.jpg)
Wlaf1450
By Charlotte Underwood
JACSKBORO, TN (WLAF)- Disagreements and delays continue to plague the Jacksboro Elementary School Gym project. The Campbell County Board of Education members met with board attorney Dail Cantrell, the project’s architect Jake Thomas with Lewis Group and project contractor Tim Gaylor with GCE on Monday evening in a special called meeting.
After an hour-long discussion back and forth between all sides and a brief executive session with the board attorney, the BOE approved a motion extending the project completion date to January 1, 2026. However, the project is not expected to be completed until June of 2026, but it could be done as early as March 2026, according to GCE’s attorney, who made the comment after the meeting was over. Currently, the project is 49 days overdue on its completion date, with the contractor accumulating around $25,000 in liquidated damages for the project not being done by the time specified on the contract. The motion approved on Monday resets that, so the liquidated damages will not begin to incur again until January 1st of 2026. This was done at the board attorney’s advice.
BOE attorney Cantrell started Monday’s meeting, saying that at least one concern had been relieved with the company chosen to erect the steel for the project.
“I have complete confidence in the steel erector that was picked, I think the architect did a good job with that and I think the general contractor picked a good company to work with, so that is one issue that was weighing on everybody’s mind, so that concern is off the table, I would not worry about that anymore,” Cantrell said. He also said the pace of the work on the project had picked up and was an “extreme positive” and perhaps there could be an early winter completion date.
He invited Thomas with Lewis Group and Gaylor with GCE to address the board and asked the architect if he thought the project could be completed within that time frame “from an architectural standpoint.”
Thomas said he could not answer that as he was not the contractor.
Gaylor, the contractor with GCE said he had submitted a schedule to the architect and that he anticipated being “in the dry in the gym no later than mid-June.” Part of that schedule he submitted included change orders and the request for additional days for the project.
“We’re working seven days a week and 14- and 16-hour days, do we believe we will beat that date on the paper, we do, but at the same time we feel like we are adequately responsible enough to get those dates in the change order,” Gaylor said.
He also said GCE had “already done 40 percent of the work listed on the change orders without change orders being approved just to keep the project moving forward.”
This concerned Cantrell.
“My biggest concern is I don’t want to be here again in February, if we stay with the existing contract, because you are going to have to address these change orders and hearing that we are doing work on a change order without a change order being approved concerns me from a legal standpoint because if they are doing work on something that you or the architect have not approved, well who pays for it,” Cantrell pointed out.
He told board members that the contractor and the architect had to come to an agreement as to when the project would be completed.
“You have to have a date, you can’t just say, you know, hey, we are going to get it done when we get it done. I do think stuff is moving now, I am pleased we were able to get the erector issue done … I am concerned that change orders that have not been approved, work is being done,” Cantrell said, adding that it was not fair for anyone if they were not in agreement as to when it was going to be done. He also said that if the change order request puts in a request for days that was not a fair request for days, that the board should not sign it.
“It’s just pushing the can down the road and essentially changing his liquidated damages that he owes you and putting it at the end and using this as a leverage tool to say I am not paying any liquidated damages; I am not saying that is the intention, but that is going to be the effect of what occurs if you don’t have an agreement,” Cantrell said. He also said he was concerned the architect “may not agree with the time of days extended with these change orders.”
Board member Randy Heatherly asked the architect with Lewis Group Jake Thomas where he was at as far as approving the change orders, how long ago they were submitted by the contractor and how long they would take to approve.
“After the meeting tonight, we can pull the trigger one way or the other. Just hearing from me, in terms of these change orders, you know if you move forward with us and you move forward with this contractor and you want to extend the schedule of this project, then I will approve these change orders in service to the project and the days associated with them, but if you were to ask me if I would approve these change orders on their own merit, the answer is no, because I stood up here three months ago and told you all the delay on this project was the joist girder, and I stand by that – conservatively that thing should have been installed in March and it was installed last week and you have eight months of delays on this project and now he has submitted these two change orders, six and nine and he has filtered roughly eight months’ worth of days through those two change orders, so I am in a position here where we have one change order for 190 days that should take no where near that, that’s where I am, I want to get this thing done,” Thomas said.
