Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin County supervisors narrow procurement options for Majukraft public safety and CTE project
Summary
After a staff presentation on delivery methods for the Majukraft public safety and CTE project, the Franklin County Board of Supervisors asked staff to convene contractor roundtables and to further study construction manager‑at‑risk and the Public‑Private Education Facilities framework before returning with a recommendation.
Franklin County supervisors on April 23 reviewed options for moving design and construction forward on a combined public safety building and a career and technical education (CTE) facility at the former Majukraft property and directed staff to gather industry input before picking a procurement path.
County staff presented site work already completed and the project’s immediate needs: the sheriff’s office is pursuing grant funding for a six‑month needs assessment of its current 911 facility, and crews have removed "just over 230 tons of material" from the site using sheriff’s office trustees, staff said. Brandy Roser, who led the project briefing, said staff is evaluating four delivery strategies—design‑bid‑build, design‑build, construction manager at‑risk (CMAR), and projects using the Public‑Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA/PPA)—and laid out advantages, disadvantages and state‑law constraints for each.
Roser told the board that DBB (design‑bid‑build) offers price transparency and owner control of design but can expose the county to change‑order risk on a complex, specialized project. Design‑build can accelerate delivery and reduce owner coordination, she said, but limits owner and A&E control and requires careful procedural compliance under state procurement rules. CMAR brings a construction manager into design early to help with cost and constructability and can provide a guaranteed maximum price after design. PPEA/PPA, a statutory framework the county has used for broadband and other projects, allows a design‑build approach with a two‑step submission and competitive subcontract pricing and can accommodate innovative financing.
Staff said its current recommendation is to explore CMAR and PPEA further and return with a final recommendation. Supervisors asked technical questions about risks, owner staff capacity, and how phasing would interact with a 1% sales tax referendum being considered for school capital projects; staff said the public safety portion would likely be the first phase and the CTE portion could follow on a longer timeline.
Supervisors broadly agreed they wanted more industry input. Supervisor Dan Quinn urged protections against low‑bid outcomes and recommended an "owner’s representative" or contract manager model to preserve quality and oversight. Several board members said they favored a best‑value or hybrid approach rather than automatically awarding to the lowest bid. The board asked staff to organize a roundtable with general contractors and design professionals and to bring focused cost and schedule modeling back at upcoming work sessions (including the May 4 budget session and a May work session), so supervisors could narrow procurement options.
The board also discussed financing: staff noted initial borrowing and modeling work already in progress and said additional borrowing would likely be required for the overall program; supervisors asked staff to revise the preliminary debt modeling for the May sessions.
Next steps: staff will convene contractor/industry roundtables, return with more detailed comparisons of CMAR, PPEA and DBB (with an owner's‑representative option), and bring updated cost/schedule modeling for board review before deciding a procurement strategy.
