|
|
Post by casey on Jan 29, 2009 11:55:29 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? FWIW, if they are truly running such a tight construction schedule, why in the world would they vote and approve a 2009/10 schedule that starts school earlier? I'd think that they'd need every single day possible. It was a well-known fact that they'd be working up to the last minute and teachers wouldn't get in the building until the 11th hour well now I'm thinking that they will be at the 11:59 hour. Hmmm..... |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Feb 5, 2009 17:33:59 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 ? $600k was for materials - Waukegan Steel Sales. My question DW is why did you suspect - and correctly - this was for material and not labor ?? BTW - I don't know what the original amount was for steel, but a $600k change order is huge. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 5, 2009 17:47:44 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 ? $600k was for materials - Waukegan Steel Sales. My question DW is why did you suspect - and correctly - this was for material and not labor ?? BTW - I don't know what the original amount was for steel, but a $600k change order is huge. little bird told me it was for materials -- and usually a change order will be for a commodity, something that was a 'fixed cost'. We have seen nothing in the way of the labor agreements for OT etc to expedite. This was requested as a safety item from the structural engineer - recommended strongly an upgrade based on plans - use. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 5, 2009 17:59:46 GMT -6
Well, thank God someone took safety into account on some part of the job... better late than never.
It's a start.
|
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Feb 5, 2009 20:10:23 GMT -6
$600k was for materials - Waukegan Steel Sales. My question DW is why did you suspect - and correctly - this was for material and not labor ?? BTW - I don't know what the original amount was for steel, but a $600k change order is huge. little bird told me it was for materials -- and usually a change order will be for a commodity, something that was a 'fixed cost'. We have seen nothing in the way of the labor agreements for OT etc to expedite. This was requested as a safety item from the structural engineer - recommended strongly an upgrade based on plans - use. Yes and no. On a project that is material such as this, I would hope safety compliance knowing it was for a "school" should have come out in the pre-construction engineering. Why should we pay for their mistake ? So did they give us the re-design / engineering hours for free ? If so then that was self admittance on their part. Should be their problem (Turner) not the taxpayers. I have many projects that are bitten by not getting customer support / access to certain areas. When that happens - they are charged overage on a cumulative basis. I had a project in the DC Metro tunnels we logged delays by the minute because we had to work during non revenue hours underground. What a nightmare that was. Anyway, if there was a structural change then it should have been on their nickel. The fact they didn't understand the design (which is theirs) is not our problem. Didn't understand the scope, not our problem. And by the way why didn't they tap the "risk" budget ?? I think they approved it because they didn't complete a "comprehensive" site survey which would have revealed some potential deficiencies remedied by more steel ? Approval of the change order $$ was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 5, 2009 20:30:18 GMT -6
little bird told me it was for materials -- and usually a change order will be for a commodity, something that was a 'fixed cost'. We have seen nothing in the way of the labor agreements for OT etc to expedite. This was requested as a safety item from the structural engineer - recommended strongly an upgrade based on plans - use. Yes and no. On a project that is material such as this, I would hope safety compliance knowing it was for a "school" should have come out in the pre-construction engineering. Why should we pay for their mistake ? So did they give us the re-design / engineering hours for free ? If so then that was self admittance on their part. Should be their problem (Turner) not the taxpayers. I have many projects that are bitten by not getting customer support / access to certain areas. When that happens - they are charged overage on a cumulative basis. I had a project in the DC Metro tunnels we logged delays by the minute because we had to work during non revenue hours underground. What a nightmare that was. Anyway, if there was a structural change then it should have been on their nickel. The fact they didn't understand the design (which is theirs) is not our problem. Didn't understand the scope, not our problem. And by the way why didn't they tap the "risk" budget ?? I think they approved it because they didn't complete a "comprehensive" site survey which would have revealed some potential deficiencies remedied by more steel ? Approval of the change order $$ was wrong. site survey - likely no time since we even closed on the property without an appraisal - you know because bidders were line to buy that land.......  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 5, 2009 20:39:17 GMT -6
I wonder if this is to beef up the structural integrity due to the soil composition they found... that they were not expecting... because they did not check it prior...
