VMFA Project 18430 includes approximately 173,700 square feet of new construction and 45,000 square feet of renovation, with Gilbane Building Company serving as Construction Manager at Risk. An earlier eVA-related enabling-work notice was circulated on July 31, 2025, followed by a site walk on August 7, an RFI deadline on August 14, and bids due August 28, 2025. In 2026, the Procore GMP opportunity listed bids due July 7, 2026, while eVA Future Procurement Notice FPR-122556 listed a July 17, 2026 closing date for anticipated trade packages. The differing platforms, notices, and deadlines remain relevant to the review of public notice, bidder access, and procurement outcomes.

The available records identify DGS and VMFA as Commonwealth participants and Gilbane Building Company as the Construction Manager at Risk. The eVA future-procurement notice also states that Gilbane, RMT Construction, and Canterbury Enterprises were actively seeking bidders for a broad group of trade scopes.

The available public records do not yet resolve whether RMT and Canterbury were acting as subcontractors, joint-venture or teaming participants, outreach partners, package managers, or in another capacity. Records still needed include the governing agreements, assigned scopes, compensation terms, responsibility for bidder communications, and any approval of those arrangements.

On August 6, DGS responded to a request for an existing package-status log, award log, procurement log, recommendation log, bid-package matrix, plan-room export, or comparable record sufficient to show responsive bidder counts and selected or recommended subcontractors. DGS stated that the requested records “could not be found or do not exist.” That language is presented as DGS’s statement concerning its search; it is not proof that no other custodian possesses responsive records.

DGS later issued a **$252.54** invoice for a narrower request concerning the Procore/GMP bid outcome and bidder-count record. A preserved August 31 follow-up states that the requested deposit was delivered to DGS on August 27 and asks DGS to confirm receipt and resumed processing. The follow-up is the requester’s record; it is not an agency receipt or confirmation. The responsive production or final response is still pending in this folder.

The available records show more than one public-facing procurement path and more than one date:

• A Procore public opportunity for the GMP listed bids due July 7, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. EDT - This was only discovered in August 2026 and not provided via FOIA.

• The Procore document log shows that many documents were attached to the bid package on July 6, although some displayed creation or upload dates are earlier.

• eVA Future Procurement Notice FPR-122556 listed a closing date of July 17, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. and identified a broad group of anticipated trade scopes.

• DGS/Gilbane correspondence discusses notice timing and the relationship between the contractor’s schedule and the later eVA posting.

• An earlier VMFA Building Committee Meeting cancellation notice / email update referenced earlier dates.

These records do not, by themselves, establish that every date applied to the same package or bidder. The unresolved questions are which deadline controlled each trade package, when complete bidder-facing documents became available for each package, whether similarly situated bidders received equivalent access, and which entity maintained the authoritative bid record.

View the Procore GMP public opportunity

View the Procore Document Log

View the DGS/Gilbane bid-notification correspondence

• Project 18430 Accounting

• VMFA Spending

SRC Construction is identified as the contractor associated with the Leslie Cheek Theatre renovation.  RMT appears as a non-winning bidder for the same scope.

• There was a A/V scope of work separately allocated to what appears to be RMT from The VMFA Foundation.

• Project 18692 Accounting

• VMFA Spending

Hourigan Construction is identified as the construction contractor for the privately developed Grove Avenue storage warehouse at 2915 Grove Avenue.

The completed facility was subsequently included in Commonwealth Lease L006164, executed between VMFA Real Estate Company LLC and the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Department of General Services.

In an August 25 response, DGS stated that requested records addressing whether Virginia’s Environmental Impact Report requirements applied to construction, lease, occupancy, operation, or use of the Grove facility “could not be found or do not exist.” This is DGS’s statement concerning its search and does not establish whether another custodian possesses related records.

Separate August 18 City correspondence states that land-disturbance permit LDIS-145955-2025 remained issued and open. The City explained that revised plans incorporating the Dream Wall were awaited and that the permit would remain open until the work was complete, the site achieved final stabilization, and the final stormwater-management as-built was approved. This correspondence concerns the land-disturbance permit; it should not be described as proof that a Certificate of Occupancy was or was not issued.

Records still needed include any Certificate of Occupancy, approved POD or site-plan amendment, lease-commencement certificate or report of occupancy, rent-commencement and payment records, and any EIR or long-term lease/accounting determination held by another custodian.

View DGS’s EIR-applicability response

View the City POD and site-plan correspondence

View the City permit-status summary

Richmond’s Code Refresh Draft 3 proposed institutional zoning for several properties owned by VMFA Real Estate Company. The City’s FOIA-2026-893 production includes parcel worksheets and internal Planning and Development Review communications addressing how institutional and campus zoning would be applied. The available production identifies internal mapping direction shortly before Draft 3 was released and does not identify a record showing that an outside stakeholder requested the specific parcel changes.

