Despite that, we're still supposed to accept on faith the Patrick administration's claim that Fernald must be closed because it's too expensive to operate.
Of course, we will never know what the true “savings” in closing Fernald will be because the Legislature decided to exempt Fernald from cost-benefit analyses that will be required before three other developmental centers for persons with mental retardation can be closed in Massachusetts.
One thing we're sure of is that the cost of the Wrentham renovations is one among many costs that have not been figured into the cursory analysis that the administration produced a couple of years ago in justifying its decision to shut Fernald. As we've pointed out in previous posts, the costs of constructing new group homes for Fernald residents not going to Wrentham also have not been figured into the “savings” in closing Fernald. We've noted that the administration is already leasing homes from developers at costs of up to $2 million per home over 20-year periods. (That's about $257,000 per bed, by the way.)
To be fair, the $2.49 million contract price for the Wrentham renovations includes the replacement of the entire roofs on the two Wrentham buildings, which was not included in the feasibility study's $1.88 million projection. However, the feasibility study projected the cost of the roof replacement would total $234,000. The construction contract with the Northern Contracting Corp. of Canton adds another $375,000 on top of that amount.
We've noted in a previous post that the Patrick administration planned to “work around the clock” to get the two buildings at the Wrentham Center ready for occupancy by former residents of the Fernald Developmental Center as of July 1.
The construction contract, which was signed February 4, calls for the renovations to be completed in 140 days, which means the work must be substantially completed by June 24. The contract further provides for liquidated damages of $5,000 per day for every day the contractor is late. That might account for the extra $375,000 in the contract price, which would cover the liquidated damages cost to the contractor of about 11 weeks of delay.
As we previously pointed out, the contract does not provide for replacement of 40-plus-year-old windows in the two buildings, which the feasibility study stated are in poor condition. Replacement of the windows, which was projected to cost an additional $250,000 was listed in the feasibility study as desirable, but would not be done due to “cost considerations.”
By the way, it's anybody's guess when the state's public construction management agency will get around to posting the Wrentham renovation contract online. On January 13, the Division of Capital Asset Management closed a solicitation for bids for the renovation project. You can find a record of the closed solicitation on the state's online procurement Website, known as Comm-PASS. But in an apparent violation of state policy, DCAM has failed thus far to update the solicitation to note that a construction contract has been issued for the project.
The closed solicitation notice for the Wrentham project still lists the project cost at $1.88 million. The Comm-PASS policy is that closed bid soliciations must be updated within 60 days to reflect the issuance of a contract or a related event. As it is, if you want to see the contract, you have to make arrangements to visit DCAM's office in Boston.
In my post above, I’ve noticed that the links to two of my previous posts don’t appear to work (at least on my computer). This has happened in the past as well. When I click on the links, it always says the pages can’t be located. It seems a bit of code (the number 19346) keeps getting added to the URL of the link, and I can’t figure out how to take that code out. Is this happening to anyone else, or is it just me?
I had the same problem.
I was also unsuccessful in connecting to the links.
Not only is there an extremely high rental cost for vendor homes, Advocacy Network has discovered numerous building code violations which are difficult to get remedied because of absentee landlords. One recourse is through local Boards of Health.
From my experience it’s very hard to get public construction projects completed within budget and renovation is even worse.
<
p>Hidden conditions in renovation and the competitive marketplace for construction means the lowest bidder is always looking for a way to break even, the contractor finds something not in the plans – time for a change order.
<
p>Better to rip the building down and start again.
Nice to read a comment from someone in the business with experience on this type of project.
<
p>I believe the buildings being renovated were built in the 1960s. They have been vacant and unused for several years which I’m guessing adds to the deterioration.
<
p>Given your experience, does this seem like a realistic timeline to you?
<
p>
If I remember correctly, during one of the previous posts, the original estimated costs to renovate these buildings to meet building codes was about $2.8 million. I wondered how you meet building code while spending $1 million less. It would seem you can’t. Its currently at $2.4 million. If someone wakes up and decides replacing 40 year old windows is a necessity not just desirable, add another $250,000 to that price.
<
p>Add a few change orders for unforseen problems that always arise when renovating an old structure and you’ve hit the $2.8 million and probably more along with delays in completing the project. Fernald closure June 30–Wrentham completion June 24???????
<
p>I really wish the administration would give the “cost” argument a rest. The “cost” justification for closing Fernald was and is a bunch of BS (forgive the language). The figures presented by the administration for costs and claimed savings and comparing “apples to oranges” in cost of facilities vs community have been all over the place. Dave from Hvad has continually shown the numbers and estimates have no basis in fact. As they press on with this ridiculous plan, as if we didn’t know, it is more and more apparent that saving money has absolutely nothing to do with closing Fernald or any of the other developmental centers.
<
p>At least someone woke up and decided if you are going to put a couple million dollars into two buildings, a good roof is a necessity not just desirable.
in the ongoing ruse of a public administration that is fundamentally dishonest. They pick on the poor, the disabled, and anyone they think won’t or isn’t able to fight back. Sounds like bullying, doesn’t it?
<
p>Apparently saying that closing Fernald would save money was just their way of hoodwinking the public into supporting their plans to take away services from those who can’t fight back. It seems by now if they had a solid basis for this they’d be flying kites with the numbers, and instead that’s all secret. No surprise there.