Bath County board hears middle-school sprinkler tradeoffs, approves high-school masonry and inspection work

The Bath County Board of Education on July 28 heard a design update recommending that sprinkler installation for the middle school be moved from an alternate into the base bid, and approved change orders and inspection services for ongoing work at Bath County High School.

Design and construction consultants told the board the middle-school project is about 75% through design development and that including sprinklers in the base bid would simplify construction and reduce the risk of change orders when concealed openings are exposed. A consultant said including sprinklers would raise the construction line item priced by bidders but would reduce later mechanical and fire‑protection change orders tied to patching masonry and ceiling openings discovered during demolition. The consultant presented illustrative numbers, saying an example construction scope without sprinklers could be in the “ballpark of $10,000,000,” and that including the sprinkler alternate could move that illustrative construction sum to about $12,000,000; the consultant added the overall project cost would “still be no more than 14” (as discussed in the meeting).

The board did not take a final vote on moving sprinklers into the base bid at the July 28 meeting; members agreed to review detailed drawings and cost estimates at a scheduled review on Aug. 19 before deciding. Board members and consultants discussed tradeoffs repeatedly: sprinklers raise upfront construction costs but can permit less‑expensive fire‑rating and damper work elsewhere and reduce the likelihood of multiple small change orders after walls and ceilings are opened during construction. Multiple speakers used the phrase “you’re either going to spend it now or spend it later” to summarize the choice.

At Bath County High School (BCHS) the board approved two actions related to active renovation work. The board approved change order proposal PR‑37 for masonry tuckpointing associated with leaks near the kitchen and gym; the work follows prior approved flashing and lower‑wall brick replacement and aims to plug additional water intrusion points identified by hose testing. The board also approved special inspection services from Ellie Greg (listed in agenda materials) to review soil and pavement conditions tied to an asphalt pavement change order for the BCHS Lavec Phase 2 project (BG 22‑520). Board members were told that limited areas required deeper pavement replacement rather than only milling and overlay and that the inspection firm verified the required extent of work.

The board packet also included invoices and billing updates tied to testing-and-balancing services (Thermal Balance) and other contract line items. The district staff told the board that Thermal Balance’s original testing-and-balancing contract totaled about $25,000 and that invoices to date approached the contract balance as gym HVAC work reached completion; board members approved the vendor invoicing as presented on the agenda.

Board members asked for additional detail on punch-list items, paint scope (whether entire rooms should be repainted when windows are replaced or only the work area), and on how allowances would be managed in the BG closing documents. District staff said unspent allowances would reconcile at closeout and appear on the BG1/BG4/BG5 reconciliation forms.

The board scheduled further review of the middle-school drawings and cost impacts for its Aug. 19 review session; no formal change to the bid documents was recorded on July 28.