Consultants outline contracting options and contingency planning for Newfields public safety building

Peter Middleton and Ben Middleton of Martini Northern presented three primary construction contracting approaches to the Town of Newfields Public Safety Building Committee on Feb. 12, 2026, advising how each method affects cost, schedule and owner control.

The consultants described Design‑Bid‑Build as the traditional approach in which architects prepare drawings and contractors submit competitive bids, with the town typically selecting the lowest responsive bid; they cautioned that this method can be more adversarial, slower and leaves the owner more exposed to change‑order risk because contingency funds are not normally built into the contract structure. The presenters characterized Construction Management as an open‑book approach that brings a construction manager into the project early to provide budgeting and oversight, commonly using a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) and enabling cost input during design. They described Design‑Build as a single contract for both design and construction that can produce earlier cost certainty and faster delivery while still allowing competitive bidding for most subcontractor work.

Peter Middleton explained how contingency funds are established and used under Construction Management and Design‑Build approaches: initial contingencies are often set at about 10% of estimated cost and are reduced as design is finalized, with a typical operating contingency of roughly 5% at the start of construction. The presenters said contingency funds cover unforeseen items that were missed in design documents (for example coordination errors between architectural and engineering plans) and described common savings clauses — for example a 75/25 split of unspent contingency between owner and contractor — that can incentivize cost efficiency. As an example, the presenters cited a municipal project where savings during construction allowed adding air conditioning without exceeding the guaranteed maximum price.

Committee members discussed early planning steps required before seeking voter approval or major grants, including space needs assessments, site selection and allocating funds for preliminary design and engineering work. Members noted examples of towns setting aside between $10,000 and $64,000 for early planning and environmental assessments. Fire Chief Jeff Buxton and Police Lt. Bill Blais reported on grant opportunities and limitations, stressing that eligibility often depends on project readiness and community demographics. Tom Grella urged the committee to study similar projects in neighboring towns (he cited Candia, Brookline and Plymouth) to gather timelines and cost benchmarks.

The committee assigned follow‑up tasks: Bill Blais agreed to expand a spreadsheet of comparable public safety buildings with square footage, costs and features; Tom Grella will continue outreach and share research findings. The committee set a follow‑up meeting for Feb. 26 at 5:30 PM to review updates and further planning steps.

The presentation left the committee with a choice among contracting approaches, each with tradeoffs in owner control, schedule and budget certainty; members emphasized the need for conceptual plans and preliminary budgets before advancing to formal procurement or warrant articles.