Plum Borough board reviews middle school summer bids and O'Block renovation estimates; no formal approvals tonight

Plum Borough School District board members heard presentations April 16 on two sets of school facility projects — immediate summer work at Plum Middle School and a proposed two-story renovation and addition at O’Block Elementary — but did not vote to authorize construction documents or award contracts that evening.

Architects from HDG and construction manager Eccles provided updated cost estimates and schedules and presented two contractor bids received for Plum Middle School work: a controls/automation package and a separate mechanical package driven by a dust-collection replacement. HDG said the controls contractor bid (recorded in the presentation as Combustion Services and Equipment) was about $635,000. The mechanical/dust-collector package bid (named during the presentation as Limbaugh) was described in the board presentation material; HDG and the construction manager said the first two received bids put the overall middle-school program about $643,000 under the district’s schematic-design estimate after accounting for escalation and soft costs.

For O’Block, Eccles presented two independent estimates. One estimated the construction hard cost at roughly $21.3 million and a total project budget near $26.3 million after soft costs, contingency and owner-controlled insurance; a second independent estimate produced a similar range. Eccles also presented a queue of deduct alternates and value-engineering items the board could accept to reduce cost. The construction manager and HDG said more detailed, line-by-line pricing will become available in the construction-document phase and that the district would receive formal contractor bids after the documents are issued.

Board members used the presentations to press administrators and the design team on priorities. Several members urged the district to prioritize safety and near-term repairs — notably the running track and turf at Plum Middle School — over aesthetic or “nice-to-have” interior finishes. One board member described the middle-school track as a safety hazard that has led to twisted ankles and asked why it had not been prioritized, noting that earlier bid results left the first two projects under budget. Administrators and the architect replied that some site repairs, including large grading or turf changes, carry additional scope implications (grading, utility work) that drive cost and can push such items down a priority list; they said those items remain on the master list and could be re-ranked when bids on projects 3 and 4 are returned.

The district’s operations staff also reported a separate, long-running sewage odor concern at Plum Middle School. Facilities staff said they had conducted camera and smoke testing, corrected some floor-drain issues and extended rooftop vent piping for certain rooftop units; staff reported the odor has not recurred since those changes. Board members asked that the district share the investigation findings with the public; operations staff confirmed they would.

Construction manager Eccles explained the project phasing and the owner-controlled insurance plan the district intends to use for O’Block. Eccles outlined the phased contracting approach (general contractor, HVAC, electrical and finishes trades) and said contingency and escalation assumptions (a 5% allowance cited in the presentation) are appropriate given the renovation scope and current market volatility. Board members asked for clearer line-item detail on interior finishes (for example, “accent” ceiling work) so they could consider deselecting aesthetic elements to free funds for safety and site repairs.

Administrators and the architects said the next step is to finish construction documents and return to the board for votes to advertise and award contracts. The board president confirmed at the meeting’s close that formal votes on the listed middle-school and O’Block contract/authorization items are scheduled for the April 22 voting meeting.

What happened next: the board did not take final action on contractors or construction documents April 16; staff and the design/construction teams will provide the board with more detailed pricing, written alternates and an updated priority list before the April 22 vote.