More spread sheets arranged by Company and Site[ Again, Not alleging any wrongdoing by any named Companies; just asking questions]

This company has many change orders out of sequence ; duplicate numbers:

2 –#6’s, 2-7’s,2- 8’s, 2-9’s

 

 

 

 

 

The  electrical company in the following spread sheet has one major change order out of sequence and it appears to be duplicate of a line item that was done one year prior (see All the World’s a stage), a fire pump addition. Wouldn’t the electrical have been added when the first fire pump was “added” in January 2007? It also appears that  more Electrical work was done C/O#12 May 2007. Again, why wasn’t this included and completed with the original contract during the first installation of a fire pump ?

{ 0 comments }

 

Back in late 2008 after spotting this Change order in the December 2005  summary,

a change ordered by the “Drain Commission” for the sum of $ 55,470.00, I submitted a standard FOIA to the DPW (AKA drain commission) looking for the name of the inspector and any other info on this.

 

I received this reply from the DPW’s FOIA coordinator which included a history lesson  on how the name of the office had changed in 1975. Why does the change order use a name for an office that changed 30 years ago ?   [Could it be that they had been boiler plating these summaries for so many years, no one was looking, and they didn’t bother to change it?] That’s my guess.

FOIA produced this contract:

To make sure I was understood the first time I sent this 2nd FOIA request:

It was made clear that no change was made to the contract….But the December 2005 change order seen above states the “Drain commission-DPW” ordered it.

Here is the final Application and certificate for payment submitted to the DPW on November 1, 2005. We  can assume to mean the project was completed as planned, in accordance to the contract:

   and a blow up of the lower left hand corner of the App for payment that states total changes approved in previous months by owner:  zero

So why does a change order get approved the very next month, December, for $55,470 .00 after the contracted work was already completed andburied underground and paid for. If no body ordered it, was the work really done and where was it added?   Good question because $55 k = a whole lotta pipe.

Here is  a 3 part cutaway Scan0041 of the Nicol drain as shown on the Architectural plan of Seneca Middle school. Maybe the vintage Chippewa Valley Board members can show us where the extra pipe went.

Next up- More out of order change orders and  Sequoyah Elementary playground project [odd order of events and C/O payouts.]

{ 0 comments }

Dirt and Pipes

December 10, 2017

Dirt: It seems some of the 2004  bond project sites had really bad dirt; unstable and improper. One would think soil testing would have gone on by the engineering firm/Barton Malow before any project was begun. Boiler plated  language is really apparent here on this spreadsheet: BadDirt   ———————————————————————————————————- Pipes:Change orders relating to gas pipe on top of […]

Read the full article →

O-O-O- Extra Manholes-O-O-O

November 16, 2017

Extra manholes. Did we pay for one extra of each highlighted size?  The contract was between the Department of Public works and the named company with Chippewa Valley listed as the developer.   Scan0028  supporting documents.  

Read the full article →

Out of Order Change Orders

November 10, 2017

Just asking questions and my Disclaimer: In no way do my comments/observations  posted on these informational spreadsheets allege or accuse the companies listed of any wrongdoing. These spreadsheets consist of company specific change orders pulled from the monthly  summaries approved by the CV board. We can assume the numbers to the immediate left of the change […]

Read the full article →

All the World’s a (Wyandot) Stage.

October 30, 2017

A line taken from Shakespeare’s “As You Like It”. The Wyandot Middle School stage was the focus of quite a few change orders in July 2006 and again in January 2007 relating to it’s enlargement. Roughly $253,000 in change orders. Here are the original monthly change order   summaries :           Putting these contractor’s […]

Read the full article →

7 Reasons Why Not.

September 15, 2017

It seems ‘bond’ was the very last topic discussed during the (Board Workshop) meeting that took place on August 14, 2017. The minutes . Is the plan to come back for less money (say 65 million, so it sounds less expensive) in February, 2018 when they think the voters aren’t watching? The glossy flyer sent out pre- election by the […]

Read the full article →

Back to Business

May 4, 2017

Thanks to all who got out to vote. Now that the May 2, 2017 tax increase has been overwhelmingly defeated, we can get back to the business of tracking where some of the 1/2 billion dollars has gone. Even with every tactic the school board and administrators threw at this proposal, the savvy voters still weren’t buying […]

Read the full article →

Dream a little ($89 million) Treasury dream…..

February 4, 2017

———————————————————————————–  1st topic-2004 Bond~ A cool million and 15k square feet. ————————————————————————————————— NEW!  READ the Tuesday May 2, 2017 Ballot HERE:       CVBallot52017 It  has very precise wording as mandated by a change in the law that happened  based on Chippewa Valley’s bad borrowing practices. Financial experts have crunched the numbers  The .5 mills will […]

Read the full article →

$472 Million Reasons to Vote No………..

January 22, 2017

      The Chippewa Valley school district in Clinton Township, Michigan, has a $472 million debt, and has spent $257 million dollars in the last 12 year for “construction” and “tech “updates. Now Chippewa Valley Schools wants to borrow $89 million more  and stick it to the taxpayers yet again. They want to hold a general- […]

Read the full article →

Tell RON No BOND

November 29, 2016

UPDATE :  The Chippewa Valley school board has just voted YES  on the Resolution to Approve Application for Preliminary Qualification of Bonds. Here are two sets of documents relating to the current bond proposal and previous bonds: 1.) These show that they will  borrow [ scan0026] $31,543,200 from the State, and other various financial documents. Will they shop for […]

Read the full article →