Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects requested change order for Gertie Barrett paving after debate over contingency and responsibility
Summary
Engineering staff asked for a roughly $173,000 (about 10%) change order for the Gertie Barrett Road reconstruction citing utility delays, survey and quantity errors; the council declined the request after debate over whether design or utility delays were responsible and whether contingency levels should be increased on similar projects.
The Mansfield City Council voted down a requested change order for Gertie Barrett Road reconstruction at its July 14 meeting after an extended discussion about project delays, survey coordination and contingency policy.
Engineering Director Raymond Kaufman told the council the project, bid and started in 2024 and has been under construction with an asphalt reconstruction scope. Kaufman said a nine‑month stop in construction resulted from an AT&T utility conflict; he explained that additional quantities for street connections, lime‑treated subgrade, concrete and import fill were uncovered in the field and said the contractor’s pricing is being held to original 2024 unit bid prices. The staff request was for about a 10% increase (approximately $173,000) to cover the extra quantities and extended traffic control costs caused by the delay.
Several council members pushed back and asked why errors and miscoordination were not caught in design or bidding, and whether the design firm or others should bear some responsibility. Kaufman acknowledged a mix of causes — survey and quantity miscalculations, unresolved field coordination between subdivision construction and the street project, and the AT&T delay — and said the city has in recent practice been setting contingencies at 10% for similar projects. One council member said the city should hold contractors and consultants to higher accuracy standards to avoid repeated change orders.
After discussion, a motion to approve the change order failed (vote recorded as 3‑4). Later, following executive‑session advice from the city attorney, council authorized the city manager and city attorney to negotiate final terms and to present any amendments at the next council meeting (7‑0).
Kaufman said staff expects to reach substantial completion for the paving project in early October or by late December, and that additional traffic‑control and minor earthwork items could arise as the project finishes.
