The change orders listed on the Agenda for Monday, March 10, 2014 has me totally confused.
Change Orders for High School Renovation Project – The following change orders are presented for Board consideration. All the change orders listed below (totaling $168,011 from High School Project contingency and $49,246 from Capital Projects Budget) have been reviewed by the architect, PJ Dick and the District administration.I guess I am adding $168,011 to the High School Change Orders running total and $49, 246 to the High School Capital Projects total. Running totals have been updated.
a. EL-58-217 to Farfield for $63,576 for power changes, wireless access additions, conduit, work lights and breakers in panels,
b. ME-22-218 to McKamish for $3,381 for heater unit,
c. GC-98-219 to Nello for $101,054 for drywall, door and window repairs, changes to beams and decking, and roof and joist reinforcements, and
d. EL-59-220 to Farfield for $49,246 for Auditorium Sound System piping (from Capital Projects Fund).
4 comments:
Blog readers:
If you have been following the expenditures on the renovation project you may have noticed that the District has started shunting some change orders (CO) away from the contingency and into other "capital" accounts. This started in January when GC-95-203 to Nello for $28,804 for signage changes was listed as a CO on the discussion session agenda of 13 January 2014 and was approved at the subsequent business meeting on 20 January 2014. But in February, when I requested a copy of all change orders to date, that charge did NOT appear on the District's official list of contingency fund CO's. Since I was in Hawai'i during part of January and February I missed some of the proceedings, and had to go back and research the reason for this (I had asked Ms. Cappucci if this fund transfer had been discussed publicly and she said it had been, but she couldn't remember when). Listening to Podcasts of school board meetings in January and February I discovered that Ms. Cappucci was correct; it had been announced that GC-95-203 would be paid for out of the Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment budget during the construction update of 13 January. Unfortunately, at the business meeting of 20 January, when this particular CO was read and voted up, nobody mentioned that fact. If you had not attended or watched the construction update (or listened to the Podcast) you would not have known about it.
As the project plods along and the contingency funds dwindle it is absolutely necessary for the District to find alternate was of paying for things; otherwise that naughty word, "referendum," may raise its ugly head.
Now in all fairness this idea of paying for certain costs related to the renovation out of different piles of money isn't new - it was discussed after the failed first round of bids. But since a particular change order cannot be know at the start of a project one is entitled to a pardonable curiosity when its cost is shunted off into another fund*. In a message to Ms. Cappucci dated 4 March 2014, I wrote the following: "I sincerely hope that in future business meetings when the board is voting to approve CO's that any item in that list not coming out of the contingency fund will be explained. It may eliminate confusion on the part of the public." I think this would be a very tiny concession to transparency, since not everybody attends, watches, or listens to ALL school board meetings. While members of the board may be aware of CO funding my guess is that the taxpayers, as a whole, are not.
Rest assured that Elaine's CO listing is constantly monitored, compared to the official record and, when necessary corrected. Any member of our august school board who ridicules "numbers on a Blog" does so, in this case, at his or her own peril. The biggest difference between Elaine's numbers and those from the District is that you will get an explanation for any anomalies here, on this Blog.
RG
---
*Ms. Cappucci wrote to me on 4 March 2014, as follows: "GC-95-203 is for signage throughout the high school building. In the base bid for the contractor, we included all signage required by code. The change order is for additional room and building signage that the District intended to purchase as part of the project Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment budget. When pricing the signs, it was more cost effective for the contractor to order the signs than the District, therefore we executed a change order.
and at what level of overruns does an investigation begin by mainstream media or state authorities? 3 million? 5 million? 10 million? and then, of course, the so-called capital account shifts....this is not magic, it is abuse......
If the current numbers on this blog - $2,885,582.65 - hold up to Mr. Gideon's scrutiny, then 67% of the contingency fund will have been exhausted, and we still have about another year (plus) to go on the project!
Bob D.
When does the State require Mt Lebanon to merge with a failing School District? Either you submit or we will audit you... That audit could land a couple of 'people' in a courtroom pleading the 5th.
Post a Comment