Oklahoma County officials press for quick review of change orders as jail and behavioral care projects race schedule and budget

Oklahoma County commissioners and project contractors on Tuesday pressed for faster, clearer justifications of dozens of change orders tied to the county's new Adult Detention Center and Behavioral Care Center, citing schedule pressure to preserve funding and uneven progress on the work.

At a public meeting, Mike Partlow of White and Associates, the owner's representative, told the board that “Pre bid meeting is tomorrow, January 21 at 10AM,” and that the team was ordering long-lead items such as mechanical, electrical, security and precast to keep the schedule. Commissioners raised concerns that work on the Behavioral Care Center lagged schedule and that costs were accumulating: "About 11 and a half million dollars has been paid, which is about 25% of the contract amount," the chair said, noting the project is roughly 50% of the way through the scheduled time.

Why it matters: commissioners said missing the December occupancy target could jeopardize ARPA funding and increase local cost exposure. The board heard that bulletin 2 has added third-party vendor requirements and that some change orders are on the project’s critical path — notably a north wall item in Pod 3 — prompting the chair to ask commissioners to email comments by Friday so staff could compile feedback quickly.

What was discussed: contractors and county staff debated which change orders should be covered by contingency, which represent owner-requested betterments and which arise from design omissions or bidder interpretation. The transcript lists several line items discussed on the record: a dumpster enclosure footing ($22,500) and two larger PCOs identified in the meeting as Integrity ($102,000) and Oak Brothers ($93,000). County staff said contingency had been largely consumed and estimated only modest remaining contingency (the chair referenced roughly $59,000 remaining and additional value-engineering savings of about $200,000).

Contractor position and next steps: Flintco representatives said some items were not in original bid documents and proposed sharing narratives and justification documents with the county for each change-order request. Kirk Mammon, an area manager who introduced project director Ron Warner, told the board Flintco would provide narratives and was prepared to make business decisions to keep the December occupancy date achievable.

Procurement and funding timing: the meeting also covered bid packaging strategy. Staff reported roughly a dozen bid packages will be released, and that approximately 61% of the project value (reported in the meeting as about $125,000,000 across those packages) will be bid on the first bid day. Commissioners discussed using an interim guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for the first package to allow early starts rather than waiting for full bids. Separately, staff flagged that the county has $13,000,000 that needs to be spent by May, prompting prioritization of long-lead and high‑priority trades.

Numbers to verify: the chair referenced a cumulative figure for change orders that appears inconsistent with the original contract amount discussed; the transcript reports both an "original contract" figure and a larger aggregate change-order total in a way that could be a transcription error. County staff and the contractor agreed to produce itemized narratives and formal change-order documentation for the board to review.

Meeting outcome and follow-up: commissioners directed staff and Flintco to provide narrative justifications for each change-order request and asked commissioners to email their comments by the end of the week so staff could compile them. A pre-bid meeting was confirmed for January 21; the transcript records a bid day referenced as “the twelfth” for package 1 but does not specify the month. No formal, final votes on change orders were recorded in the provided transcript. The meeting moved on to officer business and adjourned later in the session.