Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman expressed her agreement with Mr. Pap8 and added that when the council examined <br />its options as they related to the library project, it could either have derailed the project for a time <br />or made the concession and moved forward. She did not think that was really an option, and said <br />the remedy to that should be built into the contract, rather than having to await the action of the <br />council when the damage was already done. She supported the speciality clauses mentioned by <br />Mr. Rayor, saying if they gave the City more options they should be used. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman questioned if the City's inability to seek redress in the case of the library was a result <br />of the base contract or the modified portion of the contract. Mr. Matthews said that the remedies <br />for an over-cost bid were in the base contract. Ms. Bettman asked if the reductions necessitated <br />to the library project had substantially changed the nature of the project. She said that it appeared <br />to her it was a different project, and if it had been put out to bid the results would have been <br />different. Mr. Johnson responded that the $1.8 million in reductions did not substantially change <br />the project; the larger amount that would have been cut had not the City and library foundation <br />stepped in would have substantially altered the project. Staff discussed the advantages and <br />disadvantages of putting the project out for bid again, but given how close the bids were, decided <br />that the City would not gain from putting it out to bid. Private contractors had concurred with that <br />decision. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman requested a list of recommendations for how the City could improve the process to <br />get a better result. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson cited a situation where a project redesign created an increase in indirect costs to <br />the project owner and asked who paid those costs. Mr. Matthews said that under a standard AIA <br />contract, consequential damages are contractually waived by both parties. He had worked with <br />staff on modifications to standard engineering contracts removing that provision. He had not <br />examined the library contract to determine if it had a waiver of consequential damages; if not <br />waived contractually, the architect would be responsible. Mr. Johnson indicated staff would follow- <br />up with that information in a memorandum. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey wanted to ensure that contracts were clearly written so that people bidding on City <br />contracts understand what mitigation is available to the City in case something went wrong. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not think it productive to spend time talking about past mistakes and suggested it <br />was more important to determine how to avoid them in the future. She wanted the council to have <br />a clear explanation of what could change in the contract to reach that goal. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor did not want to add to the standard contracts in a way that made it difficult for the City to <br />work with architects, but suggested that there were useful modifications that could be made that <br />would also suggest to bidders that the City was a knowledgeable owner. He reiterated his <br />previous information request. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner found Mr. Matthews's answer to Ms. Nathanson's question about the consequential <br />damages provision discouraging, saying that the City "really needed to know." The City had <br />suffered twice now in terms of credibility as well as money. He said that he hoped after the <br />Broadway Place situation the City would do a better job. In that case, the City had no liquidated <br />damages provision in the contract with the architect, and no way to cost out what the delays were <br />costing the community. He said the same situation continued into the next major project. He was <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />