Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Construction Management topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lewis Central board approves construction-manager-at-risk for middle school renovation

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

Board voted to use a construction-manager-at-risk (CMR) delivery method for the planned middle school renovation after presentations that cited cost certainty, reduced change orders and contractor involvement during design.

The Lewis Central Community School District board voted Sept. 22 to use a construction-manager-at-risk (CMR) delivery method for the planned middle school renovation. Board members approved the motion after a presentation comparing three procurement models and a discussion of risks and oversight.

District advisers and project advocates told the board CMR gives the district earlier contractor involvement in design and a guaranteed maximum price that transfers a portion of financial risk to the builder. An adviser said, “I would lean towards the CMR, because I do think it does provide everyone’s got a little more skin in the game,” and noted CMRs typically return unspent contingency to the owner under the contract language the advisers use.

The presentation compared lump-sum (design-bid-build), CMR and a construction-manager-as-agent (CMA) approach across factors including risk allocation, owner control, timing, transparency and probable cost. Advisers showed a recent local renovation where roughly 88% of the cost was direct subcontractor work and about 12% covered management, bonds, insurance and overhead — a figure the presenters used when explaining typical fees for manager-led projects.

Supporters told the board CMR can reduce the frequency and size of change orders for complex renovations because a contractor participates early in site investigations and constructability reviews. One adviser warned that a design-bid-build contract can bring lower initial bids but higher change-order risk when unknown conditions appear during demolition or excavation.

Board members asked about the selection process, vetting of proposed subcontractors, and how savings would be shared. Advisers said the district would publish a request for qualifications, shortlist candidates, interview teams that would work on site, and require public competitive bids for trade contracts; they described contract language that returns any net savings to the owner. The board directed staff to move forward with a competitive procurement for a CMR and approved the motion by roll-call vote.

Next steps identified in the meeting: advertise a qualifications-based selection process, convene a district selection panel, interview finalists, and bring a recommended CMR contract back to the board for approval. The project team emphasized the renovation will continue design through the winter, with construction phasing and bid packages planned so much of the work can be let before next summer.