Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Construction Contracts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Contractor says design delays left OEP Pavilion shortchanged on days; jurors seek design‑team answers

Cameron Parish Police Jury · February 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Contractor Louis Stuze told the Cameron Parish Police Jury that design changes and delayed ASI drawings led to about 96 days of nonwork and that the design team told him the parish "was not interested in assessing LDs." Jurors asked staff and the design team to return with records before deciding on liquidated damages or other remedies.

The Police Jury heard an extended presentation from contractor Louis Stuze (Speaker 11) about change orders and schedule impacts on the OEP Pavilion project. Stuze said a March 20 on‑site meeting produced design changes (notably a separation of a day‑tank and related foundation work), he did not receive the revised ASI drawings until May 13, and negotiations over pricing and scope stretched to June. He said the contractor remobilized on June 24 after roughly 96 days of not working and documented 20 rain days in July.

Stuze told the jury he was informed by the design team that the parish "was not interested in assessing LDs" (liquidated damages), so he proceeded with the reduced change order rather than pursue an extended claim. He said he believed the contractor had a strong claim for added days but declined to litigate to avoid further schedule impacts.

Jurors pressed parish staff for communication records and clarity about who authorized design decisions and whether the parish would pursue LDs. Speaker 5 and others said they had repeatedly asked staff (Randy, Speaker 10) for information; Speaker 10 said he offered to bring the design team to a future meeting to explain decisions. Several jurors said they wanted the design team present before making any decision about assessing damages or approving final payment.

Ending: The jury did not enact liquidated damages at the meeting; members asked staff to arrange a special or next regular meeting with the design team and the contractor present and to produce emails and records documenting the sequence of communications and decisions.