Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Ashford Hills topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table Ashford Hills design awards after questions about scope and cost
Summary
The court tabled awarding an architect and related procurement decisions for the proposed Ashford Hills warehouse and office suites after commissioners and residents questioned project scope, a $715,000 design fee and whether to hire a construction manager at risk or use a design-bid-build process.
The Brazos County Commissioner's Court on May 6 tabled agenda items to award design and commissioning contracts for the proposed Ashford Hills warehouse and office suites after extended discussion about scope, timing and cost.
Kathy Vines asked the court to clarify the project purpose, estimated total cost and financing; resident Jody Quimby, who has construction experience, told the court the package appeared to hire an architect without also selecting a construction manager at risk and asked why the county would design a project now if construction funds were not guaranteed.
County staff and project managers said the recommended architect engagement would cover programming, schematic design, design development and construction documents and that the construction contract would be pursued later when funds are available. The contract as presented would allow the court to stop after the construction-document phase; additional design and construction administration options were priced separately so construction work would not automatically proceed without new appropriation.
Commissioners questioned the timing and cost: the architect's proposed fee was $715,000. Staff said the architect estimated an $8 million building cost and that an all-in figure could approach $10 million; staff calculated the design fee at roughly 8.9% of the architect's $8 million estimate and 9.9% if commissioning were added.
Commissioner comments focused on fiscal prudence and process. One commissioner recommended a workshop to clarify program needs and reduce scope before committing design dollars. After discussion, a motion to table the architect award (agenda item 9) passed; a related motion to table the change to a design-bid-build approach (agenda item 10) also passed. The court similarly tabled commissioning services (agenda item 13).
Court staff outlined next steps if the court requested revisions: reopen negotiations with the selected firm to reduce price or scope, or proceed to the next-ranked firm; or decline award and revisit the project later. Staff also said the architect would perform a programming phase (priced at $8,000) to verify required square footage and storage pallet counts before completing construction documents.
No contract awards or construction approvals were made at the meeting; the tabling preserves options for further review and possible renegotiation.
