Loading...
Closed Session ColtecCounty of Monroe The Florida Keys Robert B. Shillinger, County Attorney** Pedro J. Mercado, Assistant County Attorney ** Cynthia L. Hall, Assistant County Attorney ** Christine Limbert-Barrows, Assistant County Attorney ** Derek V. Howard, Assistant County Attorney** Steven T. Williams, Assistant County Attorney** Peter H. Morris, Assistant County Attorney Patricia Eables, Assistant County Attorney Chris Ambrosio, Assistant County Attorney ** Board Certified in City, County & Local Govt. Law May 25, 2017 Kevin Madok, Clerk of the Circuit Court Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, State of Florida Monroe County Courthouse 500 Whitehead Street Key West, FL 33040 In Re: Coltec Engineering Dear Mr. Madok: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor George Neugent, District 2 Mayor Pro Tern David Rice, District 4 Danny L. Kolhage, District 1 Heather Carruthers, District 3 Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5 Office of the County Attorney I I I l 12`h Street, Suite 408 Key West, FL 33040 (305) 292-3470 — Phone (305) 292-3516 — Fax Please find enclosed herewith the transcript of the November 20, 2002 closed attorney/client session of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners regarding the above - referenced matter. Under F.S. 286.011(8), the transcript may be part of the public record because the litigation has concluded. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, R ert B. S411inger Monroe County Attorney Enclosure Y MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CLOSED SESSION COLTEC ENGINEERING APPEARANCES: DIXIE SPEHAR, MAYOR MURRAY NELSON, COMMISSINER GEORGE NEUGENT, COMMISSIONER DAVID RICE, COMMISSIONER JAMES ROBERTS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR JAMES HENDRICK, ESQ., COUNTY ATTORNEY IRA LIBANOFF, ESQ., SPECIAL COUNTY ATTORNEY Key Largo Library 101485 Overseas Highway Key Largo, FL Wednesday, November 20, 2002 6:25 p.m. - 6:45 p.m. MUNRUE UUUNTY C;UURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 1 �,► 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L� 25 MAYOR SPEHAR: We are now in session. This is a closed session. And do you -- who is staff? MR. HENDRICK: I think we have to acknowledge first of all who is present. And for the record there is Mayor Spehar, Commissioner Rice, Commissioner Neugent and Commissioner Nelson, special counsel for the county in this case is Ira Libanoff; James Hendrick, county attorney; and James Roberts, county administrator and of course the court reporter. This is called to discuss the case of Coltec Engineering versus Monroe County. Ira has been doing an excellent job for us in our construction litigation. I think we can wrap up fairly quickly. I will tell you that right now we are involved in so much construction litigation that it is running our budget extremely fast. So I would hope that you give special consideration to this proposed settlement which I believe is supported by staff. MR. LIBANOFF: First of all, let me tell you it is nice to meet all of you. I have had the pleasure as well as the privilege of representing the county for a little over three years now. I appreciate the time that staff gives to us and I'm happy to be here. This particular case, just real briefly, there was a separate contract that was awarded by the county MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 Pa 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to Coltec Engineering to construct a chiller plant in connection with the courthouse renovations and there was a dispute right at the end. Coltec was claiming that they were owed, their lawsuit was filed for $160,000. But that did not -- essentially there was almost, like a cross payment. Right at the time they filed the lawsuit there was a $72,000 payment that was made, of release of retainage which at that time the total amount county recognized being owed was approximately $100,000. It left a balance of, to be exact, $28,260 at this time. But Coltec was claiming extras of $56,549.17, which would make their total claim just under $85,000. The staff's position is that the claim, the extras are now not warranted, they are not entitled. First of all they are not in the form of written change orders which the board would have to approve. Some of the work I think was done. We analyzed it and they did do some extra work. The big issue at the end with respect to the withholding of the 28,000 for retainage was that the contract included a requirement for Coltec to require maintenance for a one year period of time. And Coltec did not do that. The county had to engage York International to provide some maintenance work on the chillers that Coltec MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 provided at a cost of approximately $9600. Under the contract the county was entitled to triple the amount of its expenditure as a hold back until all issues were resolved. That's why $28,260 was held back. The amount that would be available or approved for payment right now after the reduction of the payment to York International would be $18,840. Of the extras the county staff has agreed to $12,971. So the amount that staff says going into the lawsuit would be owed would be $31,811. The difference is approximately $56,000. Plus they have a claim for costs, interests