Committee reviews three OPM proposals for middle school; members defer recommendation for more analysis

The capital facilities committee discussed three proposals for an owner’s project manager (OPM) role on the middle school project on Aug. 25 and agreed to delay making a recommendation while staff collects more information and clarifies costs and scope. Matt Cashman (administration) told the committee that the district issued a request for proposals in June and received three responses in late July. He identified the responding firms in the meeting materials as Jobin Consulting, Left Field and Trident (as reported in the committee packet) and said the submittals used different timelines and pricing structures, which made direct price comparisons difficult. Cashman said one firm presented a longer timeline and higher overall fees while another provided hourly preconstruction rates that required conversion to compare against fixed-fee proposals. Committee members asked whether staff had performed references and cautioned about large differences among the bids. Cashman said he had not yet completed reference checks because he wanted direction from the committee before proceeding and that the district is awaiting final design-development cost numbers from the architect before selecting an approach. He noted that in recent years guidance and statute (RSA) had changed expectations for use of OPMs; staff reported that, per the RSA and prior DOE clarifications, the district’s internal staff (Matt Cashman) meet qualification requirements to serve as owner representative if the board elects to use internal capacity. Members discussed tradeoffs: an external OPM team could bring a full-time project-management staff and communications capacity but would add cost (participants noted industry heuristic ranges of about 3–4% of total project cost for OPM fees, and staff referenced example aggregate OPM cost ranges being discussed in the packet). Several committee members said an hourly or limited consulting arrangement could provide needed backup without the full recurring cost of a multi-person OPM team. Members also emphasized the importance of a communications plan and community engagement for a high-profile project. No formal vote was taken; members signaled a preference to gather additional material: staff to distribute full proposals, perform reference checks, report whether other districts (e.g., Manchester) are using OPMs, and return with recommendations after the architect’s cost updates. Committee members stressed protecting the district’s construction budget and avoiding reductions to programmatic elements (for example language or music) to pay for an OPM.