Myers said the incorrect design documentsfor Meeker would not have been used on otherprojects because each is unique.

“I don’t believe there are other comparable is-sues, but we will dig into the nitty-gritty,” hesaid.

As a result of the problems in Meeker,Neenan school projects that have received mon-ey through the state’s Building ExcellentSchools Today competitive grant program alsoare under scrutiny.

Ted Hughes, who oversees the program forthe Colorado Department of Education, toldThe Post he requested that Neenan conduct athird-party peer review of structural engineer-ing for Neenan BEST projects in eight schooldistricts.

Records show $150 million in BEST moneywent to the projects, which included six newschools and improvements to nine existingschool buildings.

Neenan has agreed to the review and expectsit to be finished by February, Myers said.

The company has made other reforms in an at-tempt to avoid problems on future projects. My-ers said Neenan has begun third-party reviewsof its structural engineering, at a cost of about$15,000 per project.

Neenan has a reputation for fixing problems,according to clients, and Myers said the compa-ny has never been to court.

Yet Neenan is at the center of a pending law-suit Larimer County commissioners filedagainst 11 businesses involved in a major build-ing project at The Ranch, the county fair-grounds complex in Loveland.

After a building sustained extensive damageduring a 2006 winter storm, an insurance claimled to the discovery of alleged defects in theroof design and other work.

Neenan did not design the buildings but wasresponsible as construction contractor to makesure the project met contract standards, accord-ing to the lawsuit.

Myers said Neenan has taken responsibilityand wants to make the fixes, and the parties arein mediation.

In addition, at least two other rural Coloradoschools designed and built by Neenan have ex-perienced problems:B In Kremmling, a gymnasium roof on a new

$11.5 million preschool through eighth-gradeschool lifted 3 or 4 inches during an April 2008windstorm, the school district said.

Neenan repaired the roof that summer at no

cost, and a settlement was reached afterNeenan sued a subcontractor to recoup thecost, Neenan said.B While an $18 million elementary school in

Craig was under construction in 2009, aNeenan supervisor noticed a deflection in abeam supporting a second floor. An indepen-dent review pinpointed a drawing error by astructural engineer hired as a subcontractor.Neenan paid for repairs.

Peter Bergmann, superintendent of the Mof-fat County School District at the time of theCraig project, said the district was very happywith Neenan on the whole.

“Whenever you have a construction projectlike we had going, with millions of dollars, thereare going to be glitches you have to workthrough,” he said.

Bergmann said he had no reason to believethe school has serious structural deficiencies.But, he added, “There is no way to really tell,from my standpoint.”

Errors and gaps in recordsThe error in occupancy code on the Meeker

school — visible in blueprints Neenan submit-ted to the state — should have been caught inthe initial plan review, said Jon Weir, lead plansexaminer for the Colorado Division of Fire Safe-ty. The agency oversees school construction re-views and inspections.

“How that happened, I don’t know,” Weirsaid. “We religiously check this information be-

cause it’s critical to the design of the building.”Plan reviewers are expected to make sure

that permit applications are signed and com-plete, that snow-load designs for roofs are ade-quate, and that building exits are where they aresupposed to be, among other things.

Weir said plan reviewers are not engineersand are not expected to judge designs submit-ted by structural engineers. But he said review-ers are responsible for checking whether engi-neers submit correct occupancy codes — whichrange from 1 for agricultural and storage build-ings to 4 for hospitals and jails.

The plan reviewer on the Meeker schoolproject, identified in public records as BenitoSerrato, was working for the state Division ofOil and Public Safety at the time. The divisionwas then responsible for enforcing buildingcodes on school projects, while the Division ofFire Safety oversaw fire codes.

Serrato moved to Fire Safety when that divi-sion took over all aspects of reviewing schoolprojects.

State records show Fire Safety Division direc-tor Kevin Klein tried to fire Serrato for reasonsunrelated to the Meeker project. Klein sent a dis-missal letter in October 2010 that accused Serra-to of falsifying an inspection report and twicescheduling fictitious inspections.

Serrato appealed, denied any official miscon-duct and asked to resign instead. Klein wouldonly say the plan reviewer on the Meekerschool resigned, citing a confidentiality agree-

ment in a settlement.Serrato told The Post he doesn’t remember

seeing anything indicating that the Meekerschool had been designed to the standards of alow-occupancy building.

Serrato said he relied on Howell’s stamp thatthe building was designed properly, and thatthe state agency does not employ anyone whocould challenge the expertise of a licensed struc-tural engineer.

“They put their stamp on it saying every-thing’s fine,” he said. “The stamp shows a cer-tain level of experience.”

Klein said the division is reviewing otherNeenan school projects. However, he said thedivision was able to obtain records for fewerthan 20 of Neenan’s projects in Colorado be-cause the state does not have complete records.

He said if a pattern emerges, the division willseek records on additional projects from schooldistricts.

Bob Hunnes, a Boulder structural engineerwhom Studer consulted before airing his con-cerns about the integrity of the Meeker school,said broader questions about oversight shouldbe asked.

