Board approves larger construction testing allowance for 6–12 campus after site complexity; GMP amendment approved for middle‑school demolition

Scott Hammitt, presenting for the district’s project team, said March 5 that the district must increase the construction testing allowance for the new 6–12 campus because site conditions and added scope substantially exceeded the allowance set when the contract was negotiated.

Hammitt told the board the Ohio Building Code and the project’s design standards require third‑party construction testing in categories that include soils, concrete, masonry, steel connections, fire stopping and spray‑on fireproofing. He said the testing agency (the district’s geotechnical firm) is a third party hired through the architect’s contract and that the district holds an allowance in the contract to pay testing invoices as a pass‑through.

Hammitt said the original testing allowance negotiated with the construction manager at risk was $325,000. He reported invoices to December totaled approximately $541,762.72, producing an overage of roughly $216,000, with $197,564.36 outstanding at the time of the presentation. He recommended an allowance increase of just under $400,000 to cover anticipated work, and said about $70,000 of unused allowances elsewhere in the contract can offset part of the total. After accounting for those internal offsets, Hammitt said the co‑funded share of the requested increase would be $287,768 and the local/fund‑internal share would be $39,756.

Hammitt cited specific drivers of the higher testing demand: a site that required more than 1 million cubic yards of cut and fill, placement of over 2,000 aggregate piers used to stabilize poor soils, extensive proof‑roll and water‑table testing for stormwater retention basins, large retaining walls and a four‑story structural zone that required sprayed fireproofing testing. He said the testing agency logged roughly 1,300 on‑site hours during early site work and that future spring work (stadium and parking lot construction) would require an estimated five months of intense testing at roughly $20,000 per month.

Discussion: Board members acknowledged the testing is required to meet code and to protect long‑term performance, but several members expressed frustration that the allowance underestimated site needs. “I get the importance of it,” said Mister Harris, “I just think the frustration is it seems like there are things that could have been known or should have been known.” Hammitt acknowledged the district and team could have advised the board sooner but repeated that much of the increased testing was driven by design changes and site‑scale conditions that developed after the original allowance was set.

Action and outcome: The board approved a resolution to increase the construction testing allowance in Design Architecture’s professional contract for the 6–12 campus. Roll call: Miss Coco — aye; Mister Harris — aye; Missus Schaefer — aye; Miss White — aye; Mister Gomez — aye.

Related vote: The board also approved a guaranteed maximum price amendment authorizing abatement of hazardous materials and demolition at Golic Middle School (the board described the transaction as the last major co‑funded piece of the project). Roll call: Mister Harris — aye; Mister Schaefer — aye; Miss White — aye; Mister Gomez — aye; Miss Coco — aye.

Context and next steps: Presenters said invoices for the testing work are pass‑through charges from the third‑party testing agency (GeoSci) and that the testing is required for final approvals by the authorities having jurisdiction (Summit County and state code officials). The administration said they will bring specific contract amendment language and budget adjustments forward for board resolution and continue to identify unused allowances elsewhere in the contract to partially offset the increase.

Quote: “These budgets are based on the project size, schedule and history,” Scott Hammitt said, describing why the testing allowance must be adjusted. “We set an allowance when negotiating the contract, and as the project evolved the testing scope also grew.”

Taper: Board members stressed the importance of testing to ensure a safe, code‑compliant building while asking administration and the project team to improve earlier notification when project allowances are likely to be exceeded.