Fayetteville City Council voted on Wednesday to move forward with a $13.66 million construction contract for the McArthur Road Sports Complex—but only after nearly an hour of pointed questioning that repeatedly circled back to one theme: council members do not want a repeat of the city’s recent construction failures.
The City Council unanimously voted for the contract to go to Group III Management of Kinston, North Carolina, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder under state law, following a lengthy back‑and‑forth with staff, designers, the owner’s advisor, and the company.
Council members pressed for clarity on qualifications, subcontractor oversight, and whether the city’s procurement method itself leaves room for the kinds of mistakes that derailed other construction projects.
A Project Years in the Making
The vote comes after a March meeting in which council members held off on approving the contract, pushing the decision to Wednesday for deeper scrutiny.
The sports complex was originally part of the 2016 parks bond, which totaled $35 million after earlier concepts as high as $76 million were scaled back. Roughly $9 million of that bond was earmarked for the complex, though later site changes and design refinements pushed projected costs higher. Early estimates for a Fields Road location reached about $28 million before the project shifted to McArthur Road.
The current construction package—12 ballfields, parking, stormwater systems, and irrigation—lands at $13.66 million. Sports lighting is expected to add another $2.5 million to $3 million, bringing the total project cost into the high‑teens.
How City Council Selected Group III
Dan Christiansen of Freese and Nichols, the construction management firm for the project, told council that the city followed the state‑mandated single‑prime, low‑bid process under state law. It requires staff to evaluate bidders in a strict order.
The first threshold is responsiveness—whether the bid complies with all required forms, addenda, specifications, and licensing.
The apparent low bidder, Eastern Builders, failed that test because it did not hold a valid North Carolina general contractor’s license, which made the bid non‑responsive and ineligible for award, Christiansen said.
Once Eastern Builders was disqualified, staff moved to the next-low bidder, Group III, and evaluated whether the firm was both responsive and responsible.
Christiansen said North Carolina courts interpret “responsible” to mean a contractor has the “skill, judgment, and integrity necessary to the faithful performance of the contract, as well as sufficient financial resources and ability to do the project.”
“And that’s what we got from the references,” he said.
Christiansen emphasized that this process is not a qualifications‑based selection and does not necessarily require the bidder with the most specialized experience in ballfield construction.
And that process, according to Christiansen, also meant something else: staff did not reference‑check the other bidders, because the law does not require it once a qualifying low bidder is identified.
Ballfield Experience—or Not
A central concern throughout the council discussion was whether Group III had sufficient direct experience building sports complexes and ballfields.
Mayor Mitch Colvin pressed staff on whether the firm—or any of the bidders—could point to comparable work. Christiansen acknowledged that Group III did not list specific ballfield projects in its references. Instead, he said, the specialized work will be performed by subcontractors with that experience.
He added that other bidders also did not highlight ballfield construction as a primary specialty, though staff did not reference‑check them since the process stopped with Group III.
Colvin drew a distinction between general construction experience and repeated experience with a specialized facility.
“You don’t know who’s good or bad doing this because you hadn’t used them before,” he said. “I’m not saying they’re not skilled at it, but you get better at doing things repeatedly.”
Christiansen pointed out that the company hired Bill Ellis, a consultant with ballfield expertise, specifically for this project. Ellis will be on site regularly in an advisory role, he said.
Subcontractor Vetting, Oversight Structure
Council member Lynne Greene asked about a list of subcontractors in the council packet, several of which were highlighted in yellow. Christiansen said those were the firms Group III intends to use and emphasized that, under the contract, the general contractor is fully responsible for their performance.
Del Crawford, president of Crawford Design, added that the staff and the design team had not yet reviewed those firms. “We were given that list fairly recently, so we have not vetted,” he told council.
Questions from Mayor Pro Tem Derrick Thompson and others then prompted a broader explanation of the project’s oversight layers:
- Crawford Design (Del Crawford, Gordon Johnson): Interpret design intent and resolve technical questions.
- Group III (general contractor): Manages construction and all subcontractors.
- Freese and Nichols (project manager): Monitor progress, coordinate testing (especially grading), ensure compliance.
- Turner & Townsend Heery (owner’s advisor, represented by Leonard Hughes): Independent review of schedules, change orders, payment applications, and final punch lists.
Christiansen said the team is “very excited” about the project and committed to delivering it successfully.
Past Failures with Same Procurement Method
Council member Deno Hondros drew a direct line between this decision and the city’s recent struggles with capital projects—including Rose Hill Road sidewalks, the Mabel C. Smith Community Center, the Mazarick Park tennis center and new tennis courts, and Fire Station 4.
“Within the last four or five years, the city’s had multiple (Capital Improvement Program) projects that, for whatever reason, were stalled,” he said. All were bid using the single‑prime method, he added.
He asked Christiansen whether staff should reconsider that approach.
Christiansen responded that the delays were caused by the contractor—not the procurement method. “I was not here. But of course, I have heard all about it and done quite a bit of research into what happened with that,” he said.
Hondros also questioned why the city did not issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to ensure bidders had relevant experience.
“Wouldn’t the first thing you want to see from whoever submits a proposal to do this project is to see other similar projects that they’ve done?” he asked.
Christiansen said single‑prime, low‑bid is appropriate for this type of project, while Construction Manager at Risk or design‑build are typically reserved for more complex work. He added that council could choose a more qualifications‑driven method in the future.
As the discussion wound down, Christiansen reiterated that the project team is committed to delivering the complex successfully. “We’re very excited about this project,” he said. “We want this to be a huge success.”
Council member Stephon Ferguson then moved to authorize the city manager to execute the contract.
“I do completely understand the continued scrutiny of this project,” Ferguson said. “It is a 10‑year ongoing project, and I think all the questions have been basically answered and the concerns have been addressed.”
Government reporter Rachel Heimann Mercader can be reached at rheimann@cityviewnc.com or 910-988-8045.
Did you find this story useful or interesting? It was made possible by donations from readers like you to the News Foundation of Greater Fayetteville, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization committed to an informed democracy in Fayetteville and Cumberland County.
Please consider making a tax-deductible donation so CityView can bring you more news and information like this.
