Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greene County tables awarding construction-management contract for new community services building
Summary
After detailed debate over schedule and per-month fees, Greene County legislators approved architectural and engineering services for a new community services building but voted to hold the construction-management contract until staff provides clarifying cost and schedule information.
Greene County legislators voted to approve architectural and engineering services for a planned community services building, then tabled action on awarding the construction-management contract after members raised questions about schedule assumptions and monthly fees.
The committee approved the authorization for architectural and engineering services without recorded dissent. During the next item, several legislators and staff members debated competing construction-management proposals from two firms, referenced in the meeting as “Pike” and “Freeman.” Concerns centered on differing schedule estimates — Pike proposed a 13-month construction schedule while Freeman’s revised proposal included a range of 17–24 months — and on per-month construction-management fees that could change the overall cost significantly depending on actual duration.
Why it matters: the county will pay construction-management fees on a monthly basis; longer schedules multiply those monthly charges. Legislators said they need clearer, reconciled proposals and supporting numbers before selecting a firm.
Key points from the discussion included staff and legislators noting that the general contractor (GC), not the construction manager, ultimately determines the on-site schedule and that greenfield conditions can expand an estimated 13-month timeline to 15–24 months if field problems arise. One staff member called the project “not a complicated project, but it is a greenfield project,” and cautioned that field conditions and prime-contractor coordination can extend the schedule.
A motion to move forward with award was put on hold. Legislators agreed to request clarified, reconciled proposals and to invite the construction-management firms back for additional explanation before final action. The committee then amended and tabled the resolution concerning the construction-management contract until the next meeting.
The approved architectural and engineering authorization will allow design work to proceed while the county obtains the additional cost and schedule clarifications needed to select a construction manager.
What’s next: staff said they would seek clarifications from both firms and try to arrange follow-up meetings before the next session; the committee explicitly held the construction-management award for later action.