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 5, 2009 21:12:39 GMT -6
I am guessing the soil is the cuplrit - remember it was the BB design crammed into a different spot. At least when it was going south - a land survey was paid for by that mean old builder.... of course we didn't have the time here- split shifts were coming...  |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Feb 9, 2009 18:07:43 GMT -6
and another........................February 9, 2009 Crouse Education Center board.ipsd.org/Uploads/Meetings/AgendaFor020909.pdfDinner in room A1: 6:00-7:00 p.m. – Executive Session: Personnel Report, Negotiations, Litigation and Student Discipline Agenda – start: 7:00 p.m. SECOND REVISED AGENDA D. Purchase Recommendation – Change Orders for MVHS
(This item recommends that the Board of Education approve Change
Order items A. through J. for Metea Valley High School, in the amount of
$116,014.00, as presented.(Policy #460.08)
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Feb 10, 2009 10:42:18 GMT -6
(This item recommends that the Board of Education approve Change Order items A. through J. for Metea Valley High School, in the amount of $116,014.00, as presented. [/color] [/quote] That's the thing that I hate most. Those of us who go to the SB meetings sit there while the SB approves change orders (or whatever else they want to approve) and the community has no idea what is going on. What were items A-J requiring a change order? Inquiring minds want to know. Why does every item need to be so cryptic? Why should a person have to FOIA everything just to get information? Curt talked about transparency of the SB and that truly needs to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 10, 2009 12:02:33 GMT -6
(This item recommends that the Board of Education approve Change Order items A. through J. for Metea Valley High School, in the amount of $116,014.00, as presented. [/color] [/quote] That's the thing that I hate most. Those of us who go to the SB meetings sit there while the SB approves change orders (or whatever else they want to approve) and the community has no idea what is going on. What were items A-J requiring a change order? Inquiring minds want to know. Why does every item need to be so cryptic? Why should a person have to FOIA everything just to get information? Curt talked about transparency of the SB and that truly needs to happen.[/quote] perfect example- anyone - anywhere - in any forum - explain this one to me: We just approved $600K of change order for stronger steel - the reason given was 'safety'. Safety where ? safety how ? Why was it needed -? What risks dangers ? Even better yet - the entire frame of the building is up - where is it going to be put ? Or better yet - from what I hear this change order was actually approved by someone in admin 60 days ago and that $600K of steel is already installed - don't we have to wait for board approval of the expense ? Or is it like the buy the land with no appraisal - we can do whatever we want ? Why would the public not know - be told what this was for and why ? WE continue to eat expense after expense then the candidates are told we have only spent $31M ? Really ? Yet some believe more like $120M has already been spent - including up to $12M in expedite costs. Was this not OUR (taxpayer) money - why do we know absolutely nothing ? here's hoping the new Sb in April will actually tell us these things - not micro manage but for God's sake give us an idea where our $150M is going. |
|
|
|
Post by rj on Feb 10, 2009 17:16:27 GMT -6
We just approved $600K of change order for stronger steel - the reason given was 'safety'. Safety where ? safety how ? Why was it needed -? What risks dangers ? Duh!! That is a no brainer. The stronger steel takes longer to melt when exposed to intense heat from say a pipeline burning, therefor the building stays standing. They do have an investment to protect you know. Ok , sarcasm aside, I can't see why they decided to strengthen things up after the SB and engineers have approved the architects design. It would be interesting to know which area of the building is now deemed not strong enough structurally. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 10, 2009 17:26:02 GMT -6
We just approved $600K of change order for stronger steel - the reason given was 'safety'. Safety where ? safety how ? Why was it needed -? What risks dangers ? Duh!! That is a no brainer. The stronger steel takes longer to melt when exposed to intense heat from say a pipeline burning, therefor the building stays standing. They do have an investment to protect you know. Ok , sarcasm aside, I can't see why they decided to strengthen things up after the SB and engineers have approved the architects design. It would be interesting to know which area of the building is now deemed not strong enough structurally. see rj this is the rub-- I don't think the weak part/ less fire intensie etc. any part of what's currently up. I believe this stronger steel is already in place because the building is basically framed - I can't see them taking down anything to replace structure can you ? Wouldn't that also blow up ( pun intended ) their plans for Aug 2009 ? As far as why stronger needed- one can only guess since we'll never be told anything about anything- is remember there were some ground stability issues during grading - one can assume they are still present to some extent. I believe they went ahead- paid for and installed the steel from this change order before the board approved the expense ? Face it - they do not follow business protocol on anything - if you can spend $12M on a piece of land you don't get appraised - cart before the horse no longer has any meaning. Would you agree ? |
|
|
|
Post by rj on Feb 10, 2009 18:40:54 GMT -6
The ground stability issues arose from the massive amounts of rain we had last year.
I personally have witnessed ground that has surpassed compaction requirements, man made or natural, turn unsuitable in a matter of a few torrential downpours in a weeks time. When this happens, there are remedies that will put the soil back to a buildable state, which is what they did at the MV site. Putting lime down was the chosen remedy in that case, which is the fastest way to gain compaction. If I remember correctly, the excavating company tried working the soil with a disk, but to no avail.
As far as there still being stability issues regarding the ground, they will be dealt with as the project goes along. The building pad obviously passed the soil engineers spec for compaction, or they wouldn't have allowed the footings to go in, as with the parking lots and roads.
If the spec required for the MV pad is the same as it was for the NV site, I can guarantee you there are no stability issues. I know the company that did the site work at NV. The general had a soil engineer on site daily to make sure the requirements for compaction were met. I was told that that was one of the highest specs for compaction that they ever had to meet for a building pad.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 10, 2009 19:39:41 GMT -6
The ground stability issues arose from the massive amounts of rain we had last year. I personally have witnessed ground that has surpassed compaction requirements, man made or natural, turn unsuitable in a matter of a few torrential downpours in a weeks time. When this happens, there are remedies that will put the soil back to a buildable state, which is what they did at the MV site. Putting lime down was the chosen remedy in that case, which is the fastest way to gain compaction. If I remember correctly, the excavating company tried working the soil with a disk, but to no avail. As far as there still being stability issues regarding the ground, they will be dealt with as the project goes along. The building pad obviously passed the soil engineers spec for compaction, or they wouldn't have allowed the footings to go in, as with the parking lots and roads. If the spec required for the MV pad is the same as it was for the NV site, I can guarantee you there are no stability issues. I know the company that did the site work at NV. The general had a soil engineer on site daily to make sure the requirements for compaction were met. I was told that that was one of the highest specs for compaction that they ever had to meet for a building pad. I respect your knowledge in these matters- so thanks for the info-- so let me ask-- why $600K of steel upgrade 9 months into the project ? And if it really hasn't been already installed and paid for before approved - where could they install it ? |
|
