Habersham’s shelter and public-safety building plans still lack a documented construction award

Habersham County commissioners considered on May 20, 2024, whether to hire a construction manager at risk for a new animal shelter and Fire/EMS/911 buildings, a step intended to move both projects toward construction. But the meeting minutes do not record a vote, name a selected firm or show that the county awarded a contract.

That gap matters because the proposed manager would help translate facility plans into a buildable commitment. County staff described a process in which the manager would work with officials and architects to complete design work, seek possible savings and later return with a guaranteed maximum price. Without a documented selection or price, the public record does not establish how either project would be delivered or what its final construction scope would cost.

By the May meeting, the shelter project had advanced substantially: staff said its design was 90% complete. The county had also issued a request for proposals and received seven responses. Those responses were evaluated with 80% of the score based on qualifications and experience and 20% on pricing, setting up the construction-manager proposal considered by commissioners. The minutes, however, stop short of documenting a final decision following that presentation.

Finance Director Tim Sims presented the proposed construction-management approach to the commission, according to the meeting record. County staff’s proposal contemplated a manager working alongside county officials and architects before bringing forward a guaranteed maximum price. Commissioners were the public body considering the item, while the seven responding vendors were prospective participants in the RFP process; the minutes do not identify a winner or attribute a final position to any commissioner.

The documented action is a discussion of a proposed procurement method, not a recorded construction award. The shelter’s 90% design figure and the seven RFP responses show planning and solicitation work had occurred. A guaranteed maximum price was described as a later step, not as an approved amount. Because the May 20 minutes do not state final action on the item, they do not establish that the county adopted the approach, authorized a contract or chose a construction manager.

The next public sign of progress would be a later county commission agenda, minutes, award record or contract identifying a construction manager and the terms of any approval. Until that appears, key questions remain unresolved in the documented account: whether Habersham proceeded with the construction-manager-at-risk method, who was selected, and when or at what amount the projects would receive a guaranteed maximum price.