Firms push back on Envista report about Peak Center flooding

At least four of the firms involved with the planning and construction of Fort Smith Public School’s Peak Innovation Center disagree with the findings of an investigation earlier this year about flooding issues that have plagued the building since it opened.

An independent investigation into flooding issues at Peak Innovation Center found that a lack of detailed plans for the building and multiple code violations caused problems with the rainwater drainage system that led to flooding.

Envista Forensics, the investigator hired to find out the cause of multiple instances of flooding at Peak, presented a report on their more than five-month investigation, at a special called meeting of the FSPS school board March 26. At that meeting, Envista confirmed it did not contact any company associated with the project other than the school district as part of the investigation.

In April, Fort Smith Public Schools reached out to those who had a professional services role in the Peak Innovation Center design and construction allowing them to respond to an investigation of frequent flooding at the facility.

Documents in response to that FSPS request, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Talk Business & Politics, shows that the main architects, the project manager, the contraction manager at risk and another architect for the project all disagreed with the Envista report.

PEAK CENTER, ‘LOSS OF TRUST’
FSPS has invested more than $20.363 million, including millage funds, public and private grants, and other sources of funding, in Peak, “a place where career and college-bound students develop real-world skills and earn industry-specific certifications to create a future workforce that will drive success across industry and beyond.”

The school board voted Sept. 25, 2023, to hire Envista. The initial proposal by Envista called for a $10,000 retainer and an hourly consulting fee of $275 an hour. The cost of the investigation was approximately $34,326 in April, according to School Board President Dalton Person.

The subject of an independent investigation into the flooding issues was broached after two companies involved with the construction of the center – Fort Smith-based Turn Key Construction, the construction manager at risk for the Peak project, and Halff Associates (formerly Morrison-Shipley Engineers, Inc.), engineers for the project – wrote letters to the school board raising concerns about the building and water issues. A June 1, 2023, letter from Halff to the school district noted that because of a “loss of trust with FSPS staff” they would no longer provide design services on the Peak project.

The Envista report listed many issues with the project including uncoordinated civil, architectural and engineering drawings, inappropriately sized pipes and poor connections. It also noted several code violations. The report also mentioned many times that there was missing information. Envista said they had asked the district for that information, but it was never delivered.

Friday Eldredge & Clark, a law firm representing James R. Childress Architect, responded to the request for information from FSPS with a letter stating they would need more time than the 13 days they were originally given to produce any documents or responses disagreeing with Enivsta’s investigation.

“We will begin this process and provide you a substantive response as soon as feasible,” the letter stated. “With regard to your suggestion that a failure to respond equates to our Client’s agreement with the findings of the Envista report, it is more prudent at this stage to assume that our Client disagrees with the report until we advise you differently.”

ROOFING REBUTTALS
The project manager and the main architects for the project stated in their responses that the problems seem to be on the roofing company FSPS hired for the project.

Dallas-based Hoar Program Management (HPM), the project manager for the district’s millage-related construction projects, stated in a letter that FSPS entered into separate agreements with designers and contractors for the design and construction of the Project and HPM did not assume any responsibilities for these parties’ scopes of services or for the compliance of the design or construction with local, state, or federal requirements. It however notes that because the Envista’s report does not implicate HPM’s scope of work, so it has no issues with the report.

“It is our understanding that after HPM’s services had concluded, (FSPS) independently directed Coryell Roofing to inspect the current roofing system, and that Coryell Roofing subsequently designed, proposed, and installed a new roofing system, which included a newly designed drainage pattern, new gutters, and edge metal. The issues raised in Envista’s report all seem to relate to this new roofing system,” the letter from HPM stated.

The agreement between FSPS and HPM ended Oct. 1, 2021.

Dallas-based Corgan, the main architects for the project, stated in a letter that its scope on the project with regard to roofing was to design a “patch and repair” of the existing roof, which was in place at the time of the district’s purchase of the property.

“During construction (after the contract (to Corgan) was awarded), FSPS elected to re-roof the entire building with a new roof,” Eric Hortsman with Corgan wrote. “FSPS contracted separately for this re-roof project; Corgan was not party to this agreement, nor did we receive any professional fees related to the re-roof.”

Hortsman said Corgan was explicitly excluded from this re-roof scope of work and did not issue design or construction documents, did not review proposed products or design, and did not review or observe installation.

“We would respectfully request that this report be revised in its entirety to remove any references to Corgan, Corgan Associates, Corgan Architects, and our consultants who were under our contract. None of the project design team provided any input on the design or execution of the roof replacement project or associated work. We also respectfully request that a copy of the amended report be provided to Corgan as soon as possible,” Hortsman wrote.

‘SHUT UP AND BUILD’
Fort Smith-based Turn Key Construction Management, the construction manager at risk, went on the record with documentation and its version of events in response to the investigation report.

“There are several pieces of missing information which will aid the investigation and provide clarity for several of the items noted in the report,” its letter stated. “Turn Key stands behind the fact that we tried to inform The District, HPM, the design teams, etc. of the issues with the project and the coordination of the drawings.”

Turn Key said it provided documentation proving that Turn Key was repeatedly told to “essentially shut up and build the project as designed.”

“Additionally, each time the district has hired somebody to do a thorough evaluation of what happened on the project, Turn Key has been repeatedly left out of the conversation. This letter is the first time Turn Key has been asked to provide further documentation to assist in the investigation and we welcome this opportunity to share with everyone our information,” noted an excerpt from Turn Key’s response.

Person said Monday (July 29) there is an August agenda item regarding Peak and outside counsel who is handling the investigation and the submitted documents.

“I don’t know much at this point other than we’ll be discussing with those attorneys at the August meeting and whether to pursue any legal action,” Person said.