“No one seems to be paying attention to thelarger story behind the immediate issue of theschool closure,” he said. “How did a schoolproject with so many significant design errorsget through the state’s plan review process with-out anyone noticing these errors?”

As recently as 2007, just one person handledplan reviews and inspections for the entirestate, and “it wasn’t getting done,” Klein said.

A state audit that year faulted the Division ofOil and Public Safety’s oversight and identifieditems missed on school inspections, includingbuilding plans that lacked required sprinklersystems, fire walls or appropriate exits. At thetime, about 150 construction plans a year werebeing submitted to the state.

The state beefed up its oversight in response,first with temporary workers, then permanentemployees.

Since 2010, oversight of school constructionhas rested solely with Fire Safety, and 13 staffersconduct plan reviews and inspections, Kleinsaid.

The division does not have the workload tojustify a full-time structural engineer, Kleinsaid. But last month, it started using a consult-ing engineer for complex school constructionprojects to ensure code compliance, he said.

“We take this very seriously,” Klein said.“The most important thing we are all abouthere is life safety. We have made a lot of im-provements as a state about how we do inspec-tion and construction.”

Meeker school fixes on holdThe state has signed off on repairs that will al-

low the Meeker grade school to reopen. But theproject is on hold while the district conducts afourth geotechnical report about soils at thesite.

If the report raises additional alarms, it’s un-certain what that might mean for repairing theschool — and who would pay for it.

Neenan’s Myers said, “Soils issues are a differ-ent issue … . We agreed to build the building inaccordance to the client’s soils report.”

Others question how the community cantrust Neenan and West — the owner’s represen-tative — to finish the job.

In agreeing to cover costs associated with itsmistake, Neenan is now, in effect, paying West,whose contract was extended. So far, the compa-ny has reimbursed the district about $23,000 forWest’s labor and expenses.

“Let me get this straight,” said ThomasKennedy, a father of three elementary schoolstudents. “We end up with the exact same teamthat screwed up the project the first time, rightdown to the person who is supposed to be over-seeing the project, who is supposed to be watch-ing out for the board but is being paid byNeenan. You’ve got to be kidding me, guys.This is a conflict, no matter how you cut it.”

West said Neenan reimbursing the districtfor his work does not pose a conflict.

“It’s important to recognize my agreementand, consequently, my allegiances are to theschool district,” he said.

Goettel praised West, crediting him for sav-ing the district money. The district, she pointedout, has hired several outside firms to reviewwork on the troubled school.

“Hindsight is wonderful,” Goettel said. “It’s aluxury. I think it’s very unfortunate, the situa-tion we’re in. But I’m confident we’re movingforward to get this rectified correctly with thesafety of students and staff at the forefront. Ourgoal is to have a building that stands for 50years.”

Eric Gorski: 303-954-1971,egorski@denverpost.comor twitter.com/egorski

David Olinger: 303-954-1498or dolinger@denverpost.com

Meeker school board members, from left, Bill deVergie, Mindy Burke, Iris Franklin and president Mary Strang listen to John Mechling, a con-sultant with geotechnical engineering firm CTL Thompson, during a meeting in October. Earlier this month, Strang was voted off the boardafter two decades of service. Ed Coryell, not pictured, also was ousted. Photos by Craig F. Walker, The Denver Post

many significant design errorsnoticing these errors?”

Jim West of Vanir Construction Manage-ment Inc. listens at the Meeker school boardmeeting in October. The district hired Westas an owner’s representative to oversee theconstruction of the elementary school. Westhad worked previously with Neenan onschool projects, a tie that bothered at leastone school board member at the time.

Neenan representa-tive Bob Meserve,right, listens toconsultant JohnMechling of theengineering firmCTL Thompsonduring the Octoberschool board meet-ing in Meeker. Dis-cussion focusedon evaluating thesoil around the ele-mentary schoolthat opened in fall2010 and was thenclosed because ofserious structuralissues.

Neenan Co. built six new schools and and made improvements to nine other schools with $150 million from a state school building fund. The Colorado Department of Education has now asked Neenan to conduct a third-party review of those projects.

70

70

76

25

The Denver Post

AKRON

DENVER

COLORADOSPRINGS

PUEBLO

CORTEZ

LAMAR

MERINOCRAIG

GLENWOODSPRINGS

GRANDJUNCTION

Akron Elementary and High School

Merino Junior Senior High School

Alamosa Elementary School(2 schools)

Mapleton Early College High School

Mapleton ExpeditionarySchool

Clayton Partnership School

Academy HighSchool

North ValleySchool For Young

Weldon Valley Elementary,Junior High School

Miami/YoderElementary, JuniorHigh School

Monte Vista Senior High School

Sargent Senior High School

Sargent Elementary School

Bill Metz Elementary School

COLORADO

Projects under review

Online extras. See someof the key documents andcorrespondence used inthe reporting of this story.»denverpost.com/extras

6 the denver post B denverpost.com B sunday, november 20, 2011 NEWS «21A