Laredo ISD approves $3.26 million fencing work under school‑safety grant after debate over bids and timelines

The Laredo ISD Board of Trustees voted April 18 to award fencing contracts covering multiple campuses under a school‑safety grant, approving the package that includes an estimated $3,262,434 for repairs and installations of wrought‑iron and chain‑link fencing.

District facilities staff said they negotiated with vendors and reduced pricing by roughly $80,000 on several recommended projects. “They came back, with this pricing, and that’s what I just placed in front of you. Overall, throughout these 7 projects being recommended, they came down about $80,000,” Dr. Mejia told the board during the presentation of procurement results.

Trustees pressed district staff on three main points: why some higher bids were recommended instead of lower bids that appeared to offer substantial savings, whether a single contractor could complete all 17 projects by the grant’s completion date, and what the district would risk if it rebid the work. Staff representatives said the district conducted a needs assessment tied to Chapter 61 requirements, prioritized exterior doors, window film, rekeying and Knox boxes before fencing in some phases, and that the TEA deadline to finish the grant‑funded projects is August 2025.

Dr. Perez said the district divided projects so work could be accomplished in phases and that vendors assured staff they could meet the timeline. He cautioned that rebidding would delay work and could jeopardize the district’s ability to expend awarded funds: “Yes, at some cases, we will have to return the money because it’s not expended. Or if we didn’t follow the guidelines, later on the state will recover those amounts,” he said.

Several trustees argued for maximizing the grant dollars by awarding work to the lower proposals where feasible. One trustee quantified the difference discussed at earlier meetings as roughly $780,000 between sets of estimates and suggested the district could use savings for other urgent safety purchases, such as radio dispatch equipment (board discussion noted a $300,000 approximate cost for a dispatch upgrade under consideration). District counsel explained the standard contract remedy for missed completion dates—liquidated‑damages provisions—and said change orders for unforeseeable price increases would be subject to board approval.

After extended questioning about steel grades, turnaround times and subcontracting, the motion to approve the recommended awards carried. The board majority said the district’s procurement committee recommended the awards as offering the best value and that staff would include contract terms to hold contractors to their bids and use liquidated damages if necessary.

The board’s approval allows the district to move forward with vendor contracting and phasing with the stated objective of completing the grant work by August 2025. If work is delayed or does not comply with grant requirements, staff warned the state could require returning unexpended funds or disallow particular expenditures.

What’s next: staff will finalize contracts with the awarded vendors, incorporate timeline and liquidated‑damages language, and manage phasing so most construction occurs outside of instructional time.