Post by doctorwho on Jun 26, 2008 7:46:17 GMT -6
Okay so now we have some bids that are apparently $8M under projections and one set 50% over ($4M) - fromTurner Construction. Red flags should be all over this for both Turner Construction as well as our project manager. How do you miss by 50% ? While the underage is good news ( if it allfinalizes) - it is still a huge miss from projections.
Now the questions are : for what's left what way ( up or down) will we horribly miss ? Turner provided the $5M-$10M 'expedite' charge - what if that also misses by 50% as it is noted for some who did not bid - timeline was an issue. We can't open less than we already are. I hope Turner has these answers at the next meeting.
Also if we chose not to expedite, and open in 2010, add that to the $8M under projection we already are and someone explain to me the cost of opening MV @ BB in '10, vs. this site the same year ?
Metea construction bids less than anticipated
Potential savings could be used to alter building plans
June 26, 2008
By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com
Even though one bid overshot Indian Prairie School District 204's estimates by $4 million, overall, bids for Metea Valley High School construction costs are coming in $4 million less than anticipated.
According to Todd DePaul, District 204's construction manager for Metea, the district has opened bids on 43 different construction projects at Metea, and has already recommended approval of 25 of them. The other 18 are still being reviewed, he said.
If none of those low bidders bail out before the board can approve their proposals, all of the construction work could be contracted out for $4 million less than the district's estimated cost of $101.7 million, he said. DePaul said this potential savings would be used to alter building plans at Metea in ways that either improve programs or provide long-term savings with regard to operations and maintenance.
» Click to enlarge image
Bids for construction costs of Metea Valley High School, shown here in an artist's rendering, are coming in at $4 million less than expected.
Sun file
Prior to hearing this good news, the District 204 board was shocked Monday when the administration recommended approval of a $12.4 million bid for the building's electrical work, as the bid - the lowest of just to bid the district received for the project - exceeded Turner Construction Company's estimated $8.3 million cost for the work by roughly 50 percent."In my mind we're paying Turner a giant sum of money to avoid this kind of a miss," board President Mark Metzger said. "This is a $4 million miss. That's abysmal, and I'm struggling to understand why, with their expertise and the work that they have put into this project, that they couldn't see this coming so that they could blow (the project) up into pieces earlier so we might have a shot at getting other bidders involved in this thing. To me it just seems like they've completely dropped the ball here."
But DePaul said Turner was "just as disappointed on the number of bidders ... as we were." Turner sent the proposal to more than 100 prospective bidders, nine of whom indicated they intended to bid the project. But, said DePaul, all but seven of them struggled to secure bonding, and backed out because of the massive size of the project and the relatively short amount of time they'd have to complete it.
DePaul said both Turner and the district decided before opening the bid that breaking up the project would have led to logistical problems and duplicated costs as different contractors struggled to work around each other and complete their respective projects in the same areas of the building at the same time.
DePaul said the district could rebid the project, but it would do so at the risk of rising construction costs increasing that price tag even further.
"The indication that we have heard is that we have a potential of getting higher numbers from the same two bidders," DePaul said.
Still, the board decided to table its approval of the bid until its July 14 meeting, and it has requested that a representative from Turner attend that meeting to further explain the $4 million variance.
Now the questions are : for what's left what way ( up or down) will we horribly miss ? Turner provided the $5M-$10M 'expedite' charge - what if that also misses by 50% as it is noted for some who did not bid - timeline was an issue. We can't open less than we already are. I hope Turner has these answers at the next meeting.
Also if we chose not to expedite, and open in 2010, add that to the $8M under projection we already are and someone explain to me the cost of opening MV @ BB in '10, vs. this site the same year ?
Metea construction bids less than anticipated
Potential savings could be used to alter building plans
June 26, 2008
By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com
Even though one bid overshot Indian Prairie School District 204's estimates by $4 million, overall, bids for Metea Valley High School construction costs are coming in $4 million less than anticipated.
According to Todd DePaul, District 204's construction manager for Metea, the district has opened bids on 43 different construction projects at Metea, and has already recommended approval of 25 of them. The other 18 are still being reviewed, he said.
If none of those low bidders bail out before the board can approve their proposals, all of the construction work could be contracted out for $4 million less than the district's estimated cost of $101.7 million, he said. DePaul said this potential savings would be used to alter building plans at Metea in ways that either improve programs or provide long-term savings with regard to operations and maintenance.
» Click to enlarge image
Bids for construction costs of Metea Valley High School, shown here in an artist's rendering, are coming in at $4 million less than expected.
Sun file
Prior to hearing this good news, the District 204 board was shocked Monday when the administration recommended approval of a $12.4 million bid for the building's electrical work, as the bid - the lowest of just to bid the district received for the project - exceeded Turner Construction Company's estimated $8.3 million cost for the work by roughly 50 percent."In my mind we're paying Turner a giant sum of money to avoid this kind of a miss," board President Mark Metzger said. "This is a $4 million miss. That's abysmal, and I'm struggling to understand why, with their expertise and the work that they have put into this project, that they couldn't see this coming so that they could blow (the project) up into pieces earlier so we might have a shot at getting other bidders involved in this thing. To me it just seems like they've completely dropped the ball here."
But DePaul said Turner was "just as disappointed on the number of bidders ... as we were." Turner sent the proposal to more than 100 prospective bidders, nine of whom indicated they intended to bid the project. But, said DePaul, all but seven of them struggled to secure bonding, and backed out because of the massive size of the project and the relatively short amount of time they'd have to complete it.
DePaul said both Turner and the district decided before opening the bid that breaking up the project would have led to logistical problems and duplicated costs as different contractors struggled to work around each other and complete their respective projects in the same areas of the building at the same time.
DePaul said the district could rebid the project, but it would do so at the risk of rising construction costs increasing that price tag even further.
"The indication that we have heard is that we have a potential of getting higher numbers from the same two bidders," DePaul said.
Still, the board decided to table its approval of the bid until its July 14 meeting, and it has requested that a representative from Turner attend that meeting to further explain the $4 million variance.
??
