posted by Mike Madison at 12:25 PM /
Reading the PG report of the recent School Board meeting (see Joe's post below) and Tom Moertel's comment summarizing the same meeting (see comments at this post) triggered this thought about the High School Renovation project:
Who's in charge? The School Board, or the architects?
One undercurrent of the worries about the project expressed at this blog and around town over the last year is that both the scale and the cost of the project had ballooned way out of proportion to what the community originally anticipated or asked for. Was the School Board doing enough to put meaningful limits on the architects, so that Mt. Lebanon got what Mt. Lebanon wants, rather than what the architects would like to do?
There hasn't been any good answer to that question, until now. Now, judging from reports of the last meeting, the School Board itself seems to realize that it's at risk of losing control. The Board is considered appointment of a Community Advisory Committee to engage with the ongoing design work. Should it go ahead with that plan? The question doesn't have an automatic answer. I think that it's a good idea, and judging from the reports linked above, at least some members of the School Board think so, too. But any skepticism on the merits seems to be outweighed by the fact that the architects (Celli-Flynn Brennan) have quoted a punitive fee for participating with the new CAC. The CAC won't be effective unless it engages with CFB and unless CFB engages with the CAC. But based on its quote, CFB obviously does not want any community interference with its work.
CF is sending a message. The architects are in control. The Board -- the client -- should send a message right back. No, they're not.
Even if the Board re-asserts its dominance here, and whether or not a CAC is appointed, this latent conflict between client and designer does not bode well for the future of the project.
Who's in charge? The School Board, or the architects?
One undercurrent of the worries about the project expressed at this blog and around town over the last year is that both the scale and the cost of the project had ballooned way out of proportion to what the community originally anticipated or asked for. Was the School Board doing enough to put meaningful limits on the architects, so that Mt. Lebanon got what Mt. Lebanon wants, rather than what the architects would like to do?
There hasn't been any good answer to that question, until now. Now, judging from reports of the last meeting, the School Board itself seems to realize that it's at risk of losing control. The Board is considered appointment of a Community Advisory Committee to engage with the ongoing design work. Should it go ahead with that plan? The question doesn't have an automatic answer. I think that it's a good idea, and judging from the reports linked above, at least some members of the School Board think so, too. But any skepticism on the merits seems to be outweighed by the fact that the architects (Celli-Flynn Brennan) have quoted a punitive fee for participating with the new CAC. The CAC won't be effective unless it engages with CFB and unless CFB engages with the CAC. But based on its quote, CFB obviously does not want any community interference with its work.
CF is sending a message. The architects are in control. The Board -- the client -- should send a message right back. No, they're not.
Even if the Board re-asserts its dominance here, and whether or not a CAC is appointed, this latent conflict between client and designer does not bode well for the future of the project.
10 Comments:
Outrageous. The board should demand that the architects participate in the review process without compensation or face termination. It is not outrageous to expect that our professional service providers should justify their work without additional compensation. I would rather have the project delayed by several months than be extorted in this fashion. Additionally, the review board should include an independant, outside architect or engineer to assist with the review.
I have been of two minds on this project, all the while understanding that it has been a fait accompli. Gluttony of this sort confirms the worst suspicions of waste and incompetance. I am not sure it matters who is in charge: mistakes can be made, but in hiring this firm the board shows itself in over its head. There has been enough controversey surrounding this project that the board should seriously consider tabling the entire venture. As for the architects, their actions speak volumes. You cannot move forward with bad actors at the helm of this project. Winning this bid is a privlidge, not an invitation to feast at the trough.
It's not true that "The CAC won't be effective unless it engages with CFB and unless CFB engages with the CAC." Remember, outside firms are often hired for the express purpose of providing an independent review of another firm's plans, and these reviews are effective. (If they weren't, nobody would pay for them.)
Yes, the CAC would probably be more effective with earnest participation from CFB, but the CAC's primary objective – to perform one last "proofread" of CFB's work before the community commits to that work and multiplies it by $100 million and 48-months of steel, glass, and labor – will be accomplished and bear meaningful fruit even without CFB's participation.
In short, with or without Celli-Flynn Brennan, the Community Advisory Committee is very likely to save our community both time and money. And if that's not being effective, I don't know what is.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom,
I hope that you're right, but it strikes me that a cooperative, integrated approach is far more likely to be effective (cost saving, produce a good project, breed long-lasting community goodwill) than one in which the Board or a project manager (if a project manager is ever appointed/hired) has to referee between the service firm and the reviewer. The cooperative approach is the one that Dan Rothschild advocated in the first place.
Mike
I agree with Dan, Mark and James the Celli compensation estimate to participate in the review process is outrageous!
Remember it wasn't so long ago that B building was deemed unfit for updating!
From James Fraasch's blog on May 15, 2009:
"First, if you hadn't heard, there is a new design for the structure itself. Rather than describe it in detail, I'll link to a Post-Gazette article here that has a picture of the proposed design. This design reuses the space in Building B, the Little Theater, and the Auditorium. Building B would house multiple floors of classroom space. This change was perhaps the biggest one of all as we had been told time and again that Building B was NOT reusable for classroom space. I am sure there is a simple explanation on how this was figured out, but it would still be good to know."
