Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake County board selects CPPI as construction manager for Eustis High addition
Summary
After hearing 20‑minute presentations from five construction managers, the Lake County School Board picked CPPI to lead design‑phase construction management for a $35.4 million Eustis High School expansion that will add classrooms, CTE labs and site work.
The Lake County School Board selected CPPI as the construction manager for the planned Eustis High School 9th‑grade center and career‑tech expansion after presentations from five shortlisted firms at a Feb. 3, 2025 workshop.
Board members heard 20‑minute pitches from Wharton Smith/GSB Construction, CPPI, Wellbro (with mentor partner Competitive Edge Partners), Williams Company, and DE Scorpio. Each firm described its understanding of the campus, approaches to safety and staging on an occupied site, local subcontractor participation goals, early procurement strategies for long‑lead equipment and potential value‑engineering options.
CPPI principal Jason Morgan told the board, “Now is the time to make this project happen,” and positioned his team’s plan around keeping practices and most campus activity on site while building a 600‑station classroom/CTE addition and a new practice field. CPPI said it would target a 45 percent local labor participation goal and proposed sequencing work so the new practice field and parking are available before students move into the addition. CPPI told the board the district’s fixed construction budget is about $35.4 million and said the building cost is roughly $470 per square foot (about $28.2 million) with another $1.8 million allocated for physical education and cafeteria improvements; those figures were presented as estimates during the pitch.
Other firms emphasized similar features. Wharton Smith/GSB highlighted prior Lake County work, laser scanning and subsurface mapping to avoid on‑site surprises and cited a potential value‑engineering saving tied to a local cold‑form framing vendor. Wharton Smith also described the scale and cost of a possible grading option if the board elected to raise the wooded area for a practice field (roughly 78,000 cubic yards, which the presenter estimated could cost about $2.5 million for placing/compaction plus $0.5–$1.0 million for retaining walls in a rough takeoff). Williams Company, Wellbro and DE Scorpio likewise prioritized safety on an occupied campus, early procurement and community outreach; several bidders proposed tilt‑wall construction with thin brick or brick veneer as a schedule and cost strategy to achieve a masonry appearance.
Board members pressed on staging on the steep site, how large trucks would reach the upper field, protection of existing utilities (including chilled‑water lines and a city water well cited by presenters), and how each firm would involve the school’s Construction Academy. CPPI, Wharton Smith/GSB and others described internship and outreach plans and said they would work with the district and community groups to integrate students where insurance and safety rules permitted. Multiple presenters noted the need for an early procurement package for switchgear, HVAC equipment and other long‑lead items.
After the presentations and board discussion, procurement staff announced that CPPI was the selected firm to serve as construction manager (selection announced verbally during the meeting). The transcript does not record a roll‑call vote or motion text in the public remarks, and no formal vote tally appears in the record provided.
Why it matters: the selected construction manager will shape preconstruction cost estimates, early procurement and sequencing decisions that determine whether the project can deliver the addition, a new practice field and parking within the district’s stated budget and schedule while keeping the campus safe and operational.
Next steps and continuing issues: the board and staff will incorporate the construction manager into the design phase with Ziskovich (the district’s architect on the project) to finalize scope, firm up an early procurement list and develop a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). Presenters and board members repeatedly flagged three ongoing items: (1) the high grading and earthwork challenge between the upper building site and lower athletic fields, (2) protection of existing chilled‑water and other utilities, and (3) how much of the practice‑field relocation or parking expansion can be done within the existing budget. Those items remain subject to engineering, design choices and final GMP negotiations.
