whs project

Sept. 11, 2003

WHS project complete

By Brian Burns
Staff writer

Aside from a few remaining punchlist items, the work on the Walpole High School renovation and expansion project is all but finished.

For the first time since 1998, school administrators kicked off a new school year last week with the entire building at their disposal, including the new auditorium.

For students and teachers, the distractions and inconveniences that came along with the project are now rapidly fading memories.

But there’s one part of the project that still lingers – the legal battle among the contractor, Bacon Construction of East Providence, the architect, Drummey Rosane Anderson, Inc. of Newton (DRA), and the town.

All three parties have filed breach of contract claims seeking monetary damages as a result of the project, which dragged on for more than two years past its original completion date.

The claims are filed in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham.

Based on documents filed in 2002, Bacon is seeking $414,165 in damages from the town for costs incurred due to work acceleration and performing out-of-sequence work.

Walpole’s counterclaim against Bacon seeks $738,000 in damages for the delay in completing the project, though it’s possible that the number has changed since then as the delay continued well past the date that the claim was filed.

Walpole is also seeking an unspecified amount from DRA to cover the cost of defending itself against Bacon’s claim and for defending itself against a state handicapped access board in the spring of 2002.

DRA is seeking an unspecified amount from Walpole for architectural services rendered.

No hearing date has been set in the case.

Town Administrator Michael Boynton said last week that the Permanent Building Committee has been working hard to resolve the disagreements before the case reaches the trial stage.

It’s in the town’s best interest to settle the disputes amicably and avoid costly litigation fees, he explained.

The $23 million high school project broke ground in the summer of 1999. For the first few years of construction, everything seemed to be moving along fairly well.

The first two phases of the project were completed on or near schedule, and there was even some hope that the third and final phase could be completed ahead of time.

Phase III called for renovations to the "A" building of the high school, the three-story wing facing Common Street that houses the English, social studies and fine arts departments.

Renovations to that wing, which was built in 1908, turned out to be the longest and most complicated part of the entire project.

Phase III was originally supposed to be completed in December of 2001. Administrators didn’t get all three floors back until January of 2003, however. The school auditorium didn’t come back until this summer.

Disagreements between Bacon and DRA on how to proceed with the work in Phase III led to some heated discussions before the Permanent Building Committee. The working relationship between the three parties rapidly began to deteriorate.

According to documents in court, the breaking point seems to have come in March of 2002, after Bacon claims that DRA changed the plans for roof work in the A wing.

According to Bacon, the change by DRA further delayed work on Phase III, which had already been hindered by the architect’s failure to respond rapidly to previous requests for information.

Bacon subsequently filed a breach of contract claim against the town, alleging that Walpole failed its responsibility to properly supervise the architect during the construction phase.

Soon after Bacon filed its claim, the town filed breach of contract claims against both Bacon and DRA, claiming that both parties had failed to live up to their contractual responsibilities.

The town seemed most concerned that both Bacon and DRA had failed to identify and correct areas of the high school that did not meet current accessibility codes.

DRA then filed its own breach of contract claim against the town. Both Bacon and DRA name each other as third party defendants in their claims against the town.

All of the claims were filed in the spring and summer of 2002.

According to Bacon’s original claim, DRA "continually failed to respond to requests for information from filed subcontractors and Bacon regarding critical areas of renovation work being performed at the site."

According to Bacon, state law requires architects to respond to all requests for information within 30 days or to provide a reason why that information can’t be given in that time frame.

Bacon claims that in many situations it took DRA between 75 to 120 days to respond to requests for more information.

For instance, Bacon claims that in July of 2001 it submitted shop drawings for ductwork that was to be installed in the A building.

DRA returned the drawings in August of 2001 with instructions to revise and resubmit, according to the Bacon.

Bacon resubmitted the drawings in September, but didn’t hear back from DRA until three months later.

Then, in March of 2002, Bacon claims that DRA redesigned the roof system for the first floor of the A building – three months after the entire project was supposed to be finished.

Bacon claims that the redesign affected the ductwork plans that had been approved the previous December, thus further delaying work on the project.

Bacon acknowledges that the contract they signed with the town indicates that the company is not entitled to damages for any delays in the project that are caused by anyone, including the architect or the owner.