and attorneys fees. The attorney for Coltec, we have had settlement discussions of course, and they have come back and said they would accept $57,500 which if you do the math is exactly halfway between their amount that they are claiming and the amount that the staff indicates as being owed. We have analyzed the case. I think that we would have a good argument to go forward. However as you all probably know from litigation, nothing is a certainty. Therefore given that they are willing to compromise what is exactly 50 percent and the fact that by virtue of the bill you approved a little while ago with respect to my firm's fees in the Lodge Construction matter, attorney fees mount up MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pretty quickly. It is our recommendation the case be settled for that amount which is $56,500. I'm happy to answer any questions. MAYOR SPEHAR: Is there any discussion? Would you like to make a motion? MR. HENDRICK: This is a cautionary tale that when you get in construction projects, this is one of those nasty little things you never really budget for. We have had a run of unfortunate circumstances with people coming down here and not realizing they are in the Keys and they are in a different world and inevitably having construction disputes and demands for extras. A lot of my budget this year - I say my budget, the county attorney litigation budget - has gone to this litigation, not just Coltec, but Ravell and Lodge Construction. So it's something that we always have to bear in mind when we look at these projects. But I would recommend that you take counsel's advice. Ira's firm does practically nothing but construction litigation. We have litigated against each other some years ago. I have quite a bit of respect for his firm and I think you should take his recommendation. MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NEUGENT: Jim, what, and it's kind of late in the day, maybe I'm not using the right words, what didn't we do right to document, to protect ourselves in arriving at this point? MR. HENDRICK: I think part of the problem, and Ira can probably explicate on this more, we have, as most contracts do, change order provisions. Some of the personnel we have had in the past have been a little bit loose. They say go ahead with the work and then the work gets done but never gets documented properly. Ira why don't you give us -- MR. LIBANOFF: It's not just Monroe County. I will tell you that happens in most public contracting situations where you have project management type people that know that something is not included in the plans or specifications, they say yes okay, they give a verbal go ahead. They may even initial something directing the contractor to perform extra work. The law from the Supreme Court basically says that's not sufficient. If you don't have a signed written change order approved by the county commission or board or whatever it might be, you have nothing in essence. However there is also a lot of case law out there that gives contractors the right to claim for -- quote unquote -- equitable adjustment, where you don't MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 N. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 necessarily need a signed written change order to get paid for doing extra work. If something were required as a result of the code requirement or some public entity that has inspection responsibilities or something that is clear from the plans and specifications it is not included, you had to do it in order to move on to the next part of the work that wasn't approved. All of these are situations that are addressed in the cases that say even if you don't have the signed change order you can still get paid for this work. So I don't know if it's a question of not doing something right. We struggle with this all the time. But the practicality of the situation is if all of the contractors waited for each change order item to come before you to do the work that's addressed by them, none of your projects would ever get done in any type of timely fashion. So there's a little bit of give and take that goes on in the field of construction. When you know that you have an architect and/or an engineer and the staff and everyone supporting it and they tell you "Don't worry the commission will ultimately approve it," the work gets done. This particular case, some of this extra work came to the county staff and it was specifically MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rejected as not being extra work of the contract. That's why I think Coltec, we are coming here saying we'll waive interests and attorneys fees but we want every bit of our $86,000. My recommendation would be to you, I think we got tremendous defenses to many of their claims, but since they are prepared to compromise and the number I gave you also does not include any interest, costs or attorney fees, their actual claim at this point, I spoke to the attorney this morning, is in excess of $100,000 at this point if they were to prevail on everything. COMMISSIONER NEUGENT: However, if we had let's say -- and obviously they think they provided something outside of the limits of the contract that they should be reimbursed for. MR. LIBANOFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER NEUGENT: Jim, don't we have an engineer