Story Byline: By Colin Gustafson Credits: Greenwich Time Source: SCNI Day: Sunday Print Run Date: 3/22/2009

Text: Hamilton Avenue School Three long years of trials and tribulations What went wrong? By Colin Gustafson Staff Writer Until last month, Hamilton Avenue School second-grader Rachel Moore had spent only a few months of her entire elementary career attending class in an actual school building. Beginning kindergarten in a prefabricated modular facility at Western Middle School in 2006, the student was re-assigned to Parkway School for several months last spring following a mold scare at the facility, only to return to the modulars for five months this school year -- all while awaiting the reconstruction of her elementary schools Chickahominy school house. It wasnt until last month, when the school reopened to students more than two years behind schedule, that Rachel finally got to attend class, full time, in what her mother, Terry, calls a real school. Its been a journey, Moore said. I think its a real positive now, just to have all the teachers and students back together. Closed in 2005 because of long-standing mold and structural issues, the 92-year-old school house was supposed to have been rebuilt within 18 months, but instead the building took more than three years to complete, causing overall costs to swell by$2.2 million. The imbroglio sparked a level of frustration among parents rarely seen in Greenwich, as students had to attend class in a temporary modular building -- which also suffered from mold problems -most of three school years. With children finally moved into the new school after an epic series of delays, a question remains: What exactly caused the project to fall so far behind schedule? That question will likely be raised a number of times in the months ahead, as the town prepares for a potential lawsuit against the projects general contractor, Bethel-based Worth Construction. While these officials remain tight lipped about details of the potential lawsuits, the expectation is that court action could get under way once the school has received a full certificate of occupancy from inspectors, likely sometime this summer. Worth officials, who have repeatedly threatened to pursue their own legal claims against the town, declined to comment for this article. When asked to discuss impending legal action, town officials and members of the building committee, which was tasked with overseeing the project on the towns behalf, declined to comment. There are many lessons to be learned from what went wrong, said First Selectman Peter Tesei. A major factor to stymie progress in the project was the acrimonious relationship that developed

between Worth and the building committee, led by chairman Frank Mazza, many have said. The two sides got off to a shaky start when construction contracts were first awarded to Worth in early 2006, as the contractor was facing down accusations of having mob associations and involvement in a bribery scheme in Waterbury -- accusations the firm has adamantly denied. The relationship soured considerably when it was first announced that the project was on the verge of missing its July 2007 completion deadline, with Worth faulting the committee for taking too long to approve work orders, and Mazza venting to the board about communication issues and a slowdown by the contractor. In a visible sign of how tense their dealings had grown by fall 2007, Worth president Joe Pontoriero stormed out of a building committee meeting when officials shot down his request to discuss possible lawsuits in executive session out of the public eye. I dont have to be here, Im here as a courtesy, said Pontoriero before leaving. More than just a distraction from work, these types of personality clashes fostered an atmosphere of non-cooperation that hampered the projects progress, Tesei said. Beginning in November 2007, for instance, Worth refused to pay the heating bill at the school, saying it wasnt responsible for the winter-related costs since the project had spanned beyond its original summer completion deadline. The move pushed back the completion date by several weeks, according to building committee members who ultimately agreed to foot the bill. Another factor to hamper the project was its small contingency fund, which some say forced the contractor to haggle over costs and gave the impression that the project was off course each time the committee sought more cash from the town. From the start, the committee had expressed doubts about the size of the projects contingency fund for unforeseen costs, which, at $800,000, or 3 percent of overall construction costs, was below the typical 5- to 10 percent set aside for most projects. Committee members first proposed the lower contingency in an effort to stay faithful to the school boards more conservative cost estimates for the project, though Mazza said he had repeatedly warned town officials as early as 2004 that he might be forced to return seeking more funds if the project ran into problems. Town officials approved a contract with a lower contingency, despite these reservations. Part of the reason: Board of Estimate and Taxation Chair Steve Walko said he believes many wanted to avoid a delay caused by revising the projects budget and were confident the rebuilding effort would run smoothly once construction began. There was a feeling of optimism, that the project could be done within the budget, and there wouldnt be anything to go wrong, Walko said. He noted that Worth had offered the lowest bid by a responsible contractor within budget guidelines. Mazza was forced to return to town officials seeking interim appropriations five times -- in June 2007, January 2008, May 2008, September 2008 and January 2009, for a total of roughly $2.2 million. Worth officials have said the town is responsible for delays caused by underfunding the project. While disputing that argument, Mazza acknowledges that his committees frequent requests for

