Tag: Legislation

Need More Money for Public Transportation? Stop Wasteful Construction Mandate

It’s time to put Pennsylvania’s construction laws in the 21st century and reinvest the savings in keeping Pennsylvanians moving.

By Jon O’Brien

Open any Pennsylvania newspaper over this past summer and you’ll read about a serious funding crisis in public transportation. SEPTA warns of service cuts, riders worry about fare increases, and regional transit systems across the Commonwealth struggle to keep buses and trains running. Without new investment, the mobility lifeline for hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians is at risk.

Yet while these urgent debates unfold, our state continues to waste millions of dollars every year on outdated construction mandates. At the heart of this waste is the Separations Act, a 1913 law unique to Pennsylvania that requires public construction projects to use multiple prime contractors: one for general construction, another for electrical, another for plumbing, and another for HVAC.

On the surface, this might sound like accountability. In practice, it creates duplication, inefficiency, finger-pointing, and costly delays. With four or more contractors working independently, coordination becomes a nightmare. Disputes often spill into litigation. Schools, courthouses, and state facilities take longer and cost more than they should — and taxpayers pick up the tab.

Meanwhile, every other state in the country, along with the federal government, allows public agencies to use modern, cost-effective delivery systems such as design-build or construction manager at risk. These systems give owners flexibility, streamline accountability, and have a proven track record of saving money while delivering quality projects on time. Pennsylvania alone forces public entities — from small school districts to large universities — into a fragmented system that inflates bids and extends timelines.

The results are obvious:

  • Higher costs: taxpayers pay more for every classroom, fire station, or state office building.
  • Slower projects: delays compound as multiple contractors clash over responsibilities.
  • Lost opportunities: dollars wasted on inefficiency could otherwise support public priorities.

Those lost opportunities matter. Right now, they could mean the difference between SEPTA keeping buses on the road or cutting vital routes. They could mean whether Pittsburgh Regional Transit can maintain service or be forced to shrink. They could even mean whether rural transit systems continue to connect seniors and workers to healthcare and jobs.

If Pennsylvania leaders are serious about solving our infrastructure and transit funding gaps, then modernizing the Separations Act must be part of the solution. We cannot keep protecting a broken law from 1913 while buses are being cut, riders are stranded, and taxpayers are stretched to the limit.

Opponents of reform argue the Separations Act prevents monopolies and keeps contractors honest. But in truth, the rest of the nation has moved on to modern procurement systems that are just as competitive and far more efficient. Private industry relies on them. States across the political spectrum rely on them. Pennsylvania stands alone in clinging to an antiquated rule that no longer works.

Public construction should serve the public — not outdated mandates or entrenched special interests. By modernizing the Separations Act, Pennsylvania can save millions, deliver projects faster, and free up scarce resources for the infrastructure that actually supports economic growth and quality of life.

Taxpayers deserve a government that spends smarter. Transit riders deserve reliable service. Communities deserve modern schools and facilities built on time and on budget. Reforming the Separations Act is a commonsense step toward all three.

It’s time to put Pennsylvania’s construction laws in the 21st century and reinvest the savings in keeping Pennsylvanians moving.

Jon O’Brien is Executive Director of the Keystone Contractors Association, a commercial construction trade association that represents major contributors to employment and economic growth in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Construction Recap – Top Stories for Week Ending September 12, 2025

This week we pause to remember the lives lost on September 11, 2001, and honor the bravery of the first responders and everyday heroes who answered the call that day. May we never forget their sacrifice, and may we continue to stand united in their memory.

Here are the top construction stories from Pennsylvania this week:

SEPTA Avoids Cuts by Tapping into Reserves & Enacting Fare Increases: The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is using $394 million in state-provided capital project reserves to restore transit services that had recently been cut to address a roughly $200 million deficit. The agency also approved a 21.5% fare increase, which is expected to generate about $31 million more annually. READ MORE.

Solar For Schools – Potential?: Despite reports on all this savings potential for going solar, only two schools in the Philadelphia school district currently have solar systems. The state’s Solar for Schools Grant Program has funded over two dozen school solar projects elsewhere in the region. READ MORE.

