Spencer County board reviews $24M-plus renovation bid, weighs trimming scope or rebid

Allison, a representative of Sherman Carter Barnhart, told the Spencer County school board on July 8 that the district’s sole responsive bid from Redley Construction for the combined elementary and middle school renovation came in “quite a bit higher than we were prepared for,” and offered a menu of optional scope omissions and contractor credit estimates the firm says could reduce the base price.

Allison said, “You do not have to take any of these. You do not have to take all of these. It's basically a 1 for 1,” and cautioned the board that the credit document arrived that afternoon and the team had not yet verified takeoffs or quantities. She added later, “We're disappointed. It's much lower than we had anticipated.”

Why it matters: the project — identified in the agenda as BG 24-158 — covers expansions and renovations at Spencer County Elementary and Middle School. The board must decide whether to accept negotiated credits from the lone bidder, narrow or simplify the scope to attract more bidders, or formally reject the bid and rebid the project. Staff reported the county’s bonding capacity rose from about $31,000,660 in spring to about $43,000,645 this summer, a factor in the financing calculus.

What was proposed: Sherman Carter Barnhart presented dozens of alternates and line-item credit estimates from Redley, including these examples: omitting the elementary gym expansion (credit quoted $77,900); omitting certain interior finish and bleacher replacements; omitting a coiling shutter and some kitchen doors ($24,300); omitting admin/media flooring ($23,113); tuckpointing/masonry repairs ($35,000); a Discovery Hub suspended service pipe ($7,500); reduced roof insulation or removal of ice-and-water guard (combined credits of about $60,780 on the items discussed); consolidating eight smaller hot-water heaters into four larger units (credit listed about $150,330); omitting replacement of ceiling diffusers ($16,500); limiting removal of geothermal piping (credit $13,215); and a lump-sum site-work reduction credit of $488,813. Allison said the total potential savings presented ranged from an estimated $1.7 million to $2.577 million depending on verification and which alternates are accepted.

Board concerns and procurement options: multiple board members questioned whether some unit prices were inaccurate or inconsistent with industry norms, noting examples in the bid where line-item unit costs appeared unusually high (e.g., roofing overlay unit price that staff said should be $15–$20 per square foot but was typed at $150 per square foot in the contractor’s form). One board member observed that some subcontractors withdrew near bid opening, reducing competition, and several members urged simplifying the project scope to make it easier for bidders to price work consistently. Sherman Carter Barnhart recommended verifying takeoffs, tallying likely credits, and said rebidding too soon might limit contractor interest; the consultant suggested waiting until after August or early fall to rebid if the board chose that route.

Next step: staff and consultants agreed to follow up with verification of unit prices and alternate breakout details and to return to the board with a recommendation. The board set a plan to bring the matter back for closure at the July 22 regular meeting, where members expect to decide whether to accept negotiated credits, simplify and rebid, or reject the bid and rebid the project.

Ending: The board heard the full alternates list and directed staff and consultants to provide clarified unit prices, confirmed breakout costs for site work, and a recommended procurement path for consideration at the July 22 meeting.