COUNCIL LOOKING TO TERMINATE BATHROOM CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
The Brenham City Council is looking to terminate a construction contract during their next meeting. On the agenda for their meeting next Thursday is an executive session for the discussion and possible termination of the contract with GCP Contractors of Needville. Council approved their bid of $251,500 for construction of new bathrooms at Fireman’s Park in July. The new restrooms were to replace an old restroom structure adjacent to the kitchen building. Construction of the new bathrooms was expected to be completed by the end of the year. The contractor was delayed by the heavy rains from Hurricane Harvey in August but only the foundation of the buildings have been completed to date.
Also on the agenda the possible conveyance of ¾ of an acre of land to the Brenham Fire Department. The property is at the very corner of the Highway 290 service road and Industrial Blvd., adjacent to the Fireman’s Training Center. It was donated to the city in 1983 by John Garnett at the same time that he donated 4 acres to the Brenham Fire Department for the Training Center. The property is often used as an unpaved parking lot for overflow parking behind the Training Center. The Fire Department is looking to utilize the property for future improvements to the Training Center.
City Council meets next Thursday at 1:00 PM on the second floor of City Hall.
251 K seems a bit excessive for two bathrooms, I just recently built a 1898 sq ft three Bed two bath brick home for 224 K so I am sure two bathrooms could have been built for less, Add this to last years 50 k lawn mower purchase as another free spending day with our tax dollars Vote em out next time around.
I’m sorry, was your bid on the project overlooked by the city?
To Pops Not sure what you mean, I am not a contractor , I used a contractor to build my personal home that I live in recently. So your question to me makes absolutely no sense to me. I was just saying that if I could contract a home to be built for the amount I did , I cant see why two bathrooms couldn’t be built for less.
Right. Was just pointing out that if you know how to get it done cheaper, you ought to bid. Isn’t the point of bidding to ensure low prices as a consequence of competition? So why do you think none of these contractors put in cheaper bids?
On something that the park needs like this why not ask for donations from company’s and contractors. They and the city could surely come together and build what was needed for muchsurely it can’t be that hard. And on top of that put a placke with the names of those who helped and donated to the build much less cost of taxpayer money and or grants
I agree. They could have even reused the plans for the downtown restrooms and even built two of those buildings across from one another. Could have had individual restrooms for: men’s, women’s, family, and whatever? That would have surely been cheaper, and would have all the bases covered. Now and in the future!
It is disappointing that these comments are being throw out and no one knows the facts. The facts are that the City would have loved to used local contractors but the bids from local contractors were $70K-$90K higher than the budgeted price of $250,000. This contractor was slightly higher than budget so the city thought that is would be wise to award to the most conservative bid. Unfortunately now that may be a regret but the City and BCDC did try to be conservative by keeping this project around the budgeted amount. References were checked and came back positive. This project was also funded by BCDC ( not the City budget) which is derived from a portion of the annual sales tax and used on Economic and Recreational Projects. The City and the Project Manager was conservative as possible and proactive in providing a dedicated Men’s, Women’s and Family Facility that would blend in with the kitchen and last for many years with common fixtures and HVAC which the City has had many requests for especially next to a kitchen facility that is rented out 48-50 weekends throughout the year. This project isn’t completely dead but hopes are the restrooms can be completed in time for the Spring park usage with this contractor or another one. It’s not been an easy process and it should have been.
Yes this all the info I have heard also. Thank you for sharing. You guys need do your research before opening your mouth on stuff you have no idea about. Yes $250,000.00 is a bunch of money for bathrooms but everything has to be codes for ada and public buildings. The bid included new walkways and repair to the landscaping. Weather delaying the project is one thing, but there has been no workers on site many weeks. The city is trying to get contractor motivated to finish the project or pull the job so that they can move on to another contractor.
When you accept bids and 3 contractors are fairly close in price and 1 contractor is substantially lower than the other 3 that should raise a flag that maybe the lowest bidder underestimated the project. The lowest bidder is not always the best option.
Alternatively, it raises the question of why all the local contractors’ bids were higher than the budget within a small range, while an out-of-county contractor was alone at hitting anywhere close to the budget. If you assume the estimate/budget as accurate/realistic, then it’s easy to assume the out-of-county contractor really wanted the work, realistically believed it could be done as budgeted, and didn’t try for any extra profit, so his bid was close to the expectation. Maybe the local contractors didn’t really want the work (too small a project), so just put in a big number for the heck of it. Weird that the ‘for the heck of it’ big numbers are in such a small range, though.
The fact that after the project was approved & started & there was no hot water system Nor area for it available for it & a change order had to be made that increased the
$ amount big time from what I hear was on the city side had a lot to do with delays also
Really sad that our overpaid higher up sit behind a desk watch city employees all day from cameras around the city micromanage & run off good employees but don’t do the job their suspose to be doing on their end.