Harrisburg Revival Plans: Local planning experts are calling for renewed momentum in downtown Harrisburg development. A recent reflection points out a drop in large-scale projects since 2008, and challenges (funding, vision, parking) that have discouraged developers. READ MORE.

Stay Safe, Stay Informed & Keep Building Pennsylvania!

Pennsylvania Construction Weekly Recap – Top Stories for Week Ending July 25, 2025

Here are the top construction news stories across Pennsylvania for the week ending July 25, 2025:

  • Penn State University Construction Projects: Penn State continues to advance multiple transformative construction projects across its campus, including the recently completed Susan Welch Liberal Arts Building, the ongoing $115 million Osmond North Building (set for completion in January 2027), and renovations at Beaver Stadium, which could cost up to $700 million. These projects aim to enhance academic facilities, student housing, and athletic complexes, aligning with Penn State’s broader goals to improve campus life and infrastructure. READ MORE
  • Pennsylvania Budget Talks Stall Over Road & Bridge Funding: As the legislature works on the state budget, transportation funding has become a sticking point. Republicans are demanding substantial funding for roads and bridges—including up to $500 million in debt financing—while also resisting increases in public transit funding proposed by Governor Shapiro. This impasse has significant implications for the future of construction planning across the state. READ MORE
    • Pennsylvania Senate Designates “Construction Opioid Awareness Week”: The Pennsylvania Senate has officially designated the week of July 21-25, 2025, as “Construction Opioid Awareness Week” through Senate Resolution 133. READ MORE

    Stay safe, stay informed and keep building Pennsylvania strong!

    The Impacts of an Inefficient, Cumbersome Law

    The following article first appeared in the Keystone Contractor Magazine’s Spring 2023 edition. To view the entire issue visit: https://issuu.com/atlasmarketing/docs/the_keystone_magazine_spring_2023_final_issuu_0420?utm_medium=email&utm_source=sharpspring&sslid=MzcxtzQwMjE1MbcwAwA&sseid=MzI1MTUzNzOyNAAA&jobid=8e832794-eea0-4ecd-80ef-31f10ccb9ec3

    The Impacts of an Inefficient, Cumbersome Law

    The Separations Act – Wasting Tax Dollars Since May 1, 1913

    By Jon O’Brien

    President Theodore Roosevelt was among the admirers of Pennsylvania’s new Capitol building at the dedication ceremony on Oct. 4, 1906.

    “This is the handsomest State Capitol I ever saw,” the president said as he entered.

    While it was a magnificent building, the project was way over budget – three times more than the legislature allocated.

    The subsequent investigation resulted in a law that, while well-intended at the time to protect taxpayers from fraud, is no longer relevant today. Instead, it is costing taxpayers money because it requires inefficient construction methods on public projects.

    That $7.7 million Capitol overrun – the equivalent of more than $211 million today – triggered a probe that revealed grafting. Capitol architect Joseph Huston, superintendent of construction James Shumaker, general contractor John Sanderson, state Auditor William Snyder and state Treasurer William Matheus were sentenced to prison.

    With little financial stewardship, each convicted individual had profited tremendously. But this sort of illegal activity wasn’t just happening at the Capitol project – it was the norm on public projects at the time.

    Fast forward to 1913. Public outrage over the scandal remained. There was pressure on public officials to do something. Republican Gov. John Tener, a former congressman and major league baseball player, signed the Separations Act.

    It mandated multiple prime contractors on all public construction projects. The thought was that the more eyes there were on the project, the less likely that there could be collusion for fraud.

    Perhaps 110 years ago, enacting the Separations Act made sense due to the circumstances at the time. Other states imposed similar rules.

    But in this day and age, every cent can be easily tracked. Every other state has done away with their laws because they recognized they were outdated and that providing options in construction delivery methods is the most-efficient way to spend tax dollars on construction.

    Pennsylvania continues to cling to its law. Here’s how that is hurting taxpayers by driving up the price of constructing public buildings.

    Requiring multiple prime contractors – one for HVAC, one for electrical, one for plumbing and one for general trades – means the owner must bid out and manage four separate contracts.

    The primes are not contractually connected and this impedes communication with each other. This lack of contractual relationship also hurts the communication between the architect and the primes.  Each prime contractor and the architect are directly contracted with the project owner – like a school district, municipality or other government entity – and because of that all communication runs through the project owner.

