Snohomish County committee advances three change orders for Arlington operations center to April 15 GLS

Snohomish County’s Public Infrastructure and Conservation Committee moved three contract amendments for the Arlington operations center to the General Legislative Session (GLS) on April 15 after a staff report outlined the change orders and a council member raised procedural questions.

Council staff said the three change orders are amendments to progressive design-build agreement PDB01-23 with Cornerstone General Contractors for the design and construction of the new Arlington operations center. Change Order 3 requests $41,960.01 to add rock fill needed so interior hoop-building floor drains can meet a 1% slope; Change Order 4 requests $129,507.54 for conference-room streaming audio-visual equipment; and Change Order 5 requests $57,004.68 for Jersey barriers along the south property line to protect against heavy-duty traffic from an adjacent property. Staff said two prior change orders totaling $95,895.24 were approved under the public works director’s authority and that the three new requests push the contract over the director’s approval thresholds, requiring council consideration. Staff reported the contract’s new not-to-exceed total would be $30,962,313.47 and said the project is fully funded and does not use road funds.

Council member Dunne asked whether the progressive design-build approach is causing delays or additional costs and requested a departmental review to determine whether the practice of returning change orders to council is producing avoidable delays. “If it's delaying things, we should know sooner than later,” Dunne said, while adding she would not hold the current motions and was supportive of the change orders.

Kelly Snyder, Snohomish County public works director, said staff will coordinate with facilities and the finance office to produce a report that outlines lessons learned and potential adjustments for future PDB projects. “Overall… I think it has been really great. It has not delayed any of the processes that we've had,” Snyder said, while noting staff will document what worked well and what could change.

After the exchange, the committee voted to move Motions 26-140, 26-141, and 26-146 to the GLS agenda for April 15 on the consent calendar. The motions were referred for consideration rather than voted on by the committee.

The committee did not take a final vote on the change orders at the meeting; the items will be considered by the full council at GLS on April 15.