In an effort to provide complete information. I have # 1) Reprinted the article that he responds to. # 2) I have provided Anderson's letter. #3) I've provided my thoughts, after reading the letter.
#1, Reprint of "There Is A Surprise Benefit To Hiring Real Experts On Our Current Road Projects", published on December 7th
The Wedgefield Examiner provides the following information to the best of my ability. To confirm for yourself, listen to the tape of the WPA Annual Meeting on The Wedgefield Times, or the WPA website, when, and if, they make it available. There haven't been any recordings posted on their website since July of 2015, and no minutes posted since June 2015 (The board's attempt at dumbing down the membership????) Thank you Wedgefield Times for providing your recordings. DON'T MISS THE P.S. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE. I ALMOST FORGOT THE BEST PART OF THE STORY.
Anderson, Roads Chair, reported during the WPA Annual Meeting, that there was approximately $10,000 in savings on the current road project. It seems that with professional contracted engineering oversight, that once the actual work began, that it was noted that some contracted process requirements could be eliminated, resulting in the savings, that will be applied to future additional road projects.
Anderson does a great job as Roads Chair. He always brings his proposals to the table with a plan that includes professional contract engineering, professional development of request for proposal (specs, terms, etc.), professional review of bids & contract development, and professional contract work oversight. He is the ONLY board member who does this. The others claim expertise, their own, and savings, leaving us with a hodgepodge of paper trail (lack of documentation on bidding, contracting, etc.), and poor end result projects. Additionally, some projects come to the board table several times, often with a change in the board person taking responsibility for the project. Such was the case with the gate house (2 years, three bidding processes (?????) and McMillin & DeMarchi, each taking the helm at varying times), the Wedgefield Drainage Project (same two vying for the leadership role), and the pond project (same two at it again). What is the common thread? Each time, they are the self proclaimed experts, will save us money, have the best idea, and contractors, and the paper trail is a mess. What else is common? The declaration from the board table that they couldn't get three bidders, and no one wants to work in Wedgefield. Surprisingly (NOT), when Anderson puts his project in the hands of professionals, we don't have these problems, or declarations, or change of board member in charge. In fact, we have solid management and great project results.
Remember the TV program, The $64,000 Question? Well, here's a question, sometimes it is the $100,000+, the $20,000+, the $10,000+, etc, question. Here it is - IF YOU ARE ANDERSON, WHY WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, AND VOTE YES, ON ANY PROJECT, PARTICULARLY LARGE SUM PROJECTS, WHEN THE BOARD MEMBER PRESENTING THE PROPOSED MOTION, HADN'T MET EVEN THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS, OF THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU CONDUCT YOUR PROJECTS, IN YOUR ROLE AS BOARD MEMBER, PROTECTING OUR ASSETS?
There is a second integrity question, $64,000+ question for the rest of the board, in fact two. (1) If you feel Anderson's project management requirements are sound, how is it that you don't apply them to your projects? (2) If you feel that you all are experts, don't need to go to the expense of professional services, even though not doing so defies what the experts who wrote the reserve study recommend in several places in the document - hire professional engineering, bid & contract development & oversight - WHY DO YOU VOTE YES ON THE ROAD PROJECTS? There is NO integrity, or consistency, in this board's approach to sound governance (??????)!
Members, let yourself off the hook in one declaration from this board. So many of these board members have declared that no one wants to work in Wedgefield, and that is why they can't get bidders. It isn't you, or me. It is this board's hap hazard way of doing business.
P.S. If the savings is approximately $10,000, and my notes are correct. The money saved is about 2 times more, than the engineering and oversight services cost!
#2, Anderson's Letter:
To wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com 12/09/15 at 10:41 AM
I read your piece about the current road project and wanted to clear up a few things and explain my thinking on engineering and professional oversight of projects in general.First,phase one was re configured from a mill and remove, to a mill in place procedure. This was recommended to us by Coastal Asphalt as a cost savings after work began and it was realized that the condition of the base was acceptable to be re-used. This resulted in a savings of $30,394.00 for Phase I alone, and we expect a similar savings during the second phase of work that is currently under way.
