Here’s a little item that makes you wonder.
The state awarded a $327,000 contract last year for installation of a photovoltaic system on the roof of the Waimea Public Library on Kauai. It’s one of a series of similar installations on state buildings in various parts of the state.
But the contractor ran into a problem, it seems.
Upon removal of the existing roof membrane, it was discovered that the existing concrete roof deck, which was expected to be structural concrete, is actually composed of what appears to be an unreinforced lightweight cementitious material laid upon an asphaltic sheet and wire fabric. In some areas, the cementitious material is badly deteriorated and crumbles when handled.
The state now faces two choices. Either remove the roof deck and build a new one to support the photovoltaic system at an estimated cost of $750,000, or retain but abandon the existing deck and build a new one above it. It is believed this would work if the existing concrete bond beams are structurally sound. The second alternative would cost an estimated $250,000.
This information comes from a request to exempt this work from the normal bidding procedures and instead allow the existing contractor to expeditiously complete the work.
But the interesting thing to me, reading between the lines here, is that the original construction was apparently not to specifications. I have to assume that the expectation that it was a “structural concrete” roof deck came from the original design. But instead of a structural concrete roof deck, it was a lightweight and poorly constructed alternative which would likely have been much less expensive to build than what the state was paying for.
Did the state get less than it paid for with the original construction of the building? If so, who pocketed the savings? How did the alteration in the original design go undetected? Who is supposed to monitor state construction projects? Is there an audit trail for current projects of this kind? It’s obviously possible for someone to skim a lot of money off of state construction if this kind of substitution of design and materials can be made. Is anybody in the system asking these questions?
Just wondering.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Definitely such questions should be pursued. And if the work on the beams was of similar standards, the lower cost option really isn’t an option at all!
Seem to me, this is further evidence DAGS is dysfunctional statewide and needs a hard look at replacing.
Tax dollars are had to find without replacing them by denying worthy projects standing in line. DAGS has an awful reputation over last 40 years and seems immune from being fixed, whomever is in charge.
Our public school students and and our university kids are the real victims of this ongoing mess.
similar issues at Aina Haina library,according to a librarian who works there
What is also scary is that it is the roof that holds a building together in a hurricane/tornado, and when the roof goes the walls collapse. It is the public schools that are the emergency shelters in the event of a nature disaster.
Who is responsible for this absurdity? The same group of developers, contractors, politicians and bureaucrats who dream of grand projects in Hawaii. If they cannot build a school roof with a little bit of integrity or competence, how are they going to accomplish elaborate schemes that other societies shy away from?
Why install photovoltaic in the first place? The state is broke: we raided every special fund, our pension system is underfunded, not a single school in the state passed No Child Left Behind criteria but we are wasting money on the “green” crap?
Fluffy:
Changing to “green crap” — three solar panels on our roof — has saved my family some $2,000 annually in electric charges. Living on a fixed income, I do not regard that as crap.
Don’t waste time with Fluffy and countless other angry web posters; their mind is made up, regardless of their lack of reason and failed arguments. All they can do is post, post, post.
Why install photovoltaic in the first place? to save tons of money.
Good question.
In a cursory Internet review of the economics of photovoltaic, I am reading that there are certain controversies over things like subsidization by the government, especially in northern countries like Germany and the UK where sunlight is relatively weak even in the summer. There are also issues of interconnection with the grid and the intermittent nature of solar power, and the fact that in some places peak electricity usage is between 5 pm and 7 pm. Also, in a place like Hawaii, alternative energy means that instead of importing oil, one is importing technology.
First, a lot of these standard criticisms do not apply to Hawaii. Hawaii is closer to the equator than Mexico City. Second, if prices of PV systems is falling dramatically, it is very much due to this kind of government support. In a sense, supporting the continued growth of solar power is part of a research and development project that will yield even bigger dividends in the future with technological breakthroughs and economies of scale. Third, once the solar system pays for itself, one is actually making money from it (the question then is how long will the system last without need for repair and replacement or without diminishing efficiency). But the state is a winner too because of the ratchet effect, with money staying in the local economy and in a sense creating more money (this includes the labor of installing systems).
There might be other issues I have not read about, but from what I have read, PV is one of the best investments the state could make in its public buildings (which are generally open during the day, when the sun is shining).
PV is especially appropriate for Waimea, which has abundant sunshine (if you haven’t been there, think of a climate similar to Kapolei or Lahaina) and very high electric rates.