If you talk to the real workers we have in the city that are connected to these projects there are some real horror stories that go on around the city on these projects
[ library, police station, dog pound] there some doosies. The first dogs put into the kennels went right over the back fence & after a couple days had bit a person & was shot by the dog catcher in the city limits, first rain had water from kennels area run down hill into the back door of the offices.
Facts are that the water heater system was required during the Plan Review Process by City Staff and based on code has to be installed which is a minor change order less than $3000. Not “big time” considering the amount of the total project. Wow some people are so out of touch! These are simple under the sink water heaters.
Also, there is way more info on why city employees leave then what is heard through the media. Just open a public information request through HR. You may not want to really know the truth.
This makes me so mad! $250,000!! And now they want to stop the construction?! Combine this with the hellcat purchase and you have a messed up situation. Wasting my tax dollars when I can’t even afford to take my kid to Dr. How about we get that $ reimbursed. I would rather pay for a nurse at the jail house or give our hard working public servants (Not the city counsel) a raise. And on top of everything they don’t support local companies. Common sense people!!!
What “hellcat purchase” are you referring to?
$251,000 dollars for restrooms? If it is not made to look like the Taj Mahal and have gilded walls, this is blatant over reach with tax payer dollars. True, the fixtures and interiors must be very durable to hold up to rough service. The only reason toilets would cost this much is when the purchasers have received “special” consideration for the purchase. How about council publishing the taxpayers a breakdown of actual structure costs, versus fixture costs?
In my opinion it would be smart to hire a local contractor. Someone like Collier Construction. They are a very reputable company.
It is no wonder the taxpayers are so flushtrated with Brenham’s hired and elected city government. Hopefully, new management will make sure the terminations continue at city hall and voters remember this at next city election. It is time to wipe out this mess in city hall.
what a waste of money and time!
Should’ve hired local.
I agree!
Maybe the local contractors bids were too high! Everything else in this town as far as many of the services are concerned are! Our city and county govt. just loves to spend money and keep raising taxes, way too many Chiefs around and nobody that wants to help solve problems other than throw more and more taxpayer $$$$ at it!
‘Nobody wants to help solve problems…’
Ok, watcha got for us?
Whosoever with the city that is responsible for hiring the insolvent general contractor for the restroom construction needs to be terminated too. No pun intended, and I mean, “canned.” Taxpayers deserve responsible money management. Tax payers should not have to pay for director mistakes or director learning curves. Zero tolerance for wasted money, and mismanagement and misappropriated money, and ill fated judgement. That is the way the private sector works and that is the same performance taxpayers deserve for their money. The taxpayers need competency out of government directors not repetitive errors.
I understand your frustration, but saying that the private sector doesn’t tolerate any mistakes or mismanagement is a ludicrous thing to say, expecting all these human beings to be so perfect seems extremely unrealistic, and holding city management to an impossible standard is not helpful, at least, and is needlessly divisive at best.
An small error is one thing and usually acceptable. A huge error is unexceptable. The huge error in this situation displays incompetence. This level of this mistake shows incompetence by the director, by the staff that put him in charge, and incompetence in behalf of the project architect. Hopefully, the contractor that takes the job over, can complete the job within budget. Hopefully, the project required a materials and performance bond by a reputable company and they will be responsible for finishing the project for the original accepted bid. Hopefully, the responsible director and project architect have not overpaid the contractor to date. It is good it was a small project.
What is the specific “huge error” you refer to?
I think the error is the fact that they did not review the bids accurately since the bid they took was 20-25% lower. Are you the architect? or builder? or city employee? They would be asking that question.
Preliminary costs were done by the architect before bids and the project was estimated to be constructed for around the $250,000 mark. When the bids came back there was one bid at $254,000 and others much higher. Due diligence was done by the architect, city staff and all was presented to both the City Council and BCDC board for approval. Numerous eyes were aware of the bids and information received. All info was presented and all involved were comfortable with the bids and project until non performance and time ran out with little progress on the project. So what kind of criticism would have been given to BCDC or City Council if the bid would have been awarded to someone $70K-$80K over budget. It’s a double edge sword and unfortunately the contractor has not held up their end of the deal. This project should get completed at the same agreed contract price with this contractor or another. This doesn’t happen very often but it is not uncommon in the public sector.
Another onlooker, like yourself. Not sure why you think a bystander can’t ask a question?
You could build a really nice house for $250,000, and it would have bathrooms, with baths/showers (an expense not needed for this project). I guess this wasteful spending of my tax dollars is why I can’t afford to upgrade my own bathrooms.