New Terminal Down to Finishing Touches : Airport: Workers hustle to complete the expansion by the Sept. 7-8 open house. A fire system fails its first test.

With the scheduled opening of the new John Wayne Airport terminal roughly six weeks away, airlines this week will began installing waiting room chairs and their own gate check-in facilities as the prime contractor winds down construction activities.

And although glitches marred a test Friday of the new $63-million passenger terminal’s fire control system, both airport officials and the contractor, Taylor Woodrow California Construction Ltd., praised the progress of the last few weeks, which was aimed at a public open house Sept. 7 and 8 and commercial use by jetliners Sept. 16.

The fuselage-shaped terminal is bustling with workers putting final touches on the most visible part of the county’s biggest-ever public works project, a $310-million expansion that includes new roads, freeway ramps, parking garages, aircraft aprons and taxiways.

“Everything is going pretty well,” assistant airport manager Jan Mittermeier said. “Taylor Woodrow is working far ahead of their late (worst-case estimate) completion date of Aug. 23.”

The computerized fire suppression system failed its first test Friday when it did not automatically trigger an equipment shutdown, Mittermeier said. The system is the last big item in Taylor Woodrow’s contract, although some workers are still laying the last pieces of marble flooring and carpeting in the north wing.

“Today’s test is nothing to get excited about,” Mittermeier cautioned about the fire failure. “My understanding is that these systems never test out completely right the first time.”

On Wednesday, Taylor Woodrow asked all subcontractors to submit final financial claims so it can bill the county within 90 days. A notice to subcontractors stated that Taylor Woodrow expects to achieve “substantial completion” of the terminal by Thursday.

Mittermeier said the firm is not likely to meet that goal because of the fire system glitches. But she said the goal was probably too ambitious anyway.

The problem-plagued terminal project--months late and millions of dollars more expensive than planned--stirred controversy from its beginning, when Taylor Woodrow’s low bid came in about $17 million over the county’s original budget of $42.5 million. A cost-cutting effort began. A major redesign took place after the architect was fined $775,000 for late and inaccurate drawings.

Eventually, the project missed a grand opening scheduled April 1, and a new target of Sept. 16 was selected.

Meanwhile, Taylor Woodrow was fired from a separate, $25-million job building a garage and elevated roadway, with the county citing errors and behind-schedule work. The contractor sued once and then again, hoping to nullify the county’s subsequent award of that work to the Irvine-based McCarthy Bros. construction firm.

However, Airport Manager George A. Rebella has insisted that the overall, $310-million expansion is on budget, with the five-year timetable originally expected actually compressed into just three years, after environmental litigation stalled it early on.

The airport’s 27,900-square-foot old terminal opened in 1967; the new terminal is 338,000 square feet. Passenger capacity will jump from 4.75 million a year now to 8.4 million.

Working at a feverish pace the last few weeks because of a threat by the Board of Supervisors to fire the contractor from the terminal contract, Taylor Woodrow has at times had more than 200 workers on the site, 151 on Friday.

In addition, airport officials said, inspectors from the county’s Environmental Management Agency have been combing the building for flaws. They hope to prevent problems that have occurred at some other Taylor Woodrow projects.

At a new airport terminal in Tampa, hot water flowed through urinals, thermostats were installed incorrectly and some heating and air-conditioning vents were left unconnected. Taylor Woodrow, that airport’s contractor, is embroiled in litigation with the Tampa airport authority.

Taylor Woodrow Senior Vice President William Ostfeld said that Orange County’s “terminal project is looking very good. This week we’ve been working very closely with our client, the county, to test and check out systems. This is the normal procedure you go through when a project gets close to completion.”

But serious issues remain.

For example, Taylor Woodrow’s revised contract states that the terminal was supposed to be completed by May 16. The firm has asked for extensions, both to avoid late fines and to become eligible for on-time bonuses.

But the county hasn’t budged, so fines totaling several million dollars--actually, withheld payments--may take the project into court after the terminal is in use.

What’s more, there are payment disputes totaling several million dollars between Taylor Woodrow and its subcontractors, mostly about costly change orders issued by the county.

The biggest claim so far--$4.6 million in damages for delays allegedly caused by the county--is from Taylor Woodrow itself and remains unresolved.

The second-biggest claim--$3.7 million for speeded up work--is from Utah-based Stott Steel Inc.

Steel procurement was a big problem for the airport in 1988, with Taylor Woodrow and the county pointing fingers at each other over delays in placing steel orders with a mill. A Texas subcontractor of Stott’s tried to charge the county for steel work actually to be performed by another company; the Texas firm was barred from the job.

Stott and Taylor Woodrow split a $200,000 bonus for making up for some of the lost time later, but Stott has filed documents with the county alleging that it has received nowhere near the amount that it is owed.

The documents show that the county never actually examined Stott’s books to see whether Stott’s bills were justified but offered to settle the dispute anyway--for less than $700,000.

Stott officials argued that the county did not account for delays it caused by redesigning the building in mid-project. “The bottom line is that no agreed-to pricing was accepted by any of the involved parties” when speeded production schedules were agreed upon, the company’s claim states.

“That’s Taylor Woodrow’s problem,” Mittermeier said. “We’re not responsible for what Taylor Woodrow did to its steel supplier.”

The county’s written responses, meanwhile, contend that Taylor Woodrow and Stott are responsible for some delays and errors and that the Utah firm is in effect trying to get the county to underwrite a major expansion of Stott’s facilities that are still in use after the county’s steel order was filled.

Stott officials have countered that the county is “negotiating in bad faith.”