Uptown Demo

Demolition costs for Uptown site to be examined

Contractor, committee chairman seeking answers
2013-03-26T06:22:00Z 2013-12-18T14:09:33Z Demolition costs for Uptown site to be examinedCARA SPOTO cara.spoto@journaltimes.com Journal Times

RACINE — A local contractor who lost a bid to demolish 1516 Washington Ave. has taken issue with cost overruns on the job, but city staff say his concerns are misguided. 

Dan Macemon of Macemon & Sons, Inc., raised questions about the cost overruns last week after the company that demolished the building submitted change orders asking the city to pay for the work.

The changes brought the total cost of the project to $52,350 — twice what successful bidder Azarian Wrecking originally bid.

The change orders were slated to be approved by the City Council last week but the Public Works and Services Committee will be taking a closer look at the requests at 5:30 p.m. this evening at City Hall, 730 Washington Ave.

Chief Building Inspector Ken Plaski and Sam Azarian, who owns Azarian Wrecking, say the costs were unforeseen.

Macemon said he finds that hard to believe. He doesn’t think the city should be footing the bill for either of the change orders.

In the case of a $3,750 change order, which was requested to pay for work needed to close up window and doorway openings, Macemon believes the work was spelled out in the original contract. He said the city shouldn’t pay for a $22,394 change order because he believes it was the result of a contractor error. According to the request submitted to the Public Works and Services Committee, the change order was requested to pay for roofing work and masonry repair to the parapet and the front wall of 1512 Washington Ave.

“I don’t think the city should have to pay these false change orders,” Macemon said.

Azarian said on Monday contractor error had nothing to do with change orders.

“I wrote right in my bid that there could be extra costs. Nobody knew what you were going to run into,” he said. “You don’t know what you are going to encounter when the walls come down so how are you going to put a number on that?”

Both Plaski and Macemon point to the bid specifications for the project to support their arguments.

Macemon says language in the specs stating that contractors should “establish ... proper closure of existing passages though” common walls means filling in windows and doorways should have been included in the original bid price. He says language stating that the contractor should “carefully remove the brick veneer from the Washington Avenue facade ...” means that the contractor should have taken care when removing that brick. Failure to do so, he said, would have caused damage to the adjacent building — damage that would have necessitated roof work and masonry repair.

Plaski counters that the same bid specifications stated that interconnections between 1516 Washington Ave. and adjoining buildings 1512 Washington Ave. and 1518 Washington Ave. were “not fully known” and that the “extent of the demolition of the walls” would be “determined during the course of the demolition.”

“I knew there was going to be fixes to (1512 Washington Ave.) because the walls were interconnected,” Plaski said. “Nobody knew how the buildings were connected. That’s why I had an architect help with specifications for the demolition.”

Plaski said he knew that there were going to be additional charges apart from the demolition even before the project was bid out. He added that it would have been impossible for Macemon, or any other contractor, to know what those repairs would have been.

Macemon, however, says Plaski and the Public Works and Services Committee should have known there was something amiss when Azarian’s bid came in at half the amount Macemon & Sons, Inc. and another bidder said they could do the job for.

Questions were asked

Public Works and Services Committee Chairman Sandy Weidner said committee members did ask questions about the difference in bid prices when the bids came in.

Weidner said public works staff told the committee that there was a difference between the bids because there were a lot of unknowns, and that Macemon and the other bidders “didn’t interpret the specs that way.”

She said she wants to make sure that the $22,394 change order work wasn’t the result of contractor error. She also wants to know why the city didn’t bid out the work repairs to the adjacent buildings if it was just hiring someone to tear down 1516 Washington.

“I didn’t have those questions originally,” Weidner said. “Macemon brought up a lot of issues that I think need to be addressed.”

The Bids at a Glance

Azarian Wrecking, Racine: $26,209

Macemon Inc., Racine: $53,233

Meredian Industrial Service Corp., Lake Bluff, Ill.: $55,500

Jaramillo Contractors, Racine: $85,000

Copyright 2016 Journal Times. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(7) Comments

  1. PrimeTime69
    Report Abuse
    PrimeTime69 - March 26, 2013 6:11 pm
    City Of Racine RFP & Bid Process= Complete Lies, Total Scams, And Unfair Treatment.
  2. Django
    Report Abuse
    Django - March 26, 2013 4:09 pm
    You would not be reading this if it wasn't for Racine Exposed. Our "leaders" are not used to having their lies questioned. If Racine Exposed did not make a stink about this, we would be paying through the nose with the blessing of lying John. No one on the City Council looks out for the residents of Racine. It's all back -slapping good old boys looting the citizenry over and over. Get rid of the mayor, city administrator and city council. They are lying thieves who enmesh us in more and more lawsuits. The lawyers love lying John. They are getting rich on our taxes while our streetlights are turned off.

    Bravo Racine Exposed!
  3. Unbiased
    Report Abuse
    Unbiased - March 26, 2013 12:50 pm
    Possible scenario #1: So, could it be that Azarian lowballs the bid to get the contract? And luckily, the next lowest bid allows him to double his bid with the change orders and still look like the lowest priced contractor? Notice that his total is just slightly below the next lowest bid.

    Possible scenario #2: Actually, to me, from the way it's reported, could it be that the architect created a flawed spec? Allowing Azarian to bid it low and Macemon and others to bid it high because of the conflicting spec statements? Maybe it should have been re-bid with corrected more apples for apples language.
  4. ordmm
    Report Abuse
    ordmm - March 26, 2013 11:57 am
    Am I jumping to a false conclusion when I say it kinda looks like Mr. Ken Plaski is somewhat comfortable with the Azarian company? Looking at the other bids would lead some to conclude this had some insider contact. Like I said, probably just jumping to conclusions.
  5. Joeboy5471
    Report Abuse
    Joeboy5471 - March 26, 2013 9:50 am
    The aldermen just like signing change orders. Look to the renovations at the City Hall for examples. I cannot get into the heads of Azarian Wrecking officials, but based on what the others bid for the job, they understood the contract requirements and Azarian didn't. The change orders should be approved. THey will go to court for the money, but if you do it once you will have to do it everytime.
  6. Green Racinereal
    Report Abuse
    Green Racinereal - March 26, 2013 7:57 am
    And speaking of looking into interesting deals https://racineexposed.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/mary-mary-quite-contrary/comment-page-1/#comment-179
  7. Green Racinereal
    Report Abuse
    Green Racinereal - March 26, 2013 7:06 am
    I see yet another court case here
    This reminds me of the CAR 25 BS and I know there is a court case coming from that.

    My question is .Was the Contact a backdoor deal so the City can buy Azarian's Marina for cheep?
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick