2016-07-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Discussion included various sidewalk installations or rationale for not installing certain segments at this time (e.g. Wheaton Woods); and formal and/or typical processes for residents to provide feedback on various city projects before, during and after a project (e.g. Commissioner Trainor with S Owasso Drive project). Mr. Culver encouraged any resident on any project to provide their feedback on the project; and reviewed the various methods available (phone, email, personal staff contact at City Hall, etc.) at any time to inform future projects. Specific to the S Owasso project, Mr. Culver noted it had been a challenging year, which was both good and bad, with a very aggressive contractor on that particular project that kept things ahead of schedule, but made it difficult if not impossible to provide proper notification for residents, and staff s normal communication methods. However, Mr. Culver noted lessons had been learned in trying to manage the contractor and project, and reiterated staffs interest in hearing from residents about the process. Member Trainor noted the end result was the contractor being way out ahead of the schedule which had been painful for the residents. Member Trainor asked Mr. Culver if there was contractual language the city could use to avoid those types of happenings. Due to current contractor laws, Mr. Culver responded it was difficult to make a contractor comply unless it was at a financial cost to them, with normal legal channels used to fine a contractor or charge for non-performance unsatisfactory unless additional costs had actually been incurred (e.g. liquidated damages); and the required time and investment for the city to follow-through and ultimate taxpayer cost to do so. Mr. Culver noted that obviously some contractors were easier to deal with than others. As the city moves more into best value contracting and awarding contracts under that method, which the city had yet to do with its Pavement Management Program (PMP)projects, Mr. Culver advised that a contractor's previous experience on such elements could be used to reduce their score on future projects. Mr. Culver advised this would be accomplished through cities sharing their reviews and scores on contractors and their experiences, with that information used to score contractors accordingly. However, Mr. Culver noted this would require a consistent or standard method for post-project reviews; and there was some momentum in the industry to give cities more control making it in the contractor's best interest to perform above and beyond the norm. Member Trainor stated he would submit his comments as a resident to Mr. Culver. 5. City Campus Solar Page 2 of 19