|
|
Post by sam2 on Nov 25, 2008 9:06:55 GMT -6
I freely admit that others' knowledge of construction projects far exceeds mine. That said, given the amount of the building that is already up, I doubt that the recent change order has much to do with soil conditions. Wouldn't that have needed to be addressed before the foundations were laid? If so, I'm pretty sure that the contractor would have gotten the change order before the work was done, not after. Unless they didn't discover the problem until after construction began. Again, I'm just guessing -- if someone can set me straight, I'd appreciate it.
The high school I attended was about 6 years old at the time. During my last two years there, they discovered some problem with the soil on which it was built. The building was sinking. They spent over two years boring holes in the floors and pumping concrete in to support the building. Later, they built a two story addition and had to sink pilings 125 feet deep to support the addition. (this was done before construction) This was over 40 years ago, and the school is still in use. I'm not suggesting that the situation at MV is anything like this -- only that there can always be surprises and often creative solutions.
|
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Nov 25, 2008 9:25:15 GMT -6
I freely admit that others' knowledge of construction projects far exceeds mine. That said, given the amount of the building that is already up, I doubt that the recent change order has much to do with soil conditions. Wouldn't that have needed to be addressed before the foundations were laid? If so, I'm pretty sure that the contractor would have gotten the change order before the work was done, not after. Unless they didn't discover the problem until after construction began. Again, I'm just guessing -- if someone can set me straight, I'd appreciate it. The high school I attended was about 6 years old at the time. During my last two years there, they discovered some problem with the soil on which it was built. The building was sinking. They spent over two years boring holes in the floors and pumping concrete in to support the building. Later, they built a two story addition and had to sink pilings 125 feet deep to support the addition. (this was done before construction) This was over 40 years ago, and the school is still in use. I'm not suggesting that the situation at MV is anything like this -- only that there can always be surprises and often creative solutions. Actually Change Orders can take a long time to process, however you are absolutely correct. Our contract representative for D204 (who is that by the way) would have given Turner the go ahead to proceed with the Change Order prior to any work being started let alone completed. The structural and soil analysis on loading etc. is all part of the bid / submittal and design review process. Turner had plenty of opportunity to complete this and make a final assessment prior to the first shovel of dirt being dug. It is very rudimentary and as you state above has 40+ years of additional knowledge and technology available to combat any deficiencies in the less than ideal makeup of the earth below the structure. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Nov 25, 2008 9:34:22 GMT -6
It was said that the soil work was done for the MWGEN site, but not re-done for moving further to the south (AME).... where the soil turned out to be different (more silty). The other thing was the labor rates were for the MWGEN site and expecting a May start time... but apparently Union wages went up June 1st and that was one of the reasons for the increase in labor costs since the new start date was after that.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Nov 25, 2008 9:42:29 GMT -6
The interesting lines from the evening came from JS and MM about the amounts: JS: was surprised to point out a work order change for a negative amount. and later MM: we negotiated down the costs from what was originally approved. For a moment, that almost sounded like these change orders are all 'savings'... but 'savings' compared to what, exactly? When one adds more structural support and labor wages go up from the original amounts, that doesn't sound like a 'savings'.. it sounds like more cost. Some of the structural stuff and concrete cost increases had something to do with the soil being different from the original MWGEN soil analysis... (( Remember, there wasn't time to get an appraisal of the land, and I would guess there wasn't time to get a soil analysis either )). There's is/was a drainage problem because this soil apparently has more 'silt' than the other land and this caused some things to have to be redone or done differently than originally planned/designed; according to Todd DePaul (If I recall correctly from his explanations) "Silty sandy soil and water runs within the silt...need to drain the water away from the silt" I'm not sure what that all implies but that stood out from his explanations this evening. Thanks Arch . For starters - this is a firm fixed price contract. The question is when was the contract signed? They cant still be using the original from Brach Brodie, can they? Most times you have a change order it is because there is a change in scope(work to be performed) requested by the customer (D204). The fact that Turner signed the contract means they were aware of the possibility there may be soil differences. Sooooooo maybe the contract was signed with another wink-wink or handshake that change orders would be permissible and approved if they needed to be. Can we get a copy of the contract through FOIA? Turner construction does this type of work all over the country. They also have a risk fund built in to the contract that is somewhere between 7-12% of the total project value. At $135m you are looking at a $9.45 - $16.2million bucket of our tax dollars that they can tap in to should the need arise without any contract mods or work change orders. Generally this is used so if there is a need to hire more folks or subcontractors to meet schedule, cost of materials go up, they need to redo design and design drawings, weather, etc, etc. If they don't use it this margin goes right to their profit column. Thats why they call it "risk". If the soil was different than the fix should be at Turners expense, not our taxes. Thats why they call them firm fixed price contracts. If Turner didn't do a soil analysis then shame on them. Sorry. But in order to keep them happy and build this thing at all costs, our great business folks at the Board made it sound like with some grind em out meetings they sat down and on D204's behalf negotiated a lower cost of what was previously approved. Hellooooooooooo?!?!?!?! I find it extremely difficult to believe that Turners Contract Managers their staff Geologists and the MV Project Manager didn't anticipate this as a possibility. This so called negative $$ amount for a change order normally occurs when their is a scope reduction which means D204 changed the plans and cut something out of the original design, not because they negotiated a lesser $$ amount for the same services. You don't negotiate costs in the middle of a construction project and since we are such great negotiators I really doubt this was the case. The question is, is it still a fixed price contract - or because of our hell bent on opening Fall 2009 -no matter what, is it now a 'milestone' contract. This might explain the change order coming up ( and maybe more in the future ). Having handled contracts this size and larger - terms can change, and if you are the provider, a lot less risk in a milestone contract andlikely wouldbe more than willing to amend. With far fewer number of sub contractors willing to bid on processes than expected due to the unrealistic runway - the question is did this change ? |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Nov 25, 2008 9:46:22 GMT -6
