PlanCon Part I accounts for changes resulting from change orders and supplemental contracts that occur subsequent to PDE approval of PlanCon Part F “Construction Documents.”PlanCon I is explained in this document, PlanCon Part I Instructions Unfortunately, these instructions expired on 06-30-12. The devil is in the details, so I am leaving this up to you detail guys, but I found this to be interesting:
A change order is a transaction for additional or changed work with a contractor already under contract to provide work which is substantially similar to, or incidental to, that covered in originally approved plans and specifications, or for such minor changes and additions to the plans and specifications as may become necessary or desirable.In an earlier thread, David Huston posted these numbers:
Work issued as a change order usually costs less than $10,000, but may be higher for unforeseen conditions discovered during construction. For changes affecting architectural or scheduled area, or building capacity, a revised Part F room schedule and floor plan must be submitted for PDE review.
These numbers are from PlanCon I to be approved 20-AUG-2012:
Act 34 Maximum Building Construction Cost
A. Part D Based on Estimates (D20, Line C) $44,977,920
B. Part D Based on Estimates * 1.08 $48,576,154
C. Based on Actual Costs (I06, Line C) $42,974,012
If C > B, then a second Act 34 hearing is required
The running total for change orders is:
- $189,306
- $82,360.57
According to Monday's Construction Update, the second change order should result in a partial credit towards the first change order. I don't know what that number is, but if we already approved the first change order, it is not clear to me how spending more money will reduce the amount already spent.
The Geofoam is not a change order or unforseen circumstances. It is an oversite or an error, either by Celli or PJDick and should come out of their pocket.
ReplyDeleteThe referendum requirement applies only to the new construction cost portion of the project, not the new + renovation, or total construction cost. And not total new project cost (new construction + new owners insurance, permits, abatement & contingency costs + new soft costs).
ReplyDeleteSome will recall that when the initial bids on the original design were opened, the low bids were 22% over estimates. The project design was significantly modified, with emphasis on the new construction portion because its cost had been close to a referendum requirement - remember for just one example that 31,000 square feet of new construction were removed in redesign and for rebid.
Now, most of us who are rational and non-government would think that if the design was so significantly modified, the standards would be adjusted accordingly. But alas, we're dealing with the government PDE and their PlanCon process, the convoluted mickey mouse routine designed to fool the public into thinking that it is there to protect the public from Taj Mahal- thinking school boards, administrations and unions. But it is not. They clearly state their mission is to facilitate the plans of school districts.
So, instead of applying a modified standard to the modified design, the standard did not change from the original design. As a result, the data in the post says that change orders for the new construction portion of the project would have to increase by almost $6 million before a referendum would be required.
And, the PDE standard applied to our Taj Mahal indicates the modified design exceeds the standard by 65,000 square feet in size. But no never mind. The District just had to check a box on the PlanCon submission form to qualify for an automatic waiver.
Just an FYI for those who have not been following this boondoggle closely.
Sickening.
ReplyDeleteTo understand what is going on, we need the breakdown:
ReplyDelete1) hard costs new construction old bid estimate
2) soft costs new construction old bid estimate
3) hard costs renovated construction old bid estimate
4) soft costs renovated construction old bid estimate
5) hard costs new construction revised bid estimate
6) soft costs new construction revised bid estimate
7) hard costs renovated construction old bid estimate
8) soft costs renovated construction revised bid estimate
Without all the pieces listed above, it is impossible to understand the project finances.
How was the $18 a month figured?
David Huston
Number 7 above should be:
ReplyDelete7) hard costs renovated construction revised bid estimate
David Huston
The referendum has nothing to do with hard or soft costs, just construction costs which are the bid costs under contract with the contractors.
ReplyDelete9:22, we need a way to equate construction, or hard costs with referendum act 34 costs, in order to figure out if change orders approach the act 34 limit.
ReplyDeleteAlso, all change orders need to be broken out by hard and soft costs, and new vs. renovated construction.
Until this occurs, taxpayers are kept in the dark.
David Huston
Commonwealth Foundation Senior Fellow Rick Dreyfuss testified yesterday before the Pennsylvania House about how to make our public pensions current, affordable and predictable, proposing a five-step plan for doing so. Lasting comprehensive reform is urgent because taxpayers face ballooning costs, with their contributions set to rise from $1.7 billion in 2012 to $6.1 billion by 2017. That's more than $1,000 in additional taxpayer costs per household.
ReplyDeleteThe unfunded liability for the two main government worker pension systems, the Public School Employee Retirement System (PSERS) and the State Employee Retirement System (SERS), currently exceeds $40 billion.
We need to stop teachers salaries at Step 14 to make pensions and the High School affordable.
Yikes! If those pension numbers are true, we move.
ReplyDeleteDick Grayson
You guys beat me into submission over submitting anonymous comments. Would you please site your sources? I found this, 5:43 PM.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/union-leaders-misrepresent-pension-reforms
Elaine
Oh, I like the part about the union telling lies. Thanks for the url, Elaine.
ReplyDeleteDick Grayson
I have a better idea! Let's start firing teachers! There's way too much FAT on the payroll!
ReplyDeleteAnother thing, Lebo should accept the states terms and start collecting gambling revenues for the school district!
Only caught the resident from Lebanon Avenue who said his backyard overlooks the high school. Thought all of his observations and questions were good. Didn't get to stick around for the answers but I'm betting he won't get answers on half of them.
ReplyDelete