Dan Remely mentioned at last night's meeting (which was televised this evening) that "the blogs" have lists of numbers for change orders. Just numbers, with no explanations given. In the small space that is available, that is all I can do. I post the agendas which provide the explanations. Dan spoke of a detailed list that will be on the School District website. When he questioned the availability of that list, President Cappucci replied that the list has not been developed. So I guess we are just stuck with a list of numbers.
Two items were tabled last night. The total so far is $1,086,711.65. To my knowledge, the insurance company has not reimbursed us for the damaged high voltage line. I am counting on our math professionals to please check my math.
35 comments:
Elaine,
Congratulations! You have demonstrated the power of free speech!
Even our arrogant machine has noticed you!
Perhaps the most interesting thing I heard Mr. Remely say last night was that the high school project is about 30% complete, whereas only about 20% of the contingency budget has been used. If he's correct, and if that trend holds, it means we probably won't blow the budget.
I don't know, however, whether these trends usually hold constant. If they tend to get worse over time, we could still be in trouble.
Anyone know whether the bulk of change orders on projects like this land early or late?
Tom, I believe I heard that change orders come early or any time they are going into walls or ground, but I may be hallucinating.
Elaine
Dan won't even say your name?
You are "the blogs"!
What Dan doesn't get is that it doesn't matter. A change order is a change order. When they add the rifle range as a $600,000 change order, it is still a change order. No explanation needed.
It seems like Dan wants to point to your blog as being "inaccurate" with your miniscule $1,000,000 in change orders. He should be more focused on how inaccurate his promise of $95,000,000 high school project was.
Hey school board, we are still waiting to see those bids come in 25% less than promised by PJ Dick!
Just curious as long as 'the blogs' are being criticized for no explanations tied to change orders...
Have there ever been an explanation why the project didn't come in under the expected $95 million.
That only seems fair, right? The blogs aren't spending any money, they're only asking why it's bring spent.
The district is the one actually spending taxpayer's money, shouldn't they be offering the explanations?
I am not sure Remely was saying that "the blogs" are inaccurate, just that they don't tell the whole story. He is in the last two minutes of Part 1.
Elaine
So the project is 30% complete and we've only run through 20% of the contingency budget.
Is that the way to justify or approve change orders?
Doesn't matter if they're warranted or not, there's still 80% left to spend.
Reminds me of the old joke.
A man jumps off a 40 story building and as he passes the window on the 23rd floor someone ak him, "how's it going?"
He replies with a smile: "going great so far."
The average increase in value in Mount Lebanon for the 2013 court-ordered reassessment, as of December 21, 2012 is 27%
These are not final numbers as some residential and commercial appeals are still pending. This does represent the figure provided to your municipality and school district as a base for appointed and elected officials to set millage rates for 2013. It can be used as an estimate to approximate your property taxes until the millage rates are set.
The Mount Lebanon assessed value increase is 27% Since these numbers are frozen as of December 21, 2012 the correct assessed value of your home may not be properly stated. Any questions about the correct assessed value of your home and the method of tax payment should be addressed to Mrs. Klein at 412-344-2098.
Does anyone remember this news article?
"Mt. Lebanon High School renovation project bids top estimate by $15M
By Matthew Santoni
Published: Thursday, April 21, 2011
Bids for the Mt. Lebanon High School renovation project came in nearly $15.3 million above the project manager's construction cost estimates this week, leaving school officials scrambling to find out what went wrong and how to recover.
Laurie Bowers, vice president of communication for DCK Worldwide, one of the bidders on the project and employer of Mt. Lebanon municipal Commissioner Joe DeIuliis, said companies might be willing to work with the school district to bring costs down.
"The bids are reflective of what the market conditions are," she said. "Materials' costs are going up, the cost of fuel is going up, so there are conditions being placed on materials that everyone is dealing with.
"We don't think this should be viewed as a major setback at DCK. ... We can give them different options, work with the district to reach their budget," she said.
The board previously agreed on seven "deduct alternates" -- items that could be bid separately or cut out of the project if the construction bids were too high, including cheaper materials and equipment for the roof, lighting, computer wiring and locker room ventilation; using off-site tennis courts instead of building new ones; and eliminating one of two auxiliary gyms in the athletic building. The total cost of those alternatives was not available, but a longer list of alternatives the board originally considered was only worth about $7 million."
