9/14/2011
ML school project on track for October rebid
By Nick Lewandowski For The Almanac writer@thealmanac.net
The Mt. Lebanon school board again heard from the design team for its high school renovation project Sept. 12. Architect Tom Celli said revised drawings were received Sept. 9 and that they were "99 percent there," estimating the project would be ready to bid by early October. The redesign features some $16 million in cost savings, and will be bid to seven multiple prime contractors, including a general contractor. Other contractors will handle mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection and asbestos abatement. The seventh is a casework team assigned to assist the general contractor with managing architecture.
Celli described the impact of the design changes as "so minimal as to be inconsequential."
Though the redesigned building will not obtain LEED Silver certification (a sustainability rating administered by the U.S. Green Building Council), the resulting loss of energy efficiency is expected to be relatively minor.
The redesigned school will also qualify for less reimbursement from the state, though it is difficult to determine an exact figure given the number of variables involved in the calculation.
A rough estimate from director of fiscal services Jan Klein put the figure at about $12.5 million, down from the original $14.4 million. Celli-Flynn Brennan and construction manager P.J. Dick will spend the next month double-checking their numbers regarding cost savings and energy use. According to Celli's tentative timeline, the district can then advertise for bids Oct. 11 and open them Nov. 22, finally breaking ground in January 2012.
The high school project is still set to last three and a half years, ending in July 2015, though the academic buildings will likely be finished several months before that.
A point of contention remains the structure of add and deduct alternates specified in the bid documents. Deduct alternates are items that can be removed from the project if bids come in high. Add alternates are just the opposite: elements that can be included should there be funds to spare.
In this case, the tennis courts and an auxiliary gym are currently listed as deduct alternates, the school's rifle range as an add.
Board member Dan Remely was in favor of making all three of those items add alternates, arguing a contractor will quote a fairer price to add an item than for one built into the base bid.
"I don't want to leave profit sitting on the table," he said. "I'm not trying to fund anyone's retirement with this project. I want to know where I'm taking taxpayer money."
Board vice-president Dale Ostergaard was against the idea. He insisted neither the gym, nor tennis courts, nor rifle range should be on the list in the first place.
Mary Birks echoed his statements, saying, "this is not just a high school, it's also the crown jewel of our community in terms of having a community center. I can't promise I'll vote for something that's less than we have now."
Overall, a significant portion of the board indicated it might not support the project if the auxiliary gym or tennis courts had to be removed.
Architect Celli insisted the debate was premature, that the board needed to wait to see the bids. He also argued contractors would bid deduct alternates as aggressively as adds to have a better shot at a larger pool of funds.
"I think it's time to build a building," he said. "Let's go do it."
The high school project is still set to last three and a half years, ending in July 2015, though the academic buildings will likely be finished several months before that.
A point of contention remains the structure of add and deduct alternates specified in the bid documents. Deduct alternates are items that can be removed from the project if bids come in high. Add alternates are just the opposite: elements that can be included should there be funds to spare.
In this case, the tennis courts and an auxiliary gym are currently listed as deduct alternates, the school's rifle range as an add.
Board member Dan Remely was in favor of making all three of those items add alternates, arguing a contractor will quote a fairer price to add an item than for one built into the base bid.
"I don't want to leave profit sitting on the table," he said. "I'm not trying to fund anyone's retirement with this project. I want to know where I'm taking taxpayer money."
Board vice-president Dale Ostergaard was against the idea. He insisted neither the gym, nor tennis courts, nor rifle range should be on the list in the first place.
Mary Birks echoed his statements, saying, "this is not just a high school, it's also the crown jewel of our community in terms of having a community center. I can't promise I'll vote for something that's less than we have now."
Overall, a significant portion of the board indicated it might not support the project if the auxiliary gym or tennis courts had to be removed.
Architect Celli insisted the debate was premature, that the board needed to wait to see the bids. He also argued contractors would bid deduct alternates as aggressively as adds to have a better shot at a larger pool of funds.
"I think it's time to build a building," he said. "Let's go do it."
1 comments Of course Celli said... : 9/14/2011
"Let's go do it." So easy to spend other people's money! I certainly hope Ostergard and Birks stick to their guns should the bids come in over the limit again. It is too bad the bids won't be in pre-election so we can determine whom to get rid of!
Taxpayer
1 comment:
For more on this, read "Squeeze Plays" on lebodesign.net.
Elaine
Post a Comment