Hood County reviews architect contract terms for jail addition; questions on scope, budget and oversight

Hood County commissioners and DRG Architects spent a workshop session reviewing the proposed architect services agreement for a planned jail addition, raising questions about contract scope, consultant responsibilities, project oversight and differing budget figures.

Wayne Gondek, principal of DRG Architects, told the court the county is the project owner and the contracting party and described how the architect, contractor or construction manager, and any owner's representative would each hold separate contracts with the county. "The Hood County Commissioners Court... is the owner entity in this project and holds all the contracting enforcement and authority on the project," Gondek said, explaining that architects typically coordinate consultants under their umbrella when a public owner lacks in-house capacity.

Why it matters: choices in the architect agreement will affect who hires and coordinates engineers and consultants (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, geotechnical and civil), who performs construction oversight, and how the county controls costs and project schedule.

Major issues discussed

Scope of services and phased contracting: Commissioners asked whether the county should sign a full, end-to-end architect contract now or limit the agreement to design and working drawings and use subsequent work orders for later phases. One commissioner asked whether a master services agreement for design, followed by specific work orders for construction phases, might give the court more detail before committing to later obligations. Gondek said the standard phased approach delivers progressively more detailed information at schematic design, design development and construction-document phases and that many scope changes are best resolved in early design.

Consultants and geotechnical work: The agreement lists multiple consultants (MEP, structural, geotechnical, civil, survey and environmental). Gondek said the standard form places some responsibilities with the owner but that DRG proposed to engage and manage geotechnical and other subconsultants and to bill the owner for actual costs. He agreed to clarify the contract language so it consistently reflects whether the architect will engage those consultants on the county's behalf and how billing will be handled.

Owner's representative and on-site oversight: Commissioners emphasized the value of an on-site project manager or owner's representative to provide daily eyes on the project and catch defects early. Gondek said DRG typically provides construction-administration staff who visit the site at least twice a month and principals fill in between visits; he suggested increasing the contract's listed construction visits (the draft cites 20) and recommended 30 visits as more realistic for a project this size. Commissioners discussed hiring a local retired jail architect as an owner's rep to reduce travel costs and improve day-to-day oversight.

Budget figures and cost-control language: The draft contract uses a building-and-site figure of $21.5 million, while commissioners pointed to a bond planning sheet listing $20,000,004.59 and to prior discussion raising the overall bond amount to $24 million. Gondek said the initial assignment was to develop a program fitting a $20 million limit, that later discussions pushed the program and budget toward $24 million, and that he would recheck the documents and update the contract exhibit so the contract numbers match the county's intent.

Payment timing, reimbursables and records: Commissioners asked that reimbursements and supporting documentation follow county auditor requirements. Gondek said practices vary by county but agreed to adopt the Hood County auditor's documentation expectations in the contract language so that reimbursable expenses are auditable at the time of payment requests.

Dispute resolution, force majeure and contract duration: Commissioners discussed whether disputes should proceed to arbitration or litigation; Gondek said many outside counsel recommend mediation first, then litigation, but that the court could adopt dispute-resolution language as an exhibit. On contract length and suspensions, the draft sets a 48-month completion threshold after which continued work would be treated as additional services to be negotiated; Gondek described how long suspensions or major economic changes could require fee renegotiation and agreed to clarify protections for the county as well.

Next steps: Gondek agreed to revise the agreement to clarify the owner definition, geotechnical engagement and payment, the number of site visits, reimbursable documentation expectations, and the milestone/schedule exhibit. The court asked staff to place the revised contract on a future commissioners' court agenda for formal action.

Quotes

"I hope that 10% markup... will be removed from that because that's taxpayers money," said Mark Laria during the public-comment portion, urging removal of a 10% expenses markup appearing in the draft.

"The Hood County Commissioners Court... is the owner entity in this project and holds all the contracting enforcement and authority on the project," Wayne Gondek said, explaining the contracting relationships and the architect's role in coordinating supplement consultants.

What remains unresolved

- Whether the county will sign a comprehensive architect agreement now or limit the initial contract to design and use separate work orders for construction phases. - The final budget figure to be listed in the contract exhibit (county bond documents and the contract currently show different numbers). - Whether the county will hire an outside owner's representative and, if so, which candidate or procurement method will be used.

The court adjourned after the group agreed Gondek would make edits and return a revised agreement for placement on an upcoming commissioners' court agenda.