Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Change Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner urges probe after DEP-driven cost increase on ADA fairgrounds work
Summary
A commissioner pressed for an investigation into change order #2 on the Cumberland County ADA fairground improvements after DEP-required septic design revisions increased costs; staff said the DEP directed changes and promised a forensics review to determine responsibility; the board approved the change order while agreeing to investigate.
A Cumberland County commissioner asked staff to investigate a substantial cost increase tied to change order #2 on the county's ADA Fairground Improvements project, saying the county should not have taxpayers absorb costs if an architect or its subcontractor failed to pass revised drawings to the contractor.
"We have quite a bit of money increase after some discussion with administration," the commissioner said, arguing that if the architect's subcontractor did not forward required revisions the subcontractor or architect should bear some responsibility rather than the county. "I'm not trying to stop the approval of this because that would mean we're not gonna pay Fabric. I'm just saying we need to investigate this to figure out whether or not we should be, you know, subject." The amount of the increase was not specified during the meeting.
The county planning director described the sequence that led to the change order: the original septic design was completed before a contractor was selected; the design went to the state Department of Environmental Protection for review, and DEP required revisions under new DEP requirements. "The DEP made revisions to the design that are required ... and it required additional components of the septic system to be added," the planning director said, adding that the architect's subcontractor prepared and submitted the revised design and DEP approved the permit. He said staff can "forensically go back and look" to distinguish DEP-required additional work from corrective work that might be the architect subcontractor's responsibility.
Chair directed county staff to follow up. The record shows a staff member (the chair asked "Kevin, as a VA, you'll work with Matt") was assigned to obtain information and coordinate the investigation.
Despite the commissioner's concerns, the board moved to approve the change order and continued with the meeting. The motion to approve was made and seconded and the vote in favor was recorded. The meeting record does not list a dollar amount for the change order or name the contractor beyond the reference used in the discussion (referred to in the record as "Fabric").
What happens next: staff said they will review the documents and attempt to determine whether any portion of the extra cost stems from an avoidable omission by an architect subcontractor or is solely DEP-driven. The outcome of that review and whether the county pursues cost recovery were not decided at the meeting.
