The
next meeting of the CBOC Change Order Sub-Committee has been set for
next Mon, Oct 13, at 3pm at the FOC building (where the CBOC normally
meets). Meeting duration has been planned for no more than an hour and a
half.
These four documents are attached.
(1) Requested cover page for the Bond Program Project Status Report presented at CBOC meetings (one page)
(2) School Board Change Order Approval Process (five pages)
(3) Change Order Information for Ohlone ES Phase 1 New Classroom Sub-Project as of 091914 (one page)
(4) Selected Ohlone Change Orders for Closer Scrutiny 092914
The following are among suggested items to review and discuss at the Change Order Sub-Committee meeting next Monday.
1. A Big-Picture Consideration of the Bond Construction Program and Change Orders.
Most
of us on the CBOC are not construction professionals so we each may
describe the essence of the WCCUSD bond construction program
differently. For me, the focus is on rebuilding and/or modernizing the
district’s 50+ schools so they are … done right, done well, on time, and
on budget.
-
“Done right” brings to mind safety and the myriad other specifications
that must be adhered to, from excellent learning environments to energy
efficiency to durability and longevity.
-
“Done well” brings to mind images of De Anza … an attractive venue,
great look and feel, a pleasure to attend and (hopefully) study for
students and to work for teachers/administrators.
- “On time” and “on budget” … well, those terms speak for themselves.
All
four of the factors (done right, etc.) are important and even sometimes
in conflict. Along the way, things can be missed, plans fall short, new
circumstances arise, specifications “evolve”, and even mistakes are
made. Given the imperfect nature of the human condition, we should not
be surprised that change orders are a normal and natural part of the
construction process. But “how many” change orders are normal? How
often? And how much money should they cost? In a way, “done right” means
the final cost should, in theory, be about the same whether there are
zero change orders or many – after all, getting to “right” is what
counts. And yet, even intuitively, we expect higher costs due to change
orders, whether they be related to administration, materials, labor
adjustments, time, etc.
At
the same time, while each project is its own unique self, it seems that
fewer change orders should ideally be needed in the latter stages
(after 15 years!) of a major bond construction program like we have at
WCCUSD. That’s one of the things that typifies a “learning
organization.” I’m not sure the data readily confirms that for WCCUSD.
In
its oversight role, the CBOC should continue probing, seeking to
understand, questioning, and analyzing. Notice that attachment (1)
enables direct comparisons of active construction sub-projects related
to change orders (dollar amount and percent of contract value).
2. School Board Change Order Approval Process.
Using
attachment (2), let’s explore and discuss some key aspects of the bond
construction program’s change order approval process.
3. Change Order Information for one of Ohlone Elementary School’s Sub-Projects.
Using attachment (3), let’s explore and discuss some characteristics of the bond construction program’s change order system.
4. Eight Specific Change Orders Called Out for Closer Scrutiny (Related to One of Ohlone Elementary School’s Sub-Projects).
At
the last Change Order Sub-Committee meeting, I was handed a two-inch
stack of documents pertaining to eight specific change orders,
referencing attachment (4), which had been called out for closer
scrutiny by Ivette Rico. Previous short information statements offered
as explanations for these change orders were properly judged
insufficient. After the meeting, as I turned each page of the two-inch
stack of documents in my home office, I’ll confess to being a bit
annoyed – as if the district was saying, “You want more information? Ok,
we’ll give you more information!” (Ivette and I will coordinate so I
can pass along the stack of documents for her to review also.)
In
actual fact, less is often more – especially in this case when the
quality of a brief explanation about “why” is most desired rather than
an excessive quantity of descriptive information about “what”. Frankly,
for our purposes here, there’s little value in perusing countless
drawings of fittings and other hardware.
Here’s
an example of wording that starts to get to the heart of a change order
explanation that satisfies. The tough questioner can still rightfully
ask more – for example, why exactly did the issue not come up prior to
the actual start of construction? Was there a flawed “rush” to get
started? But at least this explanation is helpful. The following
verbiage was picked from a page in the two-inch stack, this one related
to change order # 82: “The initial design intent to fill the cavities
between the 2x12 rafters at the typical classrooms’ butterfly roof
portion with 11 ¼” of R-38c batt insulation, leaving a 1” air gap at the
top, and closing the ceiling beneath directly at the underside of the
rafters, triggered the need for high amounts of ventilation openings per
Code requirements for cathedral ceiling assemblies, which couldn’t be
accomplished, especially not since the building was already under
construction when this issue came up. The District then asked the AOR
[Architect of Record] to come up with alternative solutions, and the
attached option of an unvented closed cavity cathedral assembly,
utilizing spray applied Polyurethane Foam Insulation, reflects the AOR’s
preferred re-design solution.”
Here’s
an additional example of a good “what-and-why” change explanation. For
another of the Ohlone school-site’s sub-projects (“Ohlone Elementary
School Multi-Purpose Building”, estimated to cost $5.0 million), a
School Board meeting agenda item (C.15) was brought forward for approval
on October 1, 2014. The following agenda-item statement represents a
compact, reasonable, and understandable management-level explanation of
not only what but why: “The original design program was to preserve and
modernize the existing multi-purpose building for Ohlone ES. As the
project evolved, the District through the Facilities Subcommittee
determined that overall program goals would be better met if the
existing multi-purpose building were demolished and a new one designed
in its place. HMC Architects, through Powell and Partners Architects,
will proceed with this scope of work.”
Hope to see many of you next Monday at 3pm.
Tom
