|
|
Post by rj on Feb 10, 2009 20:39:32 GMT -6
I am at a loss at this one, Doc.
Unless there is part of the steel structure that isn't erected yet, I can think of no reason to upgrade the steel spec now. I doubt that they would remove any existing structure to replace, unless a serious design flaw was found, and if that were the case it would be awfully hard to keep it secret, even for this administration. It would be hard to hide the deconstruction of a high profile building such as this one.
My best educated guess would be that there was a change in the steel spec before the steel was delivered and or erected and because it was deemed a safety issue it was put through without going through the normal change order process, as to not delay the project. Now, the question that begs to be answered is, who dropped the ball with the original spec? Who deemed the upgrade necessary?
I doubt we will ever know, as this administration seems to treat their taxpayers like mushrooms......................... in the dark and fed a bunch of crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Feb 23, 2009 6:41:15 GMT -6
Board of Education Offices
February 23, 2009
Crouse Education Center
Executive Session in A1: 4:30-5:00 – Executive Session: Student Discipline
Work Session: 5:00-6:00 p.m. – Board Policy
Dinner in room A1: 6:00-7:00 p.m. – Executive Session: Personnel Report,
Negotiations, Litigation, Land Acquisition and
Student Discipline
Agenda – start: 7:00 p.m.
REVISED AGENDA
F. 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
$92,167.00, as presented.)
(Policy #460.08)
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Feb 23, 2009 10:55:28 GMT -6
I posted a response on another thread about tonight's SB meeting but I too am bothered by this change order. We just will-nilly throw away another $92,000+ and for what? Who knows but it's item A-J  . That's a perfect example of what's wrong with our current SB team. We are always left in the dark and there is absolutely no accountability or transparency to any of us in the District. Why should that kind of a change order just get rubber-stamped at tonight's meeting and none of us have a clue what it is for? I guess we could FOIA for the information that we want, huh?  We need 4 new SB members and any candidate that comes close to supporting the current status quo is not one I want. That will give us just simply 4 more years of King Metzger leading the show. I've had enough of his anarchy! Time for a voice of change. 4 new voices!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by warriordiva on Mar 8, 2009 23:31:14 GMT -6
From the agenda of 3/9/2009. More than 10% of the cost? What is the "bona fide emergency"? Panic at the fact that it will never be finished in the time promised?
D. Purchase Recommendation – Change Orders for MVHS
(This item recommends that the Board of Education approve Change
Order items 9A-6 for Concrete Foundations at Metea Valley High School
in the amount of $88,798 to K. Keup Concrete Construction, Inc. and
further move that the Board of Education, in approving this change order ,
make a finding that this is in excess of 10% of the original contract
awarded to K. Keup Concrete Construction Inc, but that a bona fide
emergency exists necessitating their approval under an exception to the
competitive bidding statute, as presented.)
(Policy No.: 460.08)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2009 23:45:32 GMT -6
A down economy and we're paying MORE?!?! Concrete foundation!?!?! Isn't this already there? Did they pour it without proper authorization for the cost? Putting a foundation in without the funds being approved is a bona fide emergency? Who moved forward without funding authorization? Here's a suggestion:  Drilled in at an early age was the saying: "Crappy planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part" |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Mar 9, 2009 7:24:02 GMT -6
This is definitely a horribly mismanaged project. Prediction - during discussion some will posture predetermined questions and concerns to amuse us then vote will carry 7-0 (6-1 may squeeze by). April 7th can't come soon enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Mar 9, 2009 7:33:56 GMT -6
This does not appear to be the first change order to be approved "after the fact". A huge no-no in any construction contract. And yes please explain the "emergency" !!
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 9, 2009 7:40:09 GMT -6
.... and yet Daeshner always says the project is on schedule and on budget. Guess it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.
|
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Mar 9, 2009 7:51:25 GMT -6
From the limited amount of information, it looks like we are pushing the $1million mark for change orders. Most look like the work was done, material ordered and installed prior to official board approval. Agreed everything is on schedule and under budget is clearly is the Spin Dr. D. at work. But I guess he's not a numbers guy anyway, doesn't have a very good track record for improving academics (from his old district) so exactly what are we getting for the $750k we are paying him |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 9, 2009 7:52:16 GMT -6
This is definitely a horribly mismanaged project. Prediction - during discussion some will posture predetermined questions and concerns to amuse us then vote will carry 7-0 (6-1 may squeeze by). April 7th can't come soon enough for me. I'd love to see one of them actually get into the reasons behind it. Won't come from the lame ducks, or the dead duck. Maybe Chris, Curt, or Cathy will rise to the ocassion? |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Mar 9, 2009 7:54:17 GMT -6
Banking on it. Transparency........how refreshing that would be. Who is the PM - forgot......getting old.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 9, 2009 8:02:05 GMT -6
.... and yet Daeshner always says the project is on schedule and on budget. Guess it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is. since some people want to stick to the letter of the law on the ballot we voted on- we should make them stop when $124M is spent - which should leave them $25M-$20M short and come back and ask us for a referendum-- that would have a snowballs chance of passing |
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Mar 9, 2009 8:19:11 GMT -6
Maybe someone tonight can put together a short statement (3 minutes or less) and ask what this is about.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 9, 2009 11:34:34 GMT -6
.... and yet Daeshner always says the project is on schedule and on budget. Guess it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is. since some people want to stick to the letter of the law on the ballot we voted on- we should make them stop when $124M is spent - which should leave them $25M-$20M short and come back and ask us for a referendum-- that would have a snowballs chance of passing Oh, they are sticking to the letter of the law. Too bad it's the "loophole" law that allowed them to issue millions more than the ballot stated. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 9, 2009 11:39:50 GMT -6
Banking on it. Transparency........how refreshing that would be. Who is the PM - forgot......getting old. I believe it's still Todd DePaul? Could be wrong, but I thought he's still in charge. Todd DePaul Project Manager 630 675 3175 Todd_depaul@ipsd.org |
|
. That's a perfect example of what's wrong with our current SB team. We are always left in the dark and there is absolutely no accountability or transparency to any of us in the District. Why should that kind of a change order just get rubber-stamped at tonight's meeting and none of us have a clue what it is for? I guess we could FOIA for the information that we want, huh? 
