Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee flags $4.37 million variance on electrical bid for middle/high school
Summary
The Middletown School Building Committee discussed reasons for a $4.37 million overage on the middle/high school's electrical bid and approved recommending the award while holding several alternates.
The Middletown School Building Committee on June 11 discussed a $4.37 million variance between the electrical bid for the middle/high school and the project's 60% construction-document budget, then voted to recommend awarding the electrical contract to Aladdin Electrical Company while holding several alternates.
During discussion Colliers and the project team said the majority of the increase stems from an evolution of documents between the 60% and 100% design stages, not a single line item. The team cited changes across lighting, power distribution and other electrical scope; they also said HVAC design changes increased the number of electrical feeds and components. Market conditions for specialty electrical equipment and higher-than-expected pricing for coiling overhead doors were also mentioned.
The recommended award amount reported in the meeting was $19,462,522 versus the 60% CD figure of $15,087,978. The committee approved recommending the award and instructed the team to hold alternates 1, 2, 3 and 7, accept alternate 9 (a $15,000 hoistway/elevator option) and mark others as not applicable or rejected.
Project staff said some scope previously carried by the electrical package (security) was pulled out and will be procured separately; that presentation reduction is in the budget but may affect how line items compare to prior estimates. Staff also noted that buying certain equipment to meet energy-incentive programs increases common demand and can raise prices because many projects pursue the same components.
Committee members asked for more detail on where the scope increases occurred and were told the changes are distributed across lighting, power distribution and other electrical systems rather than concentrated in one area. The team promised to provide a more detailed comparison of the 60% versus 100% documents and to return with specifics on alternates and scope adjustments.
The committee approved the recommendation by voice vote. No roll-call tally was recorded in the meeting transcript; the chair declared the motion carried.
