HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03272001 - C.47 c; �17
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: John Sweeten, County Administrator
By: George Roemer, Chief Deputy, Public Protection
DATE: March 21, 2001
SUBJECT: Litigation Support Services for Juvenile Hall Expansion, Tamalpais Wing Project
Authorization No. 0928-WH399B
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S)
A. APPROVE a contract with The Covello Group, in an amount not to exceed $131,000, and a
contract with S.J. Gallina & Co., LLP, in an amount not to exceed $30,000, for litigation support
and expert witness services in connection with the above construction project.
B. DELEGATE to the County Administrator or his designee the authority to sign the contracts.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There will be no impact to the General Fund. The contracts will be funded from project funds previously
appropriated. If the County prevails in the lawsuit, every effort will be made to recover the cost of the
contracts as damages payable to the County. In any event, the County's recovery in the lawsuit should
more than cover the cost of the contracts.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On December 1, 1998, the Board awarded a construction contract for the Juvenile Hall Renovation,
Tamalpais Wing project to Patrick M. Donaghue, General Contractor for $1,034,570. The contract
involved the construction of a day room/sleep room/classroom addition to the existing wing at Juvenile
Hall. The addition was to be constructed of cast-in-place, architectural concrete, with metal security
doors and other security features.
In 1999, the contractor performed concrete and other work with serious defects. After notifying the
contractor of the defective work and giving the contractor opportunities to come up with an acceptable
plan to repair or replace the defective work, staff recommended termination of the contractor's rights
under the contract.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
OTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT / )/ X� Q ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORSON THE DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: /-y � L
a,�l a-], a o
ATTESTED:JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Contact: George Roemer,(925)335-1055 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINIST TOR
Orig.Dept.: County Administrators Office
cc: County Counsel ;
Auditor/Controller
GSD Accounting-Terry Mann BY EPUTY
Contra Costa Building&Construction Trades Council
O'Brien Kreitzberg(Via CAO)
r"
Litigation Support Services for Juvenile Hall Expansion, Tamalpais Wing Project
Authorization No. 0928-WH399B
March 21, 2001
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
On August 10, 1999, the Board declared that the contractor was in material default, terminated the
contractor's rights under the contract, and authorized legal action against the contractor and his surety
(Insurance Company of the West) for the recovery of additional expenses and other damages incurred
by the County as a result of the defective work. Suit was filed by the County on February 14, 1999. On
March 13, 2000, the contractor filed a cross-complaint against the County seeking $965,000 in
damages for alleged wrongful termination of the contract. The case presently is set for mediation in
early June. If not resolved by the mediation, the case will proceed to jury trial on September 28, 2001.
In order to effectively present the County's case at mediation and trial and to defend against the claims
asserted by the contractor, the County requires litigation support and expert witness services from The
Covello Group, a construction claims firm in Walnut Creek, and S.J. Gallina & Co., LLP, an accounting
firm in Sacramento. Staff has negotiated appropriate contracts with both firms covering services
through trial, if necessary. It is recommended that the Board approve the contracts.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
The County would have to present its case at mediation and trial and defend against the contractor's
case without the assistance of expert witnesses. This potentially could lead to a result less favorable to
the County.
-2-