Architect finalists pitch jail design as Carroll County commissioners press on schedule, costs and oversight

Hillary Morgan, vice president of justice at GMC, and Karen Sikner, studio director for Nelson Worldwide, each gave 20-minute presentations and answered commissioners’ questions during Carroll County’s architect selection work session. The presentations outlined firm experience, design approaches for a combined women’s jail and behavioral-health unit, and different delivery and oversight practices.

GMC, represented by Morgan with engineers Kurt Bridges and John Bass, framed its pitch on local relationships and a multi-disciplinary justice studio. Morgan said GMC uses BIM/Revit-based QA/QC, offers VR mockups for staff review and provides weekly construction field reports. GMC highlighted a string of correctional projects in Alabama and Georgia and told commissioners its contingency and coordination approach kept net change-order values low in certain contracts; Morgan said one multi-institution ADA upgrade program produced a net change-order value around 1 percent and credited early allowances and contractor coordination.

Nelson Worldwide’s team, led by Sikner, emphasized early design criteria, life-cycle budgeting and trauma-informed interior design for the mental-health and women’s units. Nelson’s project manager, Terrence Charles Whit Nelson, proposed an aggressive design timeline (165 days to GMP) with a Guaranteed Maximum Price set in September, followed by an 18-month construction window beginning in April 2027 and completion by fall 2028. Nelson’s team and consulting engineers (Conway & Owen) stressed early identification of utilities, secure plumbing chases that avoid entering housing units for maintenance, and the value of bringing a construction manager on board early for real-time pricing.

Commissioners used the question-and-answer period to press both teams on three recurring themes: who bears risk under a CM-at-risk contract, how firms handle true errors and omissions versus owner-directed changes, and how the design teams will stay on top of RFIs and site problems. Commissioner Chance summarized the concern: under CM-at-risk, will design or contractor mistakes be absorbed by the design team rather than passed to the county? Morgan and Sikner both said they accept the standard contractual approach and described examples: GMC described rerouting site work around a utility pole installed after bidding and said the firm mitigated that cost by regrading and re-design; Nelson described correcting a set of mislocated toilet accessories in design documents, saying the team worked with the contractor to fix the issue and minimize disruption.

Both firms described communication systems. GMC said it maintains a live action log with named assignees and uses Procore for contractor coordination; Nelson said it uses Newforma to track RFIs, meeting minutes and document distribution and can push material to systems the county or contractor prefers.

Commissioners also focused on onsite presence and response time. GMC told the commission a field representative would visit the job at least weekly and principals would visit at least every other week, with the ability to mobilize within 12–24 hours for urgent issues. Nelson described a meeting cadence during design (biweekly or weekly as needed) and said construction visits are planned at least monthly as a baseline, with the option for more frequent on-site representation negotiated in the fee schedule.

Budget and contingency were persistent topics. Commissioners asked how often the teams see cost overruns and how they separate owner-requested scope changes from professional errors or truly unforeseen conditions. Both firms recommended early decisions and a shared “shopping list” of optional features to preserve core scope if market costs rise. Nelson and GMC both told commissioners that properly structured contingencies, a robust preconstruction CM role, and frequent coordination reduce the risk of surprise overrun.

Neither firm received a formal selection or vote during the session. After Nelson’s closing remarks, the chair paused the recording and the meeting moved to the next presenter. The county’s selection committee previously narrowed proposals to two finalists; commissioners signaled that they would continue evaluation work before a procurement decision.

What’s next: commissioners will continue the selection process and reconvene staff and the owner’s representative (CPS) to finalize negotiations and scope details. No binding contract or vote was taken during this work session.