FORT SMITH – At least four companies involved in the construction of the Fort Smith School District’s Peak Innovation Center disagree with the results of a district-commissioned study regarding flooding problems the building has had since it opened.
The center and/or its parking lot have flooded three times since the building opened in March 2022. The center is a collaboration between the school district and the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith, but is owned by the district.
Joseph Velasquez, the district’s construction project manager, has said repairs to the Peak are expected to cost nearly $4 million. The center cost more than $19 million to build, which the district funded through tax revenues, public and private grants and other sources.
The results of the investigation were shared with the school board in March. Illinois-based Envista Forensics concluded that smaller-than-required building materials, substandard construction work and a lack of coordination between architectural, plumbing and civil engineering drawings were the cause of the center’s flooding.
Envista discovered that the roof drainage systems for the north side of Peak’s east wing were not aligned with architectural, plumbing and structural drawings. The result was problems with the stormwater drainage system.
The gutter was also smaller than the minimum required size and had no expansion joints, which created stresses that distorted the gutter system and potentially compromised the gutter anchoring system. The downspouts were smaller than required and the underground single-wall corrugated roof drainage pipes were at least 40% smaller than the minimum required size, the report said.
The assessment of the roof drainage system for the south side of Peak’s east wing found that the main roof drain connection was placed in an incorrect location than indicated on the construction and plumbing drawings, the report continued. The roof drains did not meet size requirements, and part of the roof was surrounded by a parapet wall and lacked a secondary emergency roof drain system, making it non-compliant.
Among other things, the underground roof piping did not meet standards and the roof drains were too small from the inlet of the main roof drains at the edge of the building to the outlet in the parking lot.
Envista’s report on the east side of Peak’s west wing found that the plumbing and construction drawings indicated that the piping was not aligned or correct, as the drawings noted a roof drain pipe that was not built. The roof drain installations did not meet minimum requirements, and the roof was in turn surrounded by a parapet wall and lacked a secondary emergency roof drain system, the report said. The drain piping did not meet standards, as the downstream pipe size was reduced.
Envista found that in all cases, the files the company received did not contain any documents to identify the missing information in the construction documents.
George Feathers, senior project consultant at Envista, said at the March meeting that he did not know why no one noticed the regulatory violations earlier. Envista’s job is to present facts, not assign blame for a project, he said.
“I can’t tell you exactly what happened, but I can say there were a lot of eyes on the project, and it seems to me that questions weren’t asked when people saw something that should have been there but wasn’t,” Feathers said.
Board member Dalton Person asked the district to send this report to all parties involved so their responses could be discussed at a later date.
Builders react
The River Valley Democrat-Gazette obtained the answers through a Freedom of Information Act request to the district.
James Adams is vice president of Dallas-based Hoar Program Management, the project manager for the county’s millage-related construction projects through Oct. 1, 2021. In a letter to the county, he explained that Fort Smith entered into separate agreements with designers and contractors for the design and construction of Peak. Hoar was not responsible for the scope of work of those parties or for compliance with local, state or federal requirements in the design or construction, he said. After reviewing Envista’s report, Hoar has no objection to the findings because it believes they do not affect Hoar’s scope of work, he said.
A construction project manager is responsible for the successful completion of a construction project from start to finish. This includes preparing estimates, budgets and work schedules, delegating work and tracking expenses, preparing and reviewing project bids, and reporting progress and budget issues to clients.
The peak was reached in early 2022 after Hoar’s contract with the district ended.
Adams said Hoar understood that after completing its services to the district, the county independently directed Coryell Roofing to inspect the current roof system. Hoar also believes Coryell subsequently designed, proposed and installed a new roof system, including a redesigned drainage pattern, new gutters and flashing, Adams said.
The project’s lead architect, Corgan of Dallas, said in an email to the district that he takes issue with the Envista report, which says Corgan’s scope of work with the roof was to design a “repair and patch” of the existing roof, which was already in place when the district purchased the property.
Corgan states that during construction, after Corgan was awarded the contract, the district decided to replace the roof of the building. He states that the district entered into a separate contract for this project and that because Corgan was specifically excluded from the new scope of work, he did not issue design or construction documents, review proposed designs, or inspect or observe the installation.
“We respectfully request that this report be completely revised and all references to Corgan, Corgan Associates, Corgan Architects and our consultants who were under our contract be removed,” the email concludes. “No one on the project design team had any influence on the planning or execution of the roof replacement project or any of the related work.”
Addie Reith, the district’s communications specialist, said the district sent the Envista report to Coryell Roofing and has not received a response from them.
According to Coryell’s work order provided by the county, the scope of the project included, among other things, preparing the existing metal roof system for retrofitting with Duro-Last metal, replacing existing skylights with new metal panels, eliminating interior gutters by covering them with a taper directed at each drain, attaching PVC over the entire roof surface and finishing off the eaves by using a finish strip in existing gutters.
Coryell did not respond to an email or phone message from the River Valley Democrat-Gazette seeking comment last week.
Fort Smith-based Turn Key Construction Management, the construction manager overseeing all construction, in this case for the Peak project, said in a letter that some information that would support Envista’s study report was missing. It said Turn Key had attempted to inform the district, Hoar, the design teams and other parties of the problems with the planned coordination of drawings.
“Turn Key has been repeatedly asked to shut up and move forward with the project as planned,” the letter states. “In addition, every time the district hired someone to conduct a thorough evaluation of what happened at the project, Turn Key was repeatedly left out of the conversation. This letter is the first time Turn Key has been asked to provide additional documentation to support the investigation, and we welcome this opportunity to share our information with everyone.”
Eldredge & Clark, a Little Rock-based law firm representing architect James R. Childers, said in a letter Friday that they would need more time than the 13 days originally given to adequately respond to Envista’s report.
“We will begin this process and provide you with a substantive response as soon as possible,” the letter said. “With respect to your suggestion that failure to respond would imply our client agreeing with the findings of the Envista report, it is more reasonable at this time to assume that our client disagrees with the report until we tell you otherwise.”
Reith said developments are ongoing and the district will not comment at this time.
Peak’s parking lot was first flooded in June 2022, leaving a caretaker’s car underwater.
The center flooded for a second time during spring break in March 2023, with water entering the front office area, adjacent hall and nearby classrooms, the district said. The district said no classrooms were damaged and the center was open again the following Monday.
In June 2023, a third flood occurred in Peak. School Superintendent Terry Morawski informed school board members via email that water had again entered the office and the unfinished area nearby. He said the flooding was not as extensive as in March and there was no water damage to the carpet or furniture.
The center serves approximately 280 students from 22 school districts in Crawford, Franklin, Johnson, Logan, Scott and Sebastian counties as part of the university’s Western Arkansas Technical Center program.
The center offers courses in automation and robotics, computer-integrated machining, electronics technology and industrial maintenance, paramedics, medical practice assistants, network engineering and unmanned aerial systems.
The Peak Innovation Center issue will be on the school board’s agenda when it next meets on Aug. 26, a school board member said.
“The board will then review this ongoing matter with our legal counsel and we will discuss whether future action is appropriate,” Person said.
