Hicks delivers hard news on ‘soft costs’
Hicks delivers hard news on ‘soft costs’
Topics:
Posted by editor Tue Nov 30, 1999 00:00:00 PST
Viewed 373 times
0 responses 2 comments
As usual, Ed Gordon’s latest news article on the new Tehachapi Hospital development is both accurate and balanced. But a couple of additional comments are needed I think to help clarify points brought out there.
First of all, the cost figures given for both a conventional and modular construction cost approach from the independent cost estimator are correct. But they only cover direct “brick and mortar” construction cost and do not reflect the total project cost, which was also presented at the last TVHD board meeting. Total project cost is the sum of construction cost and additional so-called “soft” costs that include such things as city fees and permits, equipment and furnishings, utility company services, school fees, OSHPD building permit, hospital construction management personnel, etc. These total about $5.7-$6.1 million additional project costs, so the total bill would be more like $38,398,596 for the modular construction approach and $32,364,360 for a conventional stick-built construction approach, based on coordinated estimates from the city, OSHPD, utility companies, school district, etc.
In addition, the idea that the recent independent design review was somehow just another “professional opinion” is not accurate or fair to the reviewers. These eight-week long intensive reviews were not “opinions,” but rather detailed technical evaluations from professional engineering and architectural specialists in the hospital design and development industry with literally hundreds of hospital projects and decades of experience behind them.
A staff of several specialists were consulted in coming up with the results. The key objective for the TVHD was to maintain complete independence for these reviewers so as not to taint or bias their findings in any way. They were not familiar with the Aspen Street Architects or their past design projects in making these “buildability” assessments, but reviewed our design based solely on the best industry standards and the California building codes.
— John Hicks,
Former TVHD Project Manager
| Send to a Friend | Report a Violation |
Thanks for your good work on this project, John.
Did any of the other hospitals who joined with us in the Aspen design process get a hospital built? I thought we were one of several who were paying them for this.
How much has the design we have cost us?
Thanks for the kind comment on my efforts, but you can thank the Chairman of the TVHD Board, Dr. Sam Conklin, a friend and neighbor who asked me to help out for the sake of the community that my family has been a part of for a long time. Sometimes you just have to set the "self" aside and do something for your friends, neighbors and fellow community members without thought of compensation. As to the question about other California hospitals with an Aspen Street modular design, that would be Sierra Kings hospital in Reedley near Fresno, and Healdsburg in Sonoma County. Theirs was only an add-on to an existing building but, yes, they have had several significant problems with their design/construction projects and much higher costs than originally budgeted for in the same way as we might be facing. Healdsburg recently completed their project while Sierra Kings has barely gotten its construction underway. But as to paying for our design effort, they were not a part of that, and in fact we have paid for our design totally by ourselves. To date that design cost to the TVHD has been about 1 million dollars, which I hasten to add did not come out of the original bond money the voters approved some four years ago. The design fund sources came from a combination of a federal grant and some other local funds as I understand it from the former TVHD CEO of that time.
