Pittsfield FinCom Will Pay Airport Project Overage, More May Come
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The Finance Committee is not happy with the process, but agreed to pay the overage for the airport runway process.
And there might be more to come.
A number of change orders caused the project to go $89,374 over budget. The Federal Aviation Administration and the state Department of Transportation are paying $80,249 of that total but the city still needs to up its contribution by $9,125.
The increase to the city is mostly driven by an increased role Stantec Consulting Services Inc. had to take during the transition of management at the airport. The consultants had to increase its management over the project "as a result of a complete turnover in airport management and operations personnel just prior to the start of construction." The city is not getting reimbursed for that portion of the increase.
Stantec's involvement also lasted 35 extra days than originally negotiated, the hourly rate of the engineering inspector providing oversight on the construction was higher than anticipated in 2016, and the quality testing of the materials costs more because of additional reconstruction to the taxiway tie-ins to the safety area.
However, there also some other aspects of it that the City Council's Finance Committee objected to such as increased time spent quality checking the pavement after subcontractors apparently had a number of issues with the formula and the curing.
Furthermore, another $70,000 worth of change orders could be pending, and the City Council may be asked to pay 5 percent of that total in the near future.
"This project from the way it has come before you has been complex," said Director of Finance Matthew Kerwood, adding that, "The lesson here is, never bring an airport project in a capital budget."
In 2016, the City Council approved $3.5 million for the paving of one runway -- a total that is about 95 percent reimbursed by the FAA and the state. In 2017, the decision had been made to do a second runway and the City Council approved another $2.6 million. The next year, when a project budget was known, the City Council approved an amendment to bring the total borrowing to $7,027,082. At that point, the city's share was expected as being $349,735.
Stantec then presented the $89,374 worth of change orders to the FAA, which is funding 90 percent, and the FAA settled on the portions of those it would pay. MassDOT, which is paying 5 percent, then got a crack at it and agreed to what it would fund. Finally, the city got the bill for the remainder.
Airport Manager Kris Keane said the additional bill to the city at first was around $15,000 and he was able to renegotiate the grant portions to lower it. Now, the city is left with the $9,249 figure. That means asking the council to adjust its authorization to $7,116,456.
For more than an hour on Thursday, the Finance Committee questioned Keane and Kerwood about the process.
"I find this extremely frustrating. All of these decisions are made and we get handed the bill," said Councilor At Large Melissa Mazzeo.
Ward 4 Councilor Christopher Connell felt that the additional hours put in by Stantec shouldn't cost the city. He said the contract was in place for them to manage the construction and the company should eat those extra costs.
"If the subcontractor is not doing the right thing, that's on the general contractor's shoulders," Connell said.
However, much of the additional hours weren't regarding a subcontractor but with the city itself, argued Councilor at Large Earl Persip. The city went through three different airport managers since the project's planning began with the most recent transition occurring right at the start of construction. Throughout most of the project, the airport had an interim manager -- Keane -- in place but no assistant manager.
"That management issue is a contributing factor to why Stantec needed to be on site more than the contract allowed for," Kerwood said.
Persip asked Keane would there still have been additional costs if there hadn't been a change in management. Keane said no. He said a lot of the hours put in were to help him get caught up with the project so he could provide oversight on behalf of the city. Connell, however, felt the burden of oversight should have been on Stantec and not the airport manager. Connell suggested rejecting the bill "to send a message" to those involved who authorized the expenses that the City Council needs to be involved with such changes.
"They don't ask us," Connell said.
Persip said the FAA is spending more on the project and has reviewed it, determining that the expense was legitimate.
This overage may not be the only one. Keane and Kerwood said they've been told another change order from J.H. Maxymillian could be coming soon. That one is for $70,000 because of issues with sealing and lining at the end of the project. Keane said the sealing was scheduled during a period of time when the weather forecast was appropriate -- above 50 degrees and dry -- and then a cold front swooped in and the temperatures were too cold.
But the sealing subcontractor had already mobilized, moved equipment, materials, and people to the city, just to leave again. The company then had to return later in the year. That extra trip could end up being another change order the city will have to contribute toward.
"That sounds like not good planning," Persip responded, pressing the administration for an exact date of when that was scheduled.
The Finance Committee will deal with that bill when it comes. For now, despite frustration that city hadn't been informed of potential price increases early on, the committee is in support of paying the bill.
"At the end of the day, this is the way the dust settled and we are legally obligated to pay the bill," Kerwood said.
Tags: airport project, Finance Committee,