more funding had frustrated town officials and fueled a public perception that his committee was mishandling the project. It put the spotlight on everybody in a bad way, said Mazza, who has endured harsh criticism by Worth officials and some parents. (In December, Mazza was asked to consider relinquishing his post of chair of the Glenville School building committee, but said when he offered his resignation to fellow committee members they declined to accept it.) I have my own ideas about what happened on the job, Mazza said of the Hamilton Avenue project. A lot of people blame the building committee. Im in charge of that committee, so Ill accept that. Still others say the difficulties arose from regular breakdowns in communication among all parties involved in the reconstruction effort -- from the contractor, to the committee, to the project manager, architect and engineer -- often leaving key players in the dark about mounting problems for weeks, sometimes months. A case in point: When building committee members first said in April 2007 that the project was likely to miss its original completion date of July 2007, the news appeared to come as a surprise to many. While some problems had been reported as early as winter 2006, for example, school officials at the time said theyd been under the impression the project could get back on track in time for its scheduled re-opening, and that theyd only recently become aware of significant setbacks as part of a scheduled progress report with the committee. Every signal we had was that this was going along smoothly, Superintendent of Schools Betty Sternberg told members of the Board of Education at an April 2007 meeting. To address concerns about oversight and communication, she assigned Facilities Director Tony Byrne to begin attending the building committees weekly job site meetings. Around the same time, it also came to light for many in town that PinnacleOne, the Tempe, Ariz.based project manager serving as a liaison between the various parties involved in the project, had been assigned to be at the job site just three times a week under its original agreement with the building committee. Mazza ordered the project manager to increase its presence at the job site. Critics say many of these problems could have been avoided altogether if the building committee had hired a construction manager or owners representative for the project, instead of a general contractor, which they say would have given the committee more control to manage costs. Unlike general contractors, construction managers dont participate in daily work on the site but help the building committee seek competitive bids with multiple subcontractors, including plumbers, bricklayers and electricians. This approach is being used now at Glenville School, where the schools reconstruction remains on track to re-opening on schedule in early 2010 without exceeding its $24 million budget, according to Mazza. In hindsight, we should have gone with a construction manager for the Hamilton Avenue project, Mazza said. Instead, the committee selected a general contractor, a common route to take on renovations and other smaller-scale projects but no longer the norm for full-blown reconstruction projects, according to David Wedge, of the state Department of Educations Bureau of Facilities.

