|
Post by title1parent on Jun 26, 2008 6:14:26 GMT -5
Metea construction bids less than anticipated Potential savings could be used to alter building plans
June 26, 2008 By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com
Even though one bid overshot Indian Prairie School District 204's estimates by $4 million, overall, bids for Metea Valley High School construction costs are coming in $4 million less than anticipated.
According to Todd DePaul, District 204's construction manager for Metea, the district has opened bids on 43 different construction projects at Metea, and has already recommended approval of 25 of them. The other 18 are still being reviewed, he said.
If none of those low bidders bail out before the board can approve their proposals, all of the construction work could be contracted out for $4 million less than the district's estimated cost of $101.7 million, he said. DePaul said this potential savings would be used to alter building plans at Metea in ways that either improve programs or provide long-term savings with regard to operations and maintenance.
Prior to hearing this good news, the District 204 board was shocked Monday when the administration recommended approval of a $12.4 million bid for the building's electrical work, as the bid - the lowest of just to bid the district received for the project - exceeded Turner Construction Company's estimated $8.3 million cost for the work by roughly 50 percent. "In my mind we're paying Turner a giant sum of money to avoid this kind of a miss," board President Mark Metzger said. "This is a $4 million miss. That's abysmal, and I'm struggling to understand why, with their expertise and the work that they have put into this project, that they couldn't see this coming so that they could blow (the project) up into pieces earlier so we might have a shot at getting other bidders involved in this thing. To me it just seems like they've completely dropped the ball here."
But DePaul said Turner was "just as disappointed on the number of bidders ... as we were." Turner sent the proposal to more than 100 prospective bidders, nine of whom indicated they intended to bid the project. But, said DePaul, all but seven of them struggled to secure bonding, and backed out because of the massive size of the project and the relatively short amount of time they'd have to complete it.
DePaul said both Turner and the district decided before opening the bid that breaking up the project would have led to logistical problems and duplicated costs as different contractors struggled to work around each other and complete their respective projects in the same areas of the building at the same time.
DePaul said the district could rebid the project, but it would do so at the risk of rising construction costs increasing that price tag even further.
"The indication that we have heard is that we have a potential of getting higher numbers from the same two bidders," DePaul said.
Still, the board decided to table its approval of the bid until its July 14 meeting, and it has requested that a representative from Turner attend that meeting to further explain the $4 million variance.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 26, 2008 7:23:39 GMT -5
So let me get this straight...
The overall savings are looking to be $4 million, which includes going overbudget by $4 million on electrical? If we could have held the line on the electrical, the savings would be $8 million?
I cannot understand how these savings could not have been factored in and used to offset most of the higher land costs of BB.
Furthermore, it is discouraging to me that DePaul states it is possible the savings will be spent on additional programs rather than going back to taxpayers or used for future operations.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 26, 2008 7:53:24 GMT -5
So let me get this straight... The overall savings are looking to be $4 million, which includes going overbudget by $4 million on electrical? If we could have held the line on the electrical, the savings would be $8 million? I cannot understand how these savings could not have been factored in and used to offset most of the higher land costs of BB. Furthermore, it is discouraging to me that DePaul states it is possible the savings will be spent on additional programs rather than going back to taxpayers or used for future operations. I guess they should just have gotten the old crystal ball out and figured that in. We all know how accurate the district's crystal ball has been lately. IIRC, the district worked very closely with Turner to determine if they could afford BB and the decision was no.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 26, 2008 7:59:53 GMT -5
So let me get this straight... The overall savings are looking to be $4 million, which includes going overbudget by $4 million on electrical? If we could have held the line on the electrical, the savings would be $8 million? I cannot understand how these savings could not have been factored in and used to offset most of the higher land costs of BB. Furthermore, it is discouraging to me that DePaul states it is possible the savings will be spent on additional programs rather than going back to taxpayers or used for future operations. You can't use any monies from the referendum on operating expenses. It has to be put towards the HS as this is what the referendum says it is going to do. Remember that this is only the begining of the project. 18 more bids remain and who knows what these might come in at. Any kind of savings in this project should be considered a bonus. ETA: Removed an extra "monies" word
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 26, 2008 8:03:17 GMT -5
So let me get this straight... The overall savings are looking to be $4 million, which includes going overbudget by $4 million on electrical? If we could have held the line on the electrical, the savings would be $8 million? I cannot understand how these savings could not have been factored in and used to offset most of the higher land costs of BB. Furthermore, it is discouraging to me that DePaul states it is possible the savings will be spent on additional programs rather than going back to taxpayers or used for future operations. The "savings" of some bids coming in under estimate could not have been predicted any more than the loss/added expense of some bids coming in over what was estimated. It's clear that some that are unhappy with the Eola site selection will complain about how each MV bid that comes in lower could have put us closer to being able to afford the BB price, but one of the reasons for having estimates for each component is that you hope that components that are bid above their estimates are at least balanced by components that are bid below their estimates. It's been stated that some of the materials that were used for WV, both interior and exterior, have lead to higher ongoing maintentance costs. If they can save tax $ in the long run by using better materials, why shouldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 26, 2008 8:33:24 GMT -5
Metea construction bids less than anticipated Potential savings could be used to alter building plans June 26, 2008 By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com Even though one bid overshot Indian Prairie School District 204's estimates by $4 million, overall, bids for Metea Valley High School construction costs are coming in $4 million less than anticipated. According to Todd DePaul, District 204's construction manager for Metea, the district has opened bids on 43 different construction projects at Metea, and has already recommended approval of 25 of them. The other 18 are still being reviewed, he said. If none of those low bidders bail out before the board can approve their proposals, all of the construction work could be contracted out for $4 million less than the district's estimated cost of $101.7 million, he said. DePaul said this potential savings would be used to alter building plans at Metea in ways that either improve programs or provide long-term savings with regard to operations and maintenance. Prior to hearing this good news, the District 204 board was shocked Monday when the administration recommended approval of a $12.4 million bid for the building's electrical work, as the bid - the lowest of just to bid the district received for the project - exceeded Turner Construction Company's estimated $8.3 million cost for the work by roughly 50 percent. "In my mind we're paying Turner a giant sum of money to avoid this kind of a miss," board President Mark Metzger said. "This is a $4 million miss. That's abysmal, and I'm struggling to understand why, with their expertise and the work that they have put into this project, that they couldn't see this coming so that they could blow (the project) up into pieces earlier so we might have a shot at getting other bidders involved in this thing. To me it just seems like they've completely dropped the ball here." But DePaul said Turner was "just as disappointed on the number of bidders ... as we were." Turner sent the proposal to more than 100 prospective bidders, nine of whom indicated they intended to bid the project. But, said DePaul, all but seven of them struggled to secure bonding, and backed out because of the massive size of the project and the relatively short amount of time they'd have to complete it. DePaul said both Turner and the district decided before opening the bid that breaking up the project would have led to logistical problems and duplicated costs as different contractors struggled to work around each other and complete their respective projects in the same areas of the building at the same time. DePaul said the district could rebid the project, but it would do so at the risk of rising construction costs increasing that price tag even further. "The indication that we have heard is that we have a potential of getting higher numbers from the same two bidders," DePaul said. Still, the board decided to table its approval of the bid until its July 14 meeting, and it has requested that a representative from Turner attend that meeting to further explain the $4 million variance. a 50% miss on any project should raise a red flag about Turner as well as our project manager. Have the companies bidding 'under' to save $4M back been bonded yet ? So that means those bids were $8 under ? I am glad to see someone asking tough questions, that is horrendous forecasting. Seems like securing funds for these companies is an issue -- as well as mentioned is the short time to complete the project. What are the estimates now on 'expediting' to get a school open that were $5M-$10 M ? Didn't Turner provide those as well. If that's a 50% miss can they afford to continue to rush and open in in 09 ? Just questions that need to be answered.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 26, 2008 8:54:20 GMT -5
Savings are good, overages are bad.
As for "You can't use any monies from the referendum on operating expenses."
One can say that 97.7 million in construction costs, 19 million in land and N number to equip it and N million in expedited costs will go over the 124.6 million of referendum money, would it not? So it could easily be shown on paper that the 'savings' really came from the operating expenses that were thrown at the project to cover the nearly 150 million cost (the additional 20-25 million tossed at it) and thus really doesn't have to be put 'towards' the 3rd HS exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 26, 2008 10:10:22 GMT -5
Metea construction bids less than anticipated Potential savings could be used to alter building plans June 26, 2008 By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com Even though one bid overshot Indian Prairie School District 204's estimates by $4 million, overall, bids for Metea Valley High School construction costs are coming in $4 million less than anticipated. According to Todd DePaul, District 204's construction manager for Metea, the district has opened bids on 43 different construction projects at Metea, and has already recommended approval of 25 of them. The other 18 are still being reviewed, he said. If none of those low bidders bail out before the board can approve their proposals, all of the construction work could be contracted out for $4 million less than the district's estimated cost of $101.7 million, he said. DePaul said this potential savings would be used to alter building plans at Metea in ways that either improve programs or provide long-term savings with regard to operations and maintenance. Prior to hearing this good news, the District 204 board was shocked Monday when the administration recommended approval of a $12.4 million bid for the building's electrical work, as the bid - the lowest of just to bid the district received for the project - exceeded Turner Construction Company's estimated $8.3 million cost for the work by roughly 50 percent. "In my mind we're paying Turner a giant sum of money to avoid this kind of a miss," board President Mark Metzger said. "This is a $4 million miss. That's abysmal, and I'm struggling to understand why, with their expertise and the work that they have put into this project, that they couldn't see this coming so that they could blow (the project) up into pieces earlier so we might have a shot at getting other bidders involved in this thing. To me it just seems like they've completely dropped the ball here." But DePaul said Turner was "just as disappointed on the number of bidders ... as we were." Turner sent the proposal to more than 100 prospective bidders, nine of whom indicated they intended to bid the project. But, said DePaul, all but seven of them struggled to secure bonding, and backed out because of the massive size of the project and the relatively short amount of time they'd have to complete it. DePaul said both Turner and the district decided before opening the bid that breaking up the project would have led to logistical problems and duplicated costs