We got the attachments..
WRA Agenda
4) Authorize execution of Amendment No. 5 to the Owner’s Project Manager Agreement with Skanska, USA Building, Inc. relative to the Canal District Ballpark Project.
Skanska, owner's project manager (OPM) was asking for $785,710 in additional funding for what they call Amendment 5 and have submitted a letter explaining cost overruns..
WRA voted to pay $149,000, not the $785,710
Click for the Skanska explanation:
Wow pretty scathing!!
- As soon as the first design packages were released for the early construction work, the RFI process began in earnest. Two things became clear. One was that the design of each of the packages was anything but complete, despite the drawings and specifications being labeled 100% CD's. The other was the architecture had not been coordinated with the structure, and the geometry of the two did not match. This took months to resolve (and we remain optimistic it is resolved).
- We experienced similar issues as subsequent design packages were issued to bid. Many of the packages were so incomplete that we had to return them to the architect to correct them before we could issue for bid.
- Moreover, the designer's unfamiliarity with MGL Ch. 149a procedures and requirements has placed an added workload on Skanska, creating significant rework and resultant drawing revisions merely to comply with Massachusetts procurement requirements. Just the email traffic along from DAIQ is overbearing, and the resulting coordinatin with the JV is more than any other 149a project in my 40 years of construction and owener's project management experience.
- 478 RFI (request for information) during the bidding process
- 484 RFI's from the JV (Gilbane Hunt)
Editor's note: Pretty clear Skanska does not enjoy working with D'Agostino, Izzon & Quirk, "the design team". Keith Martin does not even mention their name in his letter and only referes to them as DAIQ.
Comments