Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Change Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wakefield working group reviews construction change orders and questions roughly $17,000 door finish cost
Summary
The working group reviewed numerous budget change orders for the new school construction, including AV upgrades and moisture mitigation, and members pressed for explanations of approximately $17,000 in door-finish costs; staff said many items arose from material changes or missing items in the contract documents.
The Wakefield PBC working group reviewed a long list of budget change orders tied to the school construction project and raised questions about scope, responsibility and contingency funding.
The meeting opened the change-order docket and discussed several project change orders (PCOs). Staff described AV and electrical additions in the LGI, cafeteria and TV control room (PCO196, $39,483), missing amplification and programming for fitness/multi-purpose AV (PCO221, $30,427), and an elevator/kitchen credit ($2,896). A moisture-mitigation alternate for epoxy flooring was presented at $48,000 and an acceleration cost for lighting and temporary power work (Griffin Saturdays) was listed at $37,614; presenters identified a mix of funding sources including contingency, bond holds and acceleration holds where applicable.
A conspicuous point of contention centered on PCO137, listed in the meeting as a door-finish change affecting 57 doors and discussed in the range of about $17,000. "If everything was supposed to have stain and/or paint ... how can there be a $17,000 differential?" a committee member identified in the transcript as Chip asked, pressing the team to explain why finish changes and prep would generate the additional cost. Project staff responded that some doors also involved a material change beyond finishes, which could account for the delta; David (identified in the meeting as Dave) explained that material changes and differing installation scopes contributed to cost differences.
Other items reviewed included rework for field conditions (sill flashing and a relieving angle in the gym), relocation of fire protection piping ($3,836), conduit and fire-alarm coordination, and work to complete the Musco athletic-lighting foundations and trenching. Presenters emphasized that certain costs were being charged to contingency or specific holds because they resulted from existing site conditions not shown on the contract drawings.
Members sought clarity about the difference between holds and contingency balances; presenters acknowledged limited amounts remaining in some holds and said final accounting and retainage adjustments remained outstanding. The group was also alerted to an upcoming retainage request for structural steel that had not yet been approved by SMA or field oversight.
The working group did not adopt a new motion on these PCOs at this meeting; staff said the items would be tracked, funding sources verified, and follow-up would occur before final approvals are sought at subsequent committee meetings.
Next steps: staff will provide clearer line-item justifications and funding-source allocations for the PCOs, and the working group flagged several items for additional documentation before final approval.