I would also like to explain my thoughts about the hiring of professionals to oversee our projects. Your article calls into question why we approve it on road projects but not other projects. When I first took over the road committee I was given a list of contractors that I called and had several come out to look at our issues. It seemed each had a different idea of how those repairs needed to be executed. The inconsistencies were apparent in the estimates we received, in which the prices varied wildly. It became apparent to me the only way to do this was to have everyone bidding on the same process. That is when I began to look into hiring an engineering firm to help.We have used Earthworks on both of these projects, and I (not all board member agree) have been mostly satisfied with their oversight relative to what they are charging us. If for nothing but the consistent bid specifications and the bidding process, I feel it is worth every penny.
Now as far as why we do not use some sort of similar oversight on other projects, it is simply in my opinion, most of the time not cost effective. Take for example the gate house project. The hiring of an architect to draw specs and solicit bids for a project that small would be ridiculous. The cost of this would likely be more than the repairs. We do use professionals on our projects when it makes sense to do so. Al DeMarchi and the drainage committee had engineering involved in the Wedgefield Drainage project from a few years ago. The Water Amenities Committee used professional help to acquire the permits for the new docks. For the most part our volunteers do a good job and to categorize these projects as a fiasco is unfair and undermines any future goodwill. Projects like the gatehouse repair are not urgent and can afford to be put on the back burner when other, more important issues, arise,
While I don't always agree with you, I do respect you and what you are trying to accomplish. At the end of the day we all want the same things. We are only trying to do the right things for the betterment of Wedgefield Plantation even when we disagree about the method in which it is done.
Respectfully,
Adam Anderson
# 3, My thoughts:
First, again, I respect the thought, and genuine effort put into the response. I understand the points made. I obviously value expert involvement, and realize the potential costs. I further realize that the dock project had engineering experts involved. In fact, if research was done, you would find writings thanking, and praising the Water Amenities Committee for a job well done on the first dock project. As to "For the most part our volunteers do a good job and to categorize these projects as a fiasco is unfair and undermines any future goodwill. Projects like the gatehouse repair are not urgent and can afford to be put on the back burner when other, more important issues, arise,", I stand with my opinion, and documented writings regarding the 2nd dock project, gatehouse, and even the Wedgefield drainage project. Readers will have to go back to the writings, time and space limit the repeat of numerous articles. The second dock project may have had engineering, but the committee failed to have the old dock pulled up on the landing, cut up, and hauled away, as contracted. The board hid the truth, except for one, failed to question the committee chair month after month, and sat back while 2-3 on the board treated the questioning board member like an imbecile, without saying a word, and in the mean time, some on the committee, and board went after the questioning board member's private life associations, and had that person removed from membership in a private recreational club. In the case of the gatehouse, the board violated a standing Conflict of Interest document that each and everyone had signed, and awarded a contract to the President of our association. The board again sat back, and watched as a board member verbally abused, and called the only board member who questioned conflict of interest, moronic. The board member who claimed to have issued a request for proposal with sealed bids, and proper contract, on my review, did not have any of the above, that would pass any sniff test. Additionally, not one board member would answer, when I wrote the board, and asked them individually, how anyone could have signed the conflict of interest, and awarded the contract to the President. Later, after asking our President in writing how he could have bid, and accepted a contract (wasn't one), he did not answer, even though I repeated the question, for weeks. He returned the contract, was paid for the windows he purchased, and they sat, for two years, during which time two different board members claimed to have drawn specs, etc., and when quotes were provided, made fun of the bidders, and didn't award a contract to any of them. I could be wrong, but I believe the contractor for the Wedgefield Drainage Project, wrote the specs, and we were forced to add a wing wall, and our board experts, poured cement, and gravel into the poorly functioning bulk head, as it washed soil into the canal, to the point that the WPA had to pay to have it removed. With these kind of episodes, fiasco is a great word, and it would seem, that we could afford to pay real experts, to handle this business. Seeking professional help for engineering, specs, and contract development, etc. is suggested several times, by the experts, in the reserve study.
