Bethlehem Area SD recommends six contract awards for Fountain Hill project; bids come in under construction target

The Bethlehem Area School District's facilities team reported to the facilities committee that bid openings for the Fountain Hill Elementary School project produced competitive results and staff will recommend award of six contracts at the board meeting on March 17.

District staff said the prime construction bids plus accepted alternates put the projectabout $3 million below the district's $50.4 million construction target. With soft costs and a recommended $2.7 million contingency the team said the total remains about $59 million against a $62 million project budget. Staff also said the district expects a pending $1.5 million hard-cap grant that, if finalized, would further reduce the district's exposure.

At the committee meeting, staff walked members through alternates used to manage price and risk on a constrained, sloped site in a dense neighborhood. Presenting staff said alternates let the district compare materials and preserve competition; one example offered was a cost comparison between terrazzo and vinyl tile floors. "Terrazzo floors versus vinyl tile floors," the presenter said when explaining the purpose of alternates.

Staff described several alternates they accepted as risk-management steps: (1) asking a general contractor to assume responsibility for rock removal within the scope rather than paying strictly by unit price; (2) extending mechanical equipment parts warranties from one year to two years for a quoted $25,000; and (3) accepting a site-disposal alternate (listed in the bid tab as alternate 26) to address soil testing and DEP disposal requirements so contaminated or nonclean fill would be handled without a costly change order.

Staff also identified alternates the team rejected. They said they declined a higher-cost built-up hybrid roof in favor of a fleece-back single-ply system and decided to retain terrazzo in corridors rather than remove it to save about $340,000 because of long-term durability and life-cycle considerations.

The presenter said the apparent low bidder on the general contract withdrew its bid after reviewing its numbers tied to alternate 26; staff told the committee they will accept the next-low bidder and that the withdrawal did not push the project over budget. The committee was told abatement (asbestos removal) and environmental testing are part of the schedule prior to demolition; Sargent Enterprises was listed as the lowest abatement bidder in the tabulation shown to the committee.

Committee members and district leaders praised the coordination between the design team, district administration and municipal partners. Superintendent Dr. Silva and several board members were singled out for involvement in the integration team that shaped the bid documents and alternates.

District staff told the committee they plan to return on March 17 with formal award motions (agenda items 4.01 through 4.06) and, separately, an item to renew the district's enterprise security-management software license (agenda item 4.07). Staff said a groundbreaking will be scheduled after contracts are executed and permits are in hand.

No formal votes on contract awards were taken at the facilities committee meeting; staff characterized the discussion as informational and preparatory for the board meeting where formal contract awards will be considered.

Notes: the committee reviewed the architect's renderings, site plan adjustments to address bus and parent drop-off, planned green-roof areas to help stormwater management, and an artificial-turf play area for younger students. Staff emphasized the retained $2.7 million contingency to cover unforeseen conditions.