Construction RTKs are starting to arrive

Several RTKs were granted this morning with three more pending.  All you detail guys, architects, builders, engineers...please take a look at the 455 pages of construction meeting minutes.

Also, here are the notes from the Construction Update on September 10, 2012 concerning change orders:

Construction Update Change Order Conversation from 9/10 Notes

Due to complexity of issues they have encountered they have started weekly meetings with Celli-Flynn to make everyone aware of everything that is out there.

#1- $63000 Nello Const due to moving sewer lines due to request of municipality. Dan Remely completely blamed municipal engineer for increased cost. "Municipal Engineer did not do his job when he approved the plan". Posti chimes in blames the municipal engineer for not being familiar with the paving ordinance. "Why did they not have the specs for the pavement itself....who did not catch that?". Marciniak says the trench ended up having to be dug wider and there were some unforseen conditions on subbase and had to go to subgrade which made this a bigger deal. Posti say municipality may have paved the street with subpar subbase that the SD has to replace. Sounds like what Rick said is true...contractor simply had to dig a bigger hole. But both Dan and Posti would rather point the finger at the municipal engineer.

#2- $30,000 to Nello for work required to relocated storm and sewer lines to clear way for new foundations in athletic and science buildings. Shouldn't the drawings have show this?

#3- Fairfield Electric for duct bank incoming feed for DQ Light for Athletic and Science. Add two pipes and duct bank. DQE looked at loads required by science builing required additional feed. Saved $200,000 on bid but came back $60,000 on the other end per Dan's math.

#4 IT department Fairfield electric add $12000 for cable feed from B Building to MDF in F building. Running Cat3 (phone) cable instead of Cat5 (data).
#5 Vrabel Plumbing $17,000 site utlity conflicts with caisons and side beams. Shouldn't the drawings have shown this?

#6 $25,000 credit to use PVC piping instead of copper for pipes 2.5 inches or smaller in non-plenum rated spaces. All PVC will be indoor. Shouldn't the drawings have shown where they could use indoor PVC vs outdoor rated copper?

#7 Nello $11,000 change one retaining wall for frost depth and $5000 to replace unsuitable material with concrete. Board blames the architect.

Ed with Pyrite...south end of science building and north end of building. Seems to be limited to these sites at this time. Another half to pyritic soil change that has yet to be submitted.

Fairfield $272,000 related to 5kV power loss. OSEPA or Builders Insurance Claim so it should not affect the project. Costs through 8/31. Generators taken offline day before meeting. 8/31-9/9 costs not yet submitted. Emergency repair would NOT be part of budget and likely will be covered by insurance as well. At most the District will be on the hook for the deductible per a question by Goldman.

Original change order for dirt may be gone...using rockpile dirt for fill now so costs from a few months back should be greatly reduced.

Something else I found out, OSHA has something to say about repairs to anchor bolts of columns. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25178

Section 1926.755(b) requires the following:

(1) Anchor rods (anchor bolts) shall not be repaired, replaced or field-modified without the approval of the project structural engineer of record.
(2) Prior to the erection of a column, the controlling contractor shall provide written notification to the steel erector if there has been any repair, replacement or modification of the anchor rods (anchor bolts) of that column.

According to §1926.752(a)(2), where anchor bolts have been modified, the controlling contractor must inform the erector that the modification has been done in accordance with the requirements under §1926.755(b). Section 1926.755(b) has two requirements: (1) no repair, replacement or modification shall take place without the approval of the project structural engineer of record, and (2) the erector must be informed in writing that there has been a repair, replacement or modification.

 I got a response today for my Right To Know:

Mt. Lebanon School District ("the District") is in receipt of your Public Records Request form dated September 6, 2012, which requests, pursuant to the Right to Know Law ("RTKL"), all daily inspection reports from the project’s testing and inspection firm concerning site work for the high school construction project.

Please be advised that the District requires additional time beyond five business days to respond to your request pursuant to Section 902 of the RTKL.

An extension of time is required because the extent and/or nature of the request preclude a response within the required time period.

The District expects to provide a written response to your request and have any responsive public records available within thirty (30) days of today's date, the records are available at an earlierdate.

Who's to blame?

Remember the "rumor" that Josephine Posti addressed on her Center Court blog? http://jposti.blogspot.com/#!/2012/08/project-on-schedule-and-on-budget.html There has been speculation in the community since discussions first began with the change order for Geofoam. 

So tonight, there will be a discussion about the seven change orders listed on the agenda.  For some reason, the School District is only counting five towards the construction.

We now have a need for retaining walls, Geofoam, pyrite remediation, repairs to utility line conflicts, to name just a few of the change orders needed.

Back in October 2005, architects Burt Hill Kosar Rittelman Associates alerted school board directors of the unstable soil on the site. Mt. Lebanon Pool cost up again; now $6.5 million Knowing this, would Celli Flynn design a building on unstable soil? Is it poor workmanship? Nello built our Public Safety Building. Ask our police and firemen about the condition of the building. Or is it the school board directors? Remember this cost savings worksheet? Potential Project Cost Savings Worksheet Look at what was eliminated. Does the Board have the luxury to cherry pick from a list as to what should be eliminated? Doesn't one change affect others?

Didn't the Board waive contractors' insurance as a cost reduction? If that is the case, then there is no hope for reimbursement from insurance.

Since I don't get the Almanac anymore...

I am reprinting this article in its entirety. The Almanac doesn't archive its articles for any length of time, but here is the link for now. ML school project on track for October rebid

9/14/2011 

ML school project on track for October rebid

By Nick Lewandowski For The Almanac writer@thealmanac.net

The Mt. Lebanon school board again heard from the design team for its high school renovation project Sept. 12. Architect Tom Celli said revised drawings were received Sept. 9 and that they were "99 percent there," estimating the project would be ready to bid by early October. The redesign features some $16 million in cost savings, and will be bid to seven multiple prime contractors, including a general contractor. Other contractors will handle mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection and asbestos abatement. The seventh is a casework team assigned to assist the general contractor with managing architecture.
Celli described the impact of the design changes as "so minimal as to be inconsequential."
Though the redesigned building will not obtain LEED Silver certification (a sustainability rating administered by the U.S. Green Building Council), the resulting loss of energy efficiency is expected to be relatively minor.
The redesigned school will also qualify for less reimbursement from the state, though it is difficult to determine an exact figure given the number of variables involved in the calculation.

A rough estimate from director of fiscal services Jan Klein put the figure at about $12.5 million, down from the original $14.4 million. Celli-Flynn Brennan and construction manager P.J. Dick will spend the next month double-checking their numbers regarding cost savings and energy use. According to Celli's tentative timeline, the district can then advertise for bids Oct. 11 and open them Nov. 22, finally breaking ground in January 2012.
The high school project is still set to last three and a half years, ending in July 2015, though the academic buildings will likely be finished several months before that.
A point of contention remains the structure of add and deduct alternates specified in the bid documents. Deduct alternates are items that can be removed from the project if bids come in high. Add alternates are just the opposite: elements that can be included should there be funds to spare.
In this case, the tennis courts and an auxiliary gym are currently listed as deduct alternates, the school's rifle range as an add.
Board member Dan Remely was in favor of making all three of those items add alternates, arguing a contractor will quote a fairer price to add an item than for one built into the base bid.
"I don't want to leave profit sitting on the table," he said. "I'm not trying to fund anyone's retirement with this project. I want to know where I'm taking taxpayer money."
Board vice-president Dale Ostergaard was against the idea. He insisted neither the gym, nor tennis courts, nor rifle range should be on the list in the first place.
Mary Birks echoed his statements, saying, "this is not just a high school, it's also the crown jewel of our community in terms of having a community center. I can't promise I'll vote for something that's less than we have now."
Overall, a significant portion of the board indicated it might not support the project if the auxiliary gym or tennis courts had to be removed.
Architect Celli insisted the debate was premature, that the board needed to wait to see the bids. He also argued contractors would bid deduct alternates as aggressively as adds to have a better shot at a larger pool of funds.
"I think it's time to build a building," he said. "Let's go do it."

1 comments Of course Celli said... : 9/14/2011
"Let's go do it." So easy to spend other people's money! I certainly hope Ostergard and Birks stick to their guns should the bids come in over the limit again. It is too bad the bids won't be in pre-election so we can determine whom to get rid of!
Taxpayer