Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Water tank dispute

Contractor, city at odds over paint job

November 13, 2013

A Pittsburgh-based company intends to work with the city of Marietta to iron out an issue that has resulted in more than doubling the cost of a $131,980 water solids contact tank paint job performed......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(11)

luvthesouth

Nov-14-13 8:49 AM

Someguy80, good morning. IAMALWAYSRIGHT may have a valid point in that most of the time any submittal must be signed off and stamped approved by someone that represents the buyers interest. in this case it should have been the city engineer. if the contractor included the material to be used and that exact material was approved and used then the contractor can hardly be held responsible. it certainly appears that the city representatives wanted the contractor to do the research and specifications for the project rather than the other way around. the reading of the bid request, bid proposal and purchase order will be the deciding factor. did the contractor provide what the customer specified or ordered???? that is the $131,000 to $150,000 question.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Someguy80

Nov-13-13 3:54 PM

Perhaps those responsible in the city government, whether it be the engineer or our water superintendent will keep a closer eye on who they hire next time. Ultimately this is the contractors fault, and they should have to pay, but I wonder what their record is prior to this, and if those responsible in the city government did any checks.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mrhomer

Nov-13-13 2:46 PM

Just sounds like most organizations here...do the deed ..then do the research...then swear you didn't know about it and find a scapegoat.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

IAMALWAYSRIGHT

Nov-13-13 11:08 AM

The contractor did what he was supposed to do.Get the paint that would save him money and give his customer a fair price.Here is the part that everyone is forgetting. The contractor sent in submittals to be approved by Eng. department before anything can happen. I am sure Jeff seen these too. Herein lies the problem. The water dept has not had a leader up on that hill since Joe left and that was years ago.If I had all day the stories I could tell.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Nov-13-13 10:10 AM

tessie, a few more thoughts regarding paint-gate. the job estimator for the painting company must not have been aware of the process requirements for the solids contact clarifier. if they had, they would have known to use the proper paint or coating for the project. however, this does not negate any responsiblity for those that wrote the bid specifications which should have inlcuded material requirements as well as a conformity clause to adhere to all federal, state and local rules and guidelines. the original bid, bid response, purchase order, all recorded communications and signed contract will be evaluated as to where the project went off the rails so to speak. from my perspective, unless there is a 100% chance the company will be faultless, you will see a settlement reached and hopefully a change in your citys bid process which would include stricter material specifications as well as diligent project oversight.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lizard

Nov-13-13 9:56 AM

If we take the lead from our president, no one is responsible, the powers to be didn't know anything about it until reading about it in the paper, no one will be held accountable, and just pay the blasted extra cost and be quiet! There more money where that came from...it's only tax payer money. We'll get more from raising taxes on the working middle class...

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tessie

Nov-13-13 8:47 AM

Thanks luvsthesouth. It seem like there was a series of blunders that should have been caught. It appears the engineer's department makes lots of serious blunders that cost the city huge amounts of money. Maybe it's time to demand that those responsible be held accountable.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Nov-13-13 7:56 AM

forgive obvious spelling errors.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Nov-13-13 7:55 AM

in order to conform to drinkingwater and ohio EPA standards or codes. perrsonllay i have done hundreds of bid proposals for somestic and overseas projects and have yet to allow such a blunder as this. this is not how to make money or perform a satisfactory bid and execute the process.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Nov-13-13 7:54 AM

good morning tessie. might i propose and answer to your question just from the information contained in the article. it appears to me that the engieneer for the city failed to poperly research and specify the type of paint in which to be used. as stated it appears that decision was left solely up to the contractor. since the contractor determined that the open tank was not required to have the NSF approved paint the, i'm sure cheaper, paint was selected. after the fact, the engieer for the city and/or the supt. of your water supply determined that there was something amiss and after hindsight research the proper paint was mot used. it is glaringly apparent that there was lack of due diligence on the part of the engineer or the supt. in inspecting the work of the contractor or the materials used. one or all parties have been caught and now the money and finger pointing game begins. i am somewhat puzzled that in the original bid that the type of paint and MSDS sheets were not supplied i

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tessie

Nov-13-13 7:10 AM

"Two of the recommended paints were certified by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) for use in tanks that hold potable water, but one was not, and that was the product American Star chose to use for the project."

I'd like to know why American Star chose this particular paint out of the three recommended. As professional painters, wouldn't they notice that the paint was not approved by the NSF, but the other two were?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 11 of 11 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web