Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Contracts Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Supervisors release Pine Run retainage but deny contractor’s change order for fuel‑island work

Lehigh Township Board of Supervisors · February 11, 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

Lehigh Township approved release of $22,150 in retainage for the new fuel‑island project but denied a contractor change order for extra trenching and an emergency‑stop relocation after an L&I inspection, citing insufficient documentation and failure to follow change‑order procedures.

The Board voted to release the original contract retainage for the Pine Run fuel‑island project while rejecting a contractor‑filed Change Order #1 that sought additional payment for trenching and relocation of an emergency‑stop button.

Township Engineer Mike Muffley said Labor & Industry required the emergency‑stop to be relocated within a specified distance; the contractor installed the e‑stop after the inspection and later submitted a fixed‑price change order and payment application without prior authorization or sufficient documentation. Muffley’s engineer estimate for legitimately extra work totaled $8,340.92 based on prevailing wages and materials, but the contractor’s request was higher and lacked the delivery tickets, material certifications and breakdowns that the engineer routinely requests for paving and trenching work.

Muffley recommended release of the original contract retainage because the system is on line and functioning, but he did not recommend payment on the unapproved change order. The Board approved release of retainage ($22,150) and voted to deny Change Order #1, noting the contractor should have raised the issue through the engineer before proceeding and that restoration work did not meet contract specifications.

Solicitor David Backenstoe told the Board the contractor handled the situation incorrectly and should have pursued a documented change‑order request before performing the extra work; he observed that trenching to connect utilities may have been necessary in part, but that insufficient documentation prevents payment at this time. The Board directed staff to provide the contractor a list of deficiencies and documentation requirements for any future claim.

The decision releases funds for the Township to close out the bulk of the project while preserving leverage to require proper restoration and documentation for any additional charges.