|
Read about this Neptune, NJ school district's partially successful attempts to make the contractors pay for corrections needed in a brand new school that developed mold.
Mold was found in the exterior walls of the Midtown Community School
in Neptune early last year. (STAFF PHOTO: BILL BOWMAN)
2 contractors pay $6.5M after mold befouls school
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080222/NEWS/802220415/1004/NEWS01
By Bill Bowman • COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU • February 22, 2008
(SMH Note: to add your comments, go to URL above)
Read Comments(12)Recommended (2)Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
NEPTUNE — The architect and construction company blamed for the mold infestation in Midtown Community School have agreed to pay about half of the $13 million renovation costs.
But the third company blamed for the problem — the project's management firm — made a settlement offer that was rejected by the state Schools Development Authority, prompting the authority to threaten a lawsuit to recoup the remaining $6.5 million and to cancel all the company's contracts.
SSP Architectural Group and Turner Construction agreed to pay the settlement after a five-month arbitration period, SDA spokesman Larry Hanover said Thursday.
Turner has agreed to pay $4.5 million and SSP will pay $2 million, Hanover said.
Negotiations with the project manager, Gilbane Building Co., did not go as smoothly.
The SDA rejected Gilbane's final offer — an amount that wasn't disclosed — on Feb. 21, sent the company official notice that it was terminating all the company's contracts if it did not "cure" eight contract violations by next Thursday.
The SDA letter, signed by CEO Scott Weiner, also threatened a lawsuit to recover the final $6.5 million.
Mold was found in exterior walls of the Midtown school early last year, which forced a one-year delay in the building's opening and meant the school's several hundred students and teachers would have to spend another year in trailers parked adjacent to the school.
Workers had to remove the brick facade along several walls, remove and replace the wallboard and then replace the brick facade.
The school is on schedule to open in September, school and state officials said.
In agreeing to make the payments, Turner and SSP admitted errors that contributed to the mold.
"Gilbane, Turner and SSP each failed to meet their contractual obligations to the SDA," Weiner said in a press release. "More significantly, each company let down the schoolchildren of Neptune and the taxpayers of New Jersey."
Gilbane spokesman Wes Cotter declined to comment.
Working in 22 schools
Gilbane currently has contracts worth $57.8 million in 22 schools in Neptune, Long Branch, Asbury Park, Barnegat and Vineland, Hanover said.
All but about $5 million of the contracts' cost has been paid, he said.
The Midtown school project was part of a regional contract which covers 17 of the 22 affected schools in the township, Asbury Park, Barnegat and Vineland, he said.
Hanover said all but $3.9 million of the contract's $23.6 million cost has been paid.
Hanover said that the SDA will terminate all contracts if the problems associated with the Midtown school project are not addressed.
"The reason for the terminations is that we have this fundamental difference in what the roles and responsibilities are for a project management firm," he said.
"If they wanted to cure the contract in question in this letter, that would mean that they had a fundamental shift that's more in the line of what we see, in which case everything would be up for discussion as far as to continue on with them," Hanover said.
Neptune Schools Superintendent David Mooij said he was surprised by the action.
"There were some quality projects built here while they were on board," he said. "But I'm sure the SDA had sufficient cause to terminate their contractual obligations."
Mooij said he was "pleased" that the SDA will allocate more people to the Midtown project while it is looking for a new project manager.
"They said it should not affect the schedule," he said.
In your voice
Read reactions to this story
NoMoreSchoolMold wrote:
Shoddy construction in new school buildings is a prominent reason for damp buildings and the rapid development of toxic mold and bacteria in sick schools. Learn more at www.schoolmoldhelp.org, with over 1,000 articles on the topic. It is a great shame that such beautiful buildings, on the exterior, can be improperly built and therefore, be a danger to staff and students. Sometimes these buildings are still unusable AFTER the corrections or remediation, because the mold is spread throughout the building. Molds emit chemical toxins and microscopic particles that can readily access the interior of the buildings and then the HVAC systems, as they are not sealed completely. Defective construction is a major problem - we are glad that this school district is being proactive in the manner they are. But our question is, why is only half of the cost being sought? The taxpayers should pay the rest? www.schoolmoldhelp.org
2/22/2008 11:31:34 AM
Recommended (1) Report Abuse
taxappealnow wrote:
itmfa, I don't come from means, and my grandfather was a union plumber when they fought for jobs and proved that they were worth it. That's no longer case with the union. Harleys Voice, I know the mindless drones just follow orders regarless of right or wrong. And stop with the mantra that it's either union or illegals. The other choice is all the hard working privately owned tradesman that are locked out of jobs like this because they don't buy into the union BS. I'm in construction also, and I have the greatest respect for anyone who works hard. I just don't see that quality in the union workers. I can tell you from experience, that any union job will be at least 30% higher than using legal, licensed non union labor. That's why our taxes are so high.
