Tuesday, July 15, 2008

PBC subcommittee minutes May 28 - hWg 29

And how did I miss #13? I thought we were installing one boiler... for a total of two boilers? But now the PBC is installing two boilers for a total of three? And we're relocating the two year old boiler? Does that impact the warranty? Whatever... I'm sure if I ask any questions, I'll be told:
Tim White

10 comments:

no credit loans said...

Oh my.. this is the best blog.


no credit loans

Anonymous said...

Like someone else said, there's no way all these screw-ups and "irregularities" are just screw-ups. And increasingly it's becoming more flagrant.

Anonymous said...

WOW....
You have to ask questions and demand answers Tim. You can't allow this to happen.
CCC and their lawyers must be loving this, wait till that lawsuit comes our way.
Maybe we can get the law firm of Hall & Esty to defend us since they are responsible for getting us in this mess.
I thought that if a company bid on a project and won it, they coudn't deviate from the plans. That wouldn't be fair to the other bidders. But since when is our town fair?
Please ask the questions Tim, it needs to be brought up.

tim white said...

Sorry bout the sarcasm... I was just kidding.

I will ask questions... in fact, I already emailed Altieri to ask about how many boilers are slated for Norton, etc.

Btw, Matt A sent out an update tonight on the Norton Boiler... I'm sure my post from last night had nothing to do with his email... remember... the majority doesn't read the "bathroom wall."
______________________________

The ability to communicate is powerful. I heart the internet.

Anonymous said...

How about item #2 regarding the amounts the PBC can approve for change orders?! Sounds like there's an increase in the price. Didn't we all hear the contractor say that it won't cost the town one penny more?? Of course just having him do the work is costing us over 70K more - go figure.

Anonymous said...

Tim:

The job in total was bid around the installation of two (2) new boilers, with the relocation of the existing boiler, for a total of three (3) boilers upon completion of the project.

It is not difficult to see how the town messed up so badly when the people who are supposed to be in the know can't get the project basics straight. That means you too, Tim; how many times did you look at the bid forms during your "review"? The people associated with this project are counting on the fact that people either don't know, don't understand, or don't care. Facts are stubborn things.

tim white said...

7:48

fair enough. That's why I asked.

Anonymous said...

Business as usual by town municipal government is taking a greater and greater toll on the basic credibility of our town municipal employees. It would seem that town government is beyond the point of no return in terms of the town’s ability to do important things correctly and yes, quietly and expeditiously.

If the town were a business unit of some large corporation one day soon all its employees would wake up with a note explaining that due to unexpected changes their operation was being shut down in the next 90 days and their severance pay would be a quite small. Of course the town isn’t a business unit being watched constantly for waste, incompetence, and corruption. And as some casual spectators have noted many of those in municipal government seem to embrace the heroic effort concept for fixing broken or almost broken town projects which are never well managed but are always saved by some group doing its heroic duty after the fact.

This particular project seems to be the classic case of the blind leading the blind. No real attempt was made up front by the town to understand in detail what it needed. Both of the squabbling bidders should have had their names firmly placed on a town NO BID list for a period of a year or two as a reward for their antics and other vendors should have been sought out. Come on folks, look at the economy, how many boiler installation firms wouldn’t love a school job at this point? Maybe it’s time for the whole town operation to receive a detailed top down, bottom up basic competency review and financial audit.

Anonymous said...

Does the PBC have the authority to allow those changes in the contract?
Why change to replacing 1 boiler? Will that work adequately at the school?
Did we only need 1 boiler in the first place? The engineer should be questioned.
If they make that big of a change, it should go out to bid again.
That meeting was in May, where do we stand now??
Are they replace 2 boilers?
When will they be done?
We need answers!

Anonymous said...

Tim:

There is nothing to worry about and nothing to ask any questions about. Remember we have the crack Shenanigate team of Hall and Estey ready to pounce on anyone that might raise a question. Remember, mums the word.

And I have confidence in Matt Bowman's ability to pull this off. Remember Matt is the Chairman of the West Main Streetscape and under his direction the cost has merely doubled from $500,000 to $1,000,000. And, when you consider there are at least 10 busineses premises on West Main that's quite a feat. That's only about $100,000 per premise.

Of course there are always some negative people that don't think it is right that Matt was made chairman, and that's because they think the Bowman family owns property on West Main. There are always those people that are quick to develop conspiracy theories on how thing work in Cheshire. Cheshire is a nice town to do business in.