|
Post by eb204 on Jun 26, 2008 15:21:38 GMT -5
I think the headline of the story is way too optimistic. With many bids still not approved (18 of 43) I think this may be "counting chickens before they hatch" My understanding is the $4mil under expectations is only on the approved jobs. Since the elect job that is running 50% over is not approved yet, my read of this is that doesnt count yet. In other words... 4 - 4 = 0 savings IE no news. ? IIRC at the SB meeting on 6/23, this was clarified as WITH the electirical bid, they would still be $4M under budget. I think it is inevitable that the bid will be approved, and they even discussed that very idea. They just want Turner to answer for this discrepancy. At this point, going out for another bid might result in the same bidders but with even higher prices now because of a conduit increase in August. If this bid is approved, at least we won't be on the hook for any price increase in materials.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 26, 2008 15:34:14 GMT -5
I think the headline of the story is way too optimistic. With many bids still not approved (18 of 43) I think this may be "counting chickens before they hatch" My understanding is the $4mil under expectations is only on the approved jobs. Since the elect job that is running 50% over is not approved yet, my read of this is that doesnt count yet. If I remember correctly from Monday, the 18 bids are in various stages of completion. I believe Todd D. said that if they were to take the lowest bid on those 18, then we are $4M under for the project, including the electrical bid they tabled.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 26, 2008 15:41:24 GMT -5
I think the headline of the story is way too optimistic. With many bids still not approved (18 of 43) I think this may be "counting chickens before they hatch" My understanding is the $4mil under expectations is only on the approved jobs. Since the elect job that is running 50% over is not approved yet, my read of this is that doesnt count yet. If I remember correctly from Monday, the 18 bids are in various stages of completion. I believe Todd D. said that if they were to take the lowest bid on those 18, then we are $4M under for the project, including the electrical bid they tabled. If it included it, then that's good news.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 26, 2008 15:43:28 GMT -5
I think the headline of the story is way too optimistic. With many bids still not approved (18 of 43) I think this may be "counting chickens before they hatch" My understanding is the $4mil under expectations is only on the approved jobs. Since the elect job that is running 50% over is not approved yet, my read of this is that doesnt count yet. If I remember correctly from Monday, the 18 bids are in various stages of completion. I believe Todd D. said that if they were to take the lowest bid on those 18, then we are $4M under for the project, including the electrical bid they tabled. Yes, this is what I remember as well, and you clarified it even more by mentioning the other 18 bids. Those have been opened but just not presented to the board yet. So $4M under.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 26, 2008 21:22:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the cost explainations from eyewitnesses out there.
I think the reporter in the newspaper article did a pretty poor job reporting the story. Thanks for the clarifications!
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 26, 2008 21:46:44 GMT -5
In other words... 4 - 4 = 0 savings IE no news. ? IIRC at the SB meeting on 6/23, this was clarified as WITH the electirical bid, they would still be $4M under budget. I think it is inevitable that the bid will be approved, and they even discussed that very idea. They just want Turner to answer for this discrepancy. At this point, going out for another bid might result in the same bidders but with even higher prices now because of a conduit increase in August. If this bid is approved, at least we won't be on the hook for any price increase in materials. Heck, can't they just run out to all the Menard's, Home Depot's, and Lowe's in a 15 or 20 mile radius (there's certainly enough of them) & grab all the conduit?
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 26, 2008 22:11:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the cost explainations from eyewitnesses out there. I think the reporter in the newspaper article did a pretty poor job reporting the story. Thanks for the clarifications! Actually, I was quite impressed that he reported the information in about the same way as it was presented at the meeting. No bias, no digs, no last sentence jabs. Very factual and to the point. Surprising coming from him.
|
|