    The lack of a single point of contact from the construction team creates a nightmare of a scenario for the owner. It’s inefficient and cumbersome.

    Most problematic is it eliminates the possibility of collaboration during pre-construction,  which is a more-efficient method of construction. If early collaboration were allowed between the project architect and a single construction manager, projects would proceed more smoothly. Hurdles could be anticipated and resolved in advance. Without collaboration, expertise from the construction team is sparse, if at all, during the design phase.

    Legislation has been proposed several times in recent years that would do away with or amend the Separations Act.

    During a legislative budget hearing in 2017, state Secretary of General Services Curt Topper testified that the Separations Act “requires that we do business less efficiently than we could otherwise do business.”

    He said the old law “effectively sets up a situation where it is much more difficult to design a project, to bid a project and to manage a project. So, I’d love to see us address that problem.”

    Yet the law remains on the books.

    Its inefficiency is well-documented.

    From 2000 to 2010, public education projects could opt out of the Separations Act through the Education Empowerment Act that was enacted during Gov. Tom Ridge’s administration. Seventy school districts applied for the waiver during that period, an indication of the unpopularity of the Separations Act.

    The Allegheny Conference reviewed some of those projects and issued a report concluding that savings of between $8,000 to $2.5 million were achieved on school construction projects that used a single prime contractor instead of multiple primes.

    Kennett Consolidated School District did one project with a single prime and one with multiple primes per the Separations Act. The single prime project was finished two months ahead of schedule and $300,000 under budget. The multiple prime project came in over budget. This is just one the many examples to show that the Separations Act is costly to taxpayers.

    There is a long line of organizations, trade unions and governments that are lobbying for modernization of the Separations Act.

    They include: Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry, National Federation of Independent Businesses PA Chapter, Pennsylvania School Board Association, Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools, Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials, PA Association of Rural and Small Schools, Green Building Alliance, Green Building United, U.S. Green Building Council Central PA, Keystone Contractors Association, Master Builders’ Association of Western Pennsylvania, National Utility Contractors Association Pennsylvania chapter, Association for Responsible and Ethical Procurement, Carpenter Contractor Trust, Construction Legislative Council of Western Pennsylvania, Design-Build Institute of America, General Contractors Association of Pennsylvania, General Building Contractors Association, Cement Masons Local 526, Eastern Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters and Laborers’ District Council of Western Pennsylvania.

    Many public owners want to modernize the Separations Act and a few of the more vocal ones include: Philadelphia School District, Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, Peters Township School District, Cumberland Valley School District and Community College of Allegheny County.

    Jon O’Brien is Executive Director of both the Keystone Contractors Association and the General Contractors Association of Pennsylvania. He can be reached at 717-731-6272 and Jon@KeystoneContractors.com.

    Pennsylvania’s Rising College Tuition Isn’t Helped by Outdated Construction Law

    Recently Penn State University announced they approved a tuition increase for incoming students, joining Temple University and University of Pittsburgh. As families continue moving from a pandemic towards normalcy, I am sure the last thing they wanted, or expected, was to see the price tag of education to increase for their students.

    A lot of costs go into the background of the high costs of college. Facilities management and maintenance are one important component. If construction procurement reform had been put in place, to put us in line with the rest of the country, I wonder if this tuition increase could have been avoided. As one of the last few states requiring the use of multiple prime contractors on each public construction project, and enforcing it more strictly than other states, Pennsylvania is stuck with an archaic business practice. Referred to in Pennsylvania as the Separations Act, this requirement was enacted in 1913.

    So, what exactly is the Separations Act? And why should students at state-related universities care?

    In essence, the Separations Act forces the public owner, like the state-related universities, to serve as the general contractor for a project and each of the multiple primes contracts directly to the public owner. Without a single entity directing the project and with plenty of finger-pointing, this is an inefficient contract delivery method fraught with problems such as delays and claims, which are the norms and culprits leading to public projects being over-budget.

    This multiple prime delivery system is virtually nonexistence in the federal, private, residential, and commercial markets – and in fact when the state-related universities spend their own money for construction projects, they very rarely use multiple prime delivery because they want their money spent efficiently. Yet the state-related universities are forced by state law to use the multiple prime delivery system when it is building projects funded by the state.

