Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Construction topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board recommends Breslin Architects for new middle school design; 4.6% design fee tied to final construction estimate

Unionville-Chadds Ford School District Board of Directors · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The facilities committee recommended awarding a design contract to Breslin Architects for the planned new middle school. Administrators said Breslin's proposed fixed fee is 4.6% of the final construction cost estimate, compared with 5–6% assumed in earlier feasibility budgeting, and emphasized contingencies and schematic design steps to manage inflation risk.

Unionville‑Chadds Ford administrators on June 9 recommended awarding the architectural design contract for the district’s proposed new middle school to Breslin Architects and answered board questions about fees, contingencies and cost risk.

Facilities director Mr. Weitzel summarized a three‑month RFP and evaluation process that included six local firms, site visits and interviews with a short list of three; the proposal evaluation team included board members, administrators and a Chester County IU representative. "We are recommending the award of a design contract to Breslin Architects," Mr. Weitzel said, adding the firm’s fixed fee would be calculated as 4.6% of the final construction cost estimate with limited supplemental services billed on a time‑and‑materials basis.

Board members pressed on how the proposed 4.6% compares to prior budget assumptions. One director noted the feasibility study had assumed a 5% fee and the project budget earlier included 6%. Finance and facilities staff said the 4.6% is below the feasibility numbers and that roughly 13% of the $120 million project is held in combined design and construction contingency to absorb inflation or market shifts. "We will get updated construction cost estimates at each design phase and use bid alternates on construction day to manage scope and cost," Mr. Weitzel said.

Administrators emphasized that using the final construction cost estimate as the fee basis is fair to both sides: it avoids penalizing the architect if bids run higher than anticipated and avoids over‑rewarding them if bids are lower. Board members asked whether any savings in architect fees would automatically be returned to the project; staff said a portion of the modest fee differential is likely to be used for supplemental services during design, with the remainder available for reallocation depending on the project's final scope and bidding results.

Why this matters: the selection and fee structure set procurement expectations ahead of schematic design and will influence the project’s affordability and ability to respond to inflation. The board will see the AIA contract and a vote on the design contract at a future meeting; administrators said the next immediate step is to begin schematic design if the board approves the contract.

Next steps: finalize the AIA contract with the district solicitor, commence schematic design to refine scope and cost estimates, and include bid alternates for flexibility.