Police Jury files lawsuit against road contractor, engineer by Stanley Nelson - posted Thursday, June 19th, 2008 @ 8:05 am  E-mail Story |  Print Story  The Concordia Parish Police Jury has filed a lawsuit against the contractor and the engineer responsible for its Phase 1 road improvement program in which 25.2 miles of parish roads were hardsurfaced. W.E. Blain & Sons Inc. of Natchez, the contractor, and Bryant Hammett & Associates, LLC of Ferriday, the engineer, were named as defendants in the suit. The lawsuit was filed June 10th in Seventh Judicial District Court on behalf of the Jury by the Monroe law firm of Davenport, Files & Kelly L.L.P. The Jury entered into a contract with Blain on May 1, 2006. Blain was the low bidder for the work, which began June 12, 2006, and ended Aug. 2, 2007, when the Jury and Blain reached an impasse in a dispute over whether the work was up to specifications. The contract price totaled $4,196,363.25 including change orders. The Jury had paid Blain $3,343,304.48 at the time the suit was filed. According to the suit, Blain was to provide a 12-inch "base course of soil cement and two-inch wearing course of asphaltic cement." The Jury claims Blain used "improper methods" in preparing the base course for the roads including improper thickness and slope of soil cement and lime base, failure to use machinery to properly calibrate the work and applying "too little water and applying water at incorrect times..." Other allegations are that Blain used "substandard surfacing methods and practices," including use of defective equipment, application of an uneven and inadequate thickness of asphalt and failure to provide "for an adequate crown to allow water to drain from the roadway." These violations of the contract, the Jury claims, resulted in a "very poor finished project...manifested by severely uneven road surfaces, excessive deep cracking, dangerous and inadequate road shoulders, sloughing off of the sides of the asphalt surface, and inverted crowns causing the roads to hold rather than drain rain water." By comparison, the suit notes that a different contractor performed Phase 2 work under essentially the same contract provisions in a similar soil as in Phase 1 and was "completely acceptable." The Phase 1 damages were also caused, says the suit, by "the fault or negligence of the engineer for failure to inspect the work of Blain, failure to adequately supervise the job and work performed by Blain, failure to adequately and timely report necessary corrective measures, and/or providing deficient plans and specifications." The Jury is seeking damages for reconstruction of the project, loss of roadway value, reimbursement for attorney fees, testing costs required due to contract violations, liquidated damages of $500 per calendar day, reimbursements for all other costs and the fees of any experts retained by the Jury for the case and the cost of the proceedings. The Jury is also seeking a judgment against Blain declaring that "no further sums are owed" the contractor.