    On average, a multiple prime delivered project costs 10% more. For that reason it makes sense for these schools to avoid this process when spending money from alums and other contributors. One would think our legislature would have that same sentiment about taxpayers that these colleges have for their donors.  

    It’s time to modernize the Separations Act by affording our public sector a list of proven delivery methods to select from. Construction is not a one-size fits all industry and there is no perfect delivery method. A construction client’s priorities (i.e., cost, quality, time, safety, etc.) vary from project to project and the customer should be allowed the opportunity to select the most appropriate delivery method for a particular project on a case-by-case basis. Senate Bill 823 of 2020 provided those options.

    By no means am I saying that modernizing the Separations Act is the be-all end-all solution to stop tuition inflation, but when Pennsylvania knowingly operates inefficiently while my neighbors see a tuition increase at our fine state-related institutions, I feel inclined to speak up. Now is the ideal time to address inefficiencies in our procurement process on behalf of current and future college students.

    Happy Anniversary!?!? Pennsylvania Begins Its 108th Year Overspending on Public Construction

    Next time you drive by a public-school building under construction, know that our state is intentionally spending 10% more on that project because of an archaic law that only exists in Pennsylvania.

    On May 1, 1913, Governor John Tener put his signature on legislation to enact the Pennsylvania Separations Act.  Tener assumed our state’s top office as we were coming off of a construction scandal involving the Pennsylvania State Capitol.  State Treasurer William Berry had found that there had been an unappropriated cost for our state capitol’s construction of over $7.7 million ($211,282,599 today).  Mr. Berry found many questionable charges, which led to the conviction of the building architect and the former State Treasurer.  Due to today’s technology, every cent that is spent is easily tracked.

    At the time, in 1913, a Separations Act-type law was the norm in America.  However, it is not the norm today as every other state, the federal government and the private sector enjoy options in construction delivery.  Yet Pennsylvania remains the lone holdout that mandates the Separations Act which requires the use of multiple prime delivery.

    Supporters of the Separations Act like to debate the statement that Pennsylvania is the only state left with this cumbersome contracting requirement and they believe there are two other states joining us.  They feel that North Dakota and New York join us.  These two states have chipped away at their multiple prime mandate, allowing flexibility in public contracting methods depending on the type of project.  But regardless of whether Pennsylvania is the only state or one of three states, it’s a pretty weak defense to keep a law on the books that wastes tax dollars.

    So, what is the Separations Act and multiple prime delivery? And why should taxpayers care?

    The Separations Act requires that public entities, like a school district, solicit and receive at least four separate bids for one construction project.  This is referred to as the multiple prime delivery method.  Let that sink in – four separate companies tasked with building one project.  This multiple prime delivery method requires the public entity to hold and manage the multiple contracts, making the public entity responsible for coordination of contracts.  Consequently, the public entity increases its contractual liability exposure and is forced to be involved in contractual disputes among the primes.

    Without one company in charge of the construction project, the multiple prime requirement is cumbersome and sets the stage for adversarial relationships amongst the prime contractors, resulting in a drastic rise in change orders and claims on multiple prime delivered projects.  Additionally, without one contractor guiding the project, there are multiple project schedules, and this lack of collaboration eliminates the prospect of early completion.  In the private sector, like the healthcare industry, it’s typical to read in the newspaper that the new hospital was built under budget and ahead of schedule – wouldn’t it be nice to afford the public sector similar contracting options that others benefit from?

    There is draft legislation that would bring Pennsylvania inline with the rest of the country when it comes to project delivery for public construction, but most importantly it would save tax dollars.  This legislation would allow the public entity to choose between four different delivery systems: Design-Bid-Build Multiple Prime (current mandate), Design-Bid-Build Single Prime, Construction Management At Risk, and Design Build.  To the non-construction professional these terms might be foreign to you.  While there are thousands of resources that explain the various delivery systems (and I don’t mind pointing people in the right direction if requested), I’ll try to keep the explanation simple: each of the listed delivery systems have a different entry point to have the construction team join the design team.  Due to design and construction teams joining forces at different times, depending on the selected delivery system, the systems vary in collaboration as illustrated here:

    Now I’ve been told that the Separations Act is a tough issue for the general public to understand.  Personally, I thought an issue that saves tax dollars is something the masses can get behind.  But perhaps I can use an analogy that may help:

    • Can you imagine if the Philadelphia Eagles had four head coaches?  This lack of leadership would result in chaos on the field with players unsure who to listen to.
    • Or what if the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra had four principal conductors?  The crowd would need aspirin and earplugs if the orchestra were to receive four different directions.

