Change Orders for High School Renovation Project – The following change orders are presented for Board consideration. All the change orders listed below totaling $104,477 have been reviewed by the architect, PJ Dick and the District administration.
a. GC-100-225 to Nello for $74,520 for floor, wall, structure and ceiling work,
b. PL-30-226 to Vrabel for $16,793 for drain, water and storm lines and heater repairs,
c. EL-61-227 to Farfield for $873 for cable, fire alarm, card reader and gas resets, and
d. ME-23-228 to McKamish for $12,291 for diffusers, ducts and coils.
33 comments:
A $100,000 here, a $100,000 there in change orders and at least 60 more weeks to go (they're behind schedule by at least 3 months, maybe more according to their project Gantt scheduling chart).
They very well may end up exceeding their allowable contingency fund budget. That is if they're not successful in getting away with reassigning change order items and budgeted items now classified as project expenses to capital projects like those this blog has been listing in the right hand margin.
They are deceptive devils, after all, are they not ?
$4,300,000.00 in change orders and overruns, and counting. Where is the accountability, the responsibility, even the shame? Where is the outrage from a community duped and taken advantage of by a school board of manipulative hacks, has beens, and wannabes? Isn't it time for a review, in the open, of the failures and disappointments of this project? When they open the thing it will be a "celebration" of egos, but certainly not an adequate memorial of missed opportunities and waste. Shame on all of us for allowing this to happen to our children, our families and ourselves.
Yep!
When the project exceeds the allowable spending limit, what will happen?
Stop the project? Leave the high school unfinished?
Maybe we could ask for a refund of those bonuses handed out to the people overseeing the project?
Yeah that'll be the day!
Will the school district fund raising program, for which the Mt Lebo citizens are paying handsomely, initiated by the school board ever issue a report? Is the process so inefficient that there is nothing to report? Perhaps the board could report monthly on the dollars spent, and explain why there is no tangible output.
It's all "walking around money" to them.
Assuming these latest change orders (CO) are approved as shown, the District will have spent $3,156,787 (rounded) of its $4,276,000 contingency fund - or 73.8%. Let us also assume that the following change order of 15 April 2014, "IN-02-04, Vrabel, hot water heater repairs to be reimbursed through insurance 16,361.00", is actually reimbursed as stated. Applied to the current tab, the contingency spent comes to $3,140,426 (rounded), or 73.4%. Keep in mind that approval of change orders is a two-step process. They are presented to the Board at the discussion session, and then voted upon at the subsequent business meeting. As has happened in the past, there is nothing to prevent a particular CO from being pulled or shifted from the contingency fund to another account.
Based on the last set of verifiable numbers provided to me by the District - running through 15 April 2014 - and given that CO accounting began in June of 2012, we have a total of 22 months of CO's at an average of $138,741 per month (rounded).* As of the construction update in April there were 14 months remaining on this project, stated to be 41 months in total.
Given the current monthly rate of expenditure and the number of months remaining, there is no way the District will complete this project on budget. I estimate that the project will be in deficit to the tune of around $700,000.**
RG
----------------
*The contingency was established on 20 February 2012, but the first CO's were approved in June of 2012. Therefore, there are 22 months of CO's on record (June, 2012 through April, 2014). My monthly estimates are based on confirmed numbers through 15 April 2014; e.g., $3,052,310 (rounded) divided by 22 months = $138,741 per month. As of April, 2014, the District announced a contingency fund balance of $1,223,690 (rounded). Since there were 14 months left in the project as of April, 2014, if the current monthly rate of expenditure were to continue the District would spend $1,942,374 (rounded), resulting in a deficit of $718,684.
**To be fair, the rate of monthly CO expenditure will likely come down. The question is will it come down enough to see the project completed on budget.
There remains a lot of asbestos removal yet to be done in Bldg.'s E, A and C ; and, building renovations in E ; and demolitions of A and C.
Will Bldg. D be completed and move-in ready by July 1 ? B 3rd./4th. FL meet the June 1 target date ?
Target Project Completion date is June 1, 2015. Any bet's on date or $'s ?
