Engineer: contractor demobilized, seeks ~$370,000 as town weighs options on Central Street forced-main

The Bristol Select Board heard on June 11 that the contractor on the Central Street forced-main portion of the town's pump-station project has halted directional-drilling work and submitted a claim for roughly $370,000, a figure the town's engineer says does not account for prior payments.

Steve Smith of Underwood Engineer told the board the town signed a $2,740,000 contract covering the pump station and force main and that change orders and allowances have increased the contract to about $2,790,000. "They demobilized the directional drill crew on the site, and then issued us with a formal letter telling us that they could no longer proceed ... to the tune of $370,000," Smith said during the meeting.

Why it matters: the claim, if paid in full, would significantly increase project costs and could alter the town's contingency and long-term maintenance calculations. Board members repeatedly asked whether the contractor's claimed costs had already been partly paid and whether the contractor's proposed revisions would change performance or warranty expectations.

Smith and board members discussed the breakdown of payments and allowances. Smith said the contractor's $370,000 figure did not deduct prior payments (which the board discussed in the meeting as roughly $191,000 for certain line items). Smith added the contractor proposed a "shadow and pipe up" approach and some shallower burial depths in limited spots and introduced air-release structures as part of the revised concept.

Several board members pressed Smith on the implications for guaranteed performance. One member noted that shallower burial depths and additional air-release structures could increase annual maintenance and reduce the long-term service life if not handled to standard. "We're not going to put our name to something that doesn't meet the engineering standard," Smith said, adding that New Hampshire DES design regulations and standard engineering practice guide what his firm will approve.

Next steps: Smith said he had sent the contractor the town's review and would schedule an in-person meeting to negotiate compromises and clarify which costs are legitimately owed before the town pays additional sums. Multiple board members said payment should not be made until the town meets with the contractor and resolves disputed items.

The board did not vote on any contract payments at the June 11 meeting; Smith said staff would arrange the follow-up meeting and circulate contract documents and the executed contract copy for board review.

Ending: Town staff and the engineer said they will meet the contractor in person to resolve disputed charges and return to the board with recommended action; no additional payments were authorized at the meeting.