Mostly Cloudy, 61°
Weather sponsored by:

Decade-old trouble comes to an end for Keystone Airpark

Kile Brewer
Posted 5/9/18

KEYSTONE HEIGHTS – After being awarded over $2 million in damages, the Keystone Heights Airpark can start repairing problems that started after the 2008 construction of two new hangars.

About …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Don't have an ID?


Print subscribers

If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.

Non-subscribers

Click here to see your options for subscribing.

Single day pass

You also have the option of purchasing 24 hours of access, for $1.00. Click here to purchase a single day pass.

Decade-old trouble comes to an end for Keystone Airpark


Posted

KEYSTONE HEIGHTS – After being awarded over $2 million in damages, the Keystone Heights Airpark can start repairing problems that started after the 2008 construction of two new hangars.

About 10 years ago, in October 2008, the small airport entered into a contract with Pipeline Contractors Inc., a Starke-based company that was awarded the bid for a hangar construction project. Once Pipeline had finished, the airport started noticing problems with the work.

The pavement outside and concrete flooring inside the two new hangars had started to heave upward and form cracks throughout. The airport stopped payment while officials looked into why the materials used in the project had failed. Their research determined the flaws were a problem with the sub-base layer used in the building process. In 2010, Pipeline filed a suit against the Keystone Airpark Authority for non-payment.

Airpark officials answered back with a counter-suit, claiming breach of contract against Pipeline had resulted in the brand new and now-cracked taxiways and concrete floors surrounding their clients’ stored planes, as well as seeking payment from The Hanover Insurance Company who had taken out a performance bond on Pipeline’s fulfillment of the contract with the airport.

About seven years after the suits were filed, they went to court for a seven-day trial in October of last year in Clay County’s Fourth Judicial Court with Circuit Judge Don Lester hearing the case.

“As is usual in construction disputes, there can be no question that a failure occurred,” Lester wrote in his judgment. “The core matter to be resolved by the court is why the failure occurred.”

In his report, Lester starts by outlining Pipeline’s responsibility under the contract, which boils down to two things: the company is to provide all of its own work and materials, and guarantee that work and those materials after the project’s completion. Pipeline is also required to get approval of materials from the project’s engineer.

It was discovered that Pipeline had used a material known as EZBase underneath the asphalt and buildings in the airport project.

EZBase, though allowed at the time, has since been banned in Clay County after a 2013 vote from the Board of County Commissioners. The material is a byproduct of burning coal that was marketed and delivered in the area by the Jacksonville Electric Authority. The BCC vote came following environmental concerns and overall unpredictability of the material as well as a push to ban it outright in the state of Georgia.

Soil samples from the site showed that EZBase was not necessary for this project as the soil maintained the necessary properties for use as a sub-base natively with no additives.

Judge Lester wrote that the use of a sub-base material when none was necessary was a breach of Pipeline’s duty to material selection under the contract, furthering his point in that they breached the contract again by failing to get the EZBase material inspected or approved by the engineer before placing it at the site.

Finally, Lester found that Pipeline had even mishandled the application of the EZBase, failing to follow JEA’s instructions for its use when distributing the product to a construction site.

According to the judgment, Pipeline used 130 truckloads of EZBase for a project that former JEA Director of Byproduct Services Scott Shultz said should have taken two truckloads at most. In addition, Pipeline had used 100 percent EZBase for some of the project, and a 50/50 mixture with native soil for other parts.

Shultz said during the trial that he would have recommended a 10 percent mix of EZBase with the native soil for the asphalt portions, and that he has never seen a 50/50 mix used practically for any application like this. He also said that he would never have used EZBase underneath buildings as that is not even the proper use of the product, while Pipeline had used 100 percent EZBase under parts of the larger hangar building.

Shultz also agreed with an expert from the Airpark that, when used in excess, EZBase has a tendency to expand and create a rigid sub-base when exposed to water, as is common in the state of Florida where foundations come in contact with the water table from time to time. What was to be used on this project was a firm and unyielding sub-base, not one that is rigid, with the technical difference lying in the ability of the firm and unyielding base layer to allow water to freely move up to and laterally through the sub-base.

The expert provided by Pipeline and noted in the judgment as a former paid advocate of EZBase, agreed that the more EZBase that is used, the more impermeable the material becomes. He even noted that he no longer uses the product because of its unpredictability.

To defend against these claims, Pipeline said that organic materials already present at the site had caused the upheavals in the pavement, not their use of EZBase. Judge Lester was quick to note that this would imply the same organic material was also present throughout the site, which clearly it was not, as only the areas where Pipeline had completed work had shown signs of failure.

As the trial wound down, Lester found that EZBase would need to be completely removed from the site, and most of the structures would need to be demolished and rebuilt as the cost necessary to save the buildings while rebuilding the sub-base would be more than the cost of reconstruction. He found that Pipeline was responsible for remediation costs to be paid to the airport for the removal of their faulty work.

Lester ordered Pipeline to pay the airport a total of $2,053,570.31 for remediation, and $35,400 in estimated lost rent incurred throughout the six-month remediation period, for a total of $2,088,970.31, collecting 5.35 percent interest annually.

In addition, Lester ordered that The Hanover Insurance Company pay Keystone Airpark Authority $1,128,691.50 as agreed upon when they signed onto the performance bond at the start of the contract. This amount will also collect 5.35 percent interest annually.