Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Project Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architect outlines three procurement methods for county renovation; supervisors ask for scoring matrices and cost ballparks
Summary
An architect hired by the county reviewed design–bid–build, design‑build/progressive design‑build and construction management at‑risk (CMAR) procurement approaches for renovating the county's recently acquired bank building; supervisors asked staff to provide scoring matrices and ballpark cost estimates before choosing an approach.
Architect Yancey Powers of WMA Architects on July 22 presented three delivery methods for the county’s renovation of an acquired bank building and advised supervisors on the tradeoffs among cost certainty, contractor selection and owner control.
Powers described the traditional design–bid–build approach (design completed before competitive bid), progressive design‑build (contractor selects the design team; typically faster but reduces owner control) and construction management at‑risk (CMAR), where the owner selects a construction manager early for pre‑construction services and guaranteed‑maximum‑price negotiation. The architect said several Virginia school districts and local municipal projects have used CMAR successfully and recommended it as a strong option for complex renovations because early contractor involvement can reduce unexpected change orders and lower the risk of large overruns.
Why this matters: Supervisors have already purchased a downtown bank building for county administration and are considering renovations to relocate offices and services. Choosing the procurement method will affect overall cost certainty, the owner's influence over design choices, the pace of construction and the county’s exposure to change orders.
Board requests and next steps: Supervisors asked the architect and county staff to share scoring matrices (evaluation criteria) used on other comparable projects, and to provide rough ballpark cost estimates and a matrix comparing pre‑construction fees, overhead and expected timeline for each delivery method. Powers agreed to share sample scoring forms and prior proposals used in nearby projects. No procurement selection or contract award occurred at the July 22 meeting.
Supervisors also requested that future planning include input from affected stakeholders (for example county offices that would occupy renovated space) and a security and ADA review; county staff said they would coordinate a follow‑up that includes courthouse security and emergency-management personnel. The county will return with comparative cost estimates and evaluation materials to help the board choose a delivery method.
