The primary focus was the review of change order number three, connected to Fontaine’s contract. This change order encompassed several proposed changes, each necessitated by various design and regulatory requirements. Among the items discussed was the addition of a fire pump to ensure adequate flow and pressure for both the fire protection and domestic water systems. This adjustment, which involved mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components, was deemed essential due to the insufficiency identified in the original design.

Another noteworthy item under this change order was the redesign of the intermediate roof to include an overflow and the removal of a scupper, driven by design necessities. Additionally, updates in plumbing codes resulted in the need to relocate some vent locations and risers, highlighting the dynamic nature of building codes and their impact on the project.

A issue discussed was the tariff costs associated with steel procurement, particularly affecting the concession building. Although most of the steel for the project was purchased before tariffs were enacted, leading to cost savings, some steel for the concessions building incurred additional costs due to tariffs. This situation was described as a force majeure, beyond the control of the project team, underlining the challenges of managing external economic factors in construction projects.

The committee was informed that these additional costs would be covered by the owner’s construction contingency, which had an initial budget of $2,760,000. After accounting for the discussed change orders, the remaining contingency fund was approximately $2,100,000. Despite the financial adjustments, the project manager reassured the committee of the project’s strong budgetary position. The contingency fund was expected to be available for other uses by July of the following year, with ongoing efforts to manage workforce expansion on-site, increasing from 120 to 200 workers, to mitigate potential delays.

The meeting also covered potential future changes and requests that might necessitate the use of Fontaine’s contingency funds. The distinction between an owner’s construction contingency and a specific owner’s contingency—reserved for soft cost changes—was made clear, with the latter largely intact at an estimated $1.5 million.

Another aspect of the meeting involved potential adjustments to accommodate evolving school district needs, such as relocating special education classrooms. These owner-driven changes would be assessed for cost implications, maintaining the project’s alignment with the district’s operational goals.

With the discussion of Change Order Number Three concluded, a vote was conducted, resulting in unanimous approval. This approval allowed for the finalization of necessary paperwork.

The meeting wrapped up with logistical planning for the next session. After considering various scheduling conflicts, November 20th at 3 p.m. was chosen as the next meeting date, aligning with the group’s preference for Thursday meetings.