School project hitting snags
By Phyllis Moore
Published in News on September 16, 2015 1:46 PM
An unexpected bill for $223,471 for the Goldsboro High School construction project drew ire from Board of Education members Monday night, resulting in a called meeting Thursday to question the architect on the overage.
The "additional project costs" would require financing, since the amount was not budgeted and there are no funds available in the coffers, district Finance Officer Beverly Boltinhouse told the board.
But instead of approving the request, it only raised more questions.
"This is the second time they've come back and wanted additional funding," Chairman Chris West said. "What is this $223,471 -- professional services, $123,350, they've added that to a project that was already a million and a half dollars?"
The smaller project, to create a commons area at GHS, has proven to be more of a financial headache than construction of two brand new schools.
The board had learned in April that bids on the project came in higher than anticipated, forcing a decision on whether to come up with more funds, cut corners on amenities or reject the bid.
The board voted 5-2 to continue and request half-cent sale tax money from the commissioners. The commission denied the request and in May, the school board voted to rebid the project.
Moseley Architects was awarded the contract in the amount of $1.5 million.
West, himself in the construction business, balked at the tacked-on fees that just came to light. He said the district had received other bids on the project but had accepted Moseley's believing the amount was all-inclusive.
"Why did we not have the total cost for all these fees when we first started looking at this bid?" he asked. "That doesn't make sense to me because that's distorted the whole bid in my opinion, because they didn't just all of a sudden yesterday decide they were going to put $123,350 worth of professional services on a million and a half dollar contract. That's not the way it works."
Mrs. Boltinhouse said the project costs of $223,471 -- which also included $35,000 for construction testing and special inspections and $53,198 for contingency, but did not include furnishings and equipment -- were "outside of every bid."
"I don't think that's the norm," West said. "We asked for a total project construction cost. That's what we wanted. We don't want a quarter of a million dollars to come back."
Mrs. Boltinhouse said the project is at a point where construction would have to stop if the amount is not paid.
"When Moseley Architect firm first started bidding this project for us, they came back to us with something like $2.1 million or something," West said. "We rejected that bid and asked them to go back and give us another bid, bid the job again. It came back 45 days later at a million and a half, $1,549,747.
"Now Moseley knew at the time -- why didn't they say, 'We need $123,350 for our professional services?'"
Board member Dwight Cannon deferred to West's expertise in the field.
"The only thing I ever built was Legos but Mr. West is in that business and every time he speaks, it really stirs my oil because I would think that he's seen something like this," he said. "These hidden costs are a half-million dollars extra.
"I don't think I would have voted for them knowing that there would be hidden costs."
West said in all his time on the board, he has never received a bid like this.
"I understand we're in a different situation with this project," he said. "I'm not going to say they jumped the gun but work's already done over there. It was actually done before we even signed the contract, so at this point in time it's stop the work until this is worked out.
"They may be able to come in here at our next meeting and make me feel a lot better about this right here. But right now I don't have a good feeling. Maybe it's an oversight on my part but if I give someone a price to do a job, I include everything that's going to have to be done."
West asked the board attorney, Jack Edwards, to take a look at the contract. He suggested scheduling another meeting and inviting the architect to attend and explain the situation.
"I'm sure there's an explanation -- that $123,350 is an architectural fee or professional fee for the architects -- but I don't understand why it was not in the original bid," West said. "This would have made a huge difference in what we did and who we chose. That's not the way we should get a bid."
A meeting was set for Thursday morning for the board to present concerns to the architects.