Stop hazing and binge drinking

I was sickened about the death of 19-year-old Penn State sophomore Timothy Piazza and shocked by the details concerning the abuse of alcohol, hazing, and, mostly, the neglect as he suffered at a fraternity house pledge party and died ("Fatal hazing caught on tape," Sunday).

Since I was in college in the 1960s, there has been talk about ending this cruel and barbaric rite of passage that one may be subjected to in order to get into a fraternity or sorority. It's all about people lording power over others. I could argue that the natural way of meeting people without the elitism and exclusiveness of fraternities and sororities might be considered, but since this won't happen anytime soon, measures must be taken by colleges and universities to stop the practice of hazing cruelty and binge drinking of alcohol. Students, it is totally not cool.

|Judy Rubin, Philadelphia

I was director of Design and Construction for the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. General Services Administration for more than 30 years. I witnessed our construction-award process evolve from costly litigation and delays to efficient results.

For large projects, the federal government does not award separate contracts for different trades, as is required in Pennsylvania by the Separations Act of 1913 ("Time for ancient law codifying fiscal inefficiency to be repealed," Monday). It takes more effort to write, award, and administer separate contracts. They require the state to serve as general contractor, coordinate subcontractors, and resolve conflicts. This system leads to change orders, litigation, and delays.

I agree with columnist John Baer that the Separations Act should be repealed. One contract should be written that includes all trades and places the burden of coordination and conflict resolution on the general contractor. It should be awarded on a weighted basis of price (50 percent) and a combination of past performance on similar projects, managerial approach, and references (50 percent), with evaluation done by an independent panel of stakeholders and experts.

The federal government has learned that this approach, known as "greatest value source selection," improves the quality of contractors and work and reduces litigation and costs.

|Al DeLucia, Philadelphia

Columnist John Baer suggested that the state's 104-year-old Separations Act might not make sense anymore. The little-understood law requires most public construction contracts to be bid in four parts, rather than as one award to a single general contractor. The key point is that separate contracts are less expensive than one contract. That issue was resolved more than a decade ago, when school districts across Pennsylvania asked contractors to bid their projects utilizing either approach. The separate bids were always less expensive. That's what happens when the general contractor can't mark up his subcontractors' bids.

This is not a dispute between contractors and labor. We are active in an organization, Concerned Contractors, that includes open-shop and union signatory contractors who support separate bidding. In many respects, this issue pits large general contractors against small local contractors.

In public construction, contractors need a bond to submit a bid. Combining the project into one contract can make it too large for the subcontractors and general contractors to bid, because they lack the bonding capacity. That limits competition, which is another reason that single contracts are more expensive.

While the Separations Act is old, saving money for taxpayers never goes out of style.

|James P. Gaffney, Goshen Mechanical Contractors, Malvern, and Glen Phillips, Phillips Brothers Electrical Contractors, Glenmoore, jgaffney@goshenmechanical.net

In 1996, Mayor Ed Randell created the Capital Program Office to reduce the backlog of capital design and construction projects. One of its first jobs was to identify reasons for delays - the 1913 Separations Act. So, city administrations have known this for at least 20 years and have failed to request a change.

Why, when the requirement of separate contracts increases design time, costs, and project and construction management; delays bidding and construction; and creates finger-pointing among contractors?

Simple - it gives the city's small, fledgling, and minority designers and contractors the opportunity to work on city projects as an equal with the bigger, established companies that would subcontract the work to the friends.

When I was deputy director or director of the CPO, from 1996 to 2008, my job was to get things done faster and cheaper, and this policy bothered me. But, now that I'm retired, I can look at the bigger picture, such as creating job skills for the unemployed and jobs for city residents, which means more tax dollars for the city.

|Richard Tustin, Philadelphia, rtustin620@verizon.net