Not sure if they are the top three in each discipline, or this represents all the bidders.
Bid opening results
Update 12/15/11 Here is what the Trib has to say about yesterday's bid opening. Mt. Lebanon High School renovations bid within budget
Here is what the PG has to say about yesterday's bid opening.
33 comments:
The low bids in each of the 7 multiple prime categories add up to $84,448,000...just below the original limit of $86,000,000.
In 2 categories the range of bids is significant...General Contractor and Asbestos Abatement Contractor. I believe the basis for contract awards is probably "lowest responsible bidder"...not sure if the the bids from all 21 indicated contractors have been deemed "responsible".
Bill Lewis
Nello? Hello? Isn't Nello the contractor who messed up the Public Safety Building?
I hope you are still taking anonymous comments. Thank you for keeping us informed.
With respect to document Mt_Lebo_Results_12142011.docx
For those keeping score, the sum of all low bids is $84,447,977, and the sum of all high bids is $99,356,000. Here is the spread between low and high bidders (each category had three bidders except for "General Contractor," which had but two):
Asbestos Abatement Contractor: 203%
Casework/Millwork Contractor: 35%
Electrical Contractor: 2%
Fire Protection Contractor: 27%
General Contractor: 16%
HVAC Contractor: 11%
Plumbing Contractor: 23%
Note the huge spread for asbestos abatement. In the normal scheme of things this should raise a "red flag."
Richard Gideon
So they lopped off ONE WHOLE FLOOR of building G, are writing a check off-bid for the cafeteria, settled for cheap steel panels instead of the "let the light shine in to improve education" windows, painted concrete floors instead of tile and we're a lousy $1.5 million under their expectations for the first design.
WOW!
Do these bids include 3 gyms, the new tennis courts and the demolishion & disposal of building B?
Giffen Good
Softcost on the first bid were-- I believe $20,666,000.
Added to the low bid addition shown above by Mr. Lewis this time around and we're at $105,114,000. Adding in the caferteria work (approx. $950,000[correct?])absorbed by the district out-of-pocket, and we're at $106+ million.
It's real, real close and we still don't know the details as to what's in and what's out. You can be sure that before the ribbon is cut on this "boondoggle" it'll be way, way over $113.4 million!
Giffen Good
Wow...been in construction for over thirty years myself and have NEVER seen such a significant difference in bids. Case in point: An 8 million dollar difference is unheard of in our business, yet that's what I see listed in the document for General Contractor. Maybe someone made a deal with the devil behind closed doors to make up the difference in change orders and extras. Only time will tell, along with the bottom line, when this fiasco is completed.
Wasn't there a third general contractor bidding on this job? What happened to that bid??
And you can be sure if it is over $113,000,000 the Board will be sneaky and hide the change orders from the public.
John Ewing
Posted on the District website:
Bids Opened for High School Project
The bid opening for the high school renovation project took place this afternoon, December 14, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. and ended at approximately 2:30 pm. The bids will be reviewed over the next few days. It is anticipated that the Board will discuss the outcomes at the December 19, 2011 School Board Regular Meeting.
So, do the low bids total about 85 million? Even if the mix is wrong, does this mean that the 75 million demand was really reasonable? Does this mean the 113million estimate was incompetent? So many questions....
The hole in the Budget suggests all the alternates should be deleted - add/alt or deduct/alt.
I gather that the bids results are considered base bids per CFB Addendum #4 of Dec. 5, 2011. In addition to submission of a base bid, the GC bidders were also to submit individual bids on 12 defined Alternates which I assume are add alternates...that is, they are not included in the base bid. If add alternates, one or more might be considered for addition to or inclusion in a contract only if the base bids overall would allow for it cost-wise.
In any event, the Alternates are :
1) aux. (3rd.) gym & corridors
2) tennis courts
3) rifle range
4) screen wall @ N end of G
5) screen wall @ S end of K (Aud.)
6) classroom & lab casework
7) boiler design
8) building automation system
9) security & lighting control systems
10) fibre optic cabling
11) operable classroom @ Admin windows in B and G
12) letter painting
The SB may discuss and clarify all this on Monday in the public meeting if they deem it "appropriate" and doing so would not disclose anything of a security nature that might conceivably jeopardize the safety of any living human beings, as was the case of the plan drawings and schematics themselves according to rejection of a recent RTK request.
Isn't it interesting how the ordinary public has access to information at a time not yet deemed "appropriate" by the dysfunctional and very arrogant District.
Bill Lewis
Thanks for keeping up to date on this and thanks to Bill Lewis for going through some of the numbers.
I don't know either if this is the "all-in" number or not. If not, then they still have a lot of 'splainin to do.
