Rec trail contractor: City stiffed us $112K

Since September 2016, residents and visitors alike have been able to get in touch with nature, hiking the Savannas Recreation Trail. But long after the work was complete and work crews packed up their tools, the City of Port St. Lucie and the contractor remain at odds over the trail’s price tag.

The city funded the project, located technically in Fort Pierce, as part of its mitigation plan for the Crosstown Parkway. The original contract, signed in 2014, was for nearly $877,000 plus any change orders along the way.

Fast forward two years: The work was completed and the trail opened with fanfare. Shortly after, Tan Construction Services filed a lawsuit against the city for failing to pay.

The company claims the city owes more than $112,000 in unpaid work the contractor performed. The city disagrees, saying it only owes approximately $13,000.

Who’s right? A judge is expected to answer that question, but when remains unknown.

In late February, the lawsuit was assigned to Circuit Civil Judge Robert Belanger for a non-jury trial. The trial, according to court records, is expected to last about three days. A date had not been set as of press time.

Earlier this month, the Port St. Lucie City Council held a shade meeting with its legal team to discuss the lawsuit. Details of what was discussed during the closed-door, private meeting were not released.

At issue is whether work Tan Construction Services was already accounted for in change orders signed between the two parties or if the work is above and beyond what the city approved.

Tan Construction Services was hired to perform “clearing and grubbing, excavation, embankment, concrete work, sodding, signage, landscape and all the work needed to provide a trail eight feet wide and approximately 1.3 miles long,” the lawsuit lists.

The trail starts at the end of Camp Ground Road and treks north to the FEC Railroad track.

Tan Construction argues, in the court record, that the initial survey for the work grossly underestimated the scope of work needed, which affected the company’s ability to provide a proper estimate.

For example, the company points to a planned walkway bridge converted to a sidewalk “because there was no water-crossing at the location.”

Tan encouraged Port St. Lucie to perform a new survey once the dense stand of trees was cleared. The city, according to court records on both sides, declined the survey.

For the city’s part, it argues that any changes needed would be and were handled through change orders approved by both parties.

The city argues that any of the work Tan should have been paid for was done so through the various change orders; “any such additional or extra work is outside the express, written terms of the contract,” the city’s defense document reads.

Tan Construction also argues the city used a measuring method not authorized to determine the area to be cleared and grubbed. The contractor said the method used assumed the land to be flat, when it was actually sloped.

“The city ignored the gradient,” the contractor’s complaint reads.

The city didn’t specifically disagree with that particular complaint but countered that work would either have been included in the contract and change order – and, if it turned out the contractor didn’t include it in the change order, then the work would have been outside the scope of the contract.

Tan Construction included in its complaint that the city has failed to even pay the owed retainage of the contract – a sum of about $39,000 – which both sides agree is due. The city filed in its paperwork that the reason it hadn’t paid the retainage was because Tan Construction had not submitted an invoice.

“Until the amount owed is agreed upon by the parties or adjudicated by the Court, the City owes a duty to the taxpayers to withhold payment,” the city argues.   

Comments are closed.