New county courthouse: Problems from the get-go

As a follow-up to last week’s front-page story, which included an interview with Hidalgo County Judge Richard Cortez, there is no new news to report. As of Tuesday, a search of the district clerk’s website shows no signs of any litigation yet filed against the new courthouse’s contractor, Morganti, which was the only company to bid on the $150 million build back in 2018, which should have told us something.

Why did only one company bid on the job? Granted, it takes a big contractor capable of getting a surety bond worth that much, $150 million, but it would seem that more could have bid on the job had they wanted it.

For years, Hidalgo County has had a terrible rep among building contractors and related vendors, both those who call the Valley home and those who HQ out of the RGV but still decide to do business here. The rap against local construction, right or wrong, is that Hidalgo County is a great place to build if you don’t mind getting sued constructing government buildings, including schools, and that includes the general contractor, project manager, engineer, architect, and countless subs who usually always get tied to the litigation. Even the poor slob who laid the parking lot is usually named in the suit even if he had nothing to do with construction of the building.

In legal jargon, this is called “throwing everything you can at the wall to see what sticks.”

Here, legal sharks are known for going into feeding-frenzy mode when there is construction blood in the water, even if the biggest legal shark is still based out of Houston.

If a general contractor gets sued, their insurance company usually sues all the subcontractors just so they can be part of the fun, putting a hurt on them big time because when they go to bid a new job, one of the questions they’re usually asked is: have you been sued for job performance, or do you have any litigation pending?

Clearly, based on last week’s interview with the county judge, something is clearly amiss at the new courthouse, which should have already been opened months ago, COVID, no COVID..

What those issues are, no one is saying, because if the county does sue the general contractor, Morganti, why place your cards on the table in advance?

Some sources tied to this newspaper have said that change orders have been a big factor in the delay.

For example, last June or July, allegedly the contractor got a change order to install all automated faucets in the restrooms. Sounds simple but that entailed:

• Discarding the previously installed fixtures.

• Because of a design decision, there were no plumbing / electrical chases installed in the walls. So, walls in each restroom needed to be opened up to run electric lines to the fixtures. That involves, demolition, new drywall, new tape, float and paint, new electrical, before finally installing the new automated fixtures.

There are so many rumors being floated about the new courthouse, there’s no way yet of knowing what to believe.

One rumor is that a seventh floor was added, but the elevator only goes to the sixth floor. May be true, may not.

Efforts to contact the contractor, Morganti, proved fruitless at first. After interviewing Hidalgo County Judge Richard Cortez last week, we thought it would be interesting to get a view from the other side, Morganti, knowing already that since the line item ““Pending/potential litigation – New Courthouse Construction” had already been listed on the county commissioners Feb. 27th meeting, the contractor was unlikely to agree to an interview.

Here’s one odd thing though. On its website, the number listed for the giant contractor, its local RGV office and its regional office in Houston, one and the same, offer nothing but a busy signal. In fact, let me call that number now, March 7 at 3:57. and I bet there’s a busy signal. Yep: 1-281-448-1015. Busy.

A call made to Morganti’s corporate office in Danbury, Ct., found a human voice, but after leaving a message to please call, letting the receptionist know the reason for the request, along with a copy of last week’s story, none was forthcoming. No surprise, but at least we tried.

Running out of time this week to fully flesh out this story, but as mentioned last week, looking back over the stories published by this newspaper, 2016 thru 2018, there was no doubt that this job would ever run as smoothly as we had hoped.

Story Excerpts

The first hint of trouble, one of them anyway, came in a story published in The Advance Nov. 16, 2016, which carried this excerpt: “In just the past three years, the estimated cost of building a new courthouse has been estimated to be between approximately $115 million and $200 million. The number of courtrooms has changed, and so have the number of floors. So has the downtown Edinburg drainage plan. Every change comes via the expenditure of more money to architects, program managers, and consultants.”

Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. To be fair, the commissioners court today is not the same one in place seven years ago.

Here is an excerpt from a story published by The Advance in late April of 2017: “Over time, it was decided by the county commission that the job was too big for one project manager, and so the concept of a project management team came to be, which now includes Dannenbaum, B2Z, Moca Program Management Company based out of San Antonio, Fransworth Group also out of San Antonio, and Naylor Wentworth Lund Architects, which hails from Salt Lake City.

“The question now being discussed is exactly how much is this project management work going to cost? According to industry sources, a typical project manager like Broaddus charges between 2 and 3 percent. Allegedly, the Dannenbaum project management team wanted 8 percent of the $150-million project, then knocked it down to 6 percent. Judge Ramon Garcia, however, balked at the percent, saying publicly that he wanted it more in the 2-to-4-percent range.

“This rate doesn’t yet include the architect, so there is a lot more money to still be split among the major players.”

Here is another excerpt printed in an editorial dated May 2017: “Over the past seven or so years, the “let’s build a new county courthouse” has turned into a money pit.

“In early 2011, for example, Broaddus and Associates, Inc., as part of a major downtown Edinburg development plan, estimated that building a new county 20,000 square-foot courthouse could cost $75 million.

“Before taxpayers could say, “Well, that might not be so bad,” the figure jumped to $175 million. Then magically dropped to approximately $150 million. Now we’re apparently being told by some on the Commissioners Court that it might only cost $120 million.

“No matter, once approved, if it’s approved, change orders will fix that $30 million shortfall. Vendors chomping at the bit to get in on the action need not worry.”

That’s it for this week. Look out next week for more excerpts from previous stories and editorials that predicted the outcome and where the courthouse would be today. A mess. Plus, we hope to have some more new info about whatever problems might exist.

Meanwhile, the rumors around the old courthouse continue to fly. County employees still housed in the old building are being told nothing.

What’s wrong with the new building? Did the roof really already leak as rumored? Is there a sewage problem? A drainage problem?

If they can’t get the courthouse steps to match ADA compliance (rumored), in what state are the more complex parts of the structure, such as HVAC, electrical?

Hopefully, all of the problems can be fixed before litigation is filed, because if that happens, when the courthouse will finally be open for business is anyone’s guess.