I hope beyond all hope that the Board will be transparent with what these numbers mean. Some of them are obviously all over the map (GC difference is huge and asbestos is way huge).
Mr. Lewis once again has assumed incorrectly. Many of the alternates are, in fact, deductions. They were called out as such at the bid opening. Best to verify before writing.
"Once again"??? I don't remember Bill Lewis ever assuming incorrectly. If he is incorrect, you make it difficult to verify your information since the readers of this blog do not know your identity. Why don't you share more of what you know and sign your name to it?
Elaine
First, let’s recall the Maximum Cost of the project. According to Ed Kubit, “The School Board voted to set the maximum cost of the High School project at $113, 274,765.”
See: http://tinyurl.com/Kubit-FAQ
Second, at least some Board members intended this to be an “all-in” cost.
Third, Project Cost is different from funding sources. If kitchen equipment is to be funded from a cash stash – OK – but it is still a project cost - as are telephones, televisions and telescopes.
Fourth, these numbers are so close to the upper limits (for which we might require oxygen) the “flip-flop” on single vs. multiple prime contractors will most definitely come into play and potentially threaten the maximum project cost referred to above by Ed Kubit.
It is worth noting, our Board opined in March of 2010: “The single source accountability approach to construction utilizing a general contractor which holds all the subcontracts is the most effective approach with regard to quality, budget, schedule and safety.” Further, “exposure (for potential delay claims) is reduced threefold if the Owner can contract solely with a general contractor.”
See: http://tinyurl.com/Steinhauer-07-24-11
Since we are now not following their own counsel, who really knows what will happen … in terms of the ultimate project cost.
To Anonymous @ 1:16 AM :
Read my comment carefully...I conditioned my statements with " which I assume are add alternates..", and "If add alternates..". The CFB Addendum #4 was not clear in this regard. Nor has the District kept the public informed on bid parameters, etc.
The point here is that the District has failed once again in their alleged *increased transparency* to inform an anxious and concerned public what it is they are actually doing with regard to bidding in this sorry project. And, they are using statements that we will be informed only when they consider it appropriate. How very sad.
The District should have televised the bid opening live or posted it later in the afternoon. If you, who refuse to identify yourself, were present at the bid openings, why not reveal which alternates were actually adds and which were deducts ? Or, do you just want to attack me anonymously and lack the courage to identify yourself publicly ?
Bill Lewis
Bill, welcome to my world.
Dave Franklin
I bet Nello is upset right now. They could have bid another $7 million more and still be the lowest bidder. Do you think they forgot something? Are they the lowest "responsible" bidder? Seeing that they haven't paid for their website, makes me wonder.
Elaine
Couple of observations... go ahead call me an anon chicken if you wish, but it doesn't change the facts.
This morning in the Trib: "Mt. Lebanon School District officials were relieved Wednesday afternoon that the second round of bids for the high school renovation and reconstruction project seems to be within the $113.27 million budget.
"They looked good. There were a lot of people smiling this time," said Superintendent Timothy Steinhauer."
Now they could speak to the paper, but they couldn't divulge the facts to the residents that are paying the bills, as soon as they were opened? Why, may I ask?
But, this is more concerning - Dr. Steinhauer thinks people are smiling.
Are you kidding me... SMILING!
The district is looking at a $2.5 million shortfall next year... they're discussing possibly closing a school, laying off teachers/staff, cutting programs, charging students fees for AP courses, parking and extracuricular activities and people are smiling!
Maybe he is, after all he got a fairly substantial raise and more paid vacation, but with a $2.5 million budget shortfall, somebody better start wiping smiles off. Either that or pony up the $2.5 million.
Giffen Good
Giffen
The smiles were on the school board members faces when they realized they could finally move forward on the project. What that project will include or exclude is what we are all waiting to hear.
As for the shortfall, Mrs. Posti already strongly hinted at the direction she is willing/wanting to take. She is leaning towards using some of the District's fund balance to reduce the millage impact in the next budget. In my opinion, this is perhaps the LEAST beneficial way to use fund balance.
The municipality did it for a few years running and look at the shambles their budget it in with it's structural deficit. The same would happen with the school budget if you try to close the budget hole with its "extra" cash sitting around. To me, this means this is exactly what the school board is going to do (unless of course they read this post in which case they ought to ask some questions).
Back to these bids though, at some point we will figure out what was bid and what was left out. Hopefully that happens before the shovel gets in the ground.
On page 3 (page 5 in the pdf) there is this quote from Jeff Burd publisher of BREAKING GROUND (magazine of the Master Builders Association of Western PA). What an incredible comment especially regarding what our "leaders" are planning to do with "OUR" HS building.
