Hermosa Beach school board adopts lease-leaseback selection criteria for Hermosa Valley modernization

The Hermosa Beach City School District Board of Education on Wednesday approved a resolution establishing standardized selection criteria to use a lease-leaseback delivery method for the Hermosa Valley modernization project.

The decision follows a 50-minute presentation by construction consultant Alan Rising that compared delivery methods and described legal and procurement safeguards. Rising told the board, "I routinely tell folks that there's no 1 perfect delivery method," and explained why lease-leaseback can reduce change orders and improve early cost transparency when properly administered.

The board's action establishes a competitive best-value solicitation for lease-leaseback partners rather than a no-bid award. Rising and staff emphasized compliance with state law and post‑legislative safeguards; Rising said the district's proposed process follows statutory requirements and post‑legislative guidance and that, when administered transparently, the method is lawful and commonly used.

Why it matters: Hermosa Valley is a modernization project on an older campus with site unknowns (asbestos, concealed utilities, site investigations). Board and staff argued early contractor engagement can reduce schedule risk and unexpected costs by allowing contractors to participate in preconstruction investigations, constructability reviews and early selective demolition.

What the board approved: The resolution adopts a 1,000-point best-value scoring system to evaluate lease-leaseback proposers. The weights shown in the bid materials are: qualifications of the firm (150 points); qualifications of key personnel (175 points); proposer methodology/approach (150 points); understanding of district goals/site (100 points); local participation/community benefits (50 points); responsiveness/proposal quality (125 points); and price (250 points). The materials call for interviews of shortlisted proposers and an open-book construction phase for trade subcontract awards.

Board discussion and legal risk: Board members asked about lawsuits that have challenged lease-leaseback awards elsewhere; Rising acknowledged past legal challenges and attributed many to poorly administered procurements and lack of open competition. He referenced recent legislation that requires transparent solicitation criteria (transcript reference: "AB 2316" as discussed in meeting remarks) and said that the district's draft solicitation follows those statutory guardrails. Board members also asked whether the district had prior legal challenges; staff said the district's earlier lease-leaseback use did not result in litigation.

Next steps: Staff will publish the RFP and solicitation materials, assemble an evaluation panel, receive proposals, conduct interviews and return to the board with a negotiated lease-leaseback agreement for board approval. The procurement documents approved Wednesday are limited to selection criteria and process; no contract award was made tonight.

Board vote and motion: Board members moved and seconded the resolution and voted in favor. The board recorded the measure as approved.