HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-09-PBC-min.pdf TOWN OF LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
PERMANENT BUILDING COMMITTEE
Minutes of July 9, 1987 committee meeting in room 8-15, Town
Office Building as approved August 12, 1987
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kennedy at 7 35 p m.
with other committee members Edson, J Kennedy, Scanlon and
Touart present Also attending were staff Isa Zimmerman,
Maclnnes and Coscia; School Committee member Wik; consultants
Aitchison and Rowlands of Chartwell ; and Michael Epstein and
David Rogers, attorneys of Palmer and Dodge.
Contract Awards and Attendant Problems. The contract award for
Bid Package II work was awarded to Seaman Bratko Unfortunately,
J P Construction protested to the Department of Labor and
Industry (DLI) that Seaman Bratko had not followed bidding
instructions on allowance for electrical work and six
alternatives Upon advice of counsel (that J P s case was very
weak) the contract was awarded to Seaman Bratko
However, the DLI ruled that the award should be given to J P
Seaman Bratko was so advised, but did not take this news without
protest An injunction with substantial damages has been
threatened by J P Attempts to settle with Seaman Bratko were
unsucessful because they have the contract award With two
aggrieved sides, the case appears to be on its way to court. Our
lawyers think that the DLI ruling is wrong, but the court may
side with the DLI.
Aitchison pointed out that very little of the work in this bid
package could be done during the school year with the possible
exception of the extra Harrington classroom, which is exterior
Maclnnes expressed concern for the slippage of three precious
weeks of summer vacation
Seaman Bratko might ask for $250,000 in potential lost profits.
J P. would be entitled to several thousand dollars for bid pre-
parations. Possible scenario under J P 's injunction described;
construction could be halted. There could be a quick hearing on
the injunction In any case, the town's lawyers would request
court guidance
The committee reviewed the possible scenarios and exposures with
contract award to S.B vs. J P As noted above, exposure if the
town were to go with S B. would be about $15 to $20 thousand;
whereas if J P. were selected the town might lose $250 thousand.
J P knows the town is reconsidering its contract award S.B.
has been told the town wishes to terminate the contract. One
subcontractor is already at work for Seaman Bratko. After some
discussion VOTED unanimously to go with Seaman Bratko because of
less exposure and need for the project to go ahead
Another Possible Leaal Tanole - Asbestos The three lowest bids
for asbestos work on Birdge and Bowman are all good