Bristol Warren committee awards construction contract for high school; alternates 1 and 2 added

The Bristol Warren Regional School Committee on June 23 authorized the school district to proceed with the low bid for the district high school construction project and approved adding bid alternates 1 and 2 to the base contract.

The committee’s action came after PMA, the district’s project manager, presented the bid results showing three responsive offers: Freight Builders (low bidder), Commodore Builders and Fontaine Brothers. PMA said the low bid was roughly $3.5 million below the district’s 60% construction-document budget, leaving room to include alternates that had been carved out during design.

PMA representative Chad said the low bidder submitted a base bid that, when measured against the approved CD-60 budget of about $148.9 million, allowed for alternates 1 and 2 to be placed back into the contract while remaining below that budget. The committee approved alternates 1 (press box, grandstand and restrooms at the stadium) and 2 (tennis court lighting). PMA said alternates 3 and 4 (baseball field and related infrastructure) could be reconsidered later if contingency and schedule allowed; alternate 5 (geothermal) is effectively a go/no-go decision because it must be included at the start of construction if it is to be installed.

PMA told the committee that five bid alternates had been identified and explained how bid savings could allow the district to re-insert some alternates. The presentation noted there were five prequalified general contractors and three bids were received; 309 plan holders had registered interest. PMA said it had issued seven addenda during the bid period and that kickoff meetings with the apparent low bidder were scheduled for the coming week; contract execution and submission of insurance and other required documents would follow.

On schedule and approvals, PMA told the committee the high school’s phase 1 (new building) target completion is summer 2027, with phase 2 (abatement and demolition of the existing building) and site improvements through December 2027. PMA said Bristol Planning review was scheduled July 10 and that the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) approval had been received on June 13. Once the contractor signs the agreement and the district issues a building permit, on-site enabling work such as fencing and erosion-control installation could begin.

Committee members pressed PMA on items they said affect the value of alternates. Member Richards asked about the geothermal alternate (alternate 5), noting it had been ranked highly during earlier planning but appeared closer in cost to other alternates in the actual bids. PMA said two independent cost estimators (one retained by the architect and one by PMA) had produced similar estimates but that the geothermal market is volatile now, with fluctuating driller availability and uncertain federal tax-credit incentives influencing pricing. PMA cautioned that if geothermal were omitted from the base contract, adding it later would be difficult and likely more expensive.

PMA said the district is carrying 6% of construction cost as construction contingency (about $9 million on the scale presented) and an owner contingency of roughly $800,000 for unanticipated soft costs. The district has an authorization ceiling noted in project documentation of up to $200 million and planners are targeting a working project total near $186 million to maintain the tax-impact projections the community approved.

Several committee members expressed concern that contingency funds can be consumed quickly on a project this size and asked whether alternates already placed in the contract could be removed later if costs rose. PMA said alternates that have not yet started may be removed by issuing a deductive change order, but the district should not expect the full bid delta to be returned in a later credit; PMA suggested credits could be materially lower than the alternate amounts shown in the bid-tabulation slide.

After discussion, a motion to award the general-contract package as presented with alternates 1 and 2 included was made and seconded. The committee voted in favor (voice vote recorded as unanimous).