Akron School Board delays vote on GMP amendment for Pfeiffer Miller South after legal and funding questions

The Akron School Board on Monday paused action on a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) amendment No. 2 for the Pfeiffer Miller South construction project after members pressed for clearer justification of subcontractor selections, written citations of Ohio Revised Code provisions and details about how Local Facilities (LFI) funds would affect general-fund certification.

The motion to accept the GMP amendment, offered for discussion at the special meeting, was formally rescinded by its mover after board members said CT Taylor’s written response left unanswered questions about why higher-priced subcontractors were recommended and whether the board could legally require or prefer alternate bidders. The board did not vote on the resolution and agreed to seek further legal and funding clarification before placing the item on a future agenda.

Why it matters: The GMP amendment would fix the contract amount that CT Taylor, as construction manager at risk, would manage for the Pfeiffer Miller South package. Board members said the contract changes and subcontractor awards affect large sums of district funds and set procurement precedents for future projects; members specifically pressed for the statutory basis for approaches that the administration and counsel had described as limited by the Ohio Revised Code.

Board debate and legal guidance Member Montgomery summarized the finance committee’s request that CT Taylor review three bid packages and said CT Taylor’s written response maintained its original recommendations in GMP 2. Montgomery and others said legal counsel and board policy constrained the grounds the board could use to demand subcontractor substitutions, and they asked how certification of funds would be handled if anticipated LFI funding was delayed or reduced. Montgomery cited a potential shortfall of roughly $15,000,000 that, according to the discussion, would otherwise come from the general fund if LFI commitments do not materialize.

Member DeRose pressed for clearer examples in CT Taylor’s documentation, noting specific cost differences: siding recommended for Fox Enterprise was cited as about $6,000 higher than an alternative, while plumbing selections for Gunther Mechanical were discussed in the meeting as being substantially higher (member comments referenced a difference near $900,000 compared with the lowest bidder and millions compared with other vendors). DeRose said the letter from CT Taylor did not explain the qualitative reasons that would justify choosing higher-priced bidders.

Construction counsel — the project attorney present — told the board it is unusual for a school board to reject the project team’s recommendation but that the board can make a different "best value" determination if it documents qualitative and empirical evidence supporting that choice. Counsel warned that decisions perceived as arbitrary can be subject to legal challenge and must therefore be backed by an evidentiary basis showing good-faith justification.

Funding and next steps Members asked for written citations of the Ohio Revised Code sections that counsel and staff had referenced; district counsel and others said they would provide the specific statutory language. On the question of certifying funds, Montgomery asked whether the treasurer would be authorized to sign the certificate of funds before LFI funding was finalized and whether that would obligate the general fund for an estimated remainder (members discussed an approximate $15 million figure). Counsel did not provide a definitive answer about LFI certification during the discussion and said some funding questions exceed the construction attorney’s purview.

Outcome and follow-up Rather than vote, the mover rescinded the motion to approve the GMP amendment and the board agreed to continue collecting the legal citations, written justification from CT Taylor for specific subcontractor selections, and clearer documentation on the funding plan before taking formal action. The item may return to a future meeting agenda after those materials are provided.

Representative quotes "If your decision making is perceived to be arbitrary, meaning it doesn't have an evidentiary basis of some kind, then it's subject to legal challenge," the construction attorney told the board.

"We asked for additional justification and clarification for the selection of subcontractors in three specific categories, and that additional justification was not provided in their letter," Member Montgomery said during the discussion.

What’s next: Board members requested written Ohio Revised Code citations and further documentation from CT Taylor and administration; the resolution will not be voted on until those items are supplied and reviewed.