Yuma water-line contract climbs nearly 20% after construction surprises

Two change orders have added nearly $273,000 to a 5th Street water project. The latest work was completed before City Council formally approved the additional cost.

By Dan Bustard | Yuma Informed

A water main that wasn't where the construction plans said it would be has added another $99,763.07 to a City of Yuma project, pushing the contract nearly 20% above its original price.

Yuma City Council approved the second change order on Oct. 7, bringing Taylor Engineering's contract for a water distribution line along 5th Street to $1,654,769.73. The project was originally awarded for $1,381,777 in January.

The latest increase wasn't the project's first surprise. A previously approved change order added more than $173,000 after crews encountered an obstruction beneath the Union Pacific Railroad right of way.

Together, the two changes have increased the contract by $272,992.73.

There is another detail worth examining. According to the City's Oct. 7 council report, Taylor Engineering had already completed the latest modifications with City staff approval. Council's action formally ratified work that was already done.

The report doesn't identify who authorized that work or when the authorization was given.

The water main wasn't where the plans showed it

The project involved installing a new water distribution line along 5th Street, between Gila Street and Redondo Center Drive.

An archived construction procurement listing describes the installation of a 30-inch PVC water main to replace an existing 20-inch line considered too small for current demand.

But when construction crews reached the connection point near Redondo Center Drive, they ran into a problem.

The City's plans showed an existing 16-inch PVC water main west of Redondo Center Drive. Workers made several attempts to locate it through potholing, a process that involves digging small exploratory holes to find buried utilities.

They couldn't find the pipe where the plans indicated.

Further investigation eventually located the water main beneath the Redondo Center Drive roadway.

That discovery changed the work. Crews had to extend the excavation into the roadway, install additional water-main pipe and restore asphalt, curbs and gutters.

The additional work cost $99,763.07.

The City's report doesn't explain where the original utility-location information came from, who verified it or why the plans differed from what workers found underground.

The project documents also describe different pipe sizes. The procurement listing references an existing 20-inch main, while the October change-order report identifies a 16-inch main at the connection point. The available records don't establish whether those descriptions refer to different sections of the system or separate pipes.

First the railroad obstruction, then the missing pipe

The contract's first increase came in June, when workers encountered an obstruction beneath Union Pacific Railroad property during a jack-and-bore operation.

That construction method allows crews to install underground pipe beneath a roadway or railroad without digging an open trench across the surface.

According to the City's June 17 change-order report, Taylor Engineering worked with Union Pacific Railroad, RailPros and City departments to revise the work plan, implement additional safety measures and remove the obstruction.

The City reported that the complication added two weeks to the construction schedule.

Council approved another $173,229.66 for that work.

The financial progression now looks like this:

Contract actionAmount

Original contract, Jan. 7

$1,381,777.00

First change order, June 17

+$173,229.66

Second change order, Oct. 7

+$99,763.07

Revised contract total

$1,654,769.73

The combined increase is approximately 19.8% of the original contract.

These figures represent the authorized contract amount, not necessarily what the City has paid. The council reports don't include a complete payment history, contractor invoices or final project accounting.

Who approved the work before Council did?

Both change orders were presented to City Council for ratification.

That's an important distinction. Ratification means Council formally approved an action after it had already occurred, rather than authorizing it before the work began.

In the October report, the City says staff approved the modifications needed to complete the project. It doesn't identify the approving official or include the written authorization.

The June report likewise describes the first change as a ratification without providing the original directive or its authorization date.

Yuma's purchasing rules establish limits on contract modifications that can proceed without Council approval.

Under City Code § 36-34, change orders exceeding 10% of the original contract and the applicable $100,000 statutory threshold require Council approval unless the Council-approved contract provides otherwise.

The June change exceeded both figures, amounting to approximately 12.5% of the original contract and $173,229.66.

The October addition, considered separately, represented approximately 7.2% and $99,763.07. Combined, the two changes brought the increase to nearly 20%.

Arizona law and the City's purchasing code govern contract modifications, but those provisions alone don't tell us which approvals were required before this particular work could proceed.

The original contract may contain relevant provisions. The City may also have delegated certain authorization powers to staff.

City Code § 36-16 assigns procurement responsibilities to the City Administrator and Purchasing Agent.

Without the contract terms and written staff approvals, the public documents don't establish whether the advance authorization followed those requirements.

That isn't evidence that anyone violated the rules. It is a gap in the public record that matters when contract costs are increasing.

The October action form also lists no additional supporting documents on file with the City Clerk.

The City's Legistar system records MC 2026-185 as passed on Oct. 7, although the item's action table doesn't provide a vote tally.

The mayor's firm designed the project

The contract has another connection to City Hall.

When Council originally awarded the project to Taylor Engineering on Jan. 7, Mayor Douglas Nicholls declared a conflict of interest because his firm was involved in the contract.

He left the dais and abstained from voting. The remaining council members approved the award 6-0-1, according to the official meeting minutes.

At the Jan. 6 work session, the City's minutes identified Nicholls' firm as having performed the project design.

That connection is relevant because the October change order arose from a discrepancy between construction plans and the actual location of an existing water main.

But the available records don't establish who supplied the disputed utility-location information, whether it fell within the firm's design responsibilities or whether the firm's work contributed to the discrepancy.

There is no documented basis in these records to assign responsibility for the additional cost to Nicholls or his firm.

A completed project, but not a complete accounting

The City announced in a June 3 traffic notice that construction would begin June 8 and was expected to finish later that month.

That was the original public schedule, not confirmation that work finished on time.

By the time Council considered the second change order, the City's report, dated Sept. 29, said Taylor Engineering had completed the project work. It didn't provide an actual completion date or final-inspection record.

The remaining questions are fairly straightforward.

When did City staff authorize the two construction changes? Who signed off on the work? What documentation supported those approvals? And what caused the existing water main to appear in the wrong location on the plans?

The signed construction contract, field directives, written approvals and design records could help answer those questions. Final inspection documents, invoices and payment records would establish the project's actual cost.

For now, the public record establishes that a $1.38 million water-line contract has grown to $1.65 million after two construction complications.

Council has approved the increases. Whether the additional costs were unavoidable, and whether every authorization followed the applicable procedures, cannot be determined from the council reports alone.