Facilities staff told the Lafayette Parish School Board on Oct. 12 that routine school construction and repair projects often take months because the district must follow state public-bid rules, pass through multiagency permitting and wait for board-approved budgets or bond proceeds.

"We have to follow the law on how we do things," said Staff member, summarizing procurement requirements and the district's internal process. "I have no money," the staff member added, describing that construction work begins only after the board allocates project funds.

The presentation laid out three common causes of delay: (1) procurement rules that require formal design and public bidding for larger jobs; (2) permitting and review by multiple local agencies; and (3) limited available capital or bond proceeds.

Staff said projects estimated at $250,000 or above typically require an architect and engineer, formal plans and specifications and a public-bid advertisement (run in the newspaper and on the Centerline bidding platform) that sits for 30 days. "If it's a $250,000 project, we have to tie it with an architect engineer," the staff member said. After the 30-day period the district holds a public bid opening; procurement opens bids and the low bidder is publicly identified.

Mid-sized projects—those the staff described as roughly $50,000 to $249,999—use a comparative sealed-quote process rather than the full 30-day public advertisement. Smaller jobs under $50,000 may be awarded directly once a budget is approved. Staff said roughly 95% of the district's projects fall into the midline or smaller categories.

Permitting also contributes to long lead times. Staff estimated that a typical school project must be approved by about a dozen local reviewers (the speaker used the number 14), and said approvals often must occur in a specific sequence. "When the contractor has been awarded the job, he has to then submit to the city for permits," the staff member said. The speaker gave an example of a small storage shed that took six to seven months for permitting.

Vendor registration and insurance requirements were also highlighted. The district requires vendors to register in its procurement system; staff said vendors have cited slow past payments or insurance limits as reasons they would not work for the district. The staff member said the district currently asks for a $2,000,000 minimum insurance policy for campus work and noted that some small contractors carry only $1,000,000, which limits their ability to bid on district jobs.

Staff described actions taken to accelerate work in the past year: re-examining historical project costs to reduce budgets (citing one walkway project at Acadiana High that had a prior budget of $559,000 but was re-scoped closer to $150,000), using a superintendent-authorized contingency account to start small projects quickly, and creating internal rubrics to reevaluate architects and contractors.

On capital funding, staff said the district currently has $20,000,000 in cash and presented bonding figures described in the meeting as the district’s bonding capacity and a resulting maximum; the speaker cautioned those figures were dependent on market interest rates. "If interest rates drop, our bond will buy more," the staff member said, noting that higher material costs and inflation increase the benefit of bonding to get work done now rather than delaying it.

Staff listed ongoing priorities: roof replacements (which staff estimated at about $2,000,000 per school), removal of portable classrooms over time, and several planned school projects tied to bond proceeds. They said they will provide the board a prioritized list of assessed district needs, including costs, within a month for the board to match with available funds and set priorities.

The presentation included exchanges with board members and brief interjections from other meeting participants seeking clarifications about charter schools, warranties and how to change insurance or warranty policy language. Staff noted state law sets a one-year warranty default for construction contracts but said the board can require longer warranties or bonding for larger projects.

The staff concluded by asking for continued communication with mayors and city councils to seek expedited permitting or waivers where legally allowed, and by asking the board to consider predictable capital allocations (for example, a multi-million-dollar standing account) to allow the facilities team to move smaller safety or accessibility projects quickly once budgets are approved.

Ending — Staff said the district will deliver a prioritized facilities needs list and estimated costs to the board within a month; the board, staff noted, must decide how to match those priorities to cash, contingency or bond funding.