    On Pennsylvania public construction projects, we have four head coaches and four conductors all giving different orders.  There is no perfect construction delivery method, and our industry has evolved since the days of Governor Tener.  We have adapted delivery methods in response to the customer’s changing circumstances.

    The customer should be afforded the opportunity to select the most appropriate delivery method for a particular project on a case-by-case basis as cost, quality, and time vary from project to project.  Flexibility to choose the most effective and efficient project contracting method will enable local public entities to control costs on building projects, which ultimately saves tax dollars.    

    GCAP: Governor’s Veto of Legislation that Provided COVID-19 Liability Protection for Employers is Disappointing

    November 30, 2020, Harrisburg, PA – The General Contractors Association of Pennsylvania (GCAP) was one of eighty Pennsylvania associations who united, led by the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry, to support House Bill 1737.  This legislation included comprehensive, temporary, pandemic-related liability protections.  A statewide, collective sigh of rejection from the eighty organizations happened today when Governor Tom Wolf vetoed HB1737.

    GCAP executive director Jon O’Brien issued the following statement in response to Governor Tom Wolf’s veto:

    “Across Pennsylvania, during the COVID-19 pandemic, construction companies have been focused on keeping the workforce safe while trying to recover economically.  GCAP construction companies have been exemplary in abiding by Pennsylvania’s Construction Guidelines and we continue to share our best practices with Pennsylvania Departments of Community Economic Development and Labor & Industry.  Also, concerning the guidelines, I feel compelled to point that we assisted in creating them (Governor Wolf’s press release announcing the creation of Construction Guidelines).”

    “This veto was deflating and comes at perhaps the worst time.  During these unprecedented times, many construction companies are working in good faith when it comes to arming our workers with the PPE to be safe on the jobsites, since these PPE costs were not part of the original estimate and no one foresaw what 2020 would bring.  Many clients are telling contractors that ‘they’ll settle up’ after the project on added PPE costs.  Additionally, backlog of future work is down since some clients are unsure of what the future holds so they are not willing to put work out to bid.  Our industry was hopeful that we could get some good news and some much-needed liability protections, instead construction companies have to keep their guard up against trial lawyers anxious to profit from the pandemic.”

    “The construction industry will get through this pandemic stronger and smarter than before.  Our industry always learns from challenges that face us.  While the veto of HB1737 was definitely disappointing, we look forward to working with the General Assembly and groups like the Pennsylvania Chamber to improve our economy while keeping our workforce safe.”

    ABOUT GCAP: Established in 1953, GCAP is an organization representing the memberships of General Building Contractors Association, Keystone Contractors Association, and Master Builders’ Association. Collectively, GCAP represents over 700-plus commercial construction companies based throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For more information visit https://generalcontractorsofpa.com/.

    ## end ##

    Private Sector Can Help Our Government

    During the Coronavirus Pandemic, Governor Wolf issued an Executive Order to shutdown all non-life sustaining businesses in Pennsylvania. The General Contractors Association of Pennsylvania (GCAP) was torn internally, with one faction thinking that this shutdown was necessary and another group that thought it was too excessive and businesses should still operate. Despite this conflict among our leadership and members, we had complete consensus that the health and safety of our workforce is our top priority.

    Instead of advocating for construction to reopen, GCAP got to work on what we agreed on and in late March we published the Construction Industry’s COVID-19 Response Plan. It was a comprehensive safety plan with proper social distancing, PPE requirements, sanitizing, etc. I believe we were the only construction-related organization in Pennsylvania that did not lobby to reopen.  Because the health and safety of the worker was extremely important to us, I believe we gained the trust of Governor Wolf and that’s why I believe he used our safety plan to create his construction guidelines. (Governor Wolf’s press release.)

    Heading into 2020 no one could have foreseen the conditions that we find our Commonwealth in. Unemployment went through the roof. Tax coffers are projecting shortages in the BILLIONS. Yes, it’s true, COVID-19 has steered us into uncharted times.

    Citizens in this Commonwealth need public services now more than ever. From the nursing home residents to the young school kids looking for their next meal and to every age in between, Pennsylvanians are hurting. We cannot leave our neighbors stranded and simply chop out needed services in this year’s 2020/2021 budget negotiations when they resume after the short-term budget gets us through the fall elections.

    However, what can happen is that a thorough review of all expenditures can make sure tax dollars are efficiently spent. Our Commonwealth is fortunate to have dedicated and intelligent legislators from both sides of the aisle involved in this review process. Additionally, much like Governor Wolf turned to the private sector in creating the Commonwealth’s safety guidelines, the legislature should continue to look to the private sector to incorporate proven best practices to improve the way our government operates. Each industry sector should join the process to help our Commonwealth.

    When it comes to construction, Senate Bill 823 is a vehicle that can address construction procurement reform. This legislation, which has a diverse coalition and also has labor support, can save our Commonwealth 10% on public construction. Pennsylvania is the only state in the country that mandates an inefficient process known as the multiple prime delivery method (THE ONLY STATE IN THE COUNTRY – LET THAT SINK IN). Now is the ideal time to address inefficiencies in our procurement process on behalf of taxpayers.

    Our Students Deserve Better – Support House Bill 163 & Senate Bill 823

    Bravo to Governor Tom Wolf and to Sen. Vincent Hughes for raising awareness and wanting to address the dangerous lead and asbestos contamination in structures and water systems across Pennsylvania. Concerning the school buildings, our students deserve better than current conditions (if you have not seen the videos on Sen. Hughes’ website click here: https://www.senatorhughes.com/toxicschools/).

    Wanting our children to be educated in 21st century schools is commendable; however, constructing and renovating the schools with a procurement law enacted in 1913 is foolish and wasteful. Over a hundred years ago, Pennsylvania legislature enacted the Separations Act. This Act mandates that public construction projects be delivered by multiple prime contractors. Every time you drive by a public construction project just think to yourself: this project has (at least) four companies in charge. This process often leads to delays, lawsuits, conflicts, etc., and it averages about 10% more than contracting methods that the rest of the country utilizes. Because of the inefficiencies of the multiple prime contracting method, Pennsylvania is the only state left to require such a cumbersome construction delivery process. 49 states join the federal government and the private sector in allowing choice in project delivery. It’s time for Pennsylvania to do so as well.

    There are two pieces of legislation that can modernize the Separations Act: House Bill 163 and Senate Bill 823. These bills can allow for savings in public construction. Tax dollars do not grow on trees and with that in mind we should be stewards of tax dollars to assure construction projects are built efficiently. Additionally, it’s a big election year so we’ll likely hear a lot about education and jobs. Just think if the $1 billion that Governor Wolf is suggesting for public infrastructure comes to fruition and the Separations Act is modernized, we can spend it wisely resulting in more school projects, which results in more construction jobs.

    Separations Act Legislation Advances in the PA House: Does Dan Jalboot know about this?

    Pennsylvania is one step closer to making it easier to construct high-performance public buildings with the passage of House Bill 163 in the House State Government Committee.

    With a passage vote of 15-10, this Separations Act legislation will now move to the Pennsylvania House Floor. Enacted in 1913 the Separations Act is a requirement that mandates the public sector must bid and award to at least four prime contractors for one project. The named primes in the Act are: General Trades, Plumbing, HVAC, and Electrical. When enacted over a century ago, there were payment concerns from Contractors to their Subcontractors, so the major Subcontractors were made Primes. Over the years the General Assembly has enacted many important pieces of legislation to ensure payment is made to all firms that provide construction services, rending the Separations Act needless.

    Pennsylvania is the only state left in the country that abides by a multiple prime delivery system and after the recent HB163 vote we’re one step closer to ending that unwanted title. It’s exciting news for Pennsylvania’s construction industry as we can now work towards educating the public sector on all the many great advancements of the industry on topics like: Construction Management At Risk, Design Build, Design Assist, Lean Construction, to name a few. Through legislation enactment, different delivery options can be considered by the public that offer different entry points for the construction team which allows for collaboration to commence at various phases of the construction project.

