Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Delays topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cameron Parish architects tell jury contractor delays and an owner-directed generator relocation halted OEP pavilion work; jurors weigh liquidated damages
Summary
Architects told the Cameron Parish Police Jury that an owner-requested change relocating a generator and RV pad stopped the OEP pavilion build and created a 75-day overrun; jurors were advised that assessing liquidated damages is the jury’s decision after reviewing the contractor timeline.
Architects for the North Cameron emergency operations projects told the Cameron Parish Police Jury on March 10 that construction was halted when the owner requested relocation of a generator and redesign of the RV pad, creating a pause in the work while the slab and reinforcement were redesigned.
Derek Porsche of Porsche and May Architects, joined by project manager Kate McLean, said the relocation was owner-directed and required an architect supplemental instruction (ASI). Porsche said the ASI was issued after review and that work resumed once the revised slab was in place. The team said the fire marshal inspection was scheduled and permitting office closeout remained before the parish could accept final completion.
Jurors pressed architects and staff about responsibility for the delay and whether liquidated damages (LDs) should be assessed. Staff and the project team told jurors the contractor missed the revised substantial completion date by 45 days after the jury had previously granted a 30-day extension, producing a 75-day delay relative to the original schedule. The design team said documenting the exact number of days late is within the project records and that the jury has discretion to apply LDs under the contract.
Legal counsel advised jurors that case law requires a reasonableness inquiry before liquidated damages are treated as automatic; the jury must weigh the contractor’s explanations, any owner-directed changes and the documented timeline before deciding whether to withhold retainage or apply LDs.
Jurors also questioned project communication, noting the general contractor was not present for the meeting. The architect described the change-order process, the paperwork burden of unplanned ASIs and the logistical challenges of material deliveries and lead times.
Next steps: the project team said it would provide timelines and documentation on days of delay and ASIs for jurors to review. The jury did not impose LDs at the meeting; jurors were told they retain discretion and time exists before final payment because substantial completion had not yet been accepted.