So to recover and to convince taxpayers they weren't just trying to stay under the referendum cap -- did they eliminate things like access panels to equipment rooms, clean fill (dirt), geofoam, wiring for light poles and elevators, fireproofing, drywall, and theatre carpeting? Don't forget folks- we're only 30% of the way into the project!
Did they do it knowing full well once the project was under way they could put it all back in as change orders?
With the additional capability of, as Dan suggested on the theatre carpet, delay it a year and call it a capital improvement.
FYI: Market Intelligence
November Nonresidential Construction Materials Project Prices Fall
01/11/2013 by Bernard M. Markstein
Overview
Prices for inputs used in nonresidential construction fell for the second month in a row. Lower oil prices were a major factor in the continued decline. A drop in steel and copper prices contributed to the fall in November’s construction costs.
In the near term, the outlook is for building materials prices to hold steady or decline slightly as companies continue to delay investments while the politicians in Washington thrash out a budget deal and the federal debt ceiling approaches. After that, expect prices to rise roughly in line with or slightly faster than overall inflation..
Just a little elementary math investigation!
Change orders according to Elaine's addition stand at 27% of contingency budget right now.
Once the insurance reimbursement comes in it drops to 20.3%.
If the shooting range goes back in at $600,000 change orders rocket to 42.1% of the contingency amount.
Reminds me, we haven't heard much about the tennis courts. Are they in, out or going to another location.
35,3% if rifle range and insurance reimbursement.
Keep in mind that the district accepted full responsibility for any unforeseen conditions or problems uncovered when building C gets taken down as a way to stay under the referendum cap.
If there are any additional cost, like unknown soil conditions, forgotten sewer or power lines, they will not be applied to the contingency funds I believe.
10:07 AM - Your reference to DCK Worldwide. They chose not to rebid the job after all the RFI's and delete alternate baloney !
All of your comments are interesting, and I loved the joke from 11:18pm on Jan 22 - but ask yourselves this simple question, "How much money would have been spent on change orders if Elaine wasn't posting the dollar value of the change orders on this site?"
Thank you Elaine.
1:54 correct, but it wasn't my reference it was the Tribs.
Mr. Kendrick, perhaps this answers your question.
According to the 12/17/12 board agenda change order
GC-16-29 to Nello for $6,559 for carpet for the upper Little Theatre Lobby which was not scheduled for replacement
The above change order was discussed on Elaine's blog. Dan Remely dutifully picked up the topic.
So, according to the board agenda 1/21/13 this change order appears:
GC-16-29 to Nello for $4,900 for carpet for the upper Little Theatre Lobby which was not scheduled for replacement
Think a 25% reduction in a CO is enough evidence as to why taxpayers should pay attention and ask questions?
3:01 PM, that $4900 really had me confused. $4900 was listed on the 1-14 agenda, but then was reduced even more to $4842 on the 1-21 agenda.
Elaine
Yep, you're right Elaine, even contributors to your blog can make mistakes.
See what happens when we check on things, another $58 in savings shows up.
3:39 PM, perfectly understandable. It took me some time to figure out what the heck was going on. All I knew was that I had $4900 listed initially and had no idea where that number came from when I was updating the list. I started working on it after I watched the TERC presentation!
Elaine
If we're confused think how bad it is for the directors.
I'm willing to cut them sone slack because this is such a huge job and nobody could possibly keep track of every single bit of information.
Having said that, it confounds me why they or their pro-HS project allies get bent out of shape when your blog questions project expenditures.
Do they like spending nearly $2,000 more for carpet than they have to, that in reality should have been in the original bid?
Or do they have so much money, that hey, what's a thousand here, a thousand there among friends?
Personally I rather see it go to teachering materials or supplies budgets that have been getting slashed for years.
4:08 PM, I am not cutting them some slack. Who puts together the agenda? That change should have been brought to everyone's attention. The amount changed and nobody was notified? Hardly. Just like the YSA contributions, always paid up but if questioned, were not. How many different sets of numbers were there? Is this another "preliminary" budget deal?
Elaine
I'm only cutting the board directors slack to a point. These are our neighbors volunteering unpaid to be our representatives.
There is no way that a PR pro, or a lawyer, or professor etc., etc. can be an expert or keep track of every phase of this project. I do not though think slack should be given to the paid administrators and staff.
Take the elevator change orders discussed Monday. Mr. Marciniak's responses to Dan and Dale's questions In my opinion weren't very good. There were only 4 or 5 change orders on the agenda.
The ones on the elevator added up to around $12,000.
