Berlin High school year to start later
BERLIN — The 2015-16 academic year will start a few days later at Berlin High School than at the rest of the district’s schools.
The Board of Education, on School Superintendent David Erwin’s recommendation, has decided to push back the beginning of the 2015-16 school year at the high school to Aug. 31 — three days after the rest of the district returns to the classroom. The reason for the change is to give construction crews a few more days to continue the renovation of BHS over summer vacation.
Construction crews had asked the board to move back the start until Sept. 8.
“We’ve been approached by the project manager about the idea of us pushing back the start of BHS to give as much time as possible for what needs to be done,” school board Chairman Gary Brochu said. “They came to us about pushing out the start of the school year to Sept. 8. That’s the day after Labor Day. Labor Day is very, very, very late this year.”
Simply put, Erwin said, Sept. 8 was far too late to bring students back.
“I think we can live with the first day of school for Berlin High School being Aug. 31,” he said.
The dilemma with any push back was whether to delay the opening date districtwide or just for Berlin High. Ultimately, the board voted to keep the Aug. 28 date for the town’s other four schools.
All schools will still have their last day of classes on June 22.
“Everyone will still finish at the same time because Berlin High School students would have 180 days and everyone else would finish with 183,” Erwin added.
All teachers will have a 188-day schedule, with additional professional development activities for those at the high school to make up for the three days.
Board member Jeff Cugno said that the board understands more time is needed for construction, but the school still needs to be up and running. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
CT DOT engineers question use of outside contractors
NEW HAVEN >> A complex bill about changes in the way the state Department of Transportation does business has revived concerns from staff engineers about the number of outside contractors used on major state projects. The issues are largely technical, based in a mode of construction new to Connecticut called “design-build,” which provides a shortcut to the traditional bidding process.
But the implications loom large because of Gov. Dannel Malloy’s commitment in his 2016-17 budget to improving the state’s transportation infrastructure, planning to spend $5 billion over 10 years.
“Connecticut will be one of the last [states] to sign on” to the construction method, said Travis Woodward, president of the P-4 Council with the Connecticut State Employees Association, Local 2001. The state has chosen two pilot projects to test the contracting method: the Walk Bridge in Norwalk, which Transportation Commissioner James Redeker said is perhaps the most complex job he’s ever undertaken, and two bridges on Route 8 in Bridgeport.
The language in the bill that has DOT engineers nervous states: “If the commissioner determines that the department lacks the technical expertise required to perform the design of a project … the commissioner may utilize consultants to perform the design of the project. For projects designated to be constructed using the design-build contracting method, the responsibility to perform detailed design work shall remain with the contractor.” The way design-build works is, up to 30 percent of a project is designed in-house, and then the rest of the design and the construction are put out as one bid, which may go to a consultant. This contrasts with having the entire design done first, then bidding the construction out, presumably shrinking the time frame of the project. DOT staff have raised concerns for some time that outside contractors, or consultants, have been hired to do a lot of the work, largely because the department lacks the manpower and expertise. Consultants cost more because, as Redeker said, “On the private side, the company makes a profit.” One of the pieces of evidence that in-house engineers point to is a cost-effectiveness evaluation done by the DOT that shows a savings of between $575,000 and $4.7 million for inspection services, depending on the size of the project, if in-house personnel are used rather than outside consultants. But the DOT is limited by a slew of early retirements a few years ago, Redeker said, although the department hired back 75 that the state budget allocated last year. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
DOT to host informational session on Route 2 bridge project
Preston - Thousands of drivers regularly travel over the Hewitt Brook bridge on Route 2, between Mattern and Maynard Hill roads, without noticing it.
Come the spring of 2016, drivers won't soon forget about the small bridge.
The state Department of Transportation is planning a $1.3 million federally funded project to replace the existing bridge, built in 1961, starting in spring of 2016 and running into the fall.
DOT officials will host a public informational meeting on the project for residents, businesses commuters and town officials at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Preston Town Hall, 389 Route 2. Plans for the project are on file at the Preston selectmen's office at Town Hall.
The project calls for two stages of construction to provide for one lane of traffic in each direction during construction, with temporary easements possibly necessary from adjacent property owners.
Town officials had planned to meet with project engineers to discuss traffic and safety concerns, but the meeting was canceled because of bad weather, Preston Fire Chief Thomas Casey said.
Safety is the biggest concern, Casey said. He said DOT officials promised that if alternating one-lane traffic controlled by a traffic light is imposed during construction, emergency responders would be given controls to operate the light.
"At this point, we're going to wait to get more information about it at the meeting," Casey said. "I think if we can control the traffic so emergency vehicles can get through, that would be good."
One of Casey's biggest questions for DOT engineers will be whether the project might require total road closures at some point.
The bridge is located in a spot where there are no convenient detours to get traffic back onto Route 2 in either direction. Route 2A-117 is a short distance to the west of the project, and Route 164 is to the east of the project. But the nearby side roads do not connect to these routes or to other roads that wind back to Route 2. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
Contracting watchdog concedes it has limited oversight at UConn
Members of the watchdog board that oversees state contracting are not convinced they have the authority to investigate most complaints made against the University of Connecticut.
“Right now, we don’t have jurisdiction, according to all the lawyers," Julia Lentini Marquis, the Contracting Standards Board’s chief procurement officer, told the group Friday. "Whether anyone likes that or doesn’t like that is sort of moot.”
The public university and teaching hospital – which receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the state each year – informed the watchdog last month that UConn does not fit the legal definition of a “state-contracting agency,” and therefore the watchdog has limited oversight over them.
Marquis said the Office of the Attorney General, which represents the contracting board, agrees with UConn’s conclusion. Marquis declined The Mirror’s request for a copy of that opinion, saying legal advice is exempt from public disclosure.
“If they say we don’t have jurisdiction, then that’s that. The attorney general says it – that’s that,” said Thomas G. Ahneman, a member of the board and engineer from southwest Connecticut.
The contracting board was created in 2007 as one of the reforms enacted in response to the scandals that drove Gov. John G. Rowland from office. The law allows anyone who bids on a state contract to contest its award by complaining to the board, which determines whether an investigation is warranted.
The law also requires state agencies to go through a rigorous process before privatizing services provided by state employees. UConn says the contracting board has oversight over the university only when it seeks to outsource work done by state employees.
The debate over the board’s authority was prompted by a complaint about how the winner of a multi-million-dollar contract for janitorial work was selected. The complaint alleged that university administrators improperly reversed a selection committee's initial decision to give the new contract to GCA Services Group, which had the existing contract.
The allegations — made by GCA and an anonymous member of the selection committee — were deemed serious enough by a subcommittee of the watchdog agency to notify state prosecutors.
State prosecutors have since said they will not be seeking criminal prosecution, but UConn’s Office of General Counsel was not pleased that the contracting board referred the allegations to state prosecutors.
The “decision to make a criminal referral would inevitably interfere with the OGC’s ability to conduct its review,” attorneys Patrick F. Nevins and Michael Sullivan wrote the agency in a Jan. 22 letter. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE