Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water System Change Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middlebury council tables $313,819 change order for water‑system chemical feed; seeks clearer documentation
Summary
The council voted to table a $313,819 change order proposed by project engineers for Contract B of the town'wide water improvements, saying they want clearer line‑item documentation and clarification on budget codes before approving use of contingency funds.
The Middlebury Town Council on March 16 voted to table Change Order No. 6 — a $313,819 proposal to replace the chemical feed system and connect chemical feed piping to a newly constructed detention tank — after engineers and council members debated contingency use and line‑item details.
Kenneth Jones Jr., an engineer with JPR, told the council the work would replace the existing potassium permanganate and chlorine injection systems on the old detention tank and connect them to the new tank. "I think we missed it," Jones said when asked why the chemical feed to the new tank was not engineered into the original bid. He framed the request within the project's broader budget history, noting earlier estimates in 2023 and a September 2024 bid figure of $8,700,985 and explaining how contingency has been used on the three-contract effort.
Council members pressed for accountability and clarity on line items. "I have a real hard time with us eating $313,000 when you guys miss something," one council member said, arguing the council needed clearer evidence that the proposed charges were unavoidable. Councilors also flagged duplicate budget codes and repeated line items in the change‑order paperwork and asked staff and the engineer to clarify whether items such as general superintendent labor and small tools had been double‑counted.
Jones told the council that, prior to the change order, aggregate change orders across the three contracts totaled about 0.94% over bid value and that approving this change order would raise that to about 4.35%. He noted the project is roughly 49.5% complete in dollar terms and that contingency consumption would be about 45.5% if the change order were approved. He also said contractors agreed to $1,000 per day in liquidated damages for missed deadlines, which could offset some costs if assessed.
After discussion, a council member moved to table the change order until staff and the engineer provide clearer documentation of the line items and budget codes; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The council did not take additional action on the change order at the March 16 meeting; staff said they would return with clarifications.
The tabling leaves the $313,819 request unresolved; the council and project engineer indicated they expect to return with more detailed, itemized explanations of the proposed work and any corrections to the change‑order documentation.
