Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves design contract with up to 25% aggregate change‑order authority after debate
Summary
The council voted 5‑2 to authorize contract change orders for a design contract that includes up to 10% per change order (maximum per change order) and a cumulative cap of 25% (about $90,000 on a $360,000 contract). Council debate focused on whether the practice of large pre‑authorized contingencies is appropriate.
The San Leandro City Council voted on Monday to approve a design services contract and to authorize the city manager and staff to negotiate and approve change orders up to an aggregate 25% of the original contract amount, with individual change orders capped at 10% each.
City Engineer Jason Amai told the council the original contract price is $360,000 and staff requested authority to approve additional change orders that could total $90,000. Amai explained the approach: “So the original contract is for $360,000. However, we are authorizing the city manager and staff to negotiate and approve contract change orders up to an additional … 25% or $90,000.” He also described the mechanics to the council: individual change orders may be up to 10% (about $36,000) while the total aggregate of change orders may not exceed 25% of the original contract.
Several council members said they were uncomfortable with routinely authorizing large contingencies. Council Member Viveiros Walton said she was uneasy about the practice and asked that the city adopt a culture of holding vendors to their original scopes. “It makes me uncomfortable around approving a contract, but then allowing change orders,” she said. Council Member Bolt and Council Member Simon both pressed staff for clarity about how a 10% per change‑order cap interacts with cumulative approval authority; staff explained the aggregate cap prevents unlimited stacking of change orders.
Supporters on the dais said the pre‑authorization is intended to avoid schedule delays for smaller but necessary adjustments. Amai advised that, for smaller contracts, a 10% single change‑order limit can be too small to cover legitimate unforeseen items and that having authority to approve reasonable change orders can prevent repeated council returns and project delays.
The council approved the item by roll call, 5‑2, with Council Members Bolt and Simon recorded as voting no and the motion passing. The staff presentation and subsequent council discussion stressed that change‑order approvals remain subject to staff review and that the aggregate cap is intended to limit overall exposure.
Clarifying details captured at the meeting: the contract base is $360,000; individual change orders may be up to 10% (about $36,000); cumulative change orders may not exceed 25% (about $90,000).
