Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant recommends CMAR or PPEA for Goochland courthouse, citing complex site and security needs
Summary
MVP consultant told the board the proposed new courthouse qualifies for alternative procurement (construction management at risk or PPEA progressive design‑build) because of limited laydown, challenging topography and complex security/technology systems; staff will return with a recommendation on next steps.
A consultant briefed the Goochland County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 6 and recommended the county consider alternative procurement—construction management at risk (CMAR) or PPEA progressive design‑build—for its proposed courthouse project.
Jim Yatsik, vice president with MVP McDonough Bullard & Peck, told the board that the courthouse site’s limited laydown area, heavy campus traffic, steep topography and the building’s security and technology requirements make early contractor involvement valuable. "We did feel like there would be a lot of advantages on this project to have early contractor involvement during design," Yatsik said, noting that early involvement helps avoid the so‑called "bid‑day surprise" when competitive bids come in higher than expected.
Yatsik walked supervisors through the tradeoffs among design‑bid‑build, CMAR and design‑build (including PPEA), saying design‑bid‑build can drive lower day‑one costs but risks higher change orders and slower schedules on complex projects. He said CMAR and PPEA allow contractors to provide cost and logistics feedback during design, and he recommended either CMAR or PPEA for the county’s courthouse given the project’s complexity.
Board members asked why the state sets procurement rules for courthouse delivery when projects use local funds; Yatsik said procurement law and state code provide the frameworks localities must follow for certain facility types and that courthouses typically involve state stakeholders. Supervisors also questioned which method produces higher quality; Yatsik said CMAR and PPEA both can produce good outcomes, noting that with CMAR the architect still works directly for the owner while PPEA places the architect under the design‑builder.
County staff told the board they will use the consultant briefing as a baseline and can return with a recommended procurement path and proposed RFP language. The board did not take a final vote on procurement at the meeting.
