Wednesday, March 26, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.
The fate of the construction management firm overseeing the school district's building program is expected to be determined Thursday.
The Clark County School Board is set to choose one of five options proposed for management of the $643 million bond construction program approved by voters last year.
The options include management of the entire program by school district staff; retaining Parsons-Fleming-Taylor, or PFT, to manage the entire program; hiring a firm other than PFT to manage the entire program; joint PFT-school district management of the program; and joint architects-school district program management.
Controversy has surrounded construction management since the voter-approved 1988 construction bond.
Public dissatisfaction with the way the school district handled the 1988 construction program prompted the district to search for an outside firm to oversee the 1994 bond-funded building program.
PFT was hired to oversee the $605 million 1994 bond at a cost of $25 million.
Some school district personnel involved in the 1988 building program were offended that the responsibility of management was taken away from them, and tension has been thick between the two organizations.
School Board members, presented with financial accounting and cost overrun reports on the building program, have questioned whether PFT is the best choice to manage the '96 money.
The Bond Oversight Committee, which is charged with financial oversight of the construction program, voted unanimously in February to recommend to the School Board to have a joint PFT-school district management team.
During the same month, the School Board directed school district staff to provide them with other options for construction management.
In the material provided by school district staff to the School Board, the district maintains it could do the same job PFT has done for almost $8 million less. This is the least expensive of the five options. It would also require hiring the greatest number of new employees.
For PFT to manage the entire program, it would cost the school district $25.7 million. PFT has developed a performance improvement plan to reduce duplication and overlap of work with school district staff and consultant architects, but this option still would require that the school district perform some of the work. As a result, some additional staff would have to be hired.
It's estimated that it would cost $29.4 million to bring in a different outside firm to handle construction management.
This option, according to the material submitted by Fred Smith, assistant superintendent for facilities and transportation, is the most expensive and most problematic.
Problems with this option include delays in all phases of the construction program. One factor is the time it would take to select a new firm and receive approval from the School Board.
Also seen as a negative in the material provided by Smith is the "tremendous learning curve" a new firm would face and the start-up time involved.
A fourth option -- joint management by PFT and the school district -- is the second most expensive of the five plans, with a price tag of almost $27 million.
The material provided to the School Board also indicates this option could possibly pose problems in coordinating the work between the two organizations.
The final option, at an estimated cost of $21 million, constitutes an expanded role of management for the architects involved in the building program.
The school district would maintain responsibility for some administrative work but the architects would take over construction management of individual projects.
According to Smith, local architects, general contractors and subcontractors support this option, the second least expensive of the five.
The School Board will meet at 5:30 p.m. Thursday at the Education Center, 2832 E. Flamingo Road.
archive
