RM 04-18-75 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd in amount of $819.00. The amended contract total is: $6,210.48. Mr. Brownell read the letter from Mr. Mark S. Davis, Chief Inspector, for the E -7 Project, to Mr. Keith P. Crighton, Director, Bureau of Housing, explaining the additional charges for the rehabilitation work on the residence at 416 East Keasey Street. Over this past winter, a substan- tial amount of additional damage occurred to the structure due to a severe roof leak. The roof overhang has rotted in several spots and must be replaced. The kitchen ceiling is in danger of collapsing on the occupants, with the deteri- oration resulting due to the severe roof leak. The kitchen ceiling is an eminent health and safety hazard to the occu- pants. In addition, the roof will require 17 squares of 3 -in -1 seal -down roofing, instead of the 11 squares listed on the inspection to complete the job in a workmanlike manner. The labor and material to remove the existing ceiling and in- stall new plasterboard ceiling, tape and mud plasterboard, and paint the ceiling with two coats, is quoted at a total installed price of $350.00. The request for the specifica- tion to be changed from 11 squares to 17 -1/2, with original price quoted at $670.00, new quote for this work at $990.00, plus 15% markup of $149.00, or additional increase for the roofing at $469.00, or a grand total of $819.00 for the in- crease in contract price. The Common Council originally ap- proved the contract awarded at $5,391.48. With the change order increase of $819.00, the contract total is: $6,210.48. Commissioner Wiggins asked on the damage that occurred, whether it couldn't have been determined at the time of inspection that the roof was leaking? Mr. Crighton advised the water would run down the roofing rafters to the edge, and the water would run down between the walls, so there would be no physical evidence from the exterior or the interior as to the severity of the damage, or as to whether or not that damage existed. The physical evidence is not visible at times due to the conceal- ment of the walls, etc. Commissioner Chenney asked whether between the time the contract was bid and the time the work was started, if this work is in- spected? Mr. Crighton said the initial inspection was made and we knew what the problems were at the time of the process of the work; however, this damage apparently occurred afterwards. Commissioner Wade asked if the inspector really looked at it and Mr. Crighton said it is impossible to see the roof leaking from the outside. Commissioner Wade stated he did not want the bidders to be getting all the extras after the contracts are awarded. A lengthy discussion followed on inspections, and, in this particular case, why only a portion of the roof was replaced.