Rockingham Schools wins $42M elementary construction grant; board orders RFQs for project manager and design‑build team

Rockingham County Schools officials told the board they were awarded a $42,000,000 needs‑based school construction grant — the maximum award for an elementary school project — to replace aging South End and Moss Street elementary facilities with a new Reidsville Elementary and repurpose the Moss Street site for pre‑K and an alternative school.

The board discussed procurement options for the project and, after a facilities committee recommendation, directed staff to proceed with a two‑track RFQ process: (1) issue an RFQ to hire a project manager/owner’s representative, and (2) issue an RFQ for design‑build services. Brandon McPherson, the board’s attorney and facilities advisor, recommended design‑build as a faster, more constructible approach and suggested hiring an owner’s representative before selecting design‑build teams to protect the district’s interests.

Why it matters: the award funds a full elementary replacement and will require local matching funds and careful procurement. During the meeting staff cited varying local match figures: one speaker said the county contributed $2.5 million as part of the package, while another presentation said a 5% match equaled $2.1 million (total project noted in that comment as $44.1 million). Those differing figures were stated on the record and indicate an item for staff clarification.

The board motion and timeline: after discussion board members moved the item from information to action and passed a motion directing administration to issue the RFQ for project management services and the RFQ for design‑build services under the timeline in the packet. The publicly stated timeline included a pre‑proposal on‑site meeting at 1307 South Park Drive, Reidsville, NC, on Jan.7, 2026; RFQ responses due Feb.5, 2026; shortlist notifications by Feb.19; in‑person interviews March 9; and a notification of intent to award by March 24.

Project manager scope and cost estimate: McPherson advised the board that an experienced project manager typically runs as a multi‑year commitment and estimated a likely market range of roughly $200,000–$400,000 for a multi‑year owner’s representative, though he said actual costs could vary. He emphasized the project manager’s role in catching design or specification issues early and in preserving owner interests.

Procurement rationale: McPherson summarized delivery method tradeoffs, saying design‑bid‑build and multi‑prime approaches posed coordination and schedule disadvantages; design‑build or construction manager at risk were the more practical alternatives. He and the facilities committee recommended design‑build paired with a contract owner’s representative.

Votes and next steps: the motion to issue the RFQs passed by voice vote. Staff said RFQs would be posted promptly and that the district will host the optional pre‑proposal meeting and manage the RFQ process according to the stated timeline.

Ending: the board approved the RFQ process and will return to the board with shortlisted candidates and a recommended contract award in the spring. Staff will also reconcile and publish the district’s precise local match figure and total project budget for public record.

Speakers quoted are identified in the meeting transcript; board action is recorded on the public docket.