Weather, asbestos removal delay Davis. Co. school construction

By LEAH HOWK Courier correspondent

BLOOMFIELD — Progress on the construction of Davis County’s new high school has been hindered by rainy weather lately, as equipment sits until the ground is dry enough to resume grading.

The Davis County School Board was advised this week that progress on the building has also been hampered by a delay in razing the old Vocational Agriculture building.

The VoAg building must be removed to make room for the new school, and before that is done the abatement of asbestos has to be completed, but that process is not going “as smoothly as we had hoped,” said Larry Dix of Story Construction, the district’s construction manager.

“There is more asbestos than we had anticipated,” Dix continued, and compounded with the recent rainy weather, has led to the reworking of a new plan submitted for approval by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. If the DNR approves, “we have set [today] to start demolition.”

Dan Roberts, director of support services for the district, clarified that to the DNR “demolition” includes moving material, which is what the district is doing, rather than a dramatic exercise in clearing out the asbestos to remove the existing structure. The process is still safe; the contingencies are additional measures by the DNR to ensure it remains safe.

Terracon Consultants is conducting the asbestos testing, and, according to Dix, it must send a letter to the DNR with those results. If that letter is accepted, demolition can begin this week. Previously the DNR questioned the level of ACM, or asbestos containing material, which would have required a much more stringent and meticulous approach to the disposal.

Additional testing, however, proves that less than 1 percent of asbestos is contained in the materials, significant from both a safety standpoint and in the expedition of disposal of the materials. In light of the additional testing, the DNR has retracted its original determination.

“The key to this situation is how everyone can do their work without disrupting everyone else,” Dix said.

“Is this delay going to set us back?” asked board member Ken Wuthrich.

“We’re going on a week-by-week basis,” answered Dix.

Board member Rod Lynch questioned the financial impact of the subsequent testing as well as the time delay.

“Based on the amount of money we set aside [for this phase] are we over that now?” he asked

Superintendent Sam Miller responded that the costs are still “contained within the original contract; it’s just that the process is taking longer.”

The board then moved to a discussion about the process for change orders during the construction process. Miller introduced the agenda item to discuss “the process, not a specific change order at this time.”

Dix spent several minutes describing the usual paradigm Story Construction employs, which begins with a change request submitted by the contractor.

“Change orders are the bogeymen of construction projects,” he said, and emphasized that a change request can be a cost addition or a deduction depending on the request and its resolution. Although five change requests have been submitted for the project, one of the pending requests is for a substitution of water pipe from 8 to 6 inches and so will actually result in a deduction to the overall costs.

Each request moves through a channel of analysis and recommendations by Story Construction and the architect and is grouped with other change requests into a change order.

“Change orders come with a cost,” Dix admitted, “so we try to keep them to a minimum.”

Acceptance or rejection of the recommendations of the change orders ultimately belongs to the district. For Story Construction, the normal process is to request from the client a go-to person or a small committee authorized to sign off on the change orders.

Lynch asked how much money is earmarked for change orders. Dix said $400,000, calculated based on the size of the project and areas of construction that commonly require an adaptation to the original plan, such as excavation, masonry, mechanical and electrical processes. Dix drew from Story Construction’s work at Pella Christian School for comparison — that project produced six change orders resulting from 80 change requests.

Miller asked how often the decisions are called for; board member Rob Melvin asked how soon the board would need to have a committee set up and how much time is usually needed to review and decide about each change order.

Dix said that because change requests are already pending, there is some urgency.

“Next week the first change order will be submitted,” he said.

Board member Rita Grob insisted that decision-making needed to rest with more than one person but had reservations about including Miller in the committee.

“Nothing against Sam,” she said. “My problem is people have come to think the only thing we care about is this new school and that’s not true. Sam should be focusing on running the district” and not caught up in building meetings.

Wuthrich and fellow board member Edward Reese Jr. disagreed.

“Sam is the eyes and ears of the district; he has to be on this,” said Wuthrich.

When put to a vote, the majority of the board agreed to establish a committee comprised of Miller, Roberts, board president Marty Owen with Wuthrich as a substitute, and Rick Davidson, a community member with construction expertise. Grob was the lone no vote.

Text Only