Commissioners authorize construction‑manager‑at‑risk for Alamance County courthouse, 4–1

The Alamance County Board of Commissioners voted to authorize the use of a construction‑manager‑at‑risk (CMR) delivery method for the county's planned courthouse project, approving a resolution the board recorded on the meeting record as 4–1 in favor.

County staff presented three delivery options — traditional design‑bid‑build, construction‑manager‑at‑risk (CMR), and design‑build — and recommended CMR. Staff said CMR would allow the county to keep its existing architect (CRA Architects), work collaboratively with a contractor during design to control costs and produce a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) before full construction, and reduce the risk of major cost escalation after a full design is completed.

"Construction manager at risk gives us that ability to make sure we hit that financial target, and that we're going to pay the amount of money that we've decided for this building and we'll adjust the design as we go," county staff explained when recommending CMR.

Commissioners questioned several practical issues during the presentation and follow‑up discussion, including the selection criteria for contractors (staff said selection during the pre‑construction phase is qualifications‑based rather than price‑based), when the contractor is locked into the GMP, bonding and insolvency risk, and whether choosing CMR means paying a premium up front. Consultants and staff answered that the CMR approach is often slightly more expensive in fee but transfers bid‑day risk to the contractor and provides greater transparency on subcontractor pricing during execution.

The board recorded a voice/roll vote approving the resolution to pursue CMR; the clerk announced the result as "4 to 1, yes." Staff estimated a design phase of about 12 months, a two‑month bid process to finalize contracts, and an approximately 18‑month construction period, with phasing to keep courtrooms operational during work. Commissioners indicated the county has roughly $15 million set aside toward the project and discussed the importance of meeting the targeted budget.

A dissenting commissioner expressed concern about the project's size and whether it should be put on the ballot; that position was part of the recorded 1 vote against proceeding with CMR. The county said next steps are to begin the CMR selection process, negotiate pre‑construction services and GMP terms, and continue coordinating with CRA Architects on design details.

The decision authorizes staff to proceed with procurement under the CMR delivery method; the board did not finalize a single contractor at this meeting.