Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractors cite $5.38M of post-design increases on Franklin County jail project; county requests additional $4.815M in borrowing
Summary
Architects and the low bidder told commissioners the jail expansion’s scope and market escalation pushed costs above a 2016 opinion of probable cost; presentation materials itemized roughly $5.38 million in construction-related increases plus about $271,505 in additional A/E fees, and staff requested $4.815 million additional borrowing tied to those increases.
Construction managers and the project architect told Franklin County commissioners on Nov. 13 that scope changes and market escalation account for a substantial increase in the jail expansion budget compared with an October 2016 opinion of probable cost.
Oliver Little Gipson (A/E) and Southeast Contractors presented a list of scope changes: an increase in bed capacity from 258 to 282, a larger booking/intake area, a redesigned control room to improve guard sight lines, added corridor traps and isolation rooms, a dedicated security electronics room, upgraded door operators and a separate classroom and offices to prevent public access to secure areas. The presenters also cited roughly one year of price escalation (listed as about 10%).
Materials itemized the aggregate construction-related increases at approximately $5,377,889 and noted additional architectural and engineering fees of $271,505, producing a combined difference of about $5.649 million from the earlier opinion of probable cost. County staff told the commission it was requesting an additional $4,815,000 in borrowing based on those figures and on savings identified elsewhere in the debt issuance process.
What was said and shown: Tom Smith and Matthew Bobo of Southeast Contractors answered commissioners’ questions and walked through reconciliation spreadsheets and VE (value-engineering) bid numbers included in the packet. The packet also included an earlier opinion of probable cost (October 2016) and a bid reconciliation showing sub-bid adjustments and contingency. The record shows contractor materials listing individual line items and dollar amounts for security upgrades, kitchen equipment replacement, escalation, and other scope changes.
What is not resolved in the transcript: materials presented the increases but did not allocate precisely which portions would be funded from the $7.95 million bond authorization versus other county funds or prior refunding savings. Commissioners approved the bond resolutions that authorize up to $7.95 million in general-obligation borrowing for multiple projects; the transcript does not show a separate, standalone vote specifically allocating bond proceeds by project.
Next steps: County officials and the financial advisor will proceed with publication, the 20-day petition period and, if no petition succeeds, bond sale procedures. Additional project-level funding details and spending breakdowns will appear in subsequent procurement and contract documents.