Unlike a construction manager, a general contractor bids out for the entire project and assumes the financial risk of hiring subcontractors regardless of whether the costs exceed the original bid price. Thats good for the owner because it limits their financial risk if the project exceeds cost estimates. But it also limits the owners ability to control the project, since the contractor is in charge of the sub-contractors. When delays arise, general contractors are known to insist they need more time and compensation to finish work, according to Alan Monelli, town building superintendent. With a general contractor, theyre there to build a building and make a profit, he said. For large-scale projects, especially those with the potential for delays, the safe bet for an owner is to hire a construction manager or owners representative, Monelli said. As an example, he points to the towns $33 million effort to construct a new police headquarters downtown, a project thats expected to be completed within budget and ahead of schedule. Monelli said hes encountered no problems in his dealings with Worth, and has been able to avoid potentially costly delays, in part, by working with an owners representative, San Fransisco-based URS Corporation, which monitors daily progress in the project. Theres always some kind of discussion that has to be resolved, he said. You need somebody at all times to represent the owner. One conclusion that former First Selectman Jim Lash left office with in 2007 was that the use of citizen-run building committees for school building projects was flawed because it removes authority from the superintendent, the first selectman and other officials the public can hold accountable for how town money is spent. With members appointed by various town boards and approved by the Representative Town Meeting, building committees work largely autonomously from the town, calling the shots on almost every aspect of the job, from choosing an architect, to issuing bids, approving change orders and requesting funds. They are required to report periodically to the Representative Town Meeting, under Town Charter. When it became clear to Lash that costs were spiraling out of control, he tried to intervene in the Hamilton Avenue project in the waning days of his second term as first selectman, urging committee members in late 2007 to hire the construction management firm URS to help mediate disputes with Worth. The building committee agreed for a time -- hiring URS to help resolve the dispute with Worth over the winter heating bills -- only to drop the construction manager from the job several weeks after Lash had left office. For Lash, the experience showed that you can encourage and give suggestions, but if the building committee doesnt take your advice, you have no way to control how things move. While the Hamilton Avenue Schools building committee was highly qualified, he believes, committee members in general have limitations as volunteers who are not (at the site) every day, who meet once or twice a week, and who arent able to make decisions in a timely manner. Sternberg said she also felt there was a limit to how much influence she could exert over the project at various points, since the building committee acts as the legal owner during construction phases. Its the building committee that is in charge of the project, Sternberg said, adding that she believes her administration did everything we could possibly do behind the scenes without

having official responsibility or clout to do it. There are alternatives to the approach taken by the town, however. While the state requires all school construction projects receiving state aid to have a building committee, it leaves the makeup of the committee to the municipality, according to Wedge. He cited instances elsewhere in the state in which a committee has been made up of the superintendent alone serving as a committee of one. The Town Charter mandates that seven to nine unpaid volunteers from the town oversee school construction projects on the school boards behalf -- a practice advocates say is better-suited for representing school constituencies. You need people who represent the community, who have the eyes and the ears, said Rep. Lile Gibbons, R-150th District, a former school board member who has served on six building committees. She noted that other school construction projects had run smoothly under a building committee, citing the on-time completion of a $42 million renovation of Greenwich High School begun in the early 1990s. If it has people with a mix of backgrounds and a good leader, its going to work better than if you get a bunch of professional engineers in the room who dont know what they (community members) want, she said. While they say doing away with the building committee format seems unlikely, budget officials have been looking at ways of making future building committees more accountable to the town and public. One idea, proposed by Walko last fall, would require committees and construction officials to hold mandatory meetings at least once a week. Another idea, floated by members of the BET audit committee more than a year ago, would require building committees to submit detailed quarterly reports to the finance board on the status of ongoing work. Under another recommendation by the BET audit committee, projects of at least $5 million would be required to have a full-time project manager or owners representative to oversee progress, control costs and head off delays. In addition, Lash has said it would benefit the town to require that a minimum of 5 to 10 percent of a projects entire cost be put into a contingency fund for unanticipated expenses. Walko said budget officials are likely to consider the recommendations as a basis for new policies on school construction. In the meantime, I hope it doesnt get lost in this discussion that we have a wonderful new school, he added. At the end of the day, the hope is obviously to try to allow each and every child to reach his or her full potential, and I think this building finally gives them that opportunity. In January 2004, many parents had grown eager to get their children out of the aging school building, after students began complaining of headaches and stomach aches, which were blamed on mold and dust. Five years later, after a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for the school, parents were now demanding their children be allowed back into the rehabilitated school immediately, calling for a relocation in February rather than the April move proposed by school officials, who later agreed to the earlier move. Students and staff have been getting settled in the new, state-of-the-art school since Feb. 17. All the worries are gone, all the drama is gone, said mother Alex Capozza several weeks after the relocation. The kids are happy now.