Conewago Valley SD CTE construction bids come in over Act 34 estimate; administration recommends selected alternates

At a June 2 facilities meeting, Conewago Valley School District officials told the board that bids for the career and technical education (CTE) building project came in above the Act 34 construction cost estimate and presented a set of recommended alternates to reduce the overage.

Paradis, a project presenter for the district, said the apparent low bids plus recommended alternates put the total project about 4.5 percent over the Act 34 estimate. “It is the bids plus the alternates are currently about 4 and a half percent over that Act 34 estimate,” Paradis said during the presentation.

The district compared the Act 34 construction cost estimate of $30,460,000 to the base bids submitted last week and found the base bid was about $2,620,000 higher than the Act 34 construction estimate (roughly an 8.5 percent increase). After administration-recommended add alternates (about $195,000) and recommended deduct alternates (about $356,000), staff reported an adjusted position that still left the project above the Act 34 construction estimate but reduced the gap. With recent testing and inspection proposal savings (approximately $740,000), the administration reported the total project cost as roughly $1,700,000 over the Act 34 project estimate — about 4.6 percent higher than the estimate.

Why it matters: Act 34 is the state review tied to school construction budgeting; projects that exceed certain thresholds may require additional board action or a second Act 34 review. District staff said they will analyze which alternates to accept and, if necessary, request further board action if the project crosses statutory thresholds.

What was bid and who were apparent low bidders

The bid tab showed multiple prime trade packages. For general construction, three contractors submitted bids; the apparent low bidder was Lobar Incorporated. ECI Construction was the second-low bidder and East Coast Contracting submitted a higher third bid. Paradis told the board the closeness of the two low bids suggested bidders were interpreting the documents similarly.

Mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) trades came in higher than the district’s internal estimates. Paradis said the HVAC trade in particular was well above the pre-bid estimate — the HVAC package exceeded the estimate by about $2,000,000. MICA Mechanical was the apparent low bidder for plumbing, and Mid State Mechanical was the apparent low bidder for electrical.

Alternates reviewed and staff recommendations

Staff reviewed a range of add and deduct alternates to give the board options for adjusting project scope and cost. Recommended add alternates included: an owner-purchased lump-sum allowance for unclassified rock excavation (described as an insurance policy against unit-price change orders) and full replacement of heat pumps in the kindergarten wing. Paradis described the unclassified excavation alternate as a roughly $22,000 add for general construction and noted the plumbing and electrical packages had similar unit-price/excavation alternates (one plumbing alternate was described as roughly $50,000 and was not recommended by staff).

Recommended deduct alternates included keeping existing kindergarten casework (instead of full replacement) and substituting playground mulch for a synthetic playground surface — the administration’s deducts totaled about $356,000. Paradis said the administration’s recommended package (adds and deducts combined) would lower the base bid by about $161,000 compared with taking all base bid work without deducts.

Equipment manufacturers and maintenance considerations

The HVAC base bid was written with a proprietary manufacturer (Trane) as the basis for the base bid. The administration recommended keeping Trane for consistency with the district’s existing campus equipment; alternatives quoted by bidders (Johnson Controls and Carrier) produced modest deduct prices but staff recommended staying with the Trane basis to avoid parts/maintenance complexity. Jeff (district facilities staff) said he preferred Trane for ease of future maintenance on campus systems.

Board questions and administration responses

Board members asked several technical and budget questions. One board member pressed the administration on why the project cost had increased across prior presentations — from earlier estimates of roughly $16 million to the current project totals — and asked when additional square footage had been authorized. Administration representatives said educational program changes during design (including increases in classroom counts and program needs), updated scope decisions made during design development, and four years of inflation and cost escalation explained much of the increase. Administration further said the board approved the scope and budget at the Act 34 hearing, and that the Act 34 materials reflected the expansion that staff had discussed during design reviews.

On next steps, Paradis and district staff said the administration will present a recommended set of alternates to the full board at its regular meeting next week and request approval to move forward. If the board approves, staff will send intent-to-award letters to the apparent low bidders, obtain bonds and surety information, schedule preconstruction meetings and have the solicitor review contracts. Once contracts are signed, staff said they will issue notices to proceed and contractors will mobilize on-site.

Costs, contingencies and change orders

Staff said the project budget includes a construction contingency (roughly 3–3.5 percent) to address anticipated change orders. Paradis described the change-order review process: the clerk of the works and the construction manager will review pricing and itemized breakout, negotiate if necessary, and make recommendations to administration; change orders deemed warranted will be brought to the board if required under the district’s procedures.

No formal board vote was taken at the facilities meeting on contract awards or alternates; staff characterized the session as a bid review and asked the board to consider the administration’s recommendations at the upcoming board meeting.

Ending

District staff asked board members to review the bid documents and alternates ahead of the full board meeting. Paradis told the board the administration would seek board approval of which alternates to accept and then move to finalize contracts with the apparent low bidders.