2/22/2008 11:27:17 AM
Recommend Report Abuse
bobsmith wrote:
OVER BUDGET....BEHIND SCHEDULE ....BELOW STANDARDS.....THAT IS THE NORMAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT WORKERS, UNIONS AND CONTRACTORS. ...WHAT ELSE IS NEW?
2/22/2008 11:11:58 AM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse
MoldEnvironment wrote:
From reading the story here and the comments from others, I totally agree that the GILBAINE BUILDING CO is at the head of the team being at fault, then go down the chain of command to the rest including the school district. If the school districts are not going to make sure the children and staff are safe from harms way, MOLD, then they should be held accountable for those that become ill from the moldy buildings. Learn more about mold in schools at www.moldenvironment.com Tell the district to do some research by starting here. Mold on the exterior, is certainly going to eat it's way through to the interior walls.
2/22/2008 10:57:40 AM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse
HarleysVoice wrote:
TAXAPPEAL ........Dont Blame The Union Worker...Its The General Contractor who is Responsible for the Material used...The Union Workers only follow orders....By The Contractor !!! So Get Your Facts Straight !!.......if your complaint is about the Wages they Make...then the State should hire Illegal Aliens.....then YOU'LL SEE SHODDY WORKMAN SHIP... and DANGEROUS WORKING CONDITIONS.....I KNOW THESE THINGS...IM IN CONSTRUCTION...Just Trying to MAKE A LIVING!!!!!....SO GET OFF THE BACK OF THE TRADES...START AT THE TOP !!!!!!!
2/22/2008 10:36:19 AM
Recommend Report Abuse
itmfa wrote:
To taxappealnow. I don't know what your family background is but can only assume by your comment that you come from some means. I did research on my Irish-American ancestry, and found all my paternal great-grandparents children from ages 7 up (eight boys and girls) working in woolen mills, carpet factories and hat factories in Fishkill, NY from 1870 until the end of their lives. Only my grandmother was spared. They never married, they just slaved because they were sold as young children to the mill owner to pay off their parents indenture and other debt. That is our American history prior to our labor unions. I believe you don't know what you are talking about.
2/22/2008 10:16:26 AM
Recommend Report Abuse
taxappealnow wrote:
Another fine construction project by UNION WORKERS. Over priced, over budget, for lousy construction. The union has a lock on all public construction and sets minimum standards, then makes sure that no one does anything more than the absolute minimum. How anyone with any self respect could go to work each day, and strive for mediocrity is beyond me.
2/22/2008 9:56:19 AM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote:
I am currently having a "problem" with Barnegat School District, specifically the Brackman Middle School. My 6th grade son is severely allergic to mold and was sent home by the school nurse 7 days in a row because his asthma could not be managed. While the District denies a mold issue in the Brackman school, I have personally seen it and been shown it by a school employee. I have filed and received documents from the B.O.E. office through OPRA and found that there has been mold found by Brinkerhoff Environmental Services and further, that Barnegat DID NOT follow up with the recommendations by this agency. I was also informed by Gail Lawrence from the New Jersey Schools Developement Authority, that "The SDA Project Manager advises that the water infiltration project was completed 4 months ago and that there are no water leaks or mold issues.(email dated 1/24/08)." And who is the SDA Project Manager? Oh, that's right!! GILBAINE BUILDING CO !!!
2/22/2008 9:33:37 AM
Recommend Report Abuse
LisaBecker wrote:
Electric - 100% right - another vehicle of waste. Bidding should go back to the way it was and liability sits with the GC. If you take the time to research the history of some of these co's - I found former district employees listed as consultants for some, it makes you suspicious of the integrity of the bid from the get go. I also think this article will be of great interest to the Ocean County Health Department who has been asked to investigate mold problems in Barnegat. There are WC cases and students who have developed health issues is areas of new contruction.
2/22/2008 8:11:09 AM
Recommend Report Abuse
reality30 wrote:
All so true - Construction management firms are just another way to launder taxpayers money and make others rich. Thats why you see them come and go, changing names, etc. It is no more than what Electric has said!!!!! Another fine waste of money and the management company should also be responsible for the costs to the state. They were to manage the project and have failed to do it properly.
2/22/2008 7:08:37 AM
Recommend Report Abuse
snottygirl wrote:
The state wastes more money than you can shake a stick at, one of the reasons there is no money in the budget. Schools should be built using modular design, this way only one architect one construction company is required. Build stackable units offsite, truck them in, stack them up and bolt them together. A fifth grader could figure this out. Just build big boxes that can be easily expanded to meet enrollment needs. It may not look pretty but it would functional, billions would be saved.
2/22/2008 7:03:59 AM
Recommend (2) Report Abuse
Electric wrote:
They should hold the construction managers feet to the fire! These firms are hired to oversee the construction and that it is done properly. They turn out to be nothing more than paper pushers and unjustifiable expense to the state. They offer no value to the SCC (big part of why they are so far in debt.) School construction bidding should go back to the old way of bidding, �Separate Prime Contracts� and the GC who is awarded the project has the responsibility to coordinate the trade and oversee the construction.
2/22/2008 6:44:34 AM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse
|
