The Halifax County Public Schools board reviewed two competing proposals for renovations and possible new construction of the district athletic complex and, by voice vote, selected the renovation concept identified as Company A while directing staff to issue a separate request for proposals (RFP) for new construction.

Board members and staff spent more than an hour comparing Company A’s renovation-focused scheme with Company B’s larger new-construction proposal, questioning differences in scope, price and security features. Presenter (staff) summarized the evaluation: “both companies delivered highly detailed presentations and expressed a strong desire to begin the project immediately,” and noted interview teams had met with both firms after scoring proposals.

The discussion centered on cost and scope. Company A’s written proposal showed a line-item total of $12,934,748 for a package that would replace the stadium field and track, renovate restrooms and concessions, and update baseball, softball and tennis facilities with new lighting, fencing and security infrastructure. Company B’s proposal totaled $18,846,597 as presented and rose to about $20,000,004 with certain add-ons; the presenter said a value-engineering worksheet could reduce Company B’s price to roughly $14,693,096 if selected. Company B’s schedule included a proposed start in June 2026 for certain work and completion of tennis and some fields between December 2026 and January 2027.

Several board members said they wanted to see comparable proposals for new construction before committing. One board member suggested the board should “see renovation and new together” to allow an apples-to-apples decision; another warned that delaying a selection could change contractor pricing and affect the project timeline. Concerns were raised about large differences in price without equally clear differences in scope — for example, whether an expanded scoreboard or added security fencing justified a much higher price on the new-construction offer.

After debate, a board member said, “I’ll make a motion to go with company a,” and the motion carried on a voice vote. Board members and staff clarified that selecting Company A at this stage was a choice of concept for renovation; if the board later selects renovation as the path forward it would negotiate scope and potential changes during design. The board also directed staff to issue a new RFP seeking proposals for new construction so the district can compare firm bids for both renovation and fully new facilities.

Board members and staff asked that future materials include clearer breakout of major line items (for example, scoreboard and perimeter security), anticipated schedule impacts if the district delays, and the expected distinctions between design-build deliverables and traditional architect/CM-at-risk procurement. The board also noted a prior walkthrough and interviews had taken place and that one board member had previously recused themself from procurement because family members work for local contractors.

Next steps recorded during the meeting: staff will prepare a new-construction RFP and return with side-by-side cost and scope comparisons; the selected renovation concept (Company A) will move to a conceptual-design phase if the board elects renovation after the new-RFP comparisons.