Editorial: Does Hempfield need an owner’s rep for its $150 million building project?
Share this post:
The Hempfield Area School District’s building project just keeps adding layers of issues without ever breaking ground.
The project is conceived as a “revitalization” of the senior high school. It would bring the outdated structure up to today’s needs and provide improvements to the sports facilities, including a swimming pool package.
The planning has dragged on over years. In November 2020, board members were first presented with the idea of a feasibility study that would look at building or renovation options. That was $200,000 and took about a year to complete after approval in December 2020.
Then there was planning. Then there was design. Then there was bidding and a calendar and a plan for what to do with ninth graders while building was going on. But ground would be broken in August 2023 and the construction would last three years and …well, not so fast.
When bids were opened last month, an already high $132 million budget took a $16 million to $18 million bump, hitting a potential $150 million. Labor and supply issues were blamed. The bids were all rejected and construction was pushed to no earlier than spring 2024.
So what is the next thought in this escalating endeavor? Adding another layer of administration.
The board is now considering hiring an owner’s representative. That’s a professional outside the district who would act as the manager for the project. No, not a project manager. That’s a different job entirely and would already be involved.
The American Bar Association speaks of the position as an “emerging role” in the industry and a reflection of “the growing technical complexity and economic risk associated with modern construction projects.” It also notes the ability of the representatives in “expanding their scope of services to sell more services to their clients.”
The Hempfield board is looking to the position as a way to stop the increasing flow of money.
“An owner’s rep will help us protect our tax dollars and get this project on the right path again,” said board member Vince DeAugustine, chairman of the buildings and grounds committee.
He advocated for hiring an owner’s representative earlier and was overruled.
The desire to have someone advocating for the district’s needs is understandable. But the board already has layers and layers of administration, legal professionals and architect SitelogIQ — as well as the board members themselves. Is another professional what is needed?
One reason to ask that is definitely the bottom line. Owner’s reps are often paid a percentage of the cost of the project. With the cost rising like floodwater already, is another percentage or two added going to help keep costs down?
The argument there is that paying a representative could prevent overages elsewhere.
But overages in this project should be a foregone conclusion at this point. The first estimates were at $97 million and now top that by 50%.
Right now, the board doesn’t need a representative to watch the spending on this renovation. The taxpayers do.