s contract set substantial completion at 270 days after that date. An unexecuted change order for weather-related delays was described as pending; staff estimated that, even accounting for the negotiated extensions, the project would be about 104 days past substantial completion if current timelines hold. The unidentified participant said liquidated damages apply but expressed doubt that the city legally could withhold current payments under Louisiana Revised Statute 38 2191, which governs progress payments.

Alderman Vernon Martin pressed for stricter oversight and asked who had observed and tested concrete and plumbing work; staff said a third-party testing firm, Louisiana Testing, had been engaged (by the contractor and approved by the architect) and a third-party building inspector (BCI) performs city inspections. Martin expressed frustration that the city had been asked to accept rain-day extensions after the contractor later reported supply or bankruptcy-related issues tied to a previous owner. Other council members and staff acknowledged general dissatisfaction with the job’s progress but said the project would not be accepted unless it met contractual specifications.

Despite the objections and questions about whether withholding payment was legally permissible, the council carried the motion to approve the payment of $141,602.16. City staff said further testing and architect review will continue and pending change orders remain under consideration.

Next steps recorded in the meeting included continued vetting of pending change orders by the architect, continued testing through Louisiana Testing, and staff follow-up on claims of delays and possible liquidated damages. No formal withholding of funds or formal determination of liquidated damages was made at the meeting.