Dripping Springs council approves Stephenson Building and parking lot contract with QA Construction

The Dripping Springs City Council voted to approve a construction contract with QA Construction Services for the Stephenson Building and its adjacent parking lot, including the add‑alternates recommended by staff.

City administrator Michelle Fisher told the council the contract follows a series of negotiations and value‑engineering reviews with QA Construction, and that the packet contains the committee’s recommended add alternates. “On the 25th, QA Construction submitted a final value engineering and alternate selections based on committee consensus,” Fisher said, summarizing the procurement process.

Project staff highlighted several recommended add alternates. One would replace the west‑side window sashes to remove asbestos‑containing caulking and provide insulated glazing; another would change roof insulation to a spray‑foam approach to improve acoustic performance for the building’s performance space. Staff also recommended adding power stubs to the parking lot to support farmers markets and community events, an option the Parks and Community Services committee requested. According to staff, those value‑adds add roughly $109,000 to the base bid while identified deducts total about $32,000.

City staff presented the contract math to the council. The base bids in the packet listed $3,014,000 for the building and $1,267,000 for the parking lot (base total $4,281,000). After recommended alternates and a 10% contingency, staff said the city had budgeted a total of $4,895,000 to provide a fully funded contract and avoid mid‑project amendments. “We have a total funding of 4,895,000, which again provides you a fully funded contract,” staff said.

Council members asked whether the flagpole removal was a cost‑saving measure and whether the council could vote separately on the parking lot (including power) and the building. Staff replied the flagpole was among smaller cuts to lower cost and could be added back in a future budget or amendment; they also cautioned that splitting the package could change pricing because the base bids were prepared together.

One council member said the building’s cost remained a concern relative to larger imminent capital projects, noting the need to prioritize spending. After discussion, a motion to approve the contract with the staff‑recommended add alternates carried on a voice vote with no recorded opposition.

The contract approval directs staff to obtain performance and payment bonds and issue a notice to proceed once bonds are in place; staff estimated 365 days to substantial completion.