Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners place courthouse windows design‑build agreement on file after questions about price and phasing
Summary
A proposed design‑build agreement with Custom Construction for courthouse window work prompted questions about the contract's lack of an explicit dollar amount and phasing. Staff said the final price will be set later via amendment; the council concurred and placed Communication 2024‑600 on file 11‑0.
The council discussed Communication 2024‑600, a request from Building Manager John Sullivan to authorize Chief Executive Gallagher to sign an agreement with Custom Construction for courthouse window work.
Commissioner Fortune pressed staff on why the proposed agreement lacked a firm dollar amount. "We're accepting a contract that doesn't have any dollar amount — that doesn't seem right," Fortune said, asking whether the assumed figure of $500,000 was intended as a "do‑not‑exceed" number. Sullivan and Director Burns explained the procurement is a design‑build/GCCM style process: the contract selects a design‑builder, and the final negotiated price is produced later as an amendment once the parties agree on scope and specific windows to replace or refurbish.
Sullivan said the team had budgeted roughly $500,000 from remaining ARPA allocations for initial work and broke the project into phased components so progress can be made as funding and priorities allow. He acknowledged some bidders provided overall estimates that were higher (the lowest bid discussed in the meeting was cited at roughly $1.8 million), and said staff expects to phase work and identify funding sources for later phases.
County Attorney Feivey cautioned commissioners they could not unilaterally alter an agreed contract on the floor. "You may not," Feivey said when asked whether the council could add guaranteed‑maximum price terms during the floor motion; instead, commissioners can approve or deny the existing contract and request the parties renegotiate terms outside the meeting.
Commissioner Fortune moved to approve with an amendment to include phased costs and a guaranteed maximum price; the motion lacked a sustaining second and was withdrawn. The council instead moved to concur and place the communication on file; the clerk recorded the motion as passing 11‑0.
Staff said next steps include negotiating final amendment(s) that will set firm dollar amounts for each phase before work proceeds. Building and community development staff will return with clarified scope and costs when available.
