Oklahoma County officials report construction, testing and financing updates for new detention and behavioral-care facilities

Steve Mason, chair of the Citizens Bond Oversight Advisory Board, said Tuesday that project staff gave the board a detailed update on the Oklahoma County Adult Detention Center and Behavioral Care Center construction, including quality-control issues, financing and schedule.

Stacy, the county project lead, told the board the behavioral-care portion of the project is fully funded but that the team is monitoring construction-quality tests and budget escalation. “Right now, we're tracking 48 failed tests on our behavioral care center. Most of it's concrete masonry, and all of that work has been torn out and replaced, or it's in the process over the next 10 days of getting torn out and replaced,” Stacy said. She added that the original masonry subcontractor has been replaced.

The update emphasized two financing milestones. Stacy said the county sold $45,000,000 to start construction and later sold an additional $215,000,000; she said Bank of America purchased the latter at 3.6% interest. She also told the board the original guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for the behavioral care contract was $44,400,000 and that approved change orders have increased the encumbrance to “about $45 million and some change.”

Board members pressed staff on contingency and escalation. Stacy said the negotiated contract included roughly a 10% contingency (about $4 million initially) but rising subcontractor prices consumed most of that contingency within a few months. She said a value-analysis process recovered about $267,000 that was added back into contingency, and that the owner’s contingency and FF&E (furniture, fixtures and equipment) budgets remain separate. “We actually have a pretty good pot of money left, but that is really for the FF and E,” she said.

Stacy described the construction-delivery method (construction manager at risk) as a factor limiting later problems compared with a traditional low-bid model. She said Flintco has eight personnel assigned on-site, HOK has five, the owner’s representative and testing firms are actively engaged, and the overall oversight team is far larger than on the prior jail project.

On change control, staff reported about 235 RFIs (requests for information) and roughly 20 change orders to date; some change orders are approved, some denied and some remain pending. The board heard that site soil remediation has been completed, that remediation cost about $500,000 and that the district attorney is pursuing recovery of those costs.

Project-level operational items included a description of the planned intake and bed layout for the new jail. Stacy said the first phase includes intake, booking and release areas, laundry, warehouse and kitchen spaces and that the current design is sized to provide about 425 beds (intake, transportation and a minimum-security pod). She also said a temporary utility trestle to get utilities to the first phase would add “about 2 and a half million dollars” to near-term costs, and that the trestle could be avoided if a proposed spring tax measure passes.

Staff said the county has invited firms to respond to a request for proposals for behavioral-care operator services; Stacy told the board the county received three responses — Cope Incorporated, Cree Oaks and First Class Healthcare — and that interviews are scheduled next month. The board was told the Board of County Commissioners has established a separate committee, composed of mental-health professionals, to vet operator recommendations.

Scott, a county technical staff member, demonstrated 3-D project models used by the design and construction team and reminded the board that construction coordination meetings are held weekly. Bill White of Bill White and Associates was recently added as an owner’s representative for the jail phase, Stacy said.

Board members asked several clarifying questions about failed tests, escalation effects and contingency control. Stacy and other staff consistently distinguished discussion items from decisions; no new contract awards or final operator selections were made at the meeting.

The board did not take formal action on construction change orders or on operator selection at the Oct. 20 meeting. Next steps reported to the board included continued on-site testing and remediation work, contractor negotiations for the next GMP stage between Thanksgiving and Christmas, operator interviews next month, and the possibility of calling special meetings at the new facility as construction advances.

Ending: The board scheduled its regular 2026 meetings and discussed the option of holding on-site meetings at the new facility once construction is further along.