Duluth-area contractors’ cut of Red Plan: 39 percent
September 19, 2010 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Nearly 90 percent of the Duluth school district’s $296 million Red Plan is in the hands of contractors and laborers as they work to finish the megaproject.
Continue Reading
It’s an absolute shame more of the work hasn’t stayed local. This “boon”, should have been a “boon” for local tradespeople and companies within the district that will ultimately be paying the bill. Even the construction managers are from out of town, I know some will say Kraus Anderson is local, but they’re about as local as Johnson Controls.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
17
The district had a project labor agreement to use local workers off the bench. The project was broken down to allow small businesses to bid. Prevailing wage was required. What else can the district do (legally) to keep it local?? Just because it is local work, does not mean it should ba handed over to local companies. Otherwise, those companies should not expect any work outside of town. The project, justified or not, brought a lot of $ and employment to our town when a lot of towns suffered greatly.
Like or Dislike:
19 
10
I don’t think it should be handed over either. However, I’ve seen in other areas a requirement that x percentage of the work needs to go to local contractors. Look at minority and DBE requirements, that sure as h*ll doesn’t save any money. As competitve as the local Generals are around here, they wouldn’t have let any one of the others cut a fat hog. The simple fact is a lot of the locals can’t compete with a Kraus, A&P, Mortenson, that’s like 4th St Market vs Super One. It doesn’t mean we would pay an obnoxious premium to have locals do the work, it would probably amount to 1-2% more than what the work is being done for. As a tax payer within the district, I wouldn’t bat an eye at paying that little bit moret to see my brothers, cousins and uncles going to work every day. The PLA doesn’t necessarily mean these companies are using 100 % local labor, in fact, all it means is that the labor on the projects has to be union. Go look at how many guys are sitting on the bench, take electricians for example, and then tell me what a “boon” it’s been for the guys paying for it to be built.
Like or Dislike:
10 
12
It would be great to boost up local, by requiring a % local, but how do you define what local really is and means? Geographically, when does local stop? Is Superior local? Should we support another State? Do the employees need live in the local area you define? Can it be a branch of a company that has a main office else where? Often, companies will rent an office space temporarly just to say they have a branch in Duluth. The worst part is, you will spend a ton of time defining local and feel you are doing our area a service and then let the lawsuits and criticism begin. It’s a no win situation.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
I’m not weighing-in on costs, but the buildings, additions and grounds are really looking nice… I just wish more were being done by local contractors.
Like or Dislike:
16 
7
I am not weighing-in on costs or any of that, but the buildings are sure looking nice…but I do wish local contractors had a bigger share of the work.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
Another tabloid article. According to the majority of facts of the story, other headlines could have been “Red Plan boon to local workers says Builders Exchange” ; “Red Plan a bright spot in Minnesota construction says union leader” ; “District does good job splitting projects for smaller contractors”; “Bigger contractors hiring locals on project”. Maybe a better one would be “Local contractors overbidding costing locals jobs”. Think before you open your mouth Kasper, it’s the unions that requiring the bidding process (and require outrageous wages). If it weren’t for this project the union workers would be spending their time building more benches to sit on. We’re suppose to feel bad for the local concrete company that’s not big enough to do the job? Why not celebrate the local masons that got all that work? Tom, how do you propose to “spread the wealth” on the remaining work when you don’t want the cost of the project to go up?
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
8
If the work doesn’t go to the lowest bigger then we are talking about charity. Not a good idea to go into debt to give to charity.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
7
As shocking as this may be, I actually agree with you on this, David.
I don’t think any smart business or government agency, like the school district, would spend millions of dollars more than necessary in order to have a very small increase in the number of local workers.
Like or Dislike:
16 
8
You obviously have no comprehension of the “very small increase in the number of local workers”. It’s that thought process that sends half our jobs over seas.
Like or Dislike:
8 
12
Your thought process is what puts the school district millions of dollars in debt.
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
14
Jobs are going overseas in part because wasteful government spending makes the cost of doing business here untenable.
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
Tom,
I’m not even completely opposed to this kind of charity. Let’s just be honest with ourselves that this is what we are doing when good business practices aren’t the only criteria for picking contractors.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Yup…it would be nice to have more locals working on the project.
Lots of things would be ‘nice’ but, till someone changes the law, it really doesn’t matter.
“the school district is required by law to accept the lowest bid on contracts for the public project”
Personally, I think the ‘lowest bidder’ thing makes sense. If locals know they are guarenteed a certain amount of the work, no matter the bid, you can be sure the project is going to cost a lot more.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
Katydid/Kevin, it really wouldn’t be substantially more. If you look at the construction industry within the area, you have some of the most competitve companies/people you could find anywhere. They have no problem keeping each other honest and they don’t have any problem stabbing each other in the back. To work together to secure the highest bid is called collusion and there isn’t a ONE of them that wants to get involved with that. Pretty much every public project bid has a certain “minority” requirement, say a minority bid is 3% higher than a non-minority business, the bid can be given to the minority, that’s already in place. Why can’t a “minority” distinction be given to local contractors? When I say local, I realize we have to be realistic, I can’t give exact coordinates of what should be considered local, but I don’t think what we normally consider as local is out of hand, i.e. Northern Minnesota, North West Wisconsin, the “surrounding” areas. Let’s put # of employees or amount of revenue as distinctions, why shouldn’t the small guys be given a more level playing field? I realize it’s easier said than done, but the amount of work that these companies and their employees are PAYING for could solidify them for years. I’m truly amazed more people don’t agree with me.
Like or Dislike:
2 
11
The question that should be asked is why this article wasn’t written 18 months ago. You know, back when everyone was arguing about the cost and about 6 months after Johnson Controls hoodwinked the school board into whatever form of lucrative “Professional Services” contract they are working under. That’s the real story….this is a too little, too late story at this point….make everyone feel real good (sarcastic) about the non-referendum spending that didn’t go to local workers.
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
Well, don’t come on here b*tching when a company out of the cities or India comes in and takes your job is about all I can say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
8