or someone who can say where you can make a judgment decision, it's just like Ira said we just approved a check for $46,000, and evaluate what legal fees are going to cost and what services they may have provided that might have been in a gray area, whether it was in the contract or not, to try to keep us out of these situations? MR. HENDRICK: Let me be very blunt. Our MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 architect on this project isn't there. This is a Jose project. He's transitioned himself out of the county. He still comes before you and gives you regular reports. I don't want to put Ira on the spot, but I think the services we were getting from our architect were not what we would expect. When he had Stephanie on his staff things got done. When she came over to the county and he was essentially trying to make due with whatever skeletal staff he has there, things fell through the cracks. I may be being unkind to him in this case but -- MR. LIBANOFF: I think you're being very kind but that's my view. The whole reason there is a separate contract for this work and that it wasn't included in the original contract is because the plans and specifications for this work were not completed at the time that you let the contract to Ravell Construction to do this work to begin with. And that's part of the issue we are dealing with in the Ravell litigation. If you recall, there was interruption in their work while this work was ongoing. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I think really we are beating a dead horse. It has been my experience on the issues, you go before a judge, he usually tries to MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 weigh the baby. He takes what is owed or not owed the claimant and the defendant, splits it in the middle and that's what the judgment is. So for us to, if we have a situation where we don't have an architect who is going to respond for us in a manner that is not going to run up additional attorney fees, gentlemen I just don't see why -- COMMISSIONER NEUGENT: I agree Murray. But my point being is that if we could, if Jim is correct in saying that these cases are escalating and growing in number, then it would almost, in my mind, warrant someone that would have some oversight into, before we get into litigation, what should we pay these folks. MAYOR SPEHAR: May I ask this. Were we not also part of the error here, in fact that it was not in the architect's drawings and the original request for proposal but then we kind of let it slide and did not address it until later, so we have been a part of this. MR. HENDRICK: I don't think it can be said that the county is without fault here. Bear in mind we had some unusual circumstances with construction management. We had Bill Bible. I'm not sure if he's in or out of custody right now. Bill had his difficulties. Then we had another gentleman who came MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 along, who had marital and other problems and left us. Now we have Stephanie. I have to say I think she is very diligent and doing a good job. She is very attentive to the details. She reminds me of Karen Cabanas in a way. She's a tiger. She really goes after -- COMMISSIONER NEUGENT: I sat in some of the meetings in Marathon and I think staff does an excellent job and very conscientious about dotting their is and crossing their is and making sure that -- I've seen them drag Bert Bender across the rail. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Motion to accept the settlement. COMMISSIONER NEUGENT: Second. MAYOR SPEHAR: Motion by Commissioner Nelson. Second by Commissioner Neugent. Is there any discussion? Do we need to do a roll for the record? MR. HENDRICK: No. I think we have a unanimous vote here. MAYOR SPEHAR: Unanimous vote. MR. ROBERTS: Raise one issue now that we have decided. This architect will be completing the Judicial Center and also the renovation to the current court building, the annex. Staff is very concerned that given the kind of service we are getting he MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 continue with that. I think we need to have some discussions, we have had some Jim previously about whether he should continue on as the architect. I guess there are a number of complications but it is something we need to talk about. MAYOR SPEHAR: Can we do it with the contract he has now, because I asked that before. Could we stop -- MR. HENDRICK: I think we probably have to -- at this point we are exceeding the scope of our closed session if we did go into that subject. MAYOR SPEHAR: Then item B. MR. HENDRICK: Thank you Ira. MR. LIBANOFF: May I inquire from a timing standpoint, because I'm sure plaintiff's counsel will be calling first thing tomorrow morning to find out the results when they can expect the settlement payment. MR. HENDRICK: The check is in the mail. MR. LIBANOFF: 30 days? MR. HENDRICK: 30 days by all means. MR. ROBERTS: The vote will take place in public the third week in December and -- MR. LIBANOFF: Some time after that. (Proceedings concluded) MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 12 CERTIFICATE I, KATHLEEN A. FEGERS, Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record. Dated this 30th day of November, 2002. MONROE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS (305) 852-7344 13