Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Angelo ISD consultants outline delivery methods and packages for proposed $397M bond program
Summary
District consultants reviewed package budgets and recommended delivery methods — job order contracting, competitive sealed proposals, construction manager at risk (CMAR), and design-build — and said complex projects like Central High and Winn Middle should use CMAR.
San Angelo ISD trustees received a detailed bond-project update that broken projects into delivery-method recommendations and budget packages intended to guide upcoming procurement.
RJ Lopez, presenting for the district's design/construction advisors, summarized options for delivery methods and recommended approaches based on project complexity and site constraints. "The more complicated the project, the more phases, the better it is to have [a construction manager at risk] on board early," Lopez said, explaining the value of early contractor involvement for coordination, phasing and contingency planning. He contrasted that with competitive sealed proposals (CSP) — where architects complete drawings before contractor selection — and job order contracting (JOC) for smaller, like-for-like replacements.
Lopez listed proposed packages and illustrative budgets for planning purposes: Package 1 (safety and security) about $8 million; Package 2 about $35 million (a mix of small replacements up to multi-million-dollar roof/HVAC/parking projects); Crockett Elementary approximately $9.9 million (CSP); McGill Elementary about $15.83 million (CSP); Fannin Elementary addition about $17 million (CSP); Winn Middle School characterized as a standalone site, recommended for in-house engineering oversight and likely CMAR for larger work; Lakeview High School additions/renovation approximately $46.4 million (CMAR); Central High School major renovation and phased work about $128.17 million (CMAR); athletic improvements roughly $12.18 million (mix of JOC and CSP). Lopez said district and consultant teams planned to use alternates in bidding (for example, playground options) to capture market variability and preserve options if bids come under or over budget.
Lopez and other presenters discussed risk allocation. On asbestos and concealed conditions, Lopez said a CMAR contract typically includes allowances and open schedules of values that make unknowns easier to manage, while CSP bids can produce more change orders if subs discover hidden conditions after award. "If it's something that's not shown on the drawings and never discussed before and there's not a specific contingency, then there would still be an add to the project that the CMAR would not cover at that point," Lopez said; he added that CMARs often bring allowances to cover likely unknowns and therefore can reduce later change orders.
District staff introduced Carl Danheim as the new director of construction; Danheim briefly noted his local ties and prior role at Plainview ISD. Trustees asked about cost-estimating controls, market checks and ensuring competitive pricing; Lopez described multiple estimate checkpoints during schematic design and the use of alternates and market comparisons to mitigate pricing risk. He also discussed scheduling and whether a single CMAR should be allowed to manage multiple large projects — he said the district could permit CMARs to bid any combination but would generally recommend not placing all large projects under a single CMAR so contractors can focus on assigned projects.
Why it matters: the delivery method choice influences cost certainty, contractor involvement during design, and the district's ability to limit change orders and manage projects with students on occupied campuses. Trustees were asked to review the proposed delivery matrix as staff prepares procurement and selection documents for forthcoming board action.
