Ann Arbor logo
File #: 09-0663    Version: Name: 8/6/09 Amendment II to PSA with PBM, Inc.
Type: Resolution Status: Passed
File created: 8/6/2009 In control: City Council
On agenda: 8/6/2009 Final action: 8/6/2009
Enactment date: 8/6/2009 Enactment #: R-09-329
Title: Resolution to Approve Amendment No. II to a Professional Services Agreement with Parsons-Brinckerhoff Michigan, Inc., for the Huron Parkway Bridge Painting and Huron Parkway/Geddes Avenue Intersection Improvements Project ($84,049.68)
Attachments: 1. pbm psa amendment no ii 090722.pdf
Title
Resolution to Approve Amendment No. II to a Professional Services Agreement with Parsons-Brinckerhoff Michigan, Inc., for the Huron Parkway Bridge Painting and Huron Parkway/Geddes Avenue Intersection Improvements Project ($84,049.68)
Memorandum
Attached for your review and approval is a resolution that will approve Amendment No. II to our Professional Services Agreement with Parsons-Brinckerhoff Michigan, Inc. (PBM) in the amount of $84,049.68 for project management, professional engineering, and construction inspection services performed in conjunction with the subject project.

During the course of the project, it became necessary to add additional services to our agreement with PBM in order to respond to claims that the Contractor made regarding the performance of the structural steel repairs associated with the construction of the project.

On November 19, 2008 the Contractor submitted their final claim package for the needed steel repairs. The Contractor had submitted claim packages prior to this date, but we found them to be incomplete and we requested additional information from the Contractor.

Upon thorough review of the submitted material, we disagreed with the Contractor’s analysis of the claim and rejected it. Due to the volume of material submitted and the manner in which it was prepared, it was difficult and time-consuming to analyze the package and prepare the needed response(s.) Staff from the Project Management Services Unit and PBM met with MDOT staff on several different occasions to discuss the claim.

Upon our rejection of the claim, the Contractor appealed our decision to MDOT’s Regional Office in Jackson, Michigan. The MDOT Regional Office then undertook the review of this matter. We met with both MDOT and the Contractor on two occasions regarding this claim. Recently, the Regional Office suggested that we attempt to negotiate with the Contractor to settle this matter. To this end, we have begun negotiations with the Contra...

Click here for full text