Without fanfare or public announcement, Shutesbury’s new library bid solicitation went out on April 24, 2024.
It was easy to miss. Because I subscribe to meeting notices through our town’s website, I received a notice for the Library Building Committee’s (LBC) June 6 meeting where they plan to “Review construction bids”.
On May 8 I contacted the Chair of the Shutesbury Library Building Committee for details. She said the bid was submitted to Projectdog.com on April 24. I also asked about the well water tests, to which she replied that they have received preliminary results and are waiting for final testing results. Despite requests for this information, the preliminary results have not been made public.
Projectdog requires creating an account to view information. Unable to find the project, I asked the Chair for the project code, which she gave me (861574). In the same email, I also suggested the Committee post the bid documents on the town website but received no response.
The Library Director sent a town-wide “Library News” email on May 16 with an announcement regarding the library project bid.
Bid Solicitation Highlights
As you may imagine, there were many documents uploaded for this bid, including forms, plans, and blueprints. Here are a few details to inform our understanding of where the library project now stands.
The estimated construction cost is $6 million. Recalling that a recent LBC meeting revealed a $6+ million price estimate for the 75% complete construction documents, I forwarded another question to the LBC chair. She reminded me that the $6 million is only the construction cost, not the entire project's cost. She also noted that value engineering (cost-cutting) had been done before sending out the bid.
Shutesbury has requested a base bid, with add alternates available if the base bid comes in under the cost estimate amount.
The original general contractor and subcontractor bid submission dates were May 30 and May 15, respectively. These dates have changed and may change again.
Addendum No. 1, filed on May 1, answered 7 questions from contractors. This 283-page addendum made substantive changes to the bid package, advising bidders that it “modifies, amends, and supplements designated parts of the Contract Documents” for the project.
Addendum No. 2, filed on May 6, answered 17 questions from contractors. This addendum also made substantial changes and contains 75 pages.
Addendum No. 3, filed on May 10, answered 23 questions from contractors. This document also extended the following dates:
Subcontractors' bid deadline: May 23;
General contractors’ question deadline: May 28;
General contractors’ bid deadline: June 4.
Addendum No. 4, filed May 15, answered 30 questions from contractors. This document contains 76 pages.
Addendum No. 5, filed May 17, answered 15 questions from contractors, and corrected answers provided to two previous questions in Addendum No. 4. There are multiple revisions, additions, and deletions to the original bid. This document contains 63 pages.
One of the revised answers in Addendum No. 5 pertains to the wood products used in this project. The new answer, with additional text bolded and underlined (per Addendum No. 5), now reads:
Wood materials for this project are not required to be obtained from forests certified by an FSC-accredited certification body to comply with FSC’s "Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship". All specification requirements will not need to be verified during submittal review.
This change surprised me since Shutesbury has been clear about wanting the building to be as environmentally responsible as possible, as is apparent in the LBC’s discussions on Net Zero and solar. All MA state-owned forests have been certified since 2004.
NOTE: All addenda documents include the list of bidders’ questions.
How Does Shutesbury’s Bid Experience Compare with Similar Projects?
I found the number of bidder inquiries and, importantly, the amount of revision done to the bid documents particularly interesting. Wondering if the number of questions from bidders and the scope of revisions was commonplace, I compared Shutesbury’s bid with Amherst’s two recent library projects: the North Amherst Library addition and renovation, and the Jones Library renovation and addition. Both projects have readily available public information and have been extensively covered by the local media.
A recent article on the Amherst Indy expressed concern over the number of bidder inquiries as well as the voluminous addenda submitted by the Town of Amherst in response. For a $35.5 million contract, there were 98 questions and 22 answering addenda, totaling approximately 1,100 pages in addition to the original 3,400 in the bid solicitation.
By comparison, the bid documents for the North Amherst Library Addition project, originally estimated at $1.25 million, comprised the original bid document of 70 pages, plus six addenda. The N. Amherst, Jones, and Shutesbury library projects are compared in the table below.
Project variables such as size, cost, and complexity will directly impact the number of bidder questions and the issuance of addenda.
The Biggest Headwind for Local Library Projects: Price
Shutesbury is in a challenging bidding environment. Recent experiences in Amherst and Deerfield demonstrate the difficulty faced by local library projects, as each town received only a single bid for their respective projects.
Faced with a single bid for the Jones Library project that came in at $7 million above expectations, Amherst took stock of its situation. At a Special Meeting of the Amherst Town Council on April 29, the fate of the project was discussed. The general sentiment favored abandoning the new addition and concentrating on repairing and renovating the Jones Library building.
On May 3, the Trustees of the Jones Library unanimously recommended to the Town Manager to reject all general and subcontractor bids, which totaled $55 million. The Manager has until June 10 to decide whether to accept or reject the bids.
Deerfield's Tilton Library Expansion received only one bid, for $10.99 million, exceeding their estimate. Despite the disappointment, the town decided to award the project, stating that there "should be no budgetary issues" after making several adjustments. Deerfield accepted only the base bid.
The Tilton’s Project Manager noted that receiving only one higher-than-expected bid is not unusual for Pioneer Valley projects. Last June, Shutesbury’s architects warned the Library Building Committee that bids for our project will likely be higher because:
Contractors are busy, which translates into fewer, higher bids;
This is a small project with no economy of scale;
Shutesbury is not close to an urban area.
At the time of publication of this post, bids are due by June 4. As long as there are no more deadline extensions, all will be revealed soon.
