Board approves guaranteed maximum price amendments for several elementary school projects

The school board approved guaranteed maximum price amendments for multiple elementary school construction projects and accepted administration’s recommendations for contractor-managed guaranteed maximum prices. District staff presented project scopes, alternates and budget reconciliations for Bill Childress Elementary School and other campuses, noting contingencies and schedule implications.

The amendments formalize contracts under a construction-manager-at-risk (CMR) arrangement with Jordan Foster LLC and related subcontract awards. Administration told the board the GMPs cover required safety, security, HVAC and roofing upgrades and include some community-prioritized alternates such as replacing carpet with luxury vinyl tile (LVT). A portion of previously identified owner soft costs was reallocated into construction budgets, and unspent program funds will move into a program contingency account for later allocation.

District staff said one project’s construction budget had been reported as $5,033,568 and that the GMP came in just under that figure; another campus had a reported construction budget of $5,149,814 with a GMP of $4,359,485, leaving a $790,329 delta to program contingency. A separate project was reported with a construction budget of $5,389,258 and a GMP of $5,322,300, leaving a $66,958 difference. Administration said the contractor-carried contingency (reported as included in the GMP) is about 5% while the district maintains a separate owner contingency of 7% on top of stated budgets.

Board members pressed for clarification on allowances and change-order authority. Staff said routine additive change orders can be executed within the 7% owner contingency without returning to the board, but larger or program-level reallocations would be brought back for board approval. The presentation itemized allowances including $10,000 for structural reinforcing, $10,000 for exterior patching and a $75,000 roof repair allowance; staff said those amounts are carried within the contractor’s GMP and that additional owner-side contingency would be available for unforeseeable conditions.

The board also discussed bonding and subcontractor protections; staff said the district’s contract requires the general contractor to be bonded, but subcontractors are not required to be individually bonded and that any claims would come through the general contractor. Representatives noted that some trades were awarded on a best-value scoring that weighted price heavily alongside safety and past performance; Texas Mechanical was identified as a selected mechanical contractor with a local presence.

A conflict-of-interest disclosure was reported for one board member, who filed the required forms and “will not participate in any of the discussion. She certainly cannot vote,” according to district staff. Administration asked the member not to participate in the matter; the board proceeded with discussion and subsequent approvals.

Administration told the board that substantial completion dates depend on approval and contracting timelines; for one project staff set a substantial-completion target of June 25, 2026, if the GMP is approved immediately. Staff also promised to provide breakdowns of alternate scope and approximate costs on request so the board could prioritize future uses of contingency or program funds.

Less critical details: staff said some roof work was repair rather than full replacement for certain campuses, and that heating/ventilation rooftop units (RTUs) discussed are 15–25 years toward end of life and may trigger additional code-required items (for example CO2 detectors if rooftop systems are replaced). The board asked for continued updates on scope, cash flow and any owner-initiated change orders.