But Bacon points out that the contract does say that in the case of delays, they would be entitled to additional time to complete the project.

Bacon claims that it repeatedly requested extensions for the project, which the town did not grant.

By refusing to grant any extensions, the town has essentially voided the "no damages for delay" clause in the contract, according to Bacon.

The town’s counterclaim to Bacon alleges that the contractor failed to properly coordinate and supervise the work being done by subcontractors at the site.

Bacon also failed to ensure that the work was being carried out "without conflict and delay," according to the town’s claim. Both were required of Bacon under the terms of the contract.

The town also claims that Bacon also failed to perform all construction work in compliance with all applicable building codes and regulations, or to notify the town of any portion of the contract documents that varied from those codes.

Specifically, the town claims that Bacon failed to realize and notify the town that the exterior ramp in front of the high school did not meet accessibility codes.

As a result of Bacon’s failure to perform the work in accordance with those regulations, the town incurred considerable expense and delay from the need to replace that ramp.

The town’s major claim against DRA is that the architectural firm failed to identify all of the existing conditions at the high school in order to include all essential work in the project’s specifications.

This includes failing to identify the need for work on the gym ceiling and roof, failing to identify that the school’s indoor ramps needed to be brought up to current accessibility codes, and failing to properly design certain items to meet code, such as the shower stalls in the gym locker rooms and the gym bleachers, according to the claim.

After receiving a complaint from a citizen access monitor, the Massachusetts Office of Disabilities inspected the high school in the spring of 2002 and found 30 items that did not comply with state regulations.

On that list were several items that had been improperly constructed by Bacon that DRA did not promptly identify and order to be corrected, according to the town’s claim.

This included the interior ramps, shower stalls and bleachers, as well as the slope of the front walkway, and the curb cuts on the school sidewalks and in the parking lots.

According to the town’s claim, town officials were advised by DRA to request variances for the violations from the state Architectural Access Board.

This decision was based on the DRA’s assertion that in many cases it wasn’t feasible to comply, according to the claim.

After three days of hearings, the AAB denied the majority of the town’s requests and ordered the deficiencies to be corrected by June 1, 2002.

The town’s claim alleges that despite repeated requests from town officials, the DRA did not design the corrective work on time, thus making it impossible to meet the June 1 deadline.

The town also claims that on numerous occasions during the course of the project, DRA representative Dominic Vecchione "failed to conduct himself in a professional manner in dealing with representatives of the town and Bacon, consistently failed to act in accordance with the approved schedules, and failed to approve samples, schedules, shop drawings, and other submissions in a timely manner."

DRA also failed to exercise the "care and skill ordinarily required by architects and engineers in discovering and promptly reporting to the town any deficiencies in construction work," according to the claim.

The town is seeking compensation from DRA for the cost of defending accessibility issues before the AAB and the cost of defending against Bacon’s counterclaim.

In response to the claims filed by Bacon, DRA denies that it failed to respond to specific requests for information in a timely manner.

The firm specifically denies Bacon’s charge that it took them 75 to 120 days to respond to information requests.

The firm also denies the timeline for their approval of the HVAC ductwork drawings as outlined by Bacon in its complaint, and denies making changes to the roofing plans for the A building as described by Bacon.

DRA also denies that Bacon built the handicapped access ramp according to the plans and specifications.

In response to the claims filed by the town of Walpole, DRA denies that it failed to properly design the items found in violation by the AAB.

July 26, 2002

Some classrooms might not be ready

By Brian Burns
Staff writer

Administrators at Walpole High School may be forced to start yet another school year without a full array of classrooms at their disposal.

Slowdowns on the ongoing high school renovation and expansion project have made it questionable whether the classrooms on the first floor of the 1908 wing of the school can be completed by the time that classes resume in September.

During a meeting of the Permanent Building Committee Tuesday night, a representative from Bacon Construction seemed optimistic that they could complete the first floor classrooms by September, though Clerk of the Works Paul Wilbur said that he was still "on the fence" as to whether that would be possible.

All of the classrooms on the second floor should be ready by the time that school starts.

The auditorium and the music rooms will not be finished until later on in the fall.

