Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Referendum construction GMP presented as about $62.7M; alternates and contingencies explained
Summary
Project partners told the board that the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for the referendum construction work is approximately $62.7 million, with total project costs around $77 million including owner‑held costs; presenters said alternates totaling about $1.4 million are in the GMP and contingency reserves exceed $6 million.
At the Whitnall School District board meeting, CG Schmidt and project partners presented a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) package for referendum construction work and explained the distinctions between construction GMP, alternates, construction contingency and owner contingency.
Project presenters said the construction GMP shown in the materials is about $62,711,513 and that the total project budget — including owner‑managed items, soft costs and equipment — is roughly $77 million. The presenters said alternates (about $1.4 million) were incorporated in the GMP, and that contingency and risk reserves built into the budget total more than $6 million across construction and owner contingency lines. One presenter summarized the budget point: the construction line (trade packages) is the largest single component, and certain equipment or furnishings will be purchased directly by the district rather than through the construction contract.
Board members asked how contingency would be used if the GMP is in place. Presenters explained that the GMP locks in subcontractor amounts for defined scope, but contingency covers unknowns discovered during work (for example, electrical feeders not located where expected, unforeseen soil conditions, or acts of nature and major market shocks). Presenters distinguished construction contingency (for items within the intent of the design and in the GMP) from owner contingency (for scope additions the district might later choose to fund, such as adding a bathroom not shown on the plans).
Board member Quinn asked, “Why would you give us a guarantee?” prompting CG Schmidt to explain that the project is using a construction manager at risk model (CMAR), with contractual protections and layered pricing to provide the district price certainty. Board members also asked about schedule progress; presenters said major work (kitchen infrastructure, roofing, Edertton site work) is underway and that the team is in a strong position schedule‑wise for summer work.
Presenters said the GMP documents would be posted on the district referendum webpage after the board had a chance to review them and that staff will return to the board with additional procurement details as needed.
What happens next: the board received the GMP presentation and Q&A; staff and project partners will post materials to the referendum page and continue project coordination during summer construction.
