Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Management Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greene County Legislature approves amended construction‑management contract after committee debate
Summary
Legislature approved Resolution 158‑25 awarding construction‑management services for the new community services building after committee questions about fee language, missing bidder letterhead and prior project delays.
Get email alerts on the Construction Management Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Greene County Legislature voted to award a construction‑management services contract for the new Community Services building, approving Resolution 158‑25 as amended after earlier discussion in the Health Services committee.
The item was first discussed in the county Health Services committee, which opened its meeting and flagged an error in the agenda language: the monthly fee cited for construction management was corrected from "$23,500 a month" to "$26,000 a month." Committee members and staff discussed the scope and sequencing of fees, with staff clarifying that construction‑management costs begin when “shovel hit the ground,” while preconstruction work is billed as separate, fixed items.
Committee members raised procedural and procurement questions. Members noted the bidder’s proposal lacked identifying letterhead and a mailing address and asked who produced the proposal. Concerns were also raised about prior performance by the recommended firm: committee discussion referenced ongoing delays at another county site where progress remained around 70 percent for consecutive monthly updates and cited problems with an elevator shaft and resulting contingency use. Members pressed for clarity about whether the construction manager would prevent cost overruns and who would absorb extra charges if delays occurred.
Bidders supplied differing duration estimates: one firm estimated a 13‑month construction phase, while another presented an estimate of 17–24 months. Committee members and staff said the proposal’s monthly construction‑phase fee would be adjusted depending on the actual duration; one document included a monthly figure described in the file as a per‑month fee that would be recalculated if the project extended beyond the estimated period.
After discussion the committee approved the amended resolution and moved the item to the full legislature. At the full meeting the Legislature recorded Resolution 158‑25, “awarding contract as amended for construction management services, community service building.” The motion was made by Legislator Davis and seconded by Legislator Campbell; the resolution was approved by the Legislature as recorded in the minutes.
The record shows the County will engage a construction‑management firm identified in the procurement documents (contractor name shown in the agenda packet). The contract language that will govern monthly fees, the start date for construction‑phase billing, and responsibilities for change orders were part of the amendment approved by the Legislature.
Committee members requested clearer procurement documentation and better detail in future agenda packets, including firm contact information and justification for estimated durations and fees. The Legislature’s action concludes the award; no additional conditions or follow‑up tasks were recorded in the meeting minutes for this item.

