Board approves three change orders to close out high school project; two prime contracts remain open

5961597 · October 17, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board approved three contract change orders to settle outstanding claims related to the high school construction closeout. Administration said settlements resolved delayed-claim disputes; two prime contracts remain open and further change orders are possible.

The Abington Board of School Directors approved awards of contracts (addendum 8.1) at its Oct. 14 meeting to finalize three prime-contractor change orders that are part of the closeout of the Abington Senior High School project. Administration described the actions as negotiated settlements resolving outstanding contractor claims related to schedule extensions and related costs.

Administration asked Mr. Adani Hu to expand on the closeout work and told the board the settlements resolve claims with three prime contractors. Doctor Fetcher said the settlements avoided further litigation and the additional costs of retaining delay consultants and pursuing claims in court.

Board members asked for clarification about the reason for the increases. Administration said the increases tied to those contracts came mainly from time-related claims and extended services, and that some change orders reflected district-initiated direction to alter scope during the project. Administration noted the project occurred in the COVID period, which contributed to delays and claims.

The board confirmed two outstanding prime contracts remain: Burrow General Construction and Burrow Electric. A roll call vote approved the change orders; the motion passed with recorded ayes by board members present.

Public commenters pressed the board for more detail about costs and oversight. Joe Rooney asked how the district had negotiated construction management and questioned the difference between the $30 million fee for ICS on the current management team and prior management fees (he cited a $1.5 million prior award). Doctor Fetcher responded that the two are not comparable because ICS provides full-service architecture, engineering and construction management, whereas the prior amount covered only construction management and architects and engineers were separate line items.

Administration said the closeout settlements were intended to minimize further expense and uncertainty and that two remaining prime contracts will be addressed in future board actions as negotiations continue.