Dan offered up a couple if ideas and Dale asked if the pumps were really necessary. Mr. M responded he have to investigate or the pump may or may not be required.
Shouldn't these questions have been answered BEFORE the board is asked to approve or not approve the change orders?
Could a $500 or $1,000 portable pump do the job? Do we really have to route 500' of conduit and wiring to the elevator shaft? Where is the elevator getting it's power from?
I'm sorry..but did the district pass it's fake budget? If so, what was it?
This was passed unanimously:
"That the Board approves the preparation of a
Preliminary Budget for the 2013-2014 school year, in the amount of $84,469,784. Such budget is to be made available for public view and presented for approval at the February 18, 2013, Board meeting. The Board directs the administration to apply for exceptions to the Index limit under Act 1 of 2006 as further refined under Act 25 of 2011 as may be permitted."
They approved the preparation of a fake budget so that they could apply for exceptions. The fake budget will be approved at the Feb. 18 meeting.
Elaine
Shouldn't the change order agenda work like this:
Mr. Marciniak:
Directors, we have two change orders for the installation of a sump in H buildings elevator shaft.
After examining the orders here is my professional evaluation.
Sump pumps [are or are not] required by zoning codes. Feds though may require them at a future date, I'm investigating if it is more expensive to install now or do it at a later date.
One workable option, I think, is to purchase a $XXX portable pump that we can always have available for emergencies around the district.
My other concern is why do we need to bring in power from 500 feet away?
I'm waiting for answers from the project manager.
I'm required to present these change orders to the board, my recommendation is to approve/not approve them (or if he found they should be) look for alternatives. At the same time we should ask the architect why they weren't in the original specs and/or do they think the $13,000 expenditure is a necessary expenditure.
Instead we get a situation that reminds me of those classroom situations where I tried to get by without doing my homework.
I'd sit at my desk and pray, "don't call on me, please don't call on me."
Then as it always happened the teacher did call on me and I'd try to fake my way through the conversation.
The way the system works now, we have 9 directors that may know squat about the change order at hand, wondering if they should move it forward or not.
Listen to the conversation again on the elevator pump change orders. Can anyone out there answer these first two questions that should be answered before spending $14,000?
#1. Do we ansolutely need or is a pump required in the shaft?
#2. If the answered to #1 is yes, then why wasn't the pump included in the original specs and bids.
There are a number of changes that are pretty obvious, they must be approved.
There are others that make you scratch your head... like adding a door to access a mechanical equipment room on the roof. Like duh, the architect didn't plan on servicing the equipment?
Another change order from the 1/21/13 agenda that warrants some further investigation... J. GC-21-42 to Nello for $5,750 to add epoxy rebar for reinforcement of loading dock wall.
First question, coated rebar is recommended in concrete structures that are in a corrosive environment. Like where road salt is used. I would think a loading dock surrounded by pedestrian sidewalks that needs to be kept free of ice and snow would fit that bill. So why wasn't it spec'ed in the original bid?
Second question the cost difference (see link below) between uncoated an coated rebar are minimal. Like $.10/lb in 2004, according to the link. So, the epoxy rebar is $5,750 more than black rebar?
An example of the difference between the cost of black rebar vs. Epoxy rebar in 2004.
4,000 lbs. (2 ton) x that extra $.10 for epoxy rebar = $400
Third: Is there a corresponding credit for the original spec'ed rebar they won't be using?
Dan, can you get us an explanation?
http://www.galvanizedrebar.com/cost_economics.htm
"In summary, as distributors of the public money we must view full lifetime costs as the major consideration when selecting systems. If a less expensive system leaves a shorter life it's no bargain. With more movement to 50 to 100 year bridge designs, miniscule cost differences in bar coatings cannot control this decision making process."
Reinforcing Steel Cost Comparison
The graph below provides estimated material costs for various rebar alternatives currently available as of the end of 2004. While the absolute numbers are out of date and do not reflect current steel prices, the differential costs for various coating alternatives remain accurate.
Material - Cost (US$/lb.)
Black - 0.32
Epoxy* - 0.42
Hot-dip Galvanized* - 0.47
Epoxy II* - 0.47
Purple Epoxy* - 0.56
MMFX - 0.58
Stainless Steel Clad* - 1.25
Solid Stainless Steel (316) - 1.61
After watching the 1/21/13 meeting there are several corrections I have to make.
Mr. Marciniak first mentions the possibility of having a portable pump available for the elevator shaft.
