Keep Digging

The more you dig, the more you find to keep digging into.

BOROUGH HALL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

Today, I got a copy of the contract [see Disclaimer, below] between the Borough and the contractor, Dauti Construction Co. Inc., for the renovations at Borough Hall.

Dauti Contract for Borough Hall

Borough Hall construction was to begin March 24, 2006, and be substantially completed 378 calendar days later, or April 7, 2007.

As far as we know, just from eavesdropping at Borough Hall, no one expects the job to be done any earlier than this coming winter, December 2009.

Although I informally requested the bid specification documents after I submitted the OPRA for the contract, I did not get a copy of the original bid specifications published so that contractors could submit bid packages.

Ms. Pfleuger also informed me that the Borough does not have access to or keep copies of any subcontracts – those are all handled by the main contractor, Dauti Construction Co., Inc.

But I did learn that the document Frank D’Amore obtained several months ago, showing the requirement for a $500 per diem fine for each calendar day after the April 7 completion date, was an excerpt from a bid form the contractors submitted with their bid. It was not part of the final contract.

Dauti Bid Excerpt

The final contract does reference the penalty provision, in Section 3.3.

But it’s hard to tell if information has been removed from the version of the contract I got from the Borough Clerk today (there are unexplained blank lines on the form).

And Section 3.3 refers readers to paragraph 8.5 (“LIquidated Damages” of a “Supplementary General Conditions” document, possibly AIA-201-1997, which was also not provided.

The “Supplementary and Other Conditions of the Contract” are apparently contained in a Project Manual dated January 18, 2006. Also not provided.

Volunteers needed to file new OPRAs to get at that next layer of documents; I’m winding down the research part of my blog work.

SUBCONTRACTORS LAWSUIT

I did get a copy of the lawsuit filed November 28, 2007, by J&J Mechanical Contractors, against Dauti Construction, Borough of North Plainfield and Great American Insurance.

J&J Contractors Lawsuit

The lawsuit basically alleges that J&J did the work they were subcontracted to do, the Borough paid Dauti Construction, Dauti Construction never paid J&J, and Borough officials knew Dauti was holding onto the payments but failed to act to correct the problem.

J&J are seeking the $43,532.26 owed to them, plus interest, costs of suit and counsel fees.

I spoke to the attorney for J&J, Christopher Rafano, this morning. He said the Borough filed some version of an answer containing “general denials,” although he declined to forward a copy to me.

He said the judge ordered the parties to mediation, which is ongoing during trial prep.

The Borough official who attended the mediation meeting in the company of the attorney from Eric Bernstein’s lawfirm?

Not Borough Administrator David Hollod.

It was Police Chief William Parenti.

PAYMENT RECORDS

Payments for the Borough Hall project were not included in the Check Register obtained from Borough Hall a few weeks ago and now posted in the Documents Page up top.

That means they’re included in the check register for a different account; volunteer needed to file that OPRA request.

In other NJ towns, Change Orders are usually publicly reviewed and approved by the Borough Council. I’ve never seen evidence that Change Orders used to increase the cost of Borough Hall Construction, have gone before the Council for public review and formal approval. (Frank started a list of these Change Orders, posted back in December) If readers recall Council agenda items over the last couple of years covering change orders, please point me to them and I’ll correct this section.

DISCLAIMER: The contract was drafted using a form created by the American Institute of Architects, and each page contains a warning that the document is protected by copyright law and international treaties, threatening civil and criminal penalties against people who disseminate the information contained in the contract. This makes no sense to me, since contracts are public documents under New Jersey’s OPRA law.

“Generally, all government records are accessible to the public except those that fall under the exceptions to public access set forth in OPRA. Examples of public records that are accessible to the public include minutes of regular public meetings, budgets, bills, vouchers, and contracts, including collective bargaining agreements, individual employment contracts, and public employee salary and overtime information.”

Further, the NJ Press Association notes that the Supreme Court has held that a newspaper may publish any information it lawfully obtains. (More background here.) I’ve put a call in to the Government Records Council for clarification. If I’m ordered by a Court of competent jurisdiction to remove the contract from the blog, I will do so immediately. In the meantime, I’m posting it in the belief that public information to inform public debate and democratic decision-making may lawfully be made available to the public. (Send chocolate if they throw me in the slammer.)

UPDATE: On the copyright issue, I found an interesting, relevant case filed with the Federal Trade Commission in August 2007.