Haddonfield board hears bid shortfalls for Tatum project, weighs rebid or redesign
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Architects and staff told the Haddonfield School District board that bids for the JF Tatum project came in well above estimates, prompting discussion of descope, rebid or redesign; Hadden was closer to budget. Board members rejected returning to voters for more money and emphasized delivering projects within the referendum plan.
Haddonfield, N.J. — At its Jan. 9 meeting, the Haddonfield School District board was told bids for the JF Tatum school renovation came in substantially higher than the district’s estimates, forcing staff and consultants to consider either rebidding after narrowly targeted changes or a more substantial redesign that would delay work.
Architect Jeff Potter told the board that schematic-phase estimates used in the district’s referendum assumed roughly $650 per square foot for construction, but the Tatum bids returned at about $718 per square foot, producing a Tatum-only bid in the roughly $7.4 million range. Potter said some contractors withdrew late from bidding and that only four firms submitted bids when more had initially expressed interest.
Why it matters: the district is funding a slate of referendum projects intended to modernize facilities. When a single project’s bids exceed the estimate by the magnitude reported, staff must choose between narrowing scope to fit the budget, rebidding quickly with revised documents, or redesigning the project and moving its work to a later year — each choice carries schedule and program tradeoffs.
Board members pressed staff for options. Potter outlined two paths: "revise the documents and put it out for bid for a March award," which he estimated would take three to four weeks, or pursue a substantial redesign that could push construction into 2027. Potter said the district had budgeted conservatively in some places and flagged potential savings (for example, replacing a higher-end roofing specification with a more standard product), but he warned that certain NJ Department of Education facility requirements cannot be reduced — for example, mandated classroom counts and minimum square footage tied to NJDOE approvals.
Several members emphasized the district should not return to voters for additional referendum funds. "I think I can speak for all of us to say that that is No," one board member said when asked about going back to the voters. Instead, trustees discussed identifying savings in other referendum line items (Potter noted the auditorium and some window projects produced strong bids and may create savings to offset overruns elsewhere) and using construction-management and value-engineering services to pare costs.
Next steps: staff recommended convening Colliers (construction manager), in-house engineers and district leadership to decide whether to rebid quickly with adjusted documents or redesign. The board directed administrators and consultants to refine options and report back at upcoming finance and facilities meetings. Potter said the district remains ahead of the original referendum schedule for some projects, giving the board limited time to pivot without affecting other planned work.
Provenance: Article draws on board discussion and the referendum update presented by Jeff Potter (topic introduced SEG 579; discussion and bid results through SEG 799).