FCPS staff urges more procurement tools — design‑build, CMAR, swing spaces and P3s — to speed school construction

Fairfax County School Board members received a facilities briefing on alternative delivery and financing options for capital projects — including construction manager at risk (CMAR), design‑build procurement, multiple swing‑space approaches for renovations, and public‑private partnership (P3) models — and staff asked for board guidance on next steps.

The issue matters because FCPS oversees a large facilities portfolio with a renovation cycle substantially longer than recommended and capital funding per square foot that staff said lags peer districts; faster or different delivery approaches could reduce timelines, allow more schools to be renovated sooner, and change how projects are financed and operated.

Janice Symansky, chief of facility services and capital programs, introduced the presentation and framed the problem: FCPS’s capital funding per square foot was shown in the CIP slide deck as roughly $8.54 per square foot compared with an average of about $21.80 among a set of comparable districts, and staff said closing that gap would require an additional roughly $97.5 million in annual bonding or alternative funding. Symansky asked the board to consider expanding delivery methods and financing tools to improve speed and value.

What staff presented

- Alternative delivery methods: Staff explained three delivery approaches: (1) design‑bid‑build (the traditional low‑bid, two‑contract approach FCPS typically uses), (2) construction manager at risk (CMAR), which brings a construction manager into design early and uses a guaranteed maximum price (GMP), and (3) design‑build (DB), where a single design‑builder handles both design and construction under a GMP. Staff noted CMAR and DB are widely used in the region and can reduce change orders and allow earlier procurement of long‑lead items.

- Swing‑space approaches for occupied renovations: Staff described three swing‑space options that could shorten renovation timelines: (1) temporary trailers and air‑supported “bubble” structures on the existing site to relocate students while work proceeds; (2) build the new school on the same site (students remain in the old building until the new one is complete, then the old building is demolished); and (3) move students off‑site to an alternative facility (for example, a renovated FCPS‑owned property or leased space) while the home school is rebuilt. Staff said on‑site options are often preferred geographically in Fairfax County but that each site requires a feasibility analysis during concept design.

- Public‑private partnership (P3) options and cost‑benefit analysis: Staff summarized a late‑2024 cost‑benefit analysis (Brailsford & Dunlevy) that evaluated P3 packages for the last six renovation projects in the current CIP queue plus one new construction project in the CIP. Staff explained common P3 models such as design‑build‑finance (DBF) and design‑build‑finance‑operate‑maintain (DBFOM), noted that P3s are highly customizable and not always cheaper but can speed delivery and transfer certain risks to private partners, and suggested that P3s could be used to accelerate a block of projects if the board, the county and staff agreed on scope and funding approaches.

Board discussion and informal decisions recorded in transcript

Board members asked detailed implementation questions (for example: how CMAR would control cost when the contractor must stipulate a GMP before design is complete; whether DB reduces district control over design outcomes; which jurisdictions in the DMV use these methods; and whether choosing a new building on the same site would increase embodied carbon). Staff responded that CMAR and DB bring contractor input earlier to control cost, that FCPS still sets educational specifications and reviews design, and that several neighboring jurisdictions (Prince William County, Loudoun County, Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, and the District of Columbia) have used CMAR and DB for K‑12 projects.

The chair polled for informal consensus in several areas during the facilities discussion. The transcript records an explicit, unanimous show of hands to incorporate design‑build and CMAR as options in future RFPs where appropriate, and staff will only use those methods with board approval for specific contracts. The transcript also shows the board expressed consensus to incorporate two swing‑space options (on‑site trailers and new on‑site construction) where feasible and asked staff to explore whether existing FCPS assets could serve as off‑site swing spaces. The board asked staff to coordinate next steps with the county and with governance for policy revisions.

Direct quotes in context

- Janice Symansky (chief of facility services and capital programs): “Project delivery methods…lay out who does what, how the owner, design team, and contractors interact. These methods do not exist in a vacuum. They're rooted in procurement strategies.”

- A member of staff summarized the fiscal gap: "Because we're such a large school system... increasing funding by an additional $3.58 to bring us up to the second lowest ranked school means an annual bond amount or alternative funding would need to increase by $97,500,000 annually."

Implementation steps and next steps staff recommended

- Policy revision: Staff redlined Policy 82‑40 to allow CMAR and design‑build as procurement options; the school board would need to approve the updated policy for FCPS to use those delivery methods routinely. Staff said any CMAR or design‑build contract would return to the board for approval, and a GMP exceeding board thresholds would require further board approval.

- Pilot and procurement sequencing: Staff proposed starting CMAR implementation on projects that will enter design in fiscal year 2026 (for example, Cub Run Elementary School and Franklin Middle School in the CIP), by including CMAR as an option in architect RFP scopes and then issuing a separate construction‑manager solicitation if the policy revision is approved.

- Swing‑