RM 02-06-76 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and we require that the contractors bid only on the specified items. Th -is has created a massive increase in the volume of change orders presented for action. Because the specifications offer little or no freedom for the contractor to account for.the individual idiosyncracies of each house, he must now submit requests.for change orders to cover unforeseen or changing situations in each unit. Because of the Bureau's desire to document each expenditure and account for every contract dollar, change orders have become an inescapable aspect of rehabilita- tion work. It would obviously be much easier for the Bureau to prepare vague specifications that would allow a contractor the freedom to do what he wanted rather than what we specify. Also, change orders occur for a number of other reasons; deteriorated items may become further damaged by severe weather or continued use by the homeowner; items may have been concealed at the time of the inspection by rugs, furniture, etc.; the homeowner may make changes in living pattern or cause damage themselves; the specified method of correction may not be sufficient to eliminate the problem. Please keep in mind that these contracts involve occupied structures and the specifications are very different from those used in new construction. It is literally impossible to cover all points under rehabilitation programs. There are too many unforeseen items and situations that occur. Because accountability of each public dollar is necessary, we will continue to submit change orders as the need arises. In general, rehabilitation programs are slow, plodding projects whose effect is not immediately felt. If we are to do a good, accurate job - they must remain so. We are grossly understaffed and working on limited time. We also are restricted by dollar limitations for each project. The projects are philosophically unpopular and aesthetically uncertain. Is the Public getting their do.11ar's worth? I do not know - if you're talking about each home's market value. My answer would be an emphatic "yes" if you were talking about improving living conditions and the safety of the unit's occupants. In our city's deteriorated neighbor- hoods we are bringing homes up to minimum code with the hopes of making living a little less difficult, improving the general condition of the neighborhood, generating neighborhood interest and cohesion, and possibly saving lives. The market value of the home does not enter the issue at this stage. In my five plus years working with rehabilitation programs, I can state that it has never been an easy task with immediate realization of goals. Housing and Urban Development says we are not encouraging smaller con - tractors to participate in our programs - others.say we need larger contractors who are able to do more and better work. The unions say we do not involve them in our rehabilitation work - yet the Department of Labor states that by law we cannot discriminate between union and non - union contractors. The homeowners want more work done on their homes. The general public feels that we are doing too much work. Even though the apparent inequity exists, I do feel that these programs accomplish some good. We are making life somewhat more bearable and