“Someone Failed Us”

There was a minute but notable volley from some recent School Building Committee (SBC) Meetings that caught my attention. In December of 2024, John Leahy, a former councilor and current Deputy Facilities Manager for our school department, inquired about the low quality of paint used on the project. If you are unaware, John Leahy has also been in the painting trade for several decades (thus I’m pretty confident that he knows how to identify shit paint when he sees it). Robin Greenberg from Perkins Eastman promised to investigate.

Last week, on April 3, there was another meeting of the SBC. Committee Member Leahy sought an update on this issue. Ms. Greenberg (seemingly caught off guard), stated that she spoke with Sherwin Williams, but could not remember the substance of the conversation.  Mr. Leahy underscored his opinion that the construction team was using a cheap “construction grade” paint that will (and is) showing signs of aging faster than a higher quality paint. This means that the city will have to repaint the entire project sooner rather than later – at our own expense.

Ms. Greenberg then claimed she didn’t understand the term “construction grade.” It was obvious to everyone in the room and everyone watching at home what Mr. Leahy was talking about. Ms. Greenberg replied that “we believe” that it is a “school durable paint” (then what did you talk to Sherwin Williams about?). In other words, the former councilor, Lowell resident, paint expert, and facilities manager with skin in the game doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I highlight this exchange as it illustrates a frustrating dynamic in this project. The people of Lowell have a vested interest in getting the best school possible from this project. As we are not experts in school construction, we have to rely on the expertise of our Project Team. 

However, one rarely gets the sense that the interests of the project team are aligned with the interests of the city. Thus, when issues arise – as they did with the paint and as they did in February when dozens of design and workmanship issues came to light – the project team’s first priority is to get defensive and save face.   I’ve yet to hear some version of “we messed up.”  Either they gaslight and claim we must be crazy, or they blame someone else.

Which finally brings me to last night. As reported in February, the Project Team was caught off guard by an issue with the cement floor of the basement of the 1922 Building. In short, the poured concrete from 100 years ago is not thick enough in some areas and has voids or air pockets between the concrete and the dirt sub-floor. As such, the entire floor of the 1922 building will need to be removed and re-poured. This will add millions of dollars in expense. As of now, there will be no MSBA funding for this overrun. In addition, the remaining project timeline will be pushed out. As such, we will also be paying more for labor costs. Finally, students will have to wait until they can enjoy the finished product.

Now – why didn’t the Project Team spot this issue before work started, and why the hell should the City be expected to bear the expense? Apparently, during the evaluation of the floor, the team drilled only one borehole in the basement floor.

Of a 32,000 square foot area.

Constructed in 1922.

Subject to over 100 years of well-documented flooding.

Predictably, the Project Team took no responsibility and deemed this single borehole “due diligence” and acceptable industry practice.

Councilor Belanger best set forth the City’s perspective. He noted that the older buildings of phase 3 and 4 should have, logically, been the focal point for the team. As such, we paid them to properly evaluate the existing structures and it was not done properly. Councilor Belanger opined that this was negligence and “someone failed us.”

Councilors Belanger and Scott then inquired about the possibility of moving forward with litigation. Manager Golden, on advice of City Solicitor Williams, declined to comment on litigation, but advised that the next step from his office will be to reach out to the state delegation to begin the process of seeking additional MSBA funding to cover the additional cost.

As to those costs, when asked for a “ballpark” figure as to what this issue will cost, Mr. Dowd declined to provide one. This follows the pattern on display at that April 3rd SBC meeting. Even if we were to set aside the floor issue, the Project Team will exhaust the $21M “contingency fund” (that they calculated btw) in four months. When asked how much extra (non-MSBA reimbursed) money the team would need to finish, Mr. Dowd failed to provide an answer, stating that he had not yet made that calculation. Superintendent Skinner stepped in to provide the committee some 5th grade arithmetic and advised that when we run out of contingency funds with only 70% of the project completed, we would need another $8.5M in funds.

Mr. Dowd advised that he would have a completed calculation for the city as to what the overall new cost for the project will be by June 2024.

I don’t know what that figure will be, and we don’t have a “ballpark” sum, but I’m going to guess that nobody will take responsibility for it.