Bristol Warren committee approves 60% construction package and accepts building-committee order of bid alternates

The Bristol Warren Regional School Committee voted to accept the 60% construction document package and to authorize its submission to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE), including the list and order of bid alternates recommended by the School Building Committee.

The decision followed a presentation from Walter of PMA, who reviewed value-engineering items, credits and recommended alternates that the building committee used to bring the project closer to the district’s construction-cost targets. Walter said the current estimate of record at the CD‑60 stage was $148,000,008.90 and that after accepted value‑engineering items and declined options the project was roughly $2.3 million below the target used to meet the district’s tax‑impact commitment. He described several reductions and credits — for example omission of a Building C firewall (about $121,000), reducing curtain wall and window heights, and drainage design updates — and also noted items the team recommended carrying as alternates, such as a press box and grandstand, tennis‑court lighting infrastructure, a baseball field package, and a toilet building for the athletic complex.

Nut graf: The vote keeps the project on the procurement pathway — the design team will upload deliverables to the RIDE portal and put the work out to bid — but it also preserves the sequence in which optional work can be added at bid time. That sequence matters because, under Rhode Island practice for bid alternates, contractors submit separate prices for add alternates and the owner typically must accept alternates in order, without skipping items, when assembling the final contract.

Committee debate focused on the ordering of alternates and one major technical and policy issue: whether to prioritize a full geothermal HVAC system. Several members advocated moving geothermal to the top of the alternates list on environmental and long‑term cost grounds. Miss Richards argued for prioritizing geothermal and cited an estimated cost of about $7,000,000, calling it an opportunity to reduce the building’s lifetime carbon impact. Miss Reese made a similar argument, saying, “In order for us to mitigate and stop climate change, we have to make really bold, risky choices,” and noted the educational value for students.

Opponents, including several members of the building committee and other school committee members, called geothermal financially risky to place first because its price could exhaust contingency available for other high‑priority, lower‑cost alternates. Walter and other project staff noted uncertainty about federal rebate funding (discussed as IRA funding) and explained that if an alternate is not accepted at contract award the owner could still add the work later but likely at a higher premium and without the guaranteed bid price. As Walter put it, “If you put geothermal first and the bids come in below that amount, you’ve eliminated the option to take lower‑cost alternates that may be more important to daily operations.”

After an amendment to reorder the alternates (which would have moved geothermal to the top) failed for lack of support, the committee voted to approve the 60% construction documents and to submit them to RIDE with the School Building Committee’s recommended order of alternates. The order the committee approved places the press box and grandstand bleachers first, tennis‑court lighting next, the baseball field package third, the toilet facility fourth, and the full geothermal system later in the list as an add alternate. Several members voted in opposition during the roll call; the motion passed by majority.

The project team said it will proceed to prequalify and solicit general contractors, collect hard bid prices for the base work and each add alternate, then return to the committee with bid results and a recommended contract award. PMA and the architect noted typical commercial practice: alternates accepted after award may be subject to higher change‑order pricing if negotiated after contract execution.

Ending: The vote advances the district to procurement. Committee members asked the project team to return with updated cash‑flow figures and the RFQ and prequalification results for general contractors before any contract award. The committee also reaffirmed its commitment to the tax‑impact target used in earlier voter materials and acknowledged that the final buyout could change whether any alternates are accepted at award.