Questions raised over construction management

Teresa Hinds

Friday, March 28, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

A decision on who will manage the Clark County School District's $643 million 1996 bond construction program has been delayed until Wednesday.

The motion to delay the decision, which came after nearly an hour of public testimony and discussion at Thursday's School Board meeting, passed by a one-vote margin.

School Board members Mary Beth Scow, Judy Witt and Ruth Johnson voted no on the postponement, saying they had done their homework and were prepared to make a decision at the meeting.

"I've spent at least the last four weeks looking into this, and I wasn't hearing anything significant tonight to make me change my mind," Johnson said.

The question of whether to retain Parsons-Fleming-Taylor, manager of the 1994 bond, as construction managers of the school district's '96 building program was first brought up in October.

But School Board President Susan Brager said the decision was a difficult one and she wanted more time to make a decision.

The questions of responsibility and accountability particularly troubled School Board member Lois Tarkanian.

"We need to have more specificity (in the construction management contract) because we seem to have specific problems with who's in charge," Tarkanian said.

That was one concern raised by Michelle Justice, representing the Southern Nevada Foundation for Fair Contracting.

She said her organization had received numerous complaints about the way construction management had been handled, particularly with who was accountable.

She also criticized the school district for not having a clear and expedient policy on complaint resolution.

While Justice did not take a position on any of the options the board is considering, she did suggest an advisory board be set up to handle complaints.

Bob Broadbent, who chairs the Bond Oversight Committee, told the School Board that a construction management firm was needed rather than the district handling the task.

"I firmly believe in oversight, I firmly believe you need more than one person looking at what you're doing," he said.

He spoke against the school district managing its own building program, largely due to the public's criticism of how the district handled the 1988 bond-funded building program.

Broadbent also nixed the idea of allowing architects to be the construction managers, likening that option to letting "the fox into the hen house. You don't want the guys doing the design work doing the oversight."

Keeping PFT as construction managers seemed to be a compromise.

"In general we are not happy with everything PFT did and we are not 100 percent happy with things (school district official) Fred Smith's group did," Broadbent said. "We think there could be improvements."

He asked the School Board to give the oversight committee a chance to review the contract, should PFT be chosen to remain construction manager. Broadbent said the committee could assist in eliminating duplication efforts and would like to "get rid of some of the tension we've seen" between PFT and the school district.

Brager called on Smith, assistant superintendent of facilities and transportation, for advice on what option he thought would be the best. Smith's department managed the 1988 bond and is in charge of doing rehab and modernization work for the 1994 and 1996 bonds.

"Staff is not advocating any option," Smith responded. "We would be the first to tell you we are biased because of our involvement in the 1988 bond. Obviously, this is a very political decision and we are not in the position to make a recommendation."

Smith said the politics of the decision have far-reaching effects.

"The decision as to who manages the '96 bond could potentially have an impact on the passage of any future bonds," he said.

The School Board will meet at 2 p.m. Wednesday to decide on a construction management option for the 1996 bond. Options are construction management by the school district, management by PFT, joint management by the district and PFT, construction management by another firm or an expanded construction management role for architects.