School board rejects high-school bids and vows to lower costs (Updated 5)
Updated yet again. Added more description and link to Bill Matthew’s letter to the school board on the bids. Also added more links to other reports. Be sure to read The Almanac’s article; it gives a pretty good summary of the meeting.
Tonight the school board voted unanimously to reject the bids for the proposed high-school renovation. The bids, which had been opened on April 19, 2011, had exceeded the project’s estimated maximum construction cost by more than $15 million, suggesting that the project’s total cost, once capped at $113 million, was in reality closer to $130 million.
Members of the school board vowed to bring the project’s cost down. While they hoped to preserve the existing design, they said that all options were open for consideration.
“There are no sacred cows,” said Josephine Posti, school board president.
School director Dale Ostergaard, pointing to upcoming pension obligations, said that the board must be realistic about how much it can afford. He said that the renovation’s cost must be sharply reduced, and that things previously non-negotiable must become negotiable.
Board members offered suggestions for lowing the cost: forgo LEED Silver certification, use split shifts for students to ease construction phasing, challenge the municipality’s “high-rise” fire-safety designation (but see Dan Miller’s blog post, linked to below), relax contractual terms for bidders to encourage lower bids, and others. Even some of the previously untouchable Fifteen Design Criteria were discussed.
Community member Dan Rothschild suggested revisiting Building C, which had been slated for demolition. Reusing Building C, as the Community Advisory Committee had advised the school board in late 2009, would be a more efficient use of an existing building and potentially keep all of the other programmed spaces intact, he said.
Community member Bill Matthews asked the school board to keep a closer eye on its hired architects and construction managers, who the school board had questioned earlier in the meeting about the unreliability of their project-cost predictions. Matthews had also written to the school board earlier, asking them to realize that the high bids were not caused by a problem with the bidders but with the complexity of the high-school project itself.
Other reports:
Tonight the school board voted unanimously to reject the bids for the proposed high-school renovation. The bids, which had been opened on April 19, 2011, had exceeded the project’s estimated maximum construction cost by more than $15 million, suggesting that the project’s total cost, once capped at $113 million, was in reality closer to $130 million.
Members of the school board vowed to bring the project’s cost down. While they hoped to preserve the existing design, they said that all options were open for consideration.
“There are no sacred cows,” said Josephine Posti, school board president.
School director Dale Ostergaard, pointing to upcoming pension obligations, said that the board must be realistic about how much it can afford. He said that the renovation’s cost must be sharply reduced, and that things previously non-negotiable must become negotiable.
Board members offered suggestions for lowing the cost: forgo LEED Silver certification, use split shifts for students to ease construction phasing, challenge the municipality’s “high-rise” fire-safety designation (but see Dan Miller’s blog post, linked to below), relax contractual terms for bidders to encourage lower bids, and others. Even some of the previously untouchable Fifteen Design Criteria were discussed.
Community member Dan Rothschild suggested revisiting Building C, which had been slated for demolition. Reusing Building C, as the Community Advisory Committee had advised the school board in late 2009, would be a more efficient use of an existing building and potentially keep all of the other programmed spaces intact, he said.
Community member Bill Matthews asked the school board to keep a closer eye on its hired architects and construction managers, who the school board had questioned earlier in the meeting about the unreliability of their project-cost predictions. Matthews had also written to the school board earlier, asking them to realize that the high bids were not caused by a problem with the bidders but with the complexity of the high-school project itself.
Other reports:
- Now is the time (Lebo Citizens blog)
- Mt. Lebanon school board rejects renovation bids (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
- Project Update (Center Court, Josephine Posti’s blog)
- Bids for high school renovation too high for Mt. Lebanon board (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
- Mt. Lebanon rejects renovation bids (The Almanac)
- Mt. Lebanon school board wants reasons for high bids (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
- Mt. Lebanon board awaits answers on high project bids (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
- Fire Safety Questions at the High School (Dan Miller’s blog)
Labels: bids, high school renovation, mt. lebanon school board