As our local Saddleback Valley News gives a pass to Mission Viejo staff as it relates to challenging and reporting of total project costs, I hereby blog the following Agenda item that is scheduled for Monday’s city council meeting.
Since the initial cost estimates of a conceptual design for expanding our community center in January 2001, as presented by a dozen member Design Task Force, this expansion has grown in cost from roughly $3 million to $12,527,894 in constructions expenses for Douglas E. Barnhart Inc., NOT INCLUDING, $777,620 to Robert Coffee for his design nor other contractors such as contract management. So our expansion has grown from $3 million conceptual design to $13 million dollars and counting.
Don’t ever believe them when our council majority calls themselves “fiscal conservatives.” Further, they lack a backbone to simply say no to staff requests on change orders. “DIRFT” is an expression we use in industry which stands for “do it right the first time.” Contractors dealing with the city of Mission Viejo can low ball RFP’s to get their feet in the door and make real profits on change requests that happen on probably every project this city undertakes. The public only learns of these “change Orders” when they appear on the “Routine Consent Calendar” when it is too late to do anything about them. A side note. Up until recently we were permitted to address these “routine” items but that right was removed by the majority earlier this year. We can’t allow members of the public to make us look bad with valid concerns where staff and council may be forced to respond. Oh yes, we can give up our three minutes of public comments to address them but that keeps the door closed for any interaction with staff. The council cannot take any action on public comments, nor can we request staff reports except in an emergency like an earlier landslide.
Our ongoing expansion of the Norman P. Murray Senior and Community Center has been a high profile CIP. A project that initially was projected to cost around $3 million continues to run deeper in red ink. Even former city manager Dan Joseph recently contacted me to express his concern of our runaway spending.
Downloaded directly from our city web site is the following Agenda request. Notice that this is the 14th change order to one of the contractors. What excuse can staff provide to explain why we failed to DIRFT? Fourteen changes are inexcusable. Note: We did receive a $3 million Grant to offset some of the costs.
Agenda Item #17. Norman P. Murray Community and Senior Center Expansion (CIP 994)
Recommended Action: (1) Approve Change Order #14 to Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. in the amount of $415,908 for additional construction costs for subject project; and 2) approve Change Order #3 to PETRA Geotechnical, Inc. in the amount of $15,250 for additional geotechnical services for subject project; and 3) Adopt Resolution 07-XX amending the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Budget to increase estimated appropriations for the Norman P. Murray Community and Senior Center Expansion Capital Improvement Project (CIP 994).
What are they adding you might ask? Partial listing:
Ventilation Changes $3,639
Addition of millwork in existing building lobby area and offices $61,548
Removal and replacement of all flooring in existing building $87,975
Sealing of concrete floor prior to installation of sheet vinyl in existing building $58,435
Addition of CMU block sealer to service Yard area $4,529
Electrical fireplace $1,478
Site furniture (no details provided) $64,273
Folks. Rather than provide a detailed listing on every item, by now you should see the picture. First. We knew that this expansion was an add-on to our existing building. Either someone was incompetent and failed to acknowledge the need for these items in the original design or we are just being sloppy. Is it possible that the architect, who was part of the original design Task Force, or the contractor failed to tell us in advance on the need to include some of these line items before the Contract was initially issued?
Wait. In time the city will report that this is another CIP that was completed on time and under budget.
Removal and replacement of all flooring in existing building $87,975
Sealing of concrete floor prior to installation of sheet vinyl in existing building $58,435
Here are a couple of questions to ask.
How many square feet is this building and what materials are being installed?
Why are they sealing the concrete floor prior to installation of sheet vinyl? How much Hydro static pressure is there? Have 24 hour moisture test been conducted, how many and what were the results?
Addition of millwork in existing building lobby area and offices $61,548
Why?
How was this an unforseen addition resulting in additional cost to the taxpayers?
Finally,
With these additional cost incured, will the cost of this project exceed the second lowest bidder?
email reply from MV
Larry:
Remember–I told you so. I am betting the number comes closer to $16.5 million when all is said and done-. I can’t wait for the dedication these dolts will hold—–Kxxxx and Kxxxx could not manage a junk yard without screwing it up.
Larry,
Every project has change orders, it can’t be helped. Construction is not an exact science, nor can all contingencies be accounted for at the outset of construction, or project design process. Staff will often initiate changes to the project that they know will have to be fixed or changed later in the future….why have new flooring in one wing of the center when the flooring in the rest of the center probably needs to be changed. You might as well pay for those changes now while you have the contractor already working onsite.
There isn’t a project of any significance in history that hasn’t had change orders, public or private.
The contractors are running up bills because no one in charge is watching them. This should be the concern of council members, but they’re too busy seeing how many free lunches they can eat between council meetings.
Fiscal Liberals…hmmm..is that
an oxymoron? How about drifting
slowly to the left? How about
fading from Red to Blue? How about
smoke and mirrors and getting those
pesky CRA endorsements and then
taking all the Special Interest
cash…you can find?
How can you fault these people?
They used to have “real jobs”…
but weren’t very successful.
Good afternoon all.
Prior to this morning’s rally for Fred Thompson Mission Viejo Mayor Reavis and I had a long discussion on this post to which I share some of her inputs.
The city has a long term plan for maintainence and improvments on our city owned facilities. Some of the costs attributed to this expansion project were in our future CIP listing although I need to verify if they were budgeted and funded or simply part of a future wish list. Rather than undergo major work with related interruption of services they moved said repairs forward (without telling the public.)In any case we have a failure of communication.
The rest of our coversation will remain off line. I shared my concerns and will leave it at that. In support of Gail I will say that she is in the minority as to watching the city coffers. She and John Paul Ledesma are the only fiscal conservatives on the current council.
larry: i can understand you wanting to give gail the benefit of the doubt, but i would not call this a failure to communicate but an attempt to pull the wool – again – over our eyes. could the mayor just be repeating talking points created to explain away the mismanagement of the expansion, and the mishandling of our tax dollars? no one can use the word inexperience, because of all the construction projects this council and city managers have under their belt. Barnhart has certainly taken full advantage of its past experience in our city and have enhanced its profits.
change orders are acceptable within reason, but in mission viejo change orders have become profit centers. a $3 million project estimated in 2001 grew to over $8 million in 2006 and now with change order #14, we are up approaching $13 million. if my memory is right, did not the original cost include the construction of the soccer field, which is not included in these numbers?
if city management and council were aware of the future need for upgrades of a 20 + year old building, then it should of been bid out from the start of the project. yes, it is good to do the work now, but that is no excuse to once again get around the bid process. maybe it would of been cheaper to raze the center and rebuild. but what would an amatuer know ? after all, we have been told not to look at the dollars being spent but view these expenditures as enhancements. so what are we to call cell towers in our parks? how are to view the proposed $300,000 rose parade float or a million dollar dog park? how does this fit into the branding and re-imaging this council wants to foist onto our citizens? cathy schlicht