Turner & Townsend presents owners-rep option to manage $82 million referendum program; board seeks additional vetting

Turner & Townsend representatives described owner’s-representative services and argued the firm could help the La Grange SD 102 district manage time, cost and contractor performance for projects funded by the district’s $82 million referendum.

Jason Sparks, who said he would serve as project executive if the district retained the firm, told the board, “What we do is help school districts like yourselves make sure you spend every penny and get everything you possibly can out of every dollar that you spent.” Matt Darnieri, director at Turner & Townsend, described the company as a national project-management firm that supports government clients including K–12 districts.

The consultants said owners-rep services can help the district reduce risk, manage budget and schedule, and provide procurement support. They discussed pricing approaches: a time-and-materials billing schedule tied to hours and staff, and alternative lump-sum or percentage-fee models. The presenters said owners-rep fees typically range around 1–2 percent of project costs for owner-side services, and they emphasized that their firm’s work often produces savings that exceed fees.

Board members and district officials pressed for clarity about fee structure and potential cost exposure. One board member asked whether the firm’s hourly billing could leave the district exposed if a project’s timeline extended; Jason Sparks said the firm structures monthly staffing plans and that significant, unforeseen events could increase time and cost. “We don’t want our fee to be tied to the construction cost because our whole job is to save them,” one presenter said, explaining why the firm sometimes prefers a time-based model.

District staff said the referendum planning team needs a budget quickly because the district must know how much to schedule in bond issuances and expects to assemble a full team (architect, construction manager and possibly an owners’ rep) by June. Tanisha (an administrator who introduced the presenters) and district finance staff told the board the district expects owners-rep fees to be comparable to market ranges and that the cost would be accounted for within the referendum budget if approved.

Board members expressed interest in competitive comparison. One board member said the district should solicit and compare multiple owners-rep proposals; a majority favored forming a small group of trustees to work with administration to vet alternatives quickly while preserving the district’s June timeline. “I think it would be in our best interest to be able to have multiple opportunities to see what else is out there,” a trustee said.

Why it matters: The district’s construction program will affect every building and classroom. Owners-rep services can change how the district manages procurement, contractor selection and change orders, and they carry fees that must be included in the referendum budget. The board directed staff to continue vetting options and to involve a small board subgroup in the evaluation process.

No formal contract was approved at the meeting; board members asked staff to obtain additional proposals and return recommendations to the board.