The remaining issues are the parcel-specific rationale, the treatment of properties without an apparent current institutional use or Commonwealth lease, any mapping errors, and the relationship between proposed zoning and current permits, site plans, inspections, use, and occupancy.

View the City’s FOIA-2026-893 production

View the City zoning-direction summary

• VMFA Spending

VMFA Building Committee Meeting Summary

September 1, 2026

The VMFA Building Committee met on September 1, 2026, primarily to receive a status update on the museum’s renovation and expansion project. At the beginning of the meeting, Building Committee Chair Brian Ball stated that no vote was planned and that the meeting was principally intended as a project update.

Attendance

The formal committee roll call included:

• Brian Ball

• Janet Geldzahler

• Jay Olander

• Matt Cooper

Other observed participants included:

• Alex Nyerges

• Caprice Bragg

• Bob Mooney - to the best of my recollection

• Curt Manchester

• Ambria Wood

• Ms. Cooperstein, serving in an administrative/support capacity

The meeting experienced connectivity problems at the outset, and participants switched to a different device. Ms. Cooperstein assisted with the meeting-room and Zoom controls, including the transition into closed session.

Public-Session Project Update

The public portion of the meeting lasted approximately 11 minutes before the committee entered closed session.

During the public update, museum leadership reported a further delay in the anticipated start of major construction activity. An earlier August mobilization date had previously shifted to November. The current forecast was described as January 2027 at the earliest, with March 2027 appearing more likely.

The principal explanation given for the schedule change was continuing design development and drawing review by DGS DEB, including what was described as a fourth iteration of drawing revisions. 

Alex Nyerges also distinguished between a renovation scope of work and an expansion scope of work. Although described as separate scopes, the work was expected to mobilize on approximately the same overall schedule.

That distinction may be important in evaluating the roles of Gilbane, RMT Construction, and Canterbury Enterprises. The meeting comments create the possibility that RMT and Canterbury may have responsibilities associated primarily with the renovation scope while Gilbane is responsible for the expansion scope. The meeting did not, however, clearly establish the contractual or compensated role of each company or how the two scopes are divided for procurement and project-management purposes.

Campus Access and Construction Logistics

Nyerges also discussed public accessibility during construction, with specific reference to the southwest portion of the VMFA campus.

He indicated that:

• the chapel would remain accessible during construction; and

• a dog-run area would remain available in that portion of the campus.

These comments appear to relate to construction staging, pedestrian access, and site logistics in the southwest campus area. Prior project records should be reviewed separately to determine whether construction trailers, laydown areas, or other contractor facilities are also planned for that location.

Closed Session

After approximately 11 minutes of public discussion, the committee entered closed session to discuss GMP and related project matters.

The committee returned from closed session at approximately 1:28 p.m.

After the disclosure statements and vote as shared in the agenda packet, there was casual discussion from members.

Governance Transition

Near adjournment, Matt Cooper made comments that appeared to recognize the conclusion of Brian Ball’s service or an impending departure from his committee role.

The comments appeared more consistent with a transition in his VMFA Board or Building Committee service.

Jay Olander’s participation in the formal roll call was also notable and may reflect a developing change in Building Committee membership or leadership.

Procurement, lease, accounting, and oversight concerns have been submitted or referred to OSIG, legislators, and the Auditor of Public Accounts.

Disclaimer, Corrections, and Update Policy

This site is a public-record documentation and tracking resource. It summarizes agency records, public-meeting materials, correspondence, and other identified sources. It does not make findings of legal liability, misconduct, or noncompliance and is not legal advice.

Statements presented as documented will, wherever practicable, link directly to the underlying agency or primary-source record. A request, allegation, referral, discrepancy, interpretation, or unresolved question will be identified as such and will not be presented as an established fact.

When an agency states that responsive records “could not be found” or “do not exist,” this site reports that statement as the responding agency’s description of its search and records custody. Such a response is not treated as proof that no responsive record exists, that another custodian does not possess it, or that additional records will not later be located.

Corrections, clarifications, and additional primary records are welcome. A revision request should identify the specific statement at issue, explain the requested change, and provide or identify supporting documentation when available. Requests will be evaluated against the available primary record, and warranted corrections or clarifications will be noted.

This page will be updated as additional primary records, agency responses, meeting materials, corrections, or final dispositions become available. Material updates will be dated, and prior versions will remain accessible as dated archive entries. A later revision does not necessarily mean that an earlier statement was knowingly inaccurate; it may reflect information that was incomplete, unavailable, disputed, or subsequently clarified at the time of the earlier publication.