Guilford County Schools’ progress on school construction projects funded through a $412 million bond voters approved May 6 are moving at a snail’s pace due to contractor confusion and the faltering economy.
At a recent Board of Education meeting on the issue, there seemed to be confusion between board members and school staff about the delivery of contractor services on bond projects. Staff members promised to review the issues such as access road specifications and bring them back to the board.
The board has been debating for months which projects would be better suited by the construction-manager-at-risk (CM–at risk) method versus the single prime contractor method. Members of the school board think the CM-at risk will save money on bond projects, which is a major focus because the board’s credibility has suffered since funds from the previous $300 million bond were exhausted without completion of a major project, a new Jamestown Middle School.
The $412 million bond includes a wide range of projects, from renovations on existing schools to the new Jamestown school, which is estimated to cost $33 million. The board is making the case that CM at-risk is more suited to large projects such as Jamestown, while single prime contractor would be a better method for smaller renovation projects.
At an October meeting approving a $2.7 million contract for New Atlantic Contracting as the CM-risk for Jamestown, board member Anita Sharpe raised questions about the specifications on the project, citing them as the reason why “our projects cost more than other counties.”
Yet Sharpe raised seemingly minor aspects of the project to support her argument, namely the specifications on the access road and the amount of fill dirt on the site.
GCS chief operations officer Leo Bobadilla said he would ask school staff to review Sharpe’s concerns and report back to the board. “Maybe it’s something we need to revisit, and we’ll certainly do that,” Bobadilla said. “We certainly want to build high-quality schools at the lowest cost possible.”
Sharpe expressed her concern that the CM at-risk method was not saving the school system the suggested 5 percent on construction projects. “If the purpose of CM-at risk is to save us that kind of money, then why isn’t it happening? That’s my only question,” Sharpe said.
Board member Deena Hayes raised the issue of minority-contractor participation, and in the process provided everyone with a history lesson.
“When we looked at some of the firms, many had been in business since the early 1900s, when there had been exclusionary and racist practices,” Hayes said. “At this time of hardship, it is the right and just thing to do to create opportunities for other people who have been locked out.”
In a phone interview, board Chairman Alan Duncan defended the board’s progression on bond projects.
“I think we understand and spend a lot of time and ask a lot of questions about which delivery method fits which project,” Duncan said. “You always want to go as fast as you can, but it’s also important that you execute well. I think it’s representative of conscientious, consistent movement on these projects. It’s not like you pass a bond and they go out to bid three months later.”
Unforeseen circumstances such as the financial meltdown also play a role.
In an e-mail message, board member Garth Hebert said the board’s slow pace was “intentional.” “Bond rates and issue costs are very high right now, and it would be imprudent use of taxpayers money to go full bore right now,” he said.
Terry Stoops, an education analyst with the John Locke Foundation, said he didn’t think the school system’s approach is “all that bad,” although he sees no evidence that CM-at risk actually saves money.
“At least they haven’t abandoned single prime,” Stoops said. “I would challenge them to consider design-build for larger projects, but even that requires legislative approval.”
“If their process drags on for months and leads to schools not opening on time, then I would be concerned,” he said.
Sam Hieb is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.