Almost a year ago, I blogged about how Dan Remely regretted that "the blogs" only listed numbers for change orders. Updated List of High School Change Orders
 |
| Change Order |
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.Poor Dan. That list was never developed, at least for the public to see...until now.
Richard Gideon, Lebo Citizens reader and commenter, has been keeping track of all the change orders. Monthly, Richard has been kind enough to verify my numbers that I list on the sidebar of this blog.
RG included this explanation in his email to me, along with the table that he created. High School Construction Reconcile Sheet
The pale yellow cells represent the change orders for the HS "Renovation" project from June 2012 through December 2013. The pale green cells are change orders sorted from lowest (maximum refund) to highest (greatest single expense). Please note that the number in the pale green cells do not represent the cost or refund of the change order as described in that particular row; ergo, the color coding.
At the end, you'll find both average and median prices. Those in the pale yellow areas are across the board; those in the pale green areas are sequestered into refunds only vs. costs only.(No TERC math was used, nor any standard American algorithm harmed, in the preparation of this table)
7 comments:
The numbers don't match. So much for accuracy!
Can you be more specific, Anonymous at 6:53 AM?
Elaine
Although I don't know for sure what numbers 6:53 AM is talking about, I have a suspicion it has something to do with the listing on this Blog and the total at the bottom of the list compared to the numbers in the PDF file. I forgot an important point: Elaine's Blog is so popular that new people keep popping up all the time, and they are not up to speed about what the District did with respect to rounding - because what we are talking about is an EIGHT CENTS difference between the total shown on this Blog and the total in my PDF. Allow me to 'splain somethin', Lucy!
In Elaine's column of numbers the sequence number is not the same as the District's sequence numbers. This has to do with "changes to changes" that occurred at the District from time to time, and which Elaine noted in her Blog. Sequence item #2 on the Blog shows $82,360.57. This matches up with the second change order on the project, shown by the District as "7/24/12 GC-002 Nello Geofoam $82,360.57." Now note Blog numbers 20, 21, and 22 for $36,228.50, $22,945.23 and $25,658.35 respectively. The District ORIGINALLY had those prices too, but some time later they decided to round everything, starting with those values - "11/7/12 GC-08-21 Nello Added spray fireproofing in the 6th floor B corridor $36,229.00, 11/7/12 GC-09-22 Nello Provide rating above ceiling in Room B618 large grp. instruction $22,945.00, and 11/7/12 GC-10-23 Nello Plaster patch - holes in ceilings being used as fire rating $25,658.00." Ironically, the District did NOT go back and round the second change order price.
Bottom line: Unless Elaine wishes to round the prices shown in sequences 20, 21, and 22 in her list - leaving item 2 alone - and barring any changes in the way the numbers are reported by the District, there will always be an eight cent difference between the total shown on this Blog and the total reported by the District.
The numbers in my PDF came from the District; I verified them by listening to the podcasts of the votes at the business meetings of the School Board to make sure there were no discrepancies. (This happened once, and was subsequently reported here, along with Jan Klein's explanation as to why a CO in the CM's update didn't make it to the subsequent business meeting.) NOTE: I will not be surprised, when this whole thing is over, that the final price for CO's published by the district may be something slightly different that their own tally! I'm reasonably sure that when the District writes the checks for these CO's they are for the exact amounts billed - not rounded. In the meantime, an eight cents difference is nothing to get bent out of shape over!
I've made explanation of this before, but as I said, Elaine gets a lot of traffic on this Blog, and a lot of that traffic comes from new readers who are not familiar with my explanations in the past.
I would not consider a credit as a change order. So I think the number of change orders is actually at 181 vs 202.
Using 202 skews the avarage cost of the change order downward.
Just my $.02....although if your round down, that comes to zero.
Readers:
1. When the District sends me the list of "change orders" it includes refunds in list. This is why I color coded my table (see High School Construction Reconcile Sheet) into two sections. The pale green side sequesters the refunds from the expenses.
2. There are not 202 change orders. The 202 number as shown on this Blog represents "transactions" as they occurred and Elaine noted them. Please refer to the PDF in the introduction to this thread; that is my document based on the District's report and my verification of it.
3. The District shows 198 "change orders" to date, of which 17 are really refunds, leaving 181 actual expenses. This is why my table has two color codes sections; one to show averages based on the entire transactional history, and the other to look at average refunds vs. average expenses.
4. Regardless of whether you look at Elaine's numbers or mine via the District, the totals are the same, save for eight cents.
Nice boat Mr. Remely!
Mme. Moderator --- Our little group wants to wish you, and all the Civs of Mt. Lebanon, a wonderful New Year of health, prosperity, and good will. Now that we live in a One Party Jurisdiction, let us all hope that point-of-view will not become a requirement for fair treatment from our local governmental entities - specifically the municipal commission and the school board (a splendid New Year's resolution for our office holders).
We have one prediction for the New Year that may not prove to be all that insightful, but nonetheless correct: this time next year (2014), the new H.S. overruns will take us to the $5million mark. What will the "we can hold it to $95million" crowd say then? I suspect at least some will feel vindicated in their view that misrepresentation is an effective policy to get what you want. I wish for those on the school board the continued blessing of sound sleep, regardless of conscience.
I do have to ask one question for some of the municipal commissioners who think that making our town a shooting gallery is a good idea---don't your "Liberal" scruples include gun control? May our commissioners enjoy the blessing of continued respect from others, even if they cannot not manage to find any respect for others.
Best Wishes for the New Year to Everyone!
And to all, a Good Night.
The Swamp Fox Committee
Post a Comment