We have as yet to hear a decision on the rifle range or the replacement tennis courts.
Plus building C has yet to be torn down. The board accepted full responisbility to assume the cost for any discoveries uncovered, to keep the project under the cap.
You can be sure they won't be counted as part of the project total!
2:05 pm. So are you saying my kid needs to wear an gas mask to school and field practice?
Richard, do you know whether the monthly rate of change-order expenses has been increasing or declining? (If you have a spreadsheet listing CO dates and prices, I'd be happy to do the calculations.)
Tom:
Since this project started drawing down the contingency fund the monthly change order totals have gone up and down like a Yo-yo.
I'll send you what I have.
RG
Blog readers:
I made an error in my calculations in that there are 23 months from June 2012 through April 2014, not 22. No excuses here; I looked at the difference between the months and not the NUMBER of months - my apologies. This will make the average monthly CO for the period June, 2012 through and including April 2014 $132,709. With 14 months left on the project as of April, per the construction manager, if this rate were maintained the District would spend $1,857,926, resulting in a deficit of $634,236.
The numbers in my first paragraph of May 10, 2014 at 12:12 PM are correct.
My conclusion is still correct.
It used to be that change orders under a certain amount did not have to be approved by a public vote. Does anyone know if there is a list of change orders that are under this limit? Or if the limit even exists?
A personal musing—
From Steinhauer's blog on May 6th.
"Mt. Lebanon is fortunate to have committed, dedicated, and competent teachers. Thank you teachers for all you do to improve the lives of children."
I wonder if on this Mother's Day he will thank the Mt. Lebanon mothers that send him beautiful young girls and boys— eager to learn?
Those moms that put in hours supporting the district, aid the teachers and assist whenever the administrators call on them for help.
I wonder if he ever stops and gives thanks to one half of the team that makes his job possible?
If he ever considers that these beautiful moms have a Right to Know everything that goes on in the educational environment without having to file an RTK?
I wonder if he ever considers himself "fortunate" to be granted the top spot in the Mt. Lebanon School District by the community's mothers?
I never ever hear him say it or show signs he even thinks about it.
According to members of the Rifle team, a new and updated Rifle range has been approved and is now in the plans. That is, at least, what the students believe to be true.
So is it a change order, a capital improvement or heaven forbid a tax increase?
And where will the new range allegedly be located ?
I was able to do a quick analysis of the change orders, thanks to Richard Gideon having collected the data in an easy-to-analyze spreadsheet. (Thanks, Richard!)
Here's the quick version. If you look at the running total of change orders over the project's history, you'll see that the "burn rate" for the last year has been holding fairly steady at about $165 thousand per month. If that trend continues – and it very well may not – but if it continues, the change orders will hit $4 million in October, exhaust the $4.28-million contingency fund in the following month, and reach $5 million in April 2015.
According to PJ Dick's most-recent construction update (#27), the project appears to be on track to exhaust the contingency fund just as it crosses the finish line. Even if this rosier trend proves to be the one that plays out, consider this: By the time the project is complete, the construction vendors will have managed to extract from the school district (and the taxpayers of Mt. Lebanon) just about every single penny available for the taking.
Tom, don't forget to factor in the the Capital Improvements on things like cafeteria tables and chairs, trophy cases, auditorium curtains and sound system that one would assume would be included in a high school renovation.
Unless of course they planned for students to eat sitting on the floor and use megaphones in the auditorium.
At any rate, this is the same project everyone from the board, administrators, construction manager to Tom Celli, assured us the project would most likely be under $100 million!
Maybe people at the time warned: "if you believe that, I have a bridge over Horsman for you to buy!"
Unfortunately, the voters did and now they're going to buy artificial turf as well.
I'm hearing on good authority that the bridge is blocked at the Athletic Building entrance side. No one can use the bridge to enter or leave the building. Whats up ? The building was to be fully accessible by August last year ?
Many of the change orders were due to design omissions and belong to the architect.. The capital expense additions to cover items left out of the project belong to the board. The selection of both is on the community use of the election process. Now it is time for all to PAY.
