[Item 7.B.4.d – continued]
Napolatiano: if things don’t work out, we can go do another RFP, correct?
Hamilton: any further discussion?
Roarke: yes, Woz: yes, Bernstein: yes, Mazz: no, Birt: no, Ham: no, McGuire: yes
Item 7.5.B, moved by Mazz, second by Nap
Roarke: yes, Mc: yes, Nap: yes, Woz: yes, Bern: yes, Birt: yes, Mazz: yes, Nap: yes, Ham: yes.
Mazzochi: I’d like a presentation on this.
McGuire: When I saw all the change orders for HS 2 and the Naperville, I was confused. I did ask, after all the change orders, total construction costs for HS2 is about $8 million. That’s within the competitive range. But additional for Legat, it’s 14% increase in total construction costs. That’s a bit above what I’m comfortable with. My follow-up sent to Joe, is that it’s above the norm but with specific buildings, like the shooting range, it happens, but for the Naperville Center, it’s not complex. So, Im going to continue to monitor these buildings.
Hamilton: I think you bring up a very interesting point. We have to have a way to keep track of change orders. We have to discuss that and see comparisons from actual to budget.
Mazzochi: let’s start with HTC2, so, what was the original budget for everything.
Schmiedl: where we are to date is high. About $12.5 million
McGuire: and we’re no finished yet. $8.5 spent so far.
Schmiedl: the remainder to the $16 mil is soft costs, professional services, furnitures, things like that.
Mazzochi: how much was spent to date?
Schmiedl: I don’t have that number.
Mazzochi: you wouldn’t be here asking for change orders if you were not already above 20%.
Schmiedl: no, they’re still under that total project amount.
Mazzochi: how much in change orders have been spent?
Schmiedl: 2.5% of the budget
Mazzochi: and those approved today are in excess of $35,000.
Mazzochi: are you anticipating any more change orders with the soft costs?
Schmiedl: Not soft costs. Architects, county, etc.
Mazzochi: What the purpose of the getting the BOT ratification of the change orders?
Schmiedl: It’s to confirm and keep the project moving.
Mazzochi: It says “multiple change orders…. allowed under 20% of total costs”. You don’t have to come before the BOT until we get over 20%.
Schmiedl: We come to you for tranparency. So you know what’s going on.
Mazzochi: Are you obligated to do that?
Mazzochi: Because that owuld be one contract that is over 20%.
[Going over some speciifc changes]
Mazzochi: The numbers don’t follow. Why is that?
Schmiedl: Some may be out of sequence because we were not satisfied with the information we got from the contractors. Some don’t require immediate action.
Mazzochi: How many outstanding change orders?
Schmiedl: For projects like this, there are months of change requests. We review them with the acting prez a week or two ago.
Mazzochi: The highest number I saw was 64. Were there at least 64 change orders.
Schmiedl: No, what we would do with all the PCIs, then, we would file a change order for the aggregate amount of PCIs.
Mazzochi: How many outstanding?
Schmiedl: About a dozen. Beyond that ,we have seen anytihng submitted by the contractors yet. It’s wait and see.
Mazzochi: A lot of changes were labelled as oversight by the architect and the engineer. I have a problem with that. It seems to reward mistakes by the architect and the engineer. If we don’t approve this, they will have to eat that loss, right?
Schmiedl: The architect does not have that relationship with the contractors. A 3% error is standard. On this project, we are under 1% error rate. That’s excellent professional service. It depends if it’s error or omission. Error we would not pay for. Omissions are different since they lead to improvements that we would bid.
Mazzochi: We’re gonna end up paying more for that error from the architect.
Schmiedl: What we do at the end of the project is look at the total amount of errors and hold payments to the architect. We make the assessment on how severe the errors or omissions are. If it’s omissions, we pay. Errors and we have to rebuild, we would deduct that from what we owe the architect. Within the industry, 3% is good performance rate. That doesn’t mean we’re not going to go back to them.
Hamilton: Any more discussion?
Mazzochi: I have questions about Naperville. You’re going to shut down vans on chemistry labs. I’m baffled by that.
Schmiedl: Because they were designed to run 24/7. They are loud nad disturbing.
Mazzochi: But they need to run all the time because of solvents or chemicals in the air. I have a real problem with doing that, because it’s a safety hazard.
Hamilton: Any more questions.
Roark: Abstain, McGuire: yes, Napolitano: yes, Wozniak: yes, Birt: no, Mazzochi: no, Hamilton: yes, BernStein: Yes