MSAD 51 board awards one‑campus construction contract to Great Falls Construction, removes costly parking alternate

The MSAD 51 Board of Directors voted unanimously June 18 to award the district's one‑campus construction contract to Great Falls Construction, approving the base bid plus alternates 1 through 7 and deliberately excluding alternate 8 (a parking deck/parking over the retention pond).

Board members said the decision followed a close review of bid tabulations, contractor estimates and program priorities. With alternate 8 removed, the winning package totals $35,329,352; the bid with all alternates had been $36,149,329 and alternate 8 alone was priced at $819,977.

Why it matters: The award launches the next phase of the multi‑year “one campus” project that includes a new school building, classroom additions at Mabel I. Wilson (MIW), parking adjustments and site work. Board and building‑committee members said the bids came in under the district's planning target, giving the board room to add several previously deferred alternates while leaving one particularly expensive parking option off the contract.

Details of the bid and debate Board members and committee chairs said the district received multiple competitive bids and that Great Falls Construction was the low bidder overall. The board packet included a bid tabulation sheet showing line‑by‑line comparisons for alternates. Administrators and the architect had previously identified a set of ad alternates the building committee considered important enough to bring back into the contract if costs allowed.

Discussion focused heavily on alternate 8, a plan to place roughly 32 parking spaces over an existing retention pond near the auditorium/GCA and track. Board members and committee participants described that alternate as the most expensive single item, and one that would have to be decided early in construction if it were accepted because of site and tariff‑driven material lead times. Several members said the alternate's $819,977 price tag and complexity (deep foundations, drainage and tariffs affecting pillar materials) made it impractical to include now.

Board member remarks highlighted tradeoffs. Some said the retention‑pond parking would provide an important cluster of spaces near activity entry points; others pointed to competing campus needs such as paving, other site repairs and stadium lighting. The board agreed to hold a dedicated parking forum and additional facilities committee meetings to reexamine campus parking layouts and alternatives that would be less costly than the pond option.

Timing and next steps Administrators said contract review and signatures would take a couple of weeks, with a pre‑construction meeting scheduled with the town the week of June 26 and a contractor pre‑construction meeting to follow. The district's clerk of the works will move onto site July 1. A facilities committee meeting was planned for the coming week to evaluate outstanding alternates and to recommend any further changes to the board.

Context on budget and financing Board members said the budgetary target for this phase of the work was $40,000,000 (including contingency), and that the reduced contract amount with alternates 1–7 kept the project comfortably within that target. The board discussed how any remaining underrun would be handled as part of the district's multi‑stage bond and financing plan; members reiterated earlier guidance that additional, non‑essential improvements could be pursued separately or via future bonding if needed.

What the contract covers Board materials and members said the base contract includes the new school building, additions to MIW, parking adjustments and other site elements. Earlier work on the maintenance building and the turf field had already started and was not part of this contract award.

Board action The motion on the table instructed staff to award the contract to Great Falls Construction with the base bid plus alternates 1 through 7 and to exclude alternate 8. The board approved that motion unanimously.

Ending note District staff will present a recommended sequencing of remaining alternates and site priorities to the facilities committee for review; the board said it expected to revisit parking and lighting tradeoffs with public input before making additional costly changes.