OK..Mortel says we're spending $165,000 a month in change orders and Gideon says it's $132,709 a month. So who's right?
Bob D.:
Tom may wish to address your question too - I certainly don't wish to be misconstrued as speaking for him; but the answer is "both" - because Tom and I approached this from slightly different angles.
Tom wrote, " If you look at the running total of change orders over the project's history, you'll see that the "burn rate" for the last year has been holding fairly steady at about $165 thousand per month. On the other hand, I wrote, "This will make the average monthly CO for the period June, 2012 through and including April 2014 $132,709. Tom was more interested in that period of time when the monthly change orders settled down into something like a consistent rate, sans the extremes of the first few months of CO's. I did my calculations over the entire period of time, which includes some months when the CO's were huge (example: September of 2012 at $446,826), and other months when there were large net refunds (example, April of 2013 at $209,412). If you factor out the wild fluctuations Tom's analysis is damn good - but then Tom is noted for his statistical analysis, so one would expect it.
Looking at the overall picture, we're both making the same point: the District simply cannot bring this project home on budget at the current rates of expense; whether that rate is Tom's number or mine.
It was pretty much established that the district WAS NOT going to bring this project in on budget, when the initial bids came in over $120,000,000.
We can plot COs, analyze data til the cows come home, but at the end of the day what will happen?
Heads won't roll, cuts in district spending won't be forced, the project won't be halted.
The PDE won't step in, our state senator and representative won't call for an investigation.
Life will go on as usual.
12:00pm - life will go on as usual for you! The wife and kids are going back to Texas when school is out. I'll be following as soon as I can arrange to sell. That shouldn't be too hard to do - plenty of yankee suckers around here.
1:43, do you think the 5 commissioners care?
Actually, they're probably lickin' their chops in anticipation of a "newcomers tax" appeal if your home sells above its assessed value.
2:51pm - Whether your commissioners care or not does not concern me. Whether your commissioners get a newcomers tax or not does not concern me. That's your problem to deal with! All I know is your town won't be getting any money from me.
Thanks for the heads up, 4:00 pm.
1:43/4:00. What you are experiencing in Mt Lebanon is not Pittsburgh. I sincerely do not know who these impostors running Mt Lebanon are. My grandparents immigrated to Pittsburgh and I grew up knowing an entirely different community, one in which school and local officials had the moral and ethical wherewithal to avoid permitting greed and self-interest to dictate their behavior. On behalf of the decent Pittsburghers that still exist in good numbers, I'm sorry you had such a horrible experience here. Check back in a few years and see if Mt Lebanon has new leadership. Then maybe it will be safe for you to visit. Otherwise, steer clear and good luck back in Texas.
Texas you aren't the only one! We moved here because of my wife's job. She just learned that she can transfer to any of their many facilities. As for my business here in Pittsburgh it will close in several weeks when my employees pack everything up and ship it to where we move to. NEVER in the many places we have lived had we endured anything like this. And I'm told that Brumfield and goons read this blog... Dave if my house doesn't sell than I'll donate it! Maybe a halfway house. Right down the street from Dave F. too. Elaine it was nice meeting and talking to you. Only wish I was at the meeting at the ballfield. The little piss ant would have NEVER dared to come near you. Us southerners don't accept that behavior. Shame BRUMFIELD that you do! Is that a trait you teach your kids?
Isn't it curious that every available dime will be spent, according to Mr. Moertel. This is yet another demonstration of the fact that money management is not a matter of concern to our school directors.
Speaking of money management.
"5 ways to fundraise smarter in 2014."
http://smartblogs.com/education/2014/05/12/5-ways-to-fundraise-smarter-in-2014/
See how many of the 5 tips has MTLSD employed in the Capital Campaign. We did hire an $85,000/year campaign chair'person.' Must be gender neutral because that is a top priority in the suggested Home Rule revisions.
"What, the hell you say. There's a MTL school district Capital Fundraising Campaign... this is the first I've heard about it!"
Shhhhhhhhh, we're still in the quiet phase.
Post a Comment