Gaylor rebuffed that, saying that the cafeteria was open and that it would not be open right now because “the fire marshal requested certain things to that part of the building.”
“That is in this change order, it took eight months to get a revision design on it from the fire marshal … we have the documentation from the fire marshal… he is on board, we have talked to him multiple times in the last couple weeks, we have went ahead and done these change orders to get the gym for the kids opened up, so they can have this cafeteria area and we are doing the same thing on the gym side, the girder did hold us up over there, we have not made no secret, there was a steel delay, we have said that for months, we even told it to the architect in October of 2024,” Gaylor said. He also said he felt if he had not been waiting on the fire marshal’s revision, then he would have been able to “knock out additional work.”
He said he wanted to work through a resolution for the project, but that there were delays on both sides and wanted to be met halfway.
“There has to be some ownership on some of these delays taken and not just on GCE’s side,” Gaylor said.
The architect said there were no delays on his side and reiterated that it was the joist girder that delayed the project.
There were additional back and forth discussions between all parties regarding blame and the reasoning for delays.
Cantrell, the BOE’s attorney, reminded the board that the architect was “hired as the project manager.”
“You are also paying them to be able to tell you, hey, this is where we are and this is where we should be,” Cantrell said. He said there should not be a negotiation on the completion date.
“You have an architect saying this is an unrealistic pushing of the days, it should not take this extra amount of time to do it and it is being backloaded to get rid of the liquidated damages provision, you also have your architect saying ‘I will approve it if you all want me to, but I am professionally not going to agree that that is right’, Jake is that a fair statement?” Cantrell asked.
Thomas agreed.
Cantrell said it concerned him because the architect was saying do not approve the change orders because of the days.
Board member Brandon Johnson asked the architect what was a legitimate amount of time for the change orders. Thomas with Lewis Group said he would have to do some research and could provide that information, but that it “was not six months.”
Cantrell said there needed to be a completion date established. He also said that he agreed, that there needed to be some additional days added for the project completion, “but the architect is saying it should be much shorter and the contractor is saying longer, but we can meet in the middle… there should not be any negotiating room beyond a week or two, they should not be that far apart,” Cantrell said.
He also said he did not feel comfortable advising the board to waive the liquidated damages provision and that he was not certain the two parties would come to an agreement on a completion date within a week.
“I think you need to leave the contract as is, but pick a number of days that you are going to bump back, but you are not going to pick eight months, but leave the contract as is and your architect, I cannot advise you to have him sign something he is not comfortable signing,” Cantrell said.
Johnson suggested a compromise.
“I don’t know who to believe, GCE is saying eight months, I will be honest, I don’t know who to believe and I feel like that is the position of most of the board. I like you both, one is a truther and one is a liar, I don’t know who’s who. What if we allotted four months and split the difference, we meet in the middle and move forward,” Johnson said.
Cantrell reminded the board that 49 days had already been accumulating liquidated damages at the tune of $25,000.
“One thing you could do is give credit, add another four weeks onto it, and kick it on January 1st would be a reasonable compromise to start back at $500 dollars a day,” Cantrell said.
He asked the architect if he felt comfortable approving the change orders with that understanding. Thomas said yes, he felt comfortable with that.
GCE’s attorney Steve Hurst asked to speak briefly, but Cantrell said he did not think it was appropriate and that he wanted the board to get their advice on legality from him, not the contractor’s attorney.
Board Chairman Jeffrey Miller called a recess, and the board went into a brief executive session with the board attorney.
After coming back from executive discussion, Miller made a motion “to have the architect to submit a completion date of January 1st on all change orders.” This is an 80-day extension on the original contract. After the January 1st deadline, the $500 a day liquidated damages provision starts over.
Johnson seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. (WLAF NEWS PUBLISHED-12/02/2025-6AM)