State board rejects Michels’ $125K complaint over mislabeled roadwork

Listen to this article

A state review board has rejected an attempt by the Brownsville-based company Michels Corp. to recover about $125,000 the contractor says it is owed from a project it performed in Winnebago County.

The Wisconsin Claims Board, which weighs disputes involving state agencies, ruled this week that the contractor isn’t entitled to recover money it claims it is owed from a Wisconsin Department of Transportation job dating to 2016. Michels decided to bring its dispute to the claims board even though a WisDOT panel had previously paid part of the amount the contractor was seeking.

In making the payment, the department said it was seeking to “maintain a good working relationship” with Michels.

Officials with WisDOT and Michels Corp. did not return messages seeking comment by press time on Wednesday.

The dispute between WisDOT and Michels began after the contractor won a road project calling for curb and gutter work in Winnebago County. Michels drew up its bid in response to WisDOT’s standard specifications, which Michels contends it later learned had mislabeled how much curb and gutter work needed to be performed at the site. Although bid documents said there was only 15 linear feet of curb and gutters that had to be removed, Michels Corp. found there was more than 4,500 linear feet.

WisDOT denied Michels’ initial attempt at obtaining payment for the additional work. Ultimately, though, the department’s review panel decided to pay out $27,468 for the removal of the curb and gutters. The review panel said WisDOT was under no obligation to pay for the work and only did so to maintain its relationship with Michels.

Michels responded by arguing the amount paid was not only insufficient but also failed to take into account the price it had offered in its bid. Michels said in its contract that it would cost $33 a linear foot to replace the curbs and gutters listed in the bid. In the end, Michels contends, it received only $6 a linear foot from WisDOT.

“The review panel concluded that the plans could have been clearer but also that claimant had failed in its duty to ask for clarification of any perceived ambiguities,” according the claims board’s ruling.

WisDOT, for its part, argues that it “correctly paid” for the work and owes no more. Follow @natebeck9