Swiftmud fixes up a moldy office building at a cost nearly twice what private business would pay

[Guest guest]

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/04/20/TampaBay/Hasty_remodeling_proj.shtml

Hasty remodeling project costs taxpayers $1.1-million

Swiftmud fixes up a moldy office building at a cost nearly twice what

private business would pay.

By COLLINS CONNER and DAN DeWITT

© St. sburg Times, published April 20, 2002

Swiftmud fixes up a moldy office building at a cost nearly twice what

private business would pay.

A year ago, board members of the Southwest Florida Water Management District

faced this question: Should they approve the proposed fixup of a moldy

office building -- at a price nearly double what a private business would

pay?

Sure it was expensive. Sure they would be spending taxpayer money. But the

board said the project could be a learning experience.

" Let's examine this when it's over, " suggested board member Monroe Coogler.

" Let's just sit down and compare it ... and do an analysis (of) why, when

the public does it, it costs almost double what anyone else could do it

for. "

By the time the office reopened in February, Tampa Bay taxpayers had spent

$1.1-million to remodel a building not much larger than astandalone

Walgreens. Even counting only basic remodeling work, that was $344,000 over

the going rate cited by board vice chairman Tom Dabney, a developer

considered the expert by other board members.

Swiftmud sets water policy and imposes property taxes on residents of 16

counties. The agency blamed the high remodeling cost on unanticipated

construction problems and the hurried work schedule.

But a Times review found:

Swiftmud handed the job to a contractor who had practically no experience

with such work.

Swiftmud bosses did not seek a single competitive bid.

They did not design the project before work started, nor did they provide

clear specifications.

" Those are the best jobs from the contractor's point of view, " said Ellen

Cianciaruli, Swiftmud's former facilities manager. " It's like cracking open

the piggy bank. "

Even though the building cost nearly twice what private business would pay,

Swiftmud executive director " Sonny " Vergara said the district acted

responsibly:

" My view, at the end of the process, is that it was a reasonable job done. "

Mold crisis?

The mistakes started with a critical decision: The building's yearslong mold

problems had reached emergency proportions.

Building 2, next to Swiftmud's huge ville headquarters, was 25 years

old. Four employees had filed workers' comp claims because of the mold.

The mood was mutinous during a meeting with Building 2 employees in August

2000. After listening to their complaints of chronic respiratory problems,

Lloyd , Swiftmud's general services director, ordered the building

emptied.

said evacuating was the " right thing to do " even though air quality

tests did not show extraordinary levels of airborne spores in most of the

building.

Lucy Petrucelli, the district's risk management director, called the health

complaints mostly " psychological. "

" In my mind it was not an emergency situation, " she said. " There was no

reason to get everyone out of the building " other than to reassure the

employees that they were being taken care of.

Several weeks after the interview, Swiftmud spokesman Molligan said

he believed the Times " misconstrued " Petrucelli's comments.

" Lucy's definition of emergency means action must be taken within 'minutes'

or 'hours' or at the most 'days,' " said Molligan. " If the question was, did

the employees need to be moved as soon as space could be made available

(e.g., within a couple of months), the answer is yes. "

Haste makes waste

Here's what happens on a typical project:

An architect or engineer examines the building, prepares a scope of work, a

cost estimate, a detailed asbestos survey, construction specifications and

engineered drawings, and uses those documents to get competitive bids.

Swiftmud did none of that.

According to , Swiftmud's former facilities manager, the

district's construction chiefs " never sat as a group of professionals to

discuss the scope of the problem and to determine the available courses of

action. "

Instead, in December 2000, went to Swiftmud's unpaid, appointed

governing board with a proposal: remodel the now-empty building to get rid

of the mold problem.

He recommended hiring Asbestos Certified Technicians of Land O'Lakes --

without competitive bids -- to remove some asbestos, moldy carpet and

drywall. said the district could hire ACT under a special state

contract, thus avoiding the time-consuming bid process. ACT did not respond

to telephone messages and a letter from the Times.

Cleaning out the contaminants would cost $65,000, said; he gave no

estimated cost for the remodeling. Without asking a single question, the

board's finance committee okayed the project; the rest of the board members

concurred the next day.

Within weeks, workers found more mold; all the drywall had to come down. The

demolition cost grew to $120,000.

Meanwhile, the district's purchasing department red-flagged ACT's bill. The

problem: The state contract that Swiftmud used to hire ACT without bids

can't be used when costs exceed $25,000.

On the advice of Swiftmud attorney Rose Hilbelink, ACT's fee was split into

four payments of $24,999 and one of $20,004, a violation of state rules.

Attorney Bill Bilenky, Hilbelink's boss, said the state rule had " some funky

language " that she misread. He noted that Hilbelink's opinion wasn't sought

in advance of ACT's hiring; instead, she gave her interpretation " looking

back at work that had already been done. " He denied that she was asked to

justify an improper contract.

The job grows

With the asbestos removal under way, asked ACT to manage the

remodeling job. He trusted ACT, he said, because it had managed a similar,

though less ambitious project for the district a year earlier.

According to ' project outline, ACT would get $630,000, including

$66,000 for painting and sealing, $67,000 for drywall, $93,000 for

electrical, $51,000 for construction management.

