Change Orders Released for Staffordboro’s $2.1 Million Sidewalk Project

When Save Stafford first examined the Staffordboro Boulevard sidewalk project, one number immediately stood out: approximately $2.15 million.

For a relatively short stretch of sidewalk, that raised an obvious question: Where did all the money go?

Save Stafford has now obtained additional change orders and contract records from Stafford County. Those documents provide a much clearer picture—and show why comparing the entire $2.1 million project figure directly with the length of the sidewalk can be misleading.

The $2.1 million breakdown

Those phase figures come within a few hundred dollars of the approximately $2,147,296 overall project figure previously reported by the County. The newly obtained contract documents now let residents look inside some of those broad categories.

Engineering started at $413,356—then increased

Stafford County’s original engineering agreement with Wallace Montgomery was $413,356.54. Three engineering change orders added another $26,881.05, increasing the engineering contract to $440,237.59.

The first change order covered topographic survey work at a manmade drainage channel after VDOT requested additional information. The documents state that this survey was not included in the original scope.

The second change order increased the original three Quality Level A utility test holes to ten. Seven additional test holes were priced at $1,486.47 each.

The third added design work after Stafford County Utilities requested that the planned 8-inch water-main replacement be extended from Foxwood Drive to Grosvenor Lane. The document says this betterment would be funded with local funds.

Right-of-way was another $404,000

Another major cost was not concrete at all. Approximately $404,000 was allocated to the project’s right-of-way phase. Engineering and right-of-way therefore represent approximately $844,000 before considering the main construction contract and other construction-phase expenses.

Construction started at $949,402

The original M&F Concrete construction contract was $949,402.40. The records show subsequent construction changes primarily related to the water system.

One request added $2,000 for a 3/4-inch water-service-line pay item. Another added $18,200 after field investigation found that an existing 8-inch waterline continued through a tee rather than turning at the valve as depicted in the plans. The contractor was authorized to cut and cap that line and remove approximately 60 feet of waterline.

Together, those two items produced a $20,200 construction change order. A subsequent reconciliation added another $33,444.25 for additional water-main betterment work.

What we can directly trace

That accounts for roughly $1.85 million. It leaves approximately $329,866 between the revised M&F contract and the County’s broader $1.333 million construction-phase figure.

There is also a difference in the opposite direction on engineering: the County’s public phase figure is approximately $410,000, while the executed engineering records reach $440,237.59. This suggests the displayed phase figures may be programmed or budgeted amounts rather than a final, dollar-for-dollar expenditure ledger.

Does the $2.1 million make more sense now?

Yes. The $2.1 million was not simply the price paid to a contractor to pour a sidewalk. The records show more than $440,000 in engineering, approximately $404,000 in right-of-way, more than $1 million in the revised primary construction contract, utility investigation and expanded water-main work.

The change orders themselves were not the primary reason the project reached $2.1 million. The much larger drivers were the original engineering contract, right-of-way costs and the original construction contract.

One question still needs an answer

What specifically makes up the approximately $330,000 difference between the $1.003 million revised M&F contract and Stafford County’s $1.333 million construction-phase figure?

That difference may represent entirely legitimate project expenses. Without the detailed project expenditure ledger, however, residents cannot determine exactly what those costs were. Save Stafford has requested additional clarification from the County.

Transparency should not stop with reporting a project’s final price. Residents should also be able to see how that price was built.