Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners authorize construction-manager-at-risk process for new Alamance courthouse
Summary
After staff recommended construction manager-at-risk (CMR) to preserve design continuity and control costs, the Board of Commissioners authorized using CMR for the courthouse procurement by voice vote (recorded as 4–1).
Alamance County commissioners voted to authorize the use of a construction-manager-at-risk (CMR) delivery method for the planned courthouse project after staff said CMR best balances schedule, cost control and the county’s desire to keep its current architect involved.
County staff presented three delivery options — traditional design–bid–build, CMR and design–build — and recommended CMR because it allows joint work by architect and contractor during design, helps the county reach a pre-construction guaranteed maximum price and keeps the county’s chosen architect (CRA) on the team. "Construction manager at risk gives us that ability to make sure we hit that financial target," a county presenter said during the discussion.
Commissioners asked technical questions about the CMR selection process, whether qualifications or price determine selection, how the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) is produced, and whether the process shifts costs up front. Industry representatives in the audience said CMR is typically open-book, brings early subcontractor involvement, can provide better price discovery and can reduce post-bid litigation by clarifying risk allocation early in design.
A motion to authorize the county to pursue CMR was made during the meeting (motion recorded at SEG 2092) and seconded; the board approved the resolution by voice vote with a recorded tally of four in favor and one opposed. Staff outlined a preliminary schedule: roughly 12 months for design, about two months for bidding and contracting, and an estimated construction period that will depend on phasing (staff suggested an initial planning estimate of about 18 months for construction, subject to refinement by the selected CMR team).
Commissioners and staff acknowledged there are tradeoffs: CMR can add some preconstruction cost and possibly a premium for transferred risk, but staff argued that those costs are offset by better cost certainty and reduced schedule and litigation risk for a complex justice facility. No specific contract or firm was selected at the meeting; staff said the next steps are selection processes for architect confirmation and CMR shortlists and then bringing a contract or GMP back to the board for approval.
