Cape May, Remington Vernick Reach No Money Settlement

CAPE MAY — A settlement has been reached between Cape May and Remington Vernick & Walberg (RV&W), former contracted engineers for the city, involving no monetary exchange.
Lawsuits from both parties were instituted after the city terminated its contracts with RV&W.
Cape May initiated the lawsuit for purposes of seeking judgment to declare certain contracts between the city and RV&W void.
According to a resolution approved by City Council Tue., Aug. 3, RV&W filed an answer and counterclaim Jan. 28, 2009 seeking compensation for breach of contract among other claims and causes of action, thus seeking damages.
The case was transferred to Superior Court and the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment Feb. 12, 2009.
“Whereas, the parties have decided to settle the lawsuit without any payment by the city to RV&W in exchange for mutual releases by the parties,” notes the resolution.
City Solicitor Tony Monzo said it a mutual dismissal of both the city’s complaint and RV&W’s counterclaim. He said the city’s complaint was to get a declaratory judgment to determine that four contacts between the parties were null and void.
He said the dismissal gives the city exactly what it was seeking and RV&W gives up a counterclaim for damages for termination of the contracts.
Monzo said RV&W was in the middle of a three-year appointment with the city as engineers when the contracts were terminated by Cape May. He said the contracts had a termination right on each anniversary date which the city exercised.
The contracts included a general services agreement, two U.S.D.A. contracts, one for a project to keep stormwater out of sanitary sewers, another to construct a new water tower on Madison Avenue and another for the Convention Hall project, said Monzo.
RV&W were the city’s engineering firm at the beginning of the project to build a new Convention Hall. RV&W hired the architectural firm of Kimmel Bogrette under a no bid professional services contract.
Some members of the public were critical of the action and said they would have preferred to have the city’s choice for an architect to design a new convention hall be put out to bid. RV&W were to have handled civil engineering including plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems for a new Convention Hall.
Monzo said neither of the U.S.D.A. project contracts with RV&W were approved by City Council. Both had termination rights without cause.
He said neither project was started nor was the Convention Hall purchase order approved by City Council, so no contract existed with RV&W. He said RV&W was paid for work rendered on the Convention Hall project.
In 2007, resident Christine Miller said under the contract, RV&W would be a partner with Kimmel Bogrette as well as the construction manager which she called “a grave conflict of interest.” In addition, she charged the city’s agreement with RV&W for the hall would be carried out by a series of purchase orders rather than a contract.
In 2007, then mayor Jerome E. Inderwies questioned if it was a good plan to pay RV&W instead of a direct payment to Kimmel Bogrette. He suggested the city seek proposals from additional architects.
At that time, Monzo said council should hire an architect on a direct basis rather than through RV&W.
The city contracted with James Mott and Associates as replacements for RV&W.
The construction management firm of Hunter Roberts was contracted to oversee the design and bid phases of the Convention Hall project.
In 2007, RV&W recommended, within a year and a half to two years to place another steel “I” beam under the convention hall to shore up the drooping building.
RV&W was the engineering firm for the Washington Street Mall reconstruction project which was completed on time and under budget.