Despite the objections of some residents and school board members, the Princeton Public Schools Board of Education has awarded a $44,200 contract to Epic Management Inc. to oversee work on the school district’s recently approved $26.9 million bond referendum.
The residents, who voiced their objections at the school board’s Feb. 26 meeting, pointed to issues with the school district’s 2001 bond referendum projects – also handled by Epic Management Inc.
Nevertheless, the school board voted 7-2 – with one abstention – to hire Epic Management Inc. The seven “yes” votes were cast by school board president Beth Behrend, Jessica Deutsch, Betsy Kalber Baglio, Brian McDonald, Gregory Stankiewicz, Michele Tuck-Ponder and Cranbury Township school board member Evelyn Spann.
Spann is the Cranbury school board liaison to the Princeton Public Schools. The Cranbury school district sends its high school students to Princeton High School, and its liaison to the Princeton school board may vote on issues affecting the high school.
The two “no” votes were cast by school board members Debbie Bronfeld and Daniel Dart. Board member Bill Hare abstained.
Epic Management, whose $44,200 bids was the lowest among the four bidders for the job, was awarded the contract. Although the recommendation by the Evaluation Committee was not unanimous, Epic Management was recommended for the job, school board member Gregory Stankiewicz said.
The $26.9 million bond referendum that was approved by voters in December 2018 calls for safety, security and HVAC (heating ventilation and air conditioning) improvements to all six schools.
The bond referendum also includes upgrades to Princeton High School that include four additional classrooms, a dining distribution center on the main floor, increased space for athletics and an improved area for student counseling.
Superintendent of Schools Steve Cochrane said it is “incredibly important” that the project is done right, and that Epic “stood head and shoulders” above the other three firms vying for the job.
Stankiewicz, who also chairs the school board’s Facilities Committee, said that Epic has been in business since 1971 and has managed almost 1,000 school projects in New Jersey. He said he felt comfortable with the firm, and added that it was the only one of the four that brought along its entire team to the interview.
But school board member Daniel Dart, who cast one of the two “no” votes, reminded the school board that things did not go well under Epic’s management of the $82 million bond referendum projects approved by Princeton voters in 2001.
There were problems with cost overruns, engineering problems and flooding at Princeton High School, Dart said, based on information from newspaper articles that were written at the time.
Dart acknowledged that he could not assign blame because he was not on the school board at that time, but he still had a number of concerns. The construction manager did not catch mistakes made by the engineer and the architect, leading to numerous change orders.
Dart said that “as a finance person,” he likes low bids, but the school board is not required to accept the lowest bidder for the construction management contract. He said Epic’s bid was lower by 50 percent than one competitor and by 100 percent over another competitor.
“I can only conclude that you are under-bidding your services or simply not devoting enough time to that critical pre-construction phase,” Dart said. There are three phases to a project – pre-construction, construction and close-out.
Joel Lizotte, Epic’s senior vice president, replied that Princeton’s previous bond referendum was “a long time ago,” and that the architect hired for the 2001 bond referendum projects – Hillier Architecture – was not a dedicated K-12 school architectural firm and had little experience in it. There was a lot of “back and forth” in trying to make a non-K-12 school architectural firm into a K-12 school architectural firm, Lizotte said.
The Spiezle Architectural Group, which has been hired for this project, specializes in K-12 school architectural design, Lizotte said. Epic has worked with the Spiezle Architectural Group on 11 school projects over the past 15 years, he said.
“We are really good at what we do,” Lizotte told Dart. Epic has 18 years’ worth of experience now, and “we do not see the same scenario,” he said, adding that the school district will not be short-changed.
Behrend said that her initial reaction was to reject Epic because of the school district’s previous experience with the firm, but after interviewing the four firms, “there was no question they were the best.”
Residents, however, still questioned the school board’s decision to hire Epic Management Inc. They also recommended that an “owner’s representative,” who represents the school district, should work with the construction management firm.
Mark Freda advised the school board to hire an owner’s representative. While Epic is supposed to be the “eyes and ears” for the school district, it would be better to assign that task to someone within the school district, he said.
“We need to learn from the past,” Freda said.
Peter Madison, who worked for the New Jersey School Redevelopment Authority for five years as an owner’s representative, echoed Freda’s suggestion to have an owner’s representative work with Epic.
Kip Cherry, who also called on the school board to have an owner’s representative, said she is concerned that the school board is expecting more of Epic than it can deliver. She said the school board should not hire Epic, based on the district’s previous experience with the firm.