Amateur night at the construction site
Well, it was very interesting to note — in the May 26-June 1 issue of The Sun — how the township council and its “consultants” are scrambling around regarding the overbids on the township’s “pleasure palace.”
How did the township arrive at “amateur night at the construction site ?”
Let’s review a few items concerning the “palace’s” (also known as the municipal complex/town hall/whatever you want to call it) financial and construction problems.
First, the township did not adopt a very simple construction bid process. Anyone with one second of experience in municipal, school or governmental construction bidding knows the following tenet of bidding: bid the basic construction with alternates.
This simply means bidding the basic construction job with alternates like (the items in quotes are the consultants’ statements) “an A/V package that could have yielded lower costs if it were bid as a separate contract,” a “high end lighting package,” and a “heating, ventilation and cooling system that was too costly” and “other electrical, structural and mechanical design elements that could have been designed using methods that are less costly.” (More about these in a minute.)
The two consulting firms did know/should have known the basic alternates bidding process.
Secondly, the 10 construction companies that bid (ranging from $15.7 million to $21 million) on the “pleasure palace” construction all were over the target amount — $11.6 million — set by council. The projections from the consultants regarding the construction costs as well as the lack of alternates led to the council having to reject all 10 bids. The difference between $11.6 million and $15.7 to $21 million is monumental ($4.1 million to $10.5 million off the target) in that type of project — definitely not a near miss.
Thirdly, all of the alternates listed in above — expensive audiovisual package, high end lighting package, HVAC system that was too costly, and other systems that could have been designed using methods that are less costly — are the direct fault of the township council and/or the consultants.
Who wanted these pleasure palace components? The township council.
Who designed these pleasure palace components? The township consultants.
According to The Sun — “The team outlined several “misses” that could have driven costs for the project up.” Why was it necessary to have two consulting firms on such a relatively small construction project?
Fourthly, according to The Sun, there was a memo from the team (the two consultants) saying “the project should have been put on hold at that point to make some ‘aggressive re-design efforts’ but there was ‘pressure to get the project out to bid.’” I wonder where the pressure came from and why did the pressure reject the advice of the consultants who the pressure was paying for?
Finally, what worries me and many other taxpayers in Moorestown is that the same three groups that designed and put the project out for bids are now “huddling” to get the bid “right.”
I sleep well at night knowing that Mr. Roccato summarized the entire meeting with the consultants by saying that in order to get “the project in at or below budget…we’re willing to put in the extra time and the work to make sure we get the right result.”
My only question: Why wasn’t that — the extra time and the work — done before the pleasure palace project was bid and the bids rejected ?
Fred Young
