Park Planner and City Disagree on Cost Overruns

It takes but one glance to realize that Veterans Park in Carson is unlike any other the city has built over the last two decades. If the sheer size of the park and sports complex does not capture one’s attention, then its pink and green buildings might.

So might the park’s price tag--$8.1 million, almost $2 million more than had been projected. Cost overruns incurred while building the park, a result of numerous change orders, are a continuing source of controversy involving the city, the contractor and the project’s architect, Archiplan Inc.

Carson officials are reluctant to talk about construction cost overruns because of potential litigation involving the city and Archiplan. However, Councilwoman Sylvia Muise called the construction problems “a disaster.”

The latest dispute is over whether the architect should reimburse the city for the overruns. Exactly how much money the city is seeking could not be confirmed.

Plans for the park were first drawn up in 1984. The City Council, acting as the Carson Redevelopment Agency, awarded the construction contract to PCL Construction Inc., in December, 1987, on a bid of $6.2 million. Construction got under way in January, 1988, and the project was to be completed in a little over a year.

Instead, Veterans Park took two years to finish and cost the city $1.9 million more than had been projected.

A February, 1989, memorandum to City Administrator Jack Smith from then-Public Works Director Harold Williams says Archiplan’s designs and specifications for the project “were incomplete in many areas.”

The inadequacy of the plans caused the contractor “to submit an extraordinary number of requests for information. In replying to these requests, the architect and his structural engineer made several necessary major changes and additions to the plans. Consequently, this created the need for additional and extra work by the contractor,” the memorandum states.

Citing additional personnel and subcontracting costs, PCL filed a claim for $1.1 million against the city. That claim was settled out of court in September, 1989, for $425,000.

According to the memo from Williams, the plans did not contain sufficient detail for the curbing necessary to install large skylights in the gymnasium. The contractor charged the city an additional $23,000 to install the curbing. Archiplan argues that there should have been no additional cost because the contractor’s bid for construction of the overall gymnasium already included the curbing cost.

Archiplan President Richard Thompson said his firm’s plans did contain some discrepancies, but that “we made every effort possible to correct the situation.”

He characterized the city’s attempt to get Archiplan to pay for the overruns as “a political face-saving game at my expense.”

Thompson said many of the change orders requested by PCL Construction were too high and without merit. The contractor submitted repeated requests for information about the plans in order to create the appearance of disarray in the architectural designs and to be able to drive up the costs of the project, Thompson said.

“It was a strategy very carefully designed to make up what they” lost in bidding too low, he said. PCL “would hold the city hostage by holding up construction until they got their way.”

Jack Donovan, PCL’s construction manager, called the accusations “ridiculous.” He declined further comment.