Several contractors reviewed elements of the project for the Times.

Swiftmud paid $228,000 for a new air-handling system and fire dampers. D.R

Vause, an air conditioning construction manager for the state of Florida,

said not only did the agency not need a new system, it overpaid by $50,000

for the system it bought.

The district paid $282,830 for the interior work. Certified building

contractor Edmond Council Jr. said the district paid 44 percent too much.

Swiftmud spokesman Molligan dismissed the contractors' estimates.

" There's a significant difference between asking someone what something

should cost and getting a contractor to sign on the dotted line to do a

project, " he said.

The day before took his remodeling proposal to the board, Nick

Spirakis objected. Spirakis was Swiftmud's project manager on the job.

" I question (ACT'S) ability to act as a general contractor, " Spirakis wrote

in a memo to . The firm's experience is almost exclusively in

asbestos removal -- not general contracting.

Spirakis also complained of the way the work was being managed.

" While trying to expedite this project we have forsaken all semblance of

coordination, " he wrote. " I feel this memorandum merely touches the tip of

the iceberg. I feel we have minimized planning for the sake of expediency. "

The next day, asked the Swiftmud board for extra demolition money

and $630,000 to remodel the building.

Despite Spirakis' warning, recommended that the board hire ACT --

without seeking bids -- to serve as construction manager and general

contractor.

said the district could bypass the bid process since the renovation

was an " emergency. " An approaching rainy season threatened " further

deterioration of the facility " and it was inefficient to have the building's

employees scattered on the Swiftmud campus.

Though board members questioned the cost, they unanimously approved '

request. The job was begun without engineered drawings or specifications,

two safeguards that keep costs down and mistakes to a minimum.

" Shame on Swiftmud, " said J. Koning, director of the Contractors

Institute, a Hudson school that prepares building contractors for their

licensing exams.

" There's no way whatsoever that the district should have ever, ever started

a job without a complete understanding of what it had to do, from A to Z.

" They waded into this pond. They should have known how deep it was. "

Falling walls

As workers removed moldy drywall, the walls crumbled. Cianciaruli said the

district shouldn't have been surprised -- a simple examination would have

shown flimsy, pre-fab structures.

The building had to be virtually gutted.

The expanded project now had to comply with stricter building codes. Costs

climbed accordingly: $20,000 for new framing, $22,000 for new doors, frames

and hardware, $5,135 to paint the new doors, $20,000 for handicapped access

bathrooms, $6,600 to fix the corridor, $4,800 to modify corridor air ducts.

Once work is under way, it's too late to dicker over costs, said Koning, the

Contractors Institute director: " At that point, price-shopping is not a

factor. "

To contractors, said Cianciaruli, the former facilities manager, such jobs

are a gift.

" It's like cost plus 155 percent, " she said. " The contractors are just

wringing their hands, saying 'Mommy's getting a new boat.' "

All the demolition and more than half of the remodeling work was finished

before the county issued a permit, in October 2001. said pulling

permits and meeting code was ACT's job. In any case, he said, the county

ultimately okayed the project, so the work must have been adequate.

But Swiftmud board member Janet Kovach called that stance hypocritical for

an agency that demands citizens follow its own permitting rules. " We were

totally wrong to do that, " Kovach said.

Besides the money paid to ACT, the district spent more than $160,000 for

electrical and building supplies and services, charging the purchases to

various Swiftmud accounts. said he was not trying to hide the

escalating costs.

said he kept costs down by having district employees perform

carpentry, drywall, plumbing and electrical work.

Koning of the Contractors Institute said that was a mistake: " You've just

exonerated your contractor from any liability for the project. Co-mingling

district employees and contractor's employees should never, never happen.

That's a liability nightmare. "

Complaints

Throughout the project, three construction chiefs -- Spirakis, Cianciaruli

and -- warned it was a debacle.

All three traced the project's problems to the management failures of their

boss, Lloyd .

In addition, the district received three anonymous messages, including one

to Gov. Bush, that criticized the project's cost and management.

quit in disgust in April; his replacement, Cianciaruli, quit in

February. Spirakis was removed as project manager days after he wrote his

critical memo. said he wanted to lighten Spirakis' heavy workload.

Because of the complaints, the board asked its internal auditor, Kurt

Fritsch, to review the project. He found no evidence of " gross

mismanagement. " He said that the remodeling was a " moving target project "

and that Swiftmud " received reasonable value for the money we spent. "

told the Times it was " a very typical project. You start with X and

you end up with 3X. "

In March 2001, when board members debated whether to remodel the building,

the price was well above the commercial rate.

" In the private sector, " board chairman Ronnie E. Duncan said then, " we

wouldn't go there -- for all the right reasons. "

At that March meeting, vice chairman Tom Dabney, who is a developer, said

the going rate for commercial remodeling was $25 a square foot.

" We're taking brand new space today, that has no air conditioning " and

putting in " walls, doors, carpeting, paint, ceiling, lighting, " Dabney said

then.

At that rate, Swiftmud still overpaid by 78 percent.

Dabney says now he is " fully comfortable with the costs. "

He said remodelings always cost more than expected.

" In terms of the outcome, " he said, " this is a success story. "