All three floors of the 1908 wing were taken off line for renovations in June of 2001, temporarily eliminating 28 classrooms from school use.

After cramming classes into every available space for the first semester of last year, high school administrators were somewhat relieved when the opening of the third floor last winter provided them with nine new classrooms.

Work on the lower two floors of the 1908 wing was expected to be completed sometime this spring, with students not moving in until this September because of the hassles involved with changing rooms in the middle of the school year.

Officials broke ground on the $23 million project in September of 1999. The first two phases of the project (which included building a new science wing, media center and cafeteria and rehabilitating the math and foreign language departments) were completed ahead of schedule.

In this third and final phase of the project, construction has slowed considerably. The project is now more than six months past the original completion date of December 2001.

Part of the slowdown has resulted from some unforeseen complications due to the age of the building. There have also been a number of often-heated disagreements between Bacon and the DRA architectural firm on how to approach various aspects of the project.

In an effort to speed up the pace a group of town officials met with Wilbur, Bacon President George Agostini and architect Carl Franceschi from DRA last week to see if they could iron out the remaining disagreements.

As a result of that meeting, the three parties agreed to walk through the site together in the near future in order to figure out what has to be done and who is responsible for doing it.

They also planned to maintain better lines of communication about the status of the various change orders requested by Bacon.

Franceschi told PBC members Tuesday that there are very few outstanding issues preventing Bacon from proceeding with the project. "To a great extent it’s a question of manpower," he said.

Bacon representative Mark Palange said that he and Bacon owner George Agostini have discussed adding manpower to the site.

Bacon has also agreed to finish whatever work needs to be done on the project and argue about ownership and money later, he said.

Wilbur, who has also been hired to oversee work on the two elementary school renovations and expansion projects, appeared to be keeping a close eye on the project.

He told PBC members that the various work crews were continuing to do patch-up work inside the building, though there was still a lot left to complete.

Painters are priming and prepping, electricians are working on the wiring, sheet metal workers are installing ductwork, and the site contractor is paving over driveways and walkways, he said.

After being informed that the town was not happy with the conditions in front of the school, the landscaping contractor returned to the site this week to cut back some of the overgrowth and removed several oak trees that had died since being planted at an earlier stage of the project.

Palange told the PBC that the front entrance should look better by late August, when the cooler temperatures will allow for a second planting and most of the heavy site work will be completed.

School committee liaison Jean Hogan asked whether the town’s tough new watering restrictions had affected the appearance of the high school.

Since the use of sprinklers was never a part of the project, PBC member Jack Conroy said that the restrictions shouldn’t have had an effect. The landscaper should have used water trucks to maintain the front of the school, he said.

It was clear from Tuesday‘s meeting that some of the biggest challenges facing workers at the site are the correction of accessibility issues.

Following up on a complaint filed by community access monitor Harold Paul, the state Architectural Access Board notified the town last year that several wheelchair ramps (including the brand new one at the front entrance of the school) and handicapped-accessible shower stalls at the school did not have the proper grading.

Town officials are especially concerned about addressing those issues now because the AAB has asked them to submit a progress report.

This spring Bacon ripped out and replaced the ramp in front of the high school after their first attempt was proven to be higher than the allowable 5-percent grading.

While the new walkway was poured at a 4.5 percent grading in order to compensate for any changes that might occur while the asphalt was drying, Wilbur said that measurements by the architect indicated that there were still about a half dozen spots that were still steeper than the allowable grade.

Palange said that Bacon would do a little grinding on the ramp to make sure it meets with AAB approval.

He added that grading measurement often varies from instrument to instrument. When he took his readings the ramp seemed to be acceptable, he said.

Bacon and DRA are also working to resolve a difference of opinion on the cost of replacing two interior wheelchair ramps on the first floor of the 1908 wing (the ramps by the art room and the elevator).

Their first estimates differed by approximately $32,000, with Bacon coming in on the high side.

Palange agreed that Bacon’s numbers would have to be reworked and both he and Franceschi seemed confident that they could reach middle ground.

Pelange said that a subcontractor he hired to fix the grading in the showers backed out of the project after taking a closer look at it.

He is now trying to find someone else to complete the project at the same price.