News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

What do you think of the New Ballpark Design part2

Started by Rico, February 06, 2009, 10:19:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

sgrizzle

#15
February 10, 2009, 01:28:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JCnOwasso

be prepared for the inevitable change in budget figures.  "We know we said 60million... but now we need 75, and we have already started so we can't turn back now".


Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission


They have a binding contract for $60m. Any overages come out of the pockets of the people they have the contract with. Which is donors.

In other words, it can be $120M, but it won't cost us anymore. I would mind a $120M ballpark on someone elses dime..

Oil Capital

#16
February 10, 2009, 04:48:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by JCnOwasso

be prepared for the inevitable change in budget figures.  "We know we said 60million... but now we need 75, and we have already started so we can't turn back now".


Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission


They have a binding contract for $60m. Any overages come out of the pockets of the people they have the contract with. Which is donors.

In other words, it can be $120M, but it won't cost us anymore. I would mind a $120M ballpark on someone elses dime..


I doubt the binding contract covers design changes.
 

Townsend

#17
February 10, 2009, 04:49:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by JCnOwasso

be prepared for the inevitable change in budget figures.  "We know we said 60million... but now we need 75, and we have already started so we can't turn back now".


Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission


They have a binding contract for $60m. Any overages come out of the pockets of the people they have the contract with. Which is donors.

In other words, it can be $120M, but it won't cost us anymore. I would mind a $120M ballpark on someone elses dime..


I doubt the binding contract covers design changes.


Why do you say that?

cannon_fodder

#18
February 10, 2009, 05:01:54 PM
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.

Oil Capital

#19
February 10, 2009, 05:53:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend

quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by JCnOwasso

be prepared for the inevitable change in budget figures.  "We know we said 60million... but now we need 75, and we have already started so we can't turn back now".


Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission


They have a binding contract for $60m. Any overages come out of the pockets of the people they have the contract with. Which is donors.

In other words, it can be $120M, but it won't cost us anymore. I would mind a $120M ballpark on someone elses dime..


I doubt the binding contract covers design changes.


Why do you say that?


Because no sane contractor would agree to that.
 

Renaissance

#20
February 10, 2009, 06:41:08 PM
It's a design-build contract.  There's no "design" to change--the builder gets rolling instructions from the architects and engineers.  The only cost of changing the design aesthetic of the ballpark is man hours for HOK.  There could also be variations in materials costs, but you solve that by telling the architect, "don't crust it in gold doubloons" or whatever.      

I don't know how design contracts are structured but I would guess that it's a flat fee rather than by the billable hour.  

Sooooo . . . I don't know why sprucing up the facade would balloon the cost by 25% . . .

Oil Capital

#21
February 10, 2009, 08:26:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd

It's a design-build contract.  There's no "design" to change--the builder gets rolling instructions from the architects and engineers.  The only cost of changing the design aesthetic of the ballpark is man hours for HOK.  There could also be variations in materials costs, but you solve that by telling the architect, "don't crust it in gold doubloons" or whatever.      

I don't know how design contracts are structured but I would guess that it's a flat fee rather than by the billable hour.  

Sooooo . . . I don't know why sprucing up the facade would balloon the cost by 25% . . .


From the 12/2/2008 Tulsa World:

"The construction bid came from Tulsa Stadium Construction Co. LLC, which guarantees that it will build the ballpark for no more than $39.2 million at specifications outlined by the trust."

The key words there are "at specifications outlined by the trust."   If the specifications change, so does the price.
 

TheArtist

#22
February 11, 2009, 12:34:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder




You don't really think the absence of pics or any facts could possibly keep this crew from making profound judgments on the matter do you lol? [:P]

"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h

sgrizzle

#23
February 11, 2009, 03:26:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:
Originally posted by Townsend

quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by JCnOwasso

be prepared for the inevitable change in budget figures.  "We know we said 60million... but now we need 75, and we have already started so we can't turn back now".


Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission


They have a binding contract for $60m. Any overages come out of the pockets of the people they have the contract with. Which is donors.

In other words, it can be $120M, but it won't cost us anymore. I would mind a $120M ballpark on someone elses dime..


I doubt the binding contract covers design changes.


Why do you say that?


Because no sane contractor would agree to that.


It's not a real contractor you ninny. The company guaranteeing the price tag is the same people donating $30M of the $39.2M.

Oil Capital

#24
February 11, 2009, 03:55:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:
Originally posted by Townsend

quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by JCnOwasso

be prepared for the inevitable change in budget figures.  "We know we said 60million... but now we need 75, and we have already started so we can't turn back now".


Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission


They have a binding contract for $60m. Any overages come out of the pockets of the people they have the contract with. Which is donors.

In other words, it can be $120M, but it won't cost us anymore. I would mind a $120M ballpark on someone elses dime..


I doubt the binding contract covers design changes.


Why do you say that?


Because no sane contractor would agree to that.


It's not a real contractor you ninny. The company guaranteeing the price tag is the same people donating $30M of the $39.2M.


LOL  Trust me, I've noticed all the backscratching.  

But there is nevertheless a contract.  The contract guarantees they will deliver a ballpark with specifications we will call "Spec X" for $39.2 Million.   If the specs are changed to, lets say "Spec X + $2Million"), the contract does not guarantee delivery of "Spec X + $2 Million" for the original $39.2 Million price tag.

The Tulsa Stadium Trust would then have to come up with an additional $2 Million, either from the downtown property owners, from increased lease payments from the Drillers, from additional donations from the donors, or...
 

Wrinkle

#25
February 11, 2009, 07:13:14 PM
Yeah, anyone who thinks this is anything but fluid in a truly esoteric way is boinking themselves.

carltonplace

#26
February 11, 2009, 09:36:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle

Yeah, anyone who thinks this is anything but fluid in a truly esoteric way is boinking themselves.





I had to see what this sentence looked like if I rearranged it like refrigerator magnets:

"this is anything anyone who thinks themselves esoteric is boinking but in a truly fluid way Yeah"

JCnOwasso

#27
February 18, 2009, 10:15:57 AM Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 10:22:25 AM by JCnOwasso
Design builds are one thing, and they are not done at a Firm-fixed price.  If they are done at a firm fixed, you can basically guarentee that the company has overly inflated their numbers.  

The contractor bid this somewhat knowing an intended design.  If the trust then decides that the basic design needs to change, for one reason or another, then the contractor then has recourse for a Request for Equitable adjustment.  

For example... lets say the trust initially says "Must consist of red brick, concrete stained in the Drillers colors, exposed Stainless steel, and be recessed 85inches into the ground facing southeast."  Now they meet and decide that was a bad idea... they want Limestone and only recessed 60inches and exposed brushed aluminum... it changes design and changes original intended price.    

How far into the design process were they?  30% design complete?  Do the changes effect the 30% of the drawings that have been completed?

Just because they bid a ceiling cost, does not mean that they can't manipulate the situation.  If the trust is in cahoots, then little things like this go a long way of helping the LLC "Get Well" on their bottom line.
 
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions