Prior to the most recent September 2 meeting, the Boards of Education and Finance sent the Morganti Group questions about the project by e-mail, and Mr Barrett, who was not in attendance August 28, apparently used these to frame his responses.

“I might as well start with the discussion items: why over budget?” said Mr Barrett.

He then compared what the different contractors bid and the numbers the Morganti Group had expected when they estimated an overall project budget last spring.

“Back in February when we put these budgets together based on all the drawings and specifications and all the conversations we had,” he said, “we felt we were really looking at the same job between [a second project] consultant and us, and when the bids came in we were somewhat surprised with all the differences. In going through the process of scope reviews, we started to understand the reasons why in some of the cases.”

The Morganti Group’s scope reviews, which involved combing through different bid packages with each individual contractor, inspecting how the costs were determined and what materials were to be used, were performed after the bids closed July 29. In a memo to the school district and members of the Public Building & Site Commission, the Morganti Group preliminarily responded that the bids were over budget within 24-hours of them being presented.

Following the scope reviews, some of the bid awards went to the second lowest contractor because low bidders left out critical components. For example, the low bidder for demolition package left out waterproofing the roof of the gymnasium.

On alternate bids for the track and synthetic turf package, there were two options for the type of turf that could be used. Mr Barrett said the more expensive turf is being carried forward as the most cost-effective option.

“Obviously the big things you are off on are the bid package numbers four, five, and nine. Those are all off; 45 percent off on the metals, 30 percent off on the general trades, and 41 percent off on the HVAC,” observed school board member Kathy Fetchick. “And I was hoping you could be a little more specific other than [saying] it’s just material or inflation. That’s just an incredible amount, and accounts for most of the overage.”

Mr Barrett said the Morganti Group went to contractors during scope reviews to question why bids came in higher than expected. From March to July, which was during the time of the bidding, material costs rose 40 percent. The contractors also built-in extra expenses on the project to account for any potential further increases in materials costs that may occur over the next year, he said.

“If we add 40 percent of material costs based on our budget,” Mr Barrett said, “we would have been over four million dollars.” 

Board member David Nanavaty said the point of discussing the NHS expansion project was to get answers so board members could then explain why the school board was requesting $6 million more for the high school expansion.

“I think what’s interesting, Ed, is these charts you have given us, where you look at the first chart and it shows the change of the production prices and the consumer prices,” Mr Nanavaty said referring to an information packet the Morganti Group supplied. “The Consumer Price Index went up 19 percent, but construction industry prices went up 44 percent. I think that’s important.”

The sad reality of the situation, said Mr Nanavaty, is the community is seeing the effects of the economy and the increasing cost of living through the NHS Expansion Project.

“And if you look at where the increases seem to be most dramatic,” continued Mr Nanavaty, “they seem to hit April through July of 2008. You look at the next chart which talks about diesel fuel, that’s an increase of 78 percent [during] same time period, April through August. Steel mill products, that’s a 33 percent increase…same time period.”

These cost increases could signal further escalating costs over the next year, according to the Morganti Group. Mr Nanavaty stressed that the issue of the increased costs is something the town must understand, because, he said, the project must be passed.

Mr Nanavaty said that by 2017, the district could be accommodating as many as 1,762 more students.

 “Ten percent of that is 176. If they are in the high school, God help us if we don’t get this project,” said Mr Nanavaty.

Board member Lillian Bittman said the expansion project that was originally presented to taxpayers before an April 22 referendum that passed a two-phase, $38.8 million construction appropriation was still required.

“I hope the people in Newtown realize that we can not control the economy,” Mr Nanavaty said. Board of Education Chair Elaine McClure said she expects the Board of Finance to review the NHS Expansion Project during its meeting September 8. During its August 28 meeting, finance board Chair John Kortze warned his board to expect to entertain the $6 million additional appropriation request at the board’s next meeting.