as different contractors struggled to work around each other and complete their respective projects in the same areas of the building at the same time. DePaul said the district could rebid the project, but it would do so at the risk of rising construction costs increasing that price tag even further. "The indication that we have heard is that we have a potential of getting higher numbers from the same two bidders," DePaul said. Still, the board decided to table its approval of the bid until its July 14 meeting, and it has requested that a representative from Turner attend that meeting to further explain the $4 million variance. a 50% miss on any project should raise a red flag about Turner as well as our project manager. Have the companies bidding 'under' to save $4M back been bonded yet ? So that means those bids were $8 under ? I am glad to see someone asking tough questions, that is horrendous forecasting. Seems like securing funds for these companies is an issue -- as well as mentioned is the short time to complete the project. What are the estimates now on 'expediting' to get a school open that were $5M-$10 M ? Didn't Turner provide those as well. If that's a 50% miss can they afford to continue to rush and open in in 09 ? Just questions that need to be answered. John Stephens did a very thorough job of scrutinizing this particular item. He seemed very well prepared and questioned this, as did M2. All of his questions were very pointed and he wants answers, as well. In fact, JS seems a little agitated at the last meeting. IIRC, it was JS who insisted that Turner be at the next meeting. It appeared that they will be putting Turner "on notice" that they expect more from them. It should be interesting to hear what they have to say at the next meeting, but I'm sure they will be able to answer the questions that arose at the last meeting. That's what they are paid the big bucks for.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 26, 2008 10:46:05 GMT -5
The whole process doesn't make sense to me.
I understood --but didn't agree with--the decision to abandon BB because the land was more than we budgeted. But part of that understanding was that the SB had already factored in ALL of the other costs, not only ongoing costs such as transportation (which we've discussed at length) but also the construction costs. To hear now that construction costs may be significantly reduced, it is only natural to wonder why that couldn't have been used to mitigate the higher BB land costs. And then to hear that the savings could be used to "improve programs," which to me means more spending on things not originally budgeted, that just makes me angry at the whole process.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 26, 2008 10:55:44 GMT -5
The whole process doesn't make sense to me. I understood --but didn't agree with--the decision to abandon BB because the land was more than we budgeted. But part of that understanding was that the SB had already factored in ALL of the other costs, not only ongoing costs such as transportation (which we've discussed at length) but also the construction costs. To hear now that construction costs may be significantly reduced, it is only natural to wonder why that couldn't have been used to mitigate the higher BB land costs. And then to hear that the savings could be used to "improve programs," which to me means more spending on things not originally budgeted, that just makes me angry at the whole process. I think most of the programs they are looking at were originally budgeted. I understand some of the green aspects of MV have been put on hold to see how the budget works out. The programs are future cost-saving measures in maintaining the actual building. The bid process is not complete. Once all the bids are in and approved, the district will have a better idea of what if any savings they have to put towards those projects.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 26, 2008 11:02:08 GMT -5
The whole process doesn't make sense to me. I understood --but didn't agree with--the decision to abandon BB because the land was more than we budgeted. But part of that understanding was that the SB had already factored in ALL of the other costs, not only ongoing costs such as transportation (which we've discussed at length) but also the construction costs. To hear now that construction costs may be significantly reduced, it is only natural to wonder why that couldn't have been used to mitigate the higher BB land costs. And then to hear that the savings could be used to "improve programs," which to me means more spending on things not originally budgeted, that just makes me angry at the whole process. The extra $ could be used to improve programs, and they could also be used for long-term savings. They didn't commit to anything - there's always the possibility that they don't spend the extra, too. I understand your questioning of spending to improve programs (hearing some details might help us understand what they mean by that), but long-term savings seems like a good thing, right? Sending your feedback to the SB/Admin is always an option, since that haven't committed to anything yet, nor should they, since all bids have not been secured.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 26, 2008 11:15:41 GMT -5
If that is the case I have no problem with it. The wording of Mr. DePaul's comments (albeit maybe paraphrased by the reporter) allowed for new spending and that's what didn't sit right with me.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 26, 2008 13:00:42 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.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 26, 2008 13:06:37 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. ?
|
|
|
Post by rural on Jun 26, 2008 13:24:05 GMT -5
The whole process doesn't make sense to me. I understood --but didn't agree with--the decision to abandon BB because the land was more than we budgeted. But part of that understanding was that the SB had already factored in ALL of the other costs, not only ongoing costs such as transportation (which we've discussed at length) but also the construction costs. To hear now that construction costs may be significantly reduced, it is only natural to wonder why that couldn't have been used to mitigate the higher BB land costs. And then to hear that the savings could be used to "improve programs," which to me means more spending on things not originally budgeted, that just makes me angry at the whole process. At the time they were budgeting, they were expecting contstruction costs to go up, not down. Apparently, in some areas they went up astronomically, whereas in others it has come down. They are administrators not soothsayers. I believe the board is doing the right thing by taking Turner to the mat and asking, "WTH happened here?" in regard to the electrical contract. It sounds as though the additional cost will have a lot to do with the timeline involved as well as the size of the project.
|
|