York Suburban School District officials reviewed post-bid analysis for the proposed intermediate school and described administrative recommendations on which bid alternates to accept or reject, the consultants said. If the township places the project on its Oct. 23 agenda and the board signs contracts at its Oct. 27 meeting, district staff said the district could issue a notice to proceed in mid-to-late November with a projected building completion in July 2027.

The presentation, led by Crabtree & Associates representatives and the district's construction team, said ECI Construction was the apparent low bidder for the general-contract package; Wicomechanical and Fairfield Company were identified as the low bidders for HVAC/plumbing and electrical prime contracts, respectively. The consultants reviewed 10 bid alternates and recommended accepting only a small number of them while rejecting others to preserve scope or lower price.

Administrators recommended accepting an "unclassified construction" add (an insurance-like allowance that shifts subsurface risk to contractors) at $82,000 and keeping an aluminum-feeder electrical deduct; they recommended rejecting several other alternates presented as possible value-engineering moves, including the removal of two second-floor learning labs (a deduct of roughly $301,000) and several optional add-ons such as loose courtyard furnishings and an electronic key cabinet. The district's post-alternate estimate would place construction cost at about $39,375,105, roughly $1.42 million under the Act 34 construction budget figure the team showed on its slides.

Consultants described the unclassified-construction alternate as an inexpensive risk-transfer relative to the cost of encountering unexpected rock or contaminated soils during excavation. They said the $82,000 premium applies against a defined scope (24 inches below bearing depth in the bid documents). The team also explained that some deduct alternates (for example, conduit runs that would leave empty raceways but not pulled HDMI/USB outlets) would preserve the ability to add technology later while realizing immediate cost savings.

Board members pressed for clarity on individual alternates, construction-management practices and procurement history. Several members asked whether alternate choices would limit future options or be expensive to reverse. Consultants warned that removing space now (for example, the second-floor learning labs) could be costly to re-create later, and that some add alternates could be acquired later outside the prime contract for lower cost. The presentation included an itemized list of alternates and the administration's recommendations for each.

District staff and the consultants stressed that final contract awards require two procedural steps: (1) land-development/signing and recording with the township and (2) building permit issuance, both of which are prerequisites to a notice to proceed. The project timetable presented assumed township review and supervisor action the week of Oct. 23 and a district contract vote at the Oct. 27 board meeting. If those steps are met, the team said, the notice-to-proceed window could be Nov. 17through Nov. 24.

No formal contract approval vote occurred during the presentation. The board asked follow-up procedural questions and requested clearer labels for technical acronyms in public-facing materials (for example, DDC controls and feeder types). Several board members said they wanted the project team to anticipate additional township questions and to be present if the township requests further clarification.

What happens next: district administration will post recommended contract documents on the board agenda for a formal vote at the next regular board meeting; township approval of land development remains a gating item. If award motions pass, construction would proceed under the recommended prime contractors and scope adjustments described in the presentation.