He also states he discussed the sump pump issue with the architect.
Unfortunately, his responses are so murky that I found it impossible to discern what he was advising the board to do.
Battery Operated Water Alarm Solid state circuitry is extremely sensitive and reliable. The Sensor has a 6-foot wire so it can be extended into a sump pit, or mounted on a wall and stretched to another location. (Accommodates the addition of more than 100 feet of wire, if needed). Loud 110dB alarm can be heard throughout the house. Battery-saver feature keeps batteries fresh longer.
Just some FYI (sorry for some reason the portable pump info got clipped in the previous post)
http://www.mfssupply.com/Submersible-Sump-Pump
Portable Sump Pump helps prevent "water in the basement"
In many houses, submersible sump pumps are as important to a comfortable home life as basic electrical and plumbing fixtures. Submersible sump pumps were created to eliminate that fear that can arise on heavy rain days, or any day the underground water table rises to threaten your dry basement. Submersible sump pumps sit in a water-accumulating sump pit, and pump excess water away from the house foundation.
Our newly improved portable sump pump has a higher stand-off base plate to prevent debris pick-up in the sump pit. 1/2-HP, portable sump pump offers a maximum flow of 2,000 gallons per hour, and includes an adjustable tether switch, extra long cord, and multi-fitting elbow.
This submersible sump pump, specially sealed to prevent electrical short circuits while under water, can save you untold hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars by helping to prevent water in the basement. A portable sump pump (not permanently installed) is perfect in situations where flooding doesn't often occur; you'll use that portable sump pump anywhere flooding is an immediate issue.
$49.99
For $12 at Lowe's the district could install a Battery Operated Water Alarm Solid state circuitry is extremely sensitive and reliable. The Sensor has a 6-foot wire so it can be extended into a sump pit, or mounted on a wall and stretched to another location. (Accommodates the addition of more than 100 feet of wire, if needed). Loud 110dB alarm can be heard throughout the house. Battery-saver feature keeps batteries fresh longer.
Battery Operated Water AlarmSolid state circuitry is extremely sensitive and reliable. The Sensor has a 6-foot wire so it can be extended into a sump pit, or mounted on a wall and stretched to another location. (Accommodates the addition of more than 100 feet of wire, if needed). Loud 110dB alarm can be heard throughout the house. Battery-saver feature keeps batteries fresh longer.
I'd be willing to bet there are wired alarms that are probably less than $100.
So for $200 or so we could probably solve the elevator sump issue. For $1,000 we could probably have a portable pump in every school in the district.
Mellon has an elevator, does it have a sump pump?
Where is our owners' rep who is supposed to be looking for our wallets? Is there one? If so, why are they not participating in the discussions at the meetings?
In elevators provided with Firefighters' Emergency Operation a drain or sump pump shall be provided. Mr. Marciniak never revealed if this type of operation is being provided for the elevators.
This is why a new line must be run:
http://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/pdf/CommitteeFiles/32708.pdf
Inquiry 10-1496
Subject: ASME A17.1-2007, Requirement 2.2.2.5 and 2.8.1
Concerning sump pumps in elevators equipment allowed in machine spaces
Question (1): Would it be an acceptable interpretation to classify the electrical disconnect and control panel for the sump pump as being used directly for operation with the elevator, thus permitting the disconnect and control panel to be located in machinery spaces, machinery rooms, etc.?
Answer (1): No.
An oil-water separator must also be used to prevent harm to the environment from hydraulic fluid drainage.
Check out these proposed changes:
http://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/pdf/ANSI/BSR8/PublicReviewDraft1711.pdf
I was waiting to see if the oil-water separator reuirement would be discovered.
The elevator shaft wasn't designed with a sump pump in the original bid and therefore the reason for the 2 change orders to install a pump and the electric service for it.
Q: if there were a oil/water leak what was the plan to get rid of it?
The only way a large amount of water would end up in the pit is from sprinklers. It is hazardous for firefighters to use a flooded elevator.
If it's not an Emergency Firefighter elevator, any portable pump can pump it out after the fire is put out.
How do we find out if the elevators provided with Firefighters' Emergency Operation?
10:01 that question creates a dilemma for the board.
If it is a Firefighters' emergency elevator why wasn't the sump pump in the original spec's?
If it isn't an emergency control elevator why is the pump suddenly required?
Same with the epoxy rebar. Needed suddenly now... why? And why so much money?
Post a Comment