Goodrich-Though construction on the Hegel Road pathway finished months ago, the saga concerning the cost of the project rages on.
Construction of the paved, non-motorized pathway bordering Hegel Road west of the Goodrich Country Club to Oaktree Elementary was completed in September, more than a year later than originally planned.
The project has been riddled with problems, with accusations of fault volleyed between pathway engineers Wade Trim and the contractor, Oakland Excavating Company of Pontiac.
Now, Wade Trim representative Becky Baker is asking the village council to consider reimbursing nearly $60,000 in costs she said the firm incurred in the prolonged construction and resulting conflict.
‘The force account is above and beyond typical work,? Baker said at the Monday’s village council meeting. ‘We can’t continue to provide charity.?
Baker went on to explain that the actions taken by Wade Trim’resulting in extra costs to the company? were dictated by the Michigan Department of Transportation.
Baker did not return requests for comment.
Newcomer to the council Patty Wartella spoke out against paying any of the money requested by Wade Trim, while council president Ed York and other council members elected to wait until a decision made by tthe Michigan Department of Transportation regarding the project, to see what, if any funds would be available.
‘I am 100 percent against Wade Trim obtaining any extra money for this bike path,? said Wartella. ‘When any company gives a quotes, most businesses will pad it for unforseable things. Wade Trim…should have done that. I believe that they want us to pay for their mistakes and it’s wrong to expect the village residents to pay for their mistakes.?
‘To expect the residents to be responsible to pay for almost $60,000? I, in good conscience, couldn’t vote ‘yes? for that. That would be wrong,? said Wartella.
York saw things differently.
Wade Trim was only contractually obligated to be a part of the project until Aug.5, 2005, when Oakland Excavating was originally to have the pathway completed, said York. Any and all additional work provided was above and beyond what was legally necessary.
‘They stuck with it because they were the engineers on this thing and because they have a history with the village,? said York.
Additionally, York said Oakland Excavating was fined about $450 per day past the expected date of completion’money the village may not be awarded in the way of liquidated damages.
‘That money is normally used by villages to pay for the extra costs of extending the project,? said York. Before deciding to keep laboring without hope of compensation, York said Baker approached the council looking for commitment of some reimbursement.
It’s a commitment York said he and the majority of the council were not willing to make one way or another until a decision is made about the liquidated damages.
‘We don’t know what the final figure is, so if we don’t know what the final figure is from the state, then we can’t make a decision,? said York. ‘You’re not going to negotiate something if you don’t know what all the facts are, we don’t know what all the facts are.?
York said the village has paid Wade Trim for the portion of the project for which they were contracted..
The pathway came at an estimated cost of $403,400, including the village paying $80,700 in matching funds and Atlas Township paying an estimated $30,000.
However, at a June 12 village council meeting, representatives from Wade Trim claimed to have 22 pages of photographic evidence of failures on the part of Oakland Excavating.
For their part, Tom Sparks, operations manager for Oakland Excavating Company, said both poor planning by Wade Trim and preexisting conditions not favorable to the construction of a pathway were to blame for the trouble.
Both parties disagreed as to who should pay for some additional costs that came up in the project.
Sparks claimed Wade Trim authorized Oakland Excavating to make corrections to the pathway at a cost of up to $30,000, work which the company then began in what Sparks called a ‘good faith effort.? However, said Sparks, the contractors were later told they would not be reimbursed for their effort.
Wade Trim representative Becky Baker said Wade Trim then began keeping ‘force account records?, which Baker described as ‘documentation of when a contractor goes out to a site and how many personnel are there when they do.?
The records can be used later is a dispute over who is responsible for costs is brought before the Michigan Department of Transportation.
Baker told council members at a Dec.11 meeting that money had been paid to the contractors for agreed upon cost, but some items were being submitted to MDOT to settle payment disputes.
‘We’re now at a point where we’ve agreed on everything we could agree on,? said Baker. ‘There are some items we are disputing.?
Baker said about $75,000 was still in contention.
The next step in that process is for both parties to meet with a representative of MDOT, and try to reach some acceptable decision. If resolution is still not obtained, an appeal imay be made at a central office in Lansing.