This RFP is an Extremely Dangerous and Costly Precedent
We strongly suggest that this type of 20/20 hindsight review by paid consultants when no suggestion of prob-
lems exists sets a very bad precedent for future work. Future bidding will be chilled, and future costs will increase to
take into account contractors, architects and engineers having to answer to outside, paid, consulting firms who are paid to
second guess work previously completed, inspected and paid for.
This is a Waste of Taxpayer Money:
The cost of the items in the RFP could conceivably equal the cost of a new elementary school. We believe this is
not the best use of taxpayer money. The Texas Education Agency can perform monetary audits for YISD at no cost.
YISD should use resources available at no cost to the taxpayer. These projects already been audited at a significant im-
pact to the YISD budget.
The Potential for Litigation & No Insurance:
The RFP assumes that the consultants will find architectural problems, design problems, construction defects, back-
charges due, liquidated damages due, and change orders not approved, after these jobs have been closed out. The con-
sultants will of necessity find perceived problems to earn their fee. If this is the case, each of the general contractors or
construction managers will be dragged into protracted litigation, not only with YISD but also with each of the subcon-
tractors involved in the projects, and most certainly against the consulting firm itself. The lawyers will get rich. The
contractors, architects and engineers will of necessity defend their performance under their respective contracts, as will
the subcontractors, and there will be NO INSURANCE to pay any of these litigation expenses or any awards. The per-
formance bonds on the projects will not be responsible, nor will the contractors’ liability policies. The money would have
to come out of each parties’ respective pockets. We predict this could cause more than one unnecessary bankruptcy, loss
of jobs for literally hundreds of