Peak flooding investigation report discussed, but missing information noted

An independent investigation into flooding issues at Fort Smith Public School’s 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 Tuesday (March 26). Surprisingly, Envista did not contact any company associated with the project other than the school district.

The school board voted Sept. 25 to hire Envista. The initial proposal by Envista called for a $10,000 retainer and an hourly consulting fee of $275 an hour.

The request for an investigator 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 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.

DRAINAGE ISSUES
Envista’s report states in its conclusions that evaluation of the roof drainage system for the north side of the East Wing showed “the architectural drawings, plumbing drawings, and civil drawings were not coordinated, which caused discontinuity of the rainwater drainage system from the point of entry into the gutter system to the underground drainage piping.”

School board president Dalton Person noted that finding pretty much encapsulated the whole problem.

“Everyone involved with the project bears some of the responsibility for what went wrong. It’s a great facility, and I hate that we are continuing to detract from that. But mistakes were made, and I think the ultimate determination from our hired forensic investigator was that there was a lack of communication and lack of coordination and that everyone could have done a better job in getting the project completed,” Person said.

George Feathers, senior project consultant with Envista Forensics, told the school board findings from the east wing evaluation included the following observations.
• Plumbing drawings did not include roof drain piping from the building perimeter to the site drainage connections.
• Civil drawings indicated the underground roof drain piping, but they did not identify the required pipe sizes.
• Documents were not available in the files Envista received to identify the missing information on the construction documents
• Eleven of the 15 gutters were smaller than the minimum size required.
• The gutter did not have expansion joints as required by Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association, which caused thermal expansion/contraction stresses to deform the gutter system and potentially compromise the gutter anchor system.
• Downspouts were smaller than the minimum size required.
• The underground single wall, corrugated roof drainage piping was at least 40% smaller than the minimum size required.

CODE VIOLATIONS, LACK OF COMMUNICATION
Feathers also noted several code violations. The 12-inch main roof drain pipe was undersized and was noncompliant with the approved plumbing codes. The roof membrane was turned into roof drains, and there was an absence of visual evidence to verify a watertight connection was provided between the membrane and the drain. There were no overflow roof drains.

“Pools of water will find a way to get out. Water is going to find a way to get out. So code requires you have an overflow roof drain. We could show nothing that showed they were required or a plan made, which is another code violation,” Feathers said.

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.

Though the report detailed many issues with roof drainage at the building, Envista did not assign blame to why they were that way, something the board had specifically asked in its RFQ. School Board Vice President Phil Whiteaker asked how all of these code violations could happen and not have been caught before construction was completed.

“There are a lot of different thoughts, I can’t specifically say why. … There appears to be major communication problems,” Feathers said.

During further questioning by the board, Feathers did say the project’s main architects and the owner’s representative had the responsibility for checking the plans and making sure all was appropriately sized and within code. Dallas-based Corgan Architects was the main architect firm for the center. HOAR Program Management (HPM) of Dallas was the project manager for the district’s millage-related construction projects. But he also said most of those involved with the project including the construction manager at risk, Turn Key Construction Management of Fort Smith, and even the City of Fort Smith had some responsibility. He did excuse the school district from responsibility.

“There was a lack of coordination, continuity and communications. The project owner is ultimately responsible for taking ownership of the project and assuring everyone working together, right?” Person asked.

Feathers responded that he would not expect the average building owner to have the extent of knowledge necessary to coordinate all of the details.

MISSING INFORMATION
Danny Haynal with Turn Key, told Talk Business & Politics that Turn Key Construction was never asked to provide any information or to elaborate on anything by Envista before the investigation was completed and the report was submitted.

“This seems strange if they were trying to do a comprehensive report, and their report states multiple times that they might be missing information,” Haynal said.

Haynal said Turn Key has several pieces of correspondence with the school district that shows numerous but failed attempts to communicate with the district, HPM and others.

Envista said they did not reach out to any of the principals involved with the project but did not say why. Person said they were “certainly not told not to talk to them.” Marshal Ney, the FSPS attorney, advised the school board to reach out to the architect, engineers, contractors, project managers and more to see if the missing information was available and if it had been given to the school district. The board agreed that should be done before the next school board meeting in April.

As for the findings of the investigation, Haynal said regarding the north side of the building, the gutters and downspouts were the existing ones, and contractors installed the underground piping as directed. Other issues reported in the investigation also were installed as directed in plans, Haynal said. The roof was installed by Coryell, which was hired directly by the school district, he said.

“When this happened, Turn Key notified the school that they would not warranty anything on the roof,” Haynal said.

Though the school board agreed that they would like to know more about the missing documents and agreed to look into proceeding with legal recourse against those who might have been responsible for the building’s drain failures, they also agreed it was time to move one, correct the problems and focus on what the building is providing for students.

“I would have liked to have been presented with a report that very simply said here’s who is responsible for what went wrong and here’s what you need to do about it. But unfortunately, this project was far too complicated to be presented with a simple solution. So what we got was a very technical report. I was quite satisfied with a presentation from an unbiased third party and feel like I have a better understanding of what went wrong,” Person said. “It was unrealistic for me or anyone else to expect a simple answer here. I just don’t think a simple answer exists.”