Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lehigh Township denies contractor’s final-payment request for maintenance building over unresolved warranty issue
Summary
The board denied Vision Mechanical Payment Request #12 and held $45,233.45 in retainage after debate over a faulty part the contractor called a warranty replacement; the motion to deny passed 4–1.
Get email alerts on the Contracts Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its March 25 meeting the Lehigh Township Board of Supervisors voted to deny Vision Mechanical’s final payment request (Payment Request #12), retaining $45,233.45 in contract retainage while the Township seeks assurance any remaining issues will be resolved.
Vision Mechanical had requested release of the retainer, arguing that parts still on order were warranty replacements and should not delay final payment. Board members reviewed the contract’s five‑percent retainage clause and the operational facts: the replacement part cost about $900 and labor to install was estimated at $1,200. Chairman Mike Jones said he understood the warranty claim but recommended withholding a portion of the retainer to preserve Township protection against potential future problems. “Even though the parts are covered under the warranty, we wouldn’t release all of the retainer because if something goes wrong, the Township ends up scrambling to pay for the repair,” Jones said.
Opponents of partial release argued the contractor delayed acknowledgement of the problem and the Township had already extended completion deadlines twice. Supervisor Jerry Pritchard urged finding a compromise, noting the Township was holding more than $45,000 for a part he said costs about $2,100 (contractor figures differed). Attorney David Backenstoe cautioned about the risk of releasing retainage if broader design or workmanship issues later emerge. Cindy Miller moved to deny Payment Request #12 for $45,233.45; the motion passed 4–1 with Jones opposed.
The board directed that if the remaining work is completed to the Township’s satisfaction at a subsequent meeting, release of some or all retainage could be revisited. The motion preserves the Township’s contract remedies while leaving open a path to payment once outstanding issues are resolved.
