Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractor reports progress on OPRF high school addition; board stresses safety and quality over rushing move-in
Summary
Contractor and project team reported substantial interior and MEP progress on the new high school addition, gave milestone dates (pool pour mid-March; targeted substantial completion July 31 for a wing and an Aug. 19 window for final inspections), and emphasized safety and quality amid weather- and staffing-related delays.
Contractors and district construction managers told the Oak Park–River Forest SD 200 Board of Education on Jan. 29 that the high school addition is advancing but faces weather- and sequencing-related delays that could push some occupancy activities into August.
Jeff Bergman, director of construction, and contractor representatives reported the project’s contract value remains near $71 million, with built-to-date expenditures just under $41 million and roughly 14 open change items totaling about $343,000. The team said they have logged approximately 107,000 labor hours on the project to date.
Contractor presenters detailed near-term schedule targets: a mid‑March period for pool wall pours and associated concrete work; completion of basement and first-floor (non-pool) areas as early as May; second-floor work including pool balcony scheduled around June; third-floor (minus gyms) targeted for July 6; and a goal of substantial completion for one wing by July 31. Final inspection and occupancy steps for the pool and gym were projected in early to mid‑August, with a practical occupancy/punch-list window running through Aug. 19.
Project leaders identified the pool as a critical path element because exterior masonry and gym construction depend on the pool slab and associated sequencing. They described a two-week setback for the pool foundation earlier in the schedule that the design team resolved and said recent cold-weather patterns and intermittent contractor staffing issues had contributed additional short delays.
District and board members pressed the project team on options to recover time, whether overtime is cost-effective, and the availability of owner contingency and trade allowances. Project staff stated there are owner-contingency funds and built-in trade allocations and that unused trade allocation funds revert to the district at project close. The board asked specifically about liquidated damages in the contract; project counsel confirmed LDs exist as a contractual protection for the district.
Board members repeatedly emphasized that safety and quality must take precedence over an aggressive schedule. One trustee summed the board’s position: safety, staying within budget and doing the work correctly are more important than meeting a specific move-in date.
Next steps: the project team said it will schedule board and staff tours, continue weekly schedule evaluation, and bring regular quarterly updates (next likely in May) while the district and contractors analyze targeted use of overtime and sequencing to reduce risk and cost.