We never did get the explanation James requested, that alone should justify the CAC!
Dean Spahr
Mike, I agree that everyone would be better off if CFB chose to participate in earnest. What I want to make clear, however, is that the notion that the CAC will fail without CFB's involvement is a notion that doesn't withstand scrutiny. Independent reviews happen all the time and for a reason: they are effective. If CFB chooses not to participate, the CAC becomes, in effect, an independent review. Not as good as a collaborative approach, perhaps, but effective nonetheless.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom,
We agree far more than we disagree - if we disagree at all. Note that my proposition focuses on effectiveness, not failure; I don't think that the CAC will fail if it doesn't have a cooperative relationship with CFB. But my criteria for effectiveness may be broader (or narrower?) than yours. There are the project management and design review dimensions to a CAC. As to those, a cooperative relationship seems very helpful but not absolutely necessary. Then there are the political dimensions to a CAC. In other words, a CAC here can bridge - maybe even heal - the existing divisions within the community regarding the purpose, scope, cost, and meaning of the high school project. That's what I was referring to in my earlier comment about goodwill as a product of the process, and I've written on the blog before about a new high school as a focal point for building and distributing community goodwill. I'm hard pressed to see how the project can generate that kind of result unless the School Board keeps all major players in a cooperative relationship.
Mike
As someone who graduated from a college of Architecture, CFB's conduct is just awful! While they might feel that 'the architect knows best'- which they don't always- the #1 aspect of good design is in it's meeting the needs of the owner/client. Community opinion/input should matter vastly to them- if they don't give Mt. Lebanon what we want or need, they've failed as architects- no matter how flashy or pretty the building.
I can't imagine articles on the community's concern and feelings of unimportance in the process could be looked on positively by them... are they not getting the message? or do they just not care?
My guess is that we can't just "fire" the architechts without incurring a pretty hefty fine that is stipulated in their contract. I'm sure someone on the blog could shed more light on that.
It doesn't surprise me that CFB would come back wanting extra fees if we require them to work with a new committee. From their perspective this just adds another stakeholder that will slow down decision-making. I don't necessarily like the tactic, but its not a shocker.
It's also a sign that this project is getting more adversarial...not good this early in the process.
Why not appoint a Project Manager instead of another committee? It gives the community a point person to interact with the architechts on specific matters. Having the entire School Board or the Superintendent play that role is a poor use of both entities.
As somoene who drafts architect and contractor agreements on a regular basis, my first reaction when I read the P-G story was "What does the CFB contract say?"
Generally, an architect's contract provides for 2 types of services - Basic Services and Additional Services. For the most part, all of the Basic Services (including regular meetings) are covered in the architect's Fee, while Additional Services are billed on a time and materials basis at an agreed upon hourly rate. I'm inclined to think that meetings with the CAB were not considered as part of the Basic Services because the CAB didn't exist when the contract was signed. However, I have to believe that some additional presentations or meetings were included in the Basic Services that could be piggybacked here. If not, in order for these meetings to have the quoted price tag suggested by CFB the agreed upon hourly rate for Additional Services would hae to be way out of line (suggesting that the Board was asleep at the switch in contract negotiations).
Such a big whoops on the part of the Board seems unlikely, so I'm inclined to believe that CFB is demonstrating how pigs gets fat and hogs get slaughtered . . .
Any judgement at this time on the potential effectiveness of the CAC is pure speculation. We may agree that it is a good idea, but we have no idea of what is going to transpire. Clearly however, the actions of the architects are troubling, and implicate CFB as a firm acting in bad faith (or at least not in the community's interest). This is all bad; it will be asking a lot of the CAC to watchdog this process without assistance from CFB.
Assuming that the CAC is not specifically covered in the initial contract, the question is does participation in the CAC constitute "basic performance" or "additional services." Obviously, I feel strongly that this is part of the basic services, and that possible changes to the design that come out of the CAC would be "additional." To pay the architects for participation in the CAC encourages double billing--one to participate in the CAC and another to make the changes recomended by the CAC. It is absurd.
If the architects don't want to participate in the CAC without additional compensation it can be argued that they have failed to live up to their contract obligations. I'm sure they want to have that argument. The Board needs to understand who holds leverage. Given the choice between paying $15,000 per hour for the architects participation in the CAC ( a bill that could easily run upward of $60,000) or paying a poision pill for firing the architects (see contract for buyout amount, and at least we know the cost), well we would have to see the #'s, but my suspicion is that they approach equivalence, or are at least tolerable if we can be rid of a bad actor like CFB.
Anything short of CFB's participation in the CAC without additional compensation should let the Board know that it does not have a real partner in this process. We should be clear -participate in good faith or put your entire project fee in jeopardy.
Post a Comment
<< Home