Radnor board hears bid results for new Ithan Elementary; apparent low bidders identified

At a Jan. 27 Radnor School Board meeting, district staff and the project team reviewed the results of the recent bid opening for the new Ithan Elementary School and outlined next steps toward awarding construction contracts.

The presentation was led by Mister Morris (district staff) and the project team's architects and construction managers. "The lowest responsible bidder at this time is Burrow Construction," said Damien Spar of Site Logic, identifying the apparent low bidder for the general construction package. Spar and the team also named other low bidders for trade packages, including Guy M Cooper for fire protection and Vision for plumbing.

The presenters said the bid day drew strong competition'seven general-contractor bids for a job of this size'and that alternates had been included in the bid packages to generate competition and offer budget-management options. "We designed a building and gone through iterations to get to an expected cost, which we're close to," Spar said. He summarized the district's construction-document estimate as $64,000,003.25 for construction and $12,000,000.75 for soft costs, for a total of about $77,000,867; he said base bids came in just under that total and that, after selecting deductive alternates, the team was reporting a figure roughly $1.5 million under the November estimate.

Board members questioned site work, alternates and contractor responsibility. Steve Behrends, representing the architecture team, narrated the building animation and explained several site changes, including an extended apron to allow safer fire-truck maneuvering. On excavation, Spar said the project was bid as unclassified excavation and reported "60,000 cubic yards of fill for this site," noting that fill would be retained on-site rather than hauled off.

Members pressed on alternates and life-cycle implications: several alternates (for flooring, brick/stone options, metal versus fiber-cement panels and others) were described as tools to manage cost without sacrificing the base design; the team said they were not recommending wholesale substitutions for the base design. One board member estimated that taking all deductive alternates might reduce the project by roughly $600,000 if pursued.

On contractor vetting, the team said it reviews contractor qualification statements, safety metrics such as experience-modification ratios, OSHA records and other reputation signals and consults special construction counsel to confirm that low bidders are also "responsible" bidders. The presenters also described a construction contingency (reported at about $1.45–$1.5 million) and said their current buffer relative to Act 34 thresholds appeared to be larger than contingency, estimating a $2.0–$2.5 million margin pending final allocations between site and building costs.

The board did not vote on contract awards at the meeting. Presiding officer Speaker 1 announced a special board meeting for Tuesday, Feb. 3, at the Administrative Building where staff will present formal recommendations for contract awards and the board is expected to vote.

Clarifying details: presenters said the bids included several additive and deductive alternates intended to sustain the design while managing budget risk; the project team reported the mode of excavation was unclassified (contractors assume excavation risk) and that Site Logic will provide daily on-site construction management and enforce required worker clearances and safety controls.

The board will review the award recommendations at the Feb. 3 special meeting before taking formal action.