X

Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority frustrated with McFarland Johnson over continued change orders, extensions for airport project

Posted 11/1/26

OGDENSBURG — Members of the Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority Board expressed frustration over a $33,555 change order for a generator that was not included in the original plans for the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority frustrated with McFarland Johnson over continued change orders, extensions for airport project

Posted

OGDENSBURG — Members of the Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority Board expressed frustration over a $33,555 change order for a generator that was not included in the original plans for the Ogdensburg International Airport terminal renovation project, questioning how such a critical need was overlooked.

The discussion came as the board considered a change order submitted through engineering firm McFarland Johnson for $33,555.30 to install conduits for a future airport generator. Although board members ultimately supported the work, Chairman Sam Burns and board member Megan Whitton criticized the project’s planning and oversight, saying that the need for backup power should have been identified from the beginning.

Executive Director Anthony Adamczyk explained that installing the conduits during the ongoing Gateway Improvements Terminal Renovations Project would be less expensive than returning later to disturb completed work.

The airport currently has no backup generator, meaning a power outage could leave the entire facility without electricity, including its lighting.

Board members agreed with Burn that identifying the need for backup power should have been part of their responsibilities.

“Not for nothing, We pay McFarland Johnson a ton of money,” Board Member Megan Whitton said.  “They looked at this stuff and didn’t say ‘Hey you know what’s handy in an airport?’ It’s not their first rodeo on an airport and that’s honestly what irritates me about this. We pay them an incredible amount of money for this purpose. That is their job. We have construction managers. We have project managers. There is a literal boatload of people who should have caught this. It’s not rocket science. It’s a generator.”

He described the generator-related expense as another in a series of troubling change orders on a project that has experienced delays and cost increases.

The $33,555.30 change order will be paid from the project’s original $800,000 contingency allowance. During the discussion, officials indicated that approximately $244,000 would remain after accounting for this and other project expenses.

Whitton expressed further concerns with the firm.

“This isn't the first one in this, you know, this project that is in a long line of ridiculous change orders that we have gotten. We are over time. We are over budget on this project with this contractor specifically in McFarland Johnson and quite frankly how long are we going to be sitting here going okay guys things happen?”

Despite their criticism, board members approved the generator infrastructure work, because it’s needed for operation.

The board’s frustration continued during consideration of a separate $150,000 request from McFarland Johnson to extend its construction-phase engineering services through December 2026. The extension would cover construction administration, project representation, coordination and closeout services following adjustments to the construction schedule.

Burns questioned why the authority should incur additional engineering costs because of construction delays. Adamczyk said the delays originated with the construction contractor and that the authority was pursuing liquidated damages in an effort to recover costs associated with the extended schedule.

Adamczyk said that recovering those expenses was not guaranteed.

The chairman said the project was originally scheduled for completion in June 2025 and was essentially completed in February 2026, yet the authority was still addressing related issues months later.

Burns said the authority’s longstanding relationship with McFarland Johnson made the situation particularly frustrating. Adamczyk agreed with the board members’ concerns.

 Board members requested McFarland Johnson representatives to attend a future meeting to address their concerns.

Help St. Lawrence County Stay Connected!

We’re glad you read this article reported by the staff of NorthCountryNow.com.

If you haven’t done so already, please consider subscribing to ensure you have full access to all the news and info about St. Lawrence County.

Your subscriptions make it possible for us to provide trustworthy local news, promote our many community events, and encourage community dialogue.

Please click here to subscribe today!