- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Downtown Library contractor wants more money - I knew it
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:23 pm
I lamented that this fiasco with the library was going to fall on the taxpayers when the thread was started last week. I got lambasted by the OT construction folks who blathered on about the contractor being responsible, insurance and many other reasons that this wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime. Well guess who the contractor wants to pay for all this?
And here it comes, not a NO but a "we are going to try" from the City Parish.
LINK to story with copy of the letter - WARNING it is the crappy Advocate website
quote:
The president of the contracting firm building the downtown library has denied any responsibility for a “significant structural failure” during construction last week, and plans to ask for more money to help complete the project, according to a letter sent earlier this week to city-parish officials.
In a letter dated Monday to city-parish officials, Buquet and LeBlanc President Robin Liles did not downplay the damage. He wrote that two trusses supporting a beam ruptured, causing concerns about safety and that his company agreed to comply with a directive to stop construction until repairs occurred.
“It is our position that this failure resulted solely from a deficiency in the structural design and not from any defect in materials or workmanship supplied by Buquet and Leblanc,” Liles wrote.
He then added that Buquet and LeBlanc has “already incurred and will continue to incur” substantial losses, costs and damages and that they will seek fair compensation for them. He asked for instructions on whether to “demobilize” from the site, saying that Buquet and Leblanc would remain ready to immediately spring back into work unless told otherwise.
“A purpose of this letter is to place you on notice of our intent to make a claim for additional compensation (including but not limited to time related costs and damages) and to seek an extension of the contract completion date,” Liles wrote. “As you are aware, this event occurred suddenly and unexpectedly and, as of this date, the duration of the suspension/delay is currently unknown to us.”
And here it comes, not a NO but a "we are going to try" from the City Parish.
quote:
City-Parish Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Rowdy Gaudet referred to the parish attorney’s office all questions on costs associated with the damage at the library. Parish Attorney Lea Anne Batson declined to comment on pending decisions. Asked if taxpayers may wind up footing the bill for cost overruns, she responded “We’re going to do everything we can to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
“Our priority is to ensure that there are no safety concerns before moving forward with the final remediation phase,” Broome said in a statement.
LINK to story with copy of the letter - WARNING it is the crappy Advocate website
19
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:26 pm to jbgleason
What if he’s right and gasp, they are owed more money? If the city wants to try and recoup from the DOR there is nothing stopping them.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:27 pm to jbgleason
Broome needs a prayer meeting very soon and then this nuisance will go away.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:29 pm to jamboybarry
quote:
What if he’s right
Nah. It has already started. He says its the architects fault. The architect has already said it was the welders fault. They are just going to point back and forth and, once again, the taxpayer will pick up the bill.
We didn't need a multi-million dollar library branch in the first place and now we are getting one that is going to run way over the initial estimate due to frick ups.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:37 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Nah
So you have no clue. Just a general gripe about government spending.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:37 pm to jbgleason
Why are we still wasting money on libraries. That’s the real question.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:38 pm to jbgleason
quote:
We didn't need a multi-million dollar library branch in the first place
You expect them to hand out free books in an ordinary looking building?
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:41 pm to jbgleason
Well just because he wants more money doesn’t mean he’ll get it.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:45 pm to jbgleason
quote:
I got lambasted by the OT construction folks who blathered on about the contractor being responsible, insurance and many other reasons that this wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime. Well guess who the contractor wants to pay for all this?
You should have, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
B&L, or any contractor, doesn't have input on determining the design consultants/team. If the issue is in design, they aren't at fault, and shouldn't be responsible for paying to have it fixed. Generally, responsible consultants will take a cut in fee to offset the costs but if it's big enough insurance and owners usually get pulled in.
If the issue is the steel supplier or erector the contractor is responsible for their subs and should have to pay for it.
ETA:
quote:yep
So you have no clue. Just a general gripe about government spending.
This post was edited on 4/26/18 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:45 pm to jbgleason
In the real world things happen. No one is perfect. Maybe the architect screwed up, maybe the fabricator screwed up, maybe the installation was faulty. This is typical construction. The only reason you are hearing about is because it is the library, which is controversial.
You need to relax bro. You sure are mad about things out of your control.
You need to relax bro. You sure are mad about things out of your control.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:45 pm to jbgleason
You know nothing Jon snow
ETA: you really know nothing.
ETA: you really know nothing.
This post was edited on 4/26/18 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:50 pm to Motorboat
I don’t know shite about construction but I know a lot about government having studied it in school and worked for various agencies at the state and federal level my whole career and now consulting to people who do business with it. Taxpayers will foot this bill in the end. I can see it coming.
No worries though. I will bump this in a year when the check is written.
No worries though. I will bump this in a year when the check is written.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 4:52 pm to jbgleason
quote:
I don’t know shite about construction
We know
In the short term the city will pay to settle a claim. If hey wanted to they could pursue PL or E&O with the designer. They likely won’t though.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 5:15 pm to BigPerm30
quote:
Why are we still wasting money on libraries. That’s the real question.
Thank you. Now we know who you are.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 5:17 pm to junkfunky
and on public work not only does the contractor not have a relationship with the designers he doesn’t with the owner either. Public work contracts are adversarial towards the contractor to begin with, thus the demand in the contractors letter for written instructions and preservation of evidence
it was prefabbed trusses that failed
either they were defectively assembled or there was a failure in design
it was prefabbed trusses that failed
either they were defectively assembled or there was a failure in design
Posted on 4/26/18 at 5:22 pm to jbgleason
My question is “who was in charge of materials?” since everyone is blaming bad welds for the issue.
Whoever decided to cut costs on them should pay up any overages that result from it.
Whoever decided to cut costs on them should pay up any overages that result from it.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 5:30 pm to teke184
they aren’t blaming bad welds
they are saying the welds failed...two different things
if they failed under load due to poor design then the designer is at fault
if they failed under load due to workmanship then the contractor is at fault
they are saying the welds failed...two different things
if they failed under load due to poor design then the designer is at fault
if they failed under load due to workmanship then the contractor is at fault
Posted on 4/26/18 at 5:40 pm to jbgleason
Nothing out of the ordinary. At the beginning of a problem, everyone fires off letters to stake their position on the claim. It will eventually come out who was at fault and then responsibility will be placed. Most likely will end up on the taxpayers, but could be everyone's insurance companies if there isn't clear blame to be placed.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 6:20 pm to LSUengr
quote:
Most likely will end up on the taxpayers, but could be everyone's insurance companies if there isn't clear blame to be placed.
The project is bonded and the problem lies within the design, the fabricator or the installer. The general contractor is going on record for a contract extension because they are shut down and do not want to be held liable for liquidated damages. This is standard in all construction projects. The general contractor also is stating the issue lies within the above and they will expect compensation from whomever is found liable.
The taxpayer isn’t at fault and therefore will not be accountable. The general contractor has a contract with the city Parish, not the architect therefore they are responding to them as protocol dictates.
If the design is found flawed the designers insurance will cover, same with fabricator and installer.
What this will do is slow the completion of the project and set off a legal battle.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 6:20 pm to jbgleason
Burn it down,pookie.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News