Hopkinton School Committee Approves $102M Charleswood Project Bid, Embraces Competitive Construction Environment

The Hopkinton School Committee approved a bid totaling $102,270,000, including an artificial turf alternate, for the Charleswood school project. The bid, awarded to Great Builders Corporation, was accepted unanimously by the committee members present, reflecting optimism about the project’s financial and logistical prospects.

03:53The discussion of construction bids for the Charleswood school project dominated the meeting, with committee members expressing satisfaction over the favorable bidding environment. The project team, introduced by Chris Everly, included construction site manager Steve Divine and co-op student Theo Abernathy, both from Hopkinton. The bids received were notably competitive, with Great Builders Corporation submitting the lowest bid, which remained approximately 10% under the estimate discussed in February. The committee highlighted the cost per square foot of $584, which was lower than similar projects in other communities, attributing the favorable budget to economic conditions and the straightforward nature of the project.

15:15A point of discussion was the artificial turf alternate, priced at $370,000, which the committee decided to include in the final contract. This inclusion was part of a broader strategy to enhance the school’s facilities. The committee maintained $6.2 million for construction contingency and $3.7 million for owner’s contingency, providing a combined cushion of approximately $29.8 million for potential change orders or scope adjustments.

40:42Acknowledging the commonality of change orders in construction projects, the committee discussed potential cost implications and the necessity of a streamlined authorization process. They decided that change orders under $25,000 would require approval from Vertex, while those between $25,000 and $75,000 would need the designated personnel’s approval. Change orders exceeding $75,000 would necessitate consensus from two of the three designated approvers.

22:21The meeting also included discussions on builder’s risk insurance, essential for covering the construction project. The committee reviewed proposals and settled on Hanover Insurance Company, despite the proposal being slightly above the budgeted amount due to a general increase in insurance costs. The decision to opt for a $50,000 deductible was made after considering potential savings if multiple claims occurred. Additionally, the inclusion of TRIA coverage, related to terrorism, was recommended as a prudent measure.

47:13Furthermore, the committee approved an amendment for Perkins Eastman involving finalizing services related to a wetlands survey and geotechnical observation. Concerns were raised about the feasibility of having two rigs for drilling, with a preference for starting with a reasonable estimate and adjusting as necessary, emphasizing efficiency in project execution.

01:03:14In a related discussion, the committee considered a proposal to conduct home video surveys of nearby homes to document pre-construction conditions. Despite initial interest, skepticism regarding the initiative’s implications for selecting homes and potential litigation led to a consensus against pursuing the surveys. The committee noted that similar surveys had not been conducted for previous town projects.

01:09:26Updates on the street improvements project were also provided, with plans to advertise for contractors by the end of the month and a tentative bid opening scheduled for July 10. The committee was briefed on two recent bid protests, a consequence of the cooling construction market. The first protest was resolved swiftly, while the second involved compliance issues with subcontractor disclosures. The outcome of this protest could impact the overall bid price, as the next lowest bid was approximately half a million dollars higher.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

Trending meetings
across the country: