New Oxford Elementary bids about 8% over estimate; board weighs rebid of HVAC or value‑engineering

Bids for the New Oxford Elementary (NOE) project opened last Thursday and came in higher than the district’s construction estimate, officials said. The project’s base bids totaled about $45.7 million versus an estimate of roughly $42.2 million, an increase the presenters described as “about 8%.” Dr. Perry said staff would present options to the board next week to bring the project back in line with budget.

Project consultants and the construction manager told the board that most trades were within 6%–8% of estimate but that the HVAC package was an outlier, coming in more than 20% over the HVAC line in the district estimate (presenters cited roughly a $1.3 million variance for HVAC). Staff also noted that the base bid combined with selected alternates totals about $45.8 million once deducts and add alternates are included.

The project team highlighted several possible responses. First, they recommended seeking value‑engineering (VE) proposals from the apparent low bidders and other prime contractors for material and constructibility changes that would not alter the school’s educational program. Staff estimated realistic VE savings in the $500,000–$750,000 range but said a million dollars would be unlikely without a redesign. Second, consultants advised rebidding the mechanical package — including HVAC equipment and controls — after widening acceptable manufacturers to increase competition. They said rebidding both equipment and controls could yield meaningful savings (presenters suggested up to about $1 million might be reachable) but warned it would introduce schedule and compatibility risks if the rebid produced different control systems than in the district’s other buildings.

Staff also reviewed the Act 34 building‑cost threshold the district adopted: the district’s Act 34 maximum building construction cost in the packet was listed as $37.4 million and the presenters calculated a new maximum building construction cost for new construction of about $39.22 million (the district retains an 8% buffer before a second Act 34 hearing is triggered). With the current bid breakouts, staff said a second Act 34 hearing is not required at this point.

Board members asked whether signing contracts within the bidders’ 60‑day lock period or rejecting bids to redesign or rebid would be less risky. Presenters said bidders’ prices are fixed for 60 days but that rejecting bids and rebidding trades exposes the district to fluctuating market costs (fuel, steel, copper) and the risk of higher prices; conversely, rebidding could attract additional contractors and lower the HVAC price if specifications are opened up.

After discussion the board asked staff to return next week with two packages for the May 11 meeting: (A) an intent‑to‑award scenario conditioned on identified VE credits, and (B) a scenario to reject and rebid the HVAC package. The board also asked its finance director for a high‑level estimate of the long‑term budget impact if borrowing costs or project cost escalations are realized. No final award or rejection occurred at the study session.

Next steps: staff will solicit VE credit pricing from apparent low bidders and other primes, present estimated VE savings and the finance office’s impact analysis, and place both action scenarios on the May 11 agenda so the full board can decide whether to proceed with award or to rebid the mechanical package.