Burlingame
unhappy with water project
Gabe Faimon | Reporter
BURLINGAME—After earlier withholding payments to contractors
due to dissatisfaction of work on Burlingame’s water system
improvement project, city council members decided last week to
submit written notice of the city’s concerns to bonding
firms.
During a March 19 special meeting, the council met with U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) representative Daniel Fischer and Governmental
Assistance Services representative Donna Crawford to discuss contractors’
performance on the project. No contractor representatives were
present.
Bartlett & West had contracted to engineer and oversee the
project, and J&H Construction, Inc. had contracted for construction
and installation of water lines, meters and hydrants. Funding
for the project was obtained through a $400,000 community development
block grant from the Kansas Department of Commerce, linked with
a USDA Rural Development loan. Contracts established Jan. 31 as
the date for substantial completion of the project, but at the
request of both contractors, the city agreed to extend the date
to Feb. 26.
Discussed at the special meeting were contractor performance concerns
that had first surfaced during a Feb. 24 final walk-through inspection
of the project.
An inspection report prepared by Bartlett & West listed a
total of 59 discrepancies including fire hydrants set at improper
depth; old fire hydrants not removed; steel, instead of nonmetallic,
covers installed on water meter boxes equipped with electronic
reading devices; improper placement of water meters; improper
placement of wires for electronic meter reading; blocked street
drainage; pavement damage; improper valve installation; old water
lines not taken out of service; and incomplete construction debris
removal.
Subsequent inspections by city staff resulted in a report covering
additional contractor performance deficiencies similar to those
discovered during the walk-through inspection. Burlingame utility
foreman Gerry Grandstaff reported that insufficient quantity of
crushed rock was discovered at 13 of 20 hydrant installations,
resulting in noncompliance with contract specifications. Also
reflected in Grandstaff’s report was that water had not
been supplied to one fire hydrant. The city’s inspection
cited seven locations where duct tape was used to cover damage
to buried telephone cable, although contract specifications called
for damaged electrical lines to be spliced. Also cited were numerous
locations where steel bolts were used to secure buried water line
connections, instead of stainless steel fasteners as per contract
specifications.
A March 9 telephone call by the Osage County Herald-Chronicle
to Robert Helton, president of J&H, requesting comment regarding
the identified deficiencies, has not been returned.
In a March 10 letter to J&H, city attorney Rick Godderz said,
“I am enclosing a copy of a list compiled by the City identifying
problems with the work performed in the installation of the water
lines in the City. There are five pages of this list.”
A reply to Godderz’ letter had not been received by the
city by March 19.
During last week’s special meeting, council members complained
the project had not been completed by the contracted completion
date.
“All of the old mains are still active, so work is not complete,”
said council member Vikki DeMars.
Other council complaints were lack of oversight during the project.
“If he, the inspector, had read the contract, then we wouldn’t
have to be here,” said council member Dustin Swander.
Fischer agreed. “I’m very disappointed as well,”
he said. “It all falls back on the inspector.”
During a Feb. 9 council meeting, Burlingame Mayor Brenda Dorr
noted that Bartlett & West’s contract required a project
representative to prepare daily reports and maintain a logbook
of inspections. Dorr said then that daily reports would serve
as a resource for evaluation of contractors’ performance,
and asked Bartlett and West representative, Lavene Brenden, if
the documents could be made available for city review.
Last Thursday’s meeting concluded with council agreement
that contractor performance had not been satisfactory, contract
requirements remain unfulfilled and the project was not complete.
It was decided the city must notify bonding firms of the city’s
contractor performance concerns.
During the March 16 council meeting, the council discussed a letter
from Developers Surety and Indemnity Company, dated March 10,
stating the firm was furnishing the bond for the city’s
construction contract with J&H, and had received a claim against
the payment bond of J&H by a supplier of material. Developers
Surety requested the city not release any additional funds to
J&H without written consent of the firm.
“Material suppliers have contacted the city, so has the
bonding company,” Godderz said. “The city will withhold
payment for defective work.”
The council also considered citizen complaints received during
the project. Two citizens had complained in February that water
meters that had been shut off were later turned on, flooding a
basement at one location and property at another. Another citizen
complained of lack of contractor efforts to control erosion and
repair driveway and ditch damage.
During that meeting, the council questioned Brenden about the
project.
“Do you feel like the work has been done satisfactorily?”
Swander asked.
“The majority,” Brenden replied.
Dorr commented that both firms had been requested to have a representative
at the meeting, although no J&H representative was present.
Bartlett & West and J&H had jointly submitted a partial
payment request for $74,204.95 on Feb. 26. The USDA loan requires
payment requests to include the contractor’s certification
that payment estimates have been completed in accordance with
the contract, and the engineer’s certification that quantities
are correct and work had been performed in accordance with the
contract.
Excluding the Feb. 26 request, a total of $516,559.60 has been
jointly requested by the contractors. City records show that since
May 19, 2008, Bartlett & West has received $121,078.78 in
eight payments from the city. A March 2 payment for $18,175.25
remains under review. |