"In the realm of public construction the owners of a project are we taxpayers. The buildings that our school district or municipal government build during our lifetime reflect our priorities and our sense of pride in community. I can’t remember the last time I thought I wasn’t paying enough taxes, so I have no argument for those who would choose austere designs over an
increased burden on the taxpayer; yet, I have a hard time reconciling the beauty of the buildings constructed during the Great Depression with the economic hardship of the times. Clearly, the size and breadth of government
is what consumes the difference. As taxpayers, though, we need to treat decisions about our public facilities as we would our own houses. It’s time to demand that our leaders (and that is their role, like it or not) find ways to
pay for public buildings we can have pride in and use for generations, rather than to find the cheapest square feetin which we can meet or educate our kids."
http://www.mbawpa.org/pdf/BGJanFeb08.pdf
Apparently, as we have now learned and contrary to the early advice by the school board and administration, the depression-era building B is a 21st century ed. space.
I hope now we don't learn that they've made the same error regarding the rest of the building and are proceeding with the intent of "find[ing] the cheapest square feet in which we can meet or educate our kids."
D. Spahr
Why would the Board talk to the public when the newspaper will print what the Board wants you to know without those pesky questions? Bill Hook
A little neglect [or building maintenance] may breed mischief ...
for want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
for want of a shoe the horse was lost;
and for want of a horse the rider was lost.
-Benjamin Franklin
Poor Richard's Almanac,
preface (1758)
Oh well, that's all water under the coming Horsman Bridge - now I suppose!
When the change orders begin, as surely they will, can the $113+ million be exceeded without a referendum?
Joe Wertheim
According to the recently posted school-board agenda for December 19, 2011, the contractors chosen, so far, appear to be as follows:
General Construction -> Nello
HVAC Construction -> ?
Plumbing Construction -> WG Tomko and Sons
Electrical Construction -> ?
Casework Construction -> Reed Associates
Fire Protection -> Simplex Grinnell
Asbestos Abatement -> Dore Associates
On the question of operable windows in buildings B and G.
Remember this from Dan Miller's blog.
"Fire Safety Questions at the High School
Daniel Miller April 28th, 2011
I was very surprised to hear that some on the School Board seemingly were challenging a designation that would require certain fire safety measures to be installed as part of the renovation/new construction project."
Wasn't this discussion pertaining to the fire code mandating operable windows in the project?
I have had it with the school board and their efforts to leave the community out of the decision making process. Who gave them the right?!?!?
Constance Spicuous Consumption
I cannot wait for the construction to begin! It is about time!!!!!!!!!!!
So that we all don't google her name, unless I was the only one who didn't know, here is the definition.
Conspicuous consumption is generally regarded as the purchase of expensive “luxury”
goods whose functional advantage, if any, over their “non-luxury” counterparts is insufficient to
warrant the price premium. The demand for these goods is hard to explain...Furthermore, such
goods are often supported by high levels of producer advertising that promotes them as “status
symbols” for wealthy people.
Elaine
Anon 10:40, your question presumes that the school board isn't allowed to do anything without checking wuth us first. The reality is that they are. So I guess the best answer to your question is: we all did. Including the thousands of people who didn't vote.
I guess I left out something very important from my buddy who gave me the bids. These are base bids and do not include any alternates. That is evident from the list posted on Monday's agenda.
Also, do we really know what was included in the base bids?
We could end up with less gyms than what we have now. We could end up with no tennis courts or rifle range. So at the Commission meetings, we hear that there aren't enough playing fields, but at the SB meetings, we could be downsizing for tennis, basketball, etc. Don't those kids play any indoor sports in the winter?
Joe W. - Referendum? What's that??? The Board will be asking for community input through another ad hoc committee or forum. Puleeze.
Elaine
Has anyone else noticed this? According to Center Court, the base bids were $7,131,023 under the CM estimates. The difference between Nello's bid and Massaro's bid was $8,059,000. That translates to $927,977 under the total estimate by going with Nello instead of Massaro.
Do I have that right? Or is my math all messed up?
Elaine
Here is some more insight to the project from my buddy who gave me the bid results.
The alternates are pretty confusing (they typically are). There is a reason for the way they are structured. The simple version is that they are looking for best pricing for various methods - as well as pricing for luxury items (such as a rifle range).
For example, one alternate is:
Deduct lighting control and security from Electrical contract (basic, but functional solution)
Add lighting control and security to the Mechanical contract (more elaborate, integrated solution)
I can tell you that the auxiliary gymnasium is in the base bid. The alternate is to deduct the gymnasium.
The rifle range is not in the base bid. The alternate is to add the rifle range.
Tennis court construction is in the base bid.
Fixed windows are base bid - alternate is to include 50% operable windows.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,it does help.
Elaine
Post a Comment