    When it comes to the Separations Act, my journey began in 2005. I was hired by a construction trade association and my boss at the time asked me if I had any government affairs experience. I said: “No but I’m willing to learn and work on whatever.” He returned with a stack of file folders that was around eight inches thick, dropped them on my desk, and said: “here’s some info on our top issue, the Separations Act. Study this stuff and keep in mind there’s a lot more info in our file cabinets: letters, studies, articles, you name it so read up on this stuff I’m giving you and grab more when you’re ready.”

    I remember studying this information and thinking to myself: no one in the world builds multiple prime and I highly doubt an entire private sector would use a method that costs more so why does our state keep a law on the books that results in taxpayers overpaying for public construction due to an archaic law? This should be easy to repeal – I think people want government to spend less which means potentially we all could pay less in taxes. People want to pay less taxes, right? This was my ‘welcome to politics’ moment. Just because an issue may appear obvious, don’t fool yourself into thinking it can easily be changed. That thought was in 2005 and today, fourteen years later, a vote finally happened on the Separations Act.

    Over the past years working on this issue, I’ve been fortunate to meet so many great construction professionals – both for and against a modernization of the Act. I could probably make this a series and discuss so many people that care about their construction industry, and who knows maybe I will revisit this topic and focus on a different person as this issue moves through the legislature. But today I’d like to focus on an architect who addressed this issue like no one else back in my early days of learning about the Separations Act. And honestly no one since has addressed the issue quite like him.

    While I was learning about the Separations Act, my old work first suggested we form a coalition. We had so many public owner organizations that wanted this law changed as well as other contractor, engineer and architect organizations. I remember that AIA Pennsylvania was interested in joining the coalition, but first its executive director Caroline Boyce wanted to talk. We spoke, great conversation, super person, and she suggested I reach out to a Philadelphia architect named Dan Jalboot.

    Up until I spoke with Dan, all of the feedback from everyone was something along the lines of Pennsylvania can save money if we repeal this Act. I called Dan and he told me that the Separations Act impedes green construction in our state – THIS WAS IN 2005, BEFORE IT WAS HIP TO BE ON THE GREEN BANDWAGON. Dan would say that yes, our state can save money by repealing the Act, but more importantly we can improve the chances of constructing environmentally-friendly buildings if we did not have to abide by a multiple prime delivery system. We should want our children to receive education in green buildings – it will bring out the best in them.

    Dan sent me a few articles, stuff that was over my head back then. This helped to educate me. We had a few public hearings in those days and there were a lot of blank stares from legislators when he spoke, since green construction was not the norm back in mid 2000s like it is today. He would say stuff like: we need to look at the lifecycle of a building and stop looking only at construction costs; a building should be thought of as a single being with all systems working together and we can’t do that when an architect has to break a project into four pieces that must be meshed back together by strangers; construction needs collaboration from pre-construction through project closeout to truly benefit the environment, end users, and occupants. He would say how it’s very difficult to achieve collaboration in the multiple prime world since the architect is getting zero input from the builders when the design is being finalized and the public sector could benefit so much more if constructors could add their expertise during the design phase. (I just wish I would have hung on to his written testimonies that accompanied the hearings when he spoke. I’m just going off of memory and I’m sure he would sound so much better if I wrote it in his own exact words.)

    A few years ago the U.S. Green Building Council rolled out its updated certification – LEEDv4. I saw that pre-construction meetings from the design and construction teams is now encouraged and points are achieved when it happens. This is what Dan was preaching about a decade earlier and a decade later it is still difficult to achieve in the Pennsylvania public construction market due to the Separations Act. Now that the Separations Act issue is moving in the General Assembly, and a vote on this issue was actually held for the first time in decades, I thought I’d jot down my thoughts and let Dan Jalboot know I thought about him today. Not sure if he’ll see this article, but with today’s vote I think our state is moving in the right direction to improve the quality of public buildings that are constructed.

     

    NOTE: If you’d like to stay informed about the modernization effects of the Separations Act, please let me know. Jon@KeystoneContractors.com.