“Unwelcome changes; SDL wrestles with cost overruns at school construction projects” is the Intelligencer Journal New Era front page headline. The article goes on to describe how the architects, DLR Group, “failed to include the work in the bid specifications.” The ‘extras’ currently amount to $1,115,200.
In fairness, this work had to be performed and should have been included in the original contracts. The reason for a 25% potential loss is that ‘extras’ to contracts tend to get performed without competitive bidding and, sometimes, on a more costly time and material basis. Such design omissions add significant costs and also can delay the work schedule at the expense to the SD of L.
To an experienced developer, the first thing that stands out is that DLR Group is based in Kansas City. How can an owner expect optimal coordination and exchange of vital information under such circumstances? Yes, they had set up a local office (which they later closed), but that is not the same as having ready access to all team members and top executives. It takes a team of specialists to design a school building.
Are we to believe there were no competent architects available at comparable costs in Central Pennsylvania, Philadelphia or Baltimore? How was the selection made? The public deserves an explanation.
Architects are not the fount of all construction wisdom. To the contrary, design at its best is a loop among owners, architects, engineers, contractors, and subcontractors, with plans critiqued at several levels. We can understand, although not excuse, how the acoustical insulation of the heating and ventilation system might have been missed, but it seems inconceivable that ground reinforcement would have been left out. Even if the architects were careless enough to miss that, preliminary conversations with engineers and bidders should have caught the oversight.
To a certain extent, this goes back to rules for awarding contracts that may have made sense a half century ago but fly in the face of sound practice since the 1980s. (This will be the subject of a future NewsLanc analysis.)
Now let’s return to the initial SD of L Board of Directors meeting of the current term on December 15, 2009. A NewsLanc article reported, “New member Richard Caplan initially suggested that the contract to Fidevia LLC be tabled until the next meeting or a special meeting to give the four new members an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the building plans and the contract provisions. Other new members concurred…”
It continued, “NewsLanc’s publisher and veteran builder Robert Field…likened the procedure to how the Convention Center contracts were approved without county appointees having had adequate opportunity to review the voluminous documents.”
Nevertheless, the new members backed off when assured that changes could be made later and the contracts were approved. One can only speculate what might have been the results of new board members having indeed reviewed the contracts and the documents, which of course include the plans.
Something is clearly the matter with how the SD of L awards and administers contracts. They need an experienced advisor without financial involvement and whose only interest is the well-being of the youngsters and the taxpayers. Enough is enough!