It was said that the soil work was done for the MWGEN site, but not re-done for moving further to the south (AME).... where the soil turned out to be different (more silty). The other thing was the labor rates were for the MWGEN site and expecting a May start time... but apparently Union wages went up June 1st and that was one of the reasons for the increase in labor costs since the new start date was after that. Bull Hockey!! What I am saying is that in between the time that we handed the cash over to AMES and we starting digging there was ample time to conduct / complete and analyze the data from the new site and meet with the SB and discuss it. I forget but I think it was months. Again Turner would not have agreed to a new site / soil without first addressing this with the SB. They are an experienced contractor and I guarantee they didn't just say - oh ok, thats fine, we wont change the contract or rebid, blah blah blah. You have to assume they did and someone at the SB said "Don't worry about it. If there is an increase just submit the Change Order and we will approve it". I think it is absolute insanity as well that our SB / D204 would sign a contract with conditions that had a specific start date knowing the pending litigation was in the mix. How foolish. Fact is I never heard anyone bring up the fact that if we didn't start by such and such a date, the cost would go up. Is it a 1 time increase? So my question is did the hourly rates go up or will there be more Change Orders as the work is completed? If the rates went up they would go up over the life of the contract, which means we will have Change Order increases for another 2 years. Not thats a scary thought. |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Nov 25, 2008 9:50:31 GMT -6
We need to get a copy of the contract - can the freedom of information act do that for us ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Nov 25, 2008 9:50:55 GMT -6
I'm just relaying things as I heard and understood them (which I admit, could be incorrect). This is why I'd like to see the details of these things posted on the website for clarification purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Nov 25, 2008 10:35:47 GMT -6
I'm just relaying things as I heard and understood them (which I admit, could be incorrect). This is why I'd like to see the details of these things posted on the website for clarification purposes. I'm sure we'll see that - in the same section as: Total est cost of BB vs AME Total details of expedite costs for AME property Estimate for AME Soil analysis for AME Total legal costs for 3rd HS Justification for NIU population study ( when previous groups had it right) Busing mileage and costs for AME vs BB vs MACOM Details of MACOM offer Details of the boundary analysis now in place for MV Safety concerns and reaction plans for MV The section is entitled - NO WAY IN HELL YOU SEE THIS ( either fantasy or under double secret guard ) Would have a better chance of inspecting the Irani nuclear sites |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Dec 5, 2008 17:20:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Dec 5, 2008 17:33:25 GMT -6
Has to be new stuff in addition to 11/24's stuff because that previous stuff was already approved at the last meeting.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Dec 5, 2008 20:58:42 GMT -6
It seems to me the agenda has become less detailed?? Maybe this is part of the paper savings initiative???
|
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Jan 28, 2009 1:56:48 GMT -6
And they'll keep coming. I dont think this is a repeat but hard to confirm. I have asked for a detailed explanation of the change orders to date. Like someone is going to tell me.  However this time we actually get a $$ - its a high figure. $600k is a pretty good chunk of cash  P R E P A R I N G A L L S T U D E N T S T O S U C C E E D Crouse Education Center P.O. Box 3990, Naperville, IL 60567 phone: 630–375–3000 • fax: 630–375–3001 • web: www.ipsd.org________________________________________________________________________ Board of Education Offices January 26, 2009 Crouse Education Center Work Session: 5:00-6:00 p.m. – Textbook Adoptions – Jay Strang “Going Green” – Dave Holm Dinner in room A1: 6:00-7:00 p.m. – Executive Session: Personnel Report, Negotiations, Litigation, and Land Acquisition Agenda – start: 7:00 p.m. AGENDA F. Purchase Recommendation – Change Orders for MVHS
(This item recommends that the Board of Education approve Change
Order items A through X for Metea Valley High School, in the amount of
$570,759.00, as presented.
(Policy #460.08)[/font]G. Business & Financial Items[/color][/b]
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 28, 2009 5:53:21 GMT -6
"$600K, when looked at from the perspective of the financial recovery packages of the country is less than 0.00008% of that amount, so we should be thankful"
How did I do for spin? Should I run in 2 years?
If that wasn't good enough... "We have instituted All Day Kindergarten"
That seems to be the trump phrase that cancels out any and all concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 28, 2009 7:14:49 GMT -6
Well the last 'cost' got spun as a reduction -- we'll see.
The question is - I assume the change orders are for materials. When are we going to see a bill-- any bill - for expedited labor costs ?
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Jan 29, 2009 11:21:27 GMT -6
Here's something interesting... someone I know who has worked on the building of HS's for 30 years and has actually worked with the MV architect, passed by MV and said that he thinks they are way behind. Interesting. Maybe that is why we only see pictures of the roughed in bathroom plumbing and pool room beams for a pool that is confirmed by the Admin. as not being ready on time.
Is it possible that T-pees and porta-potties are in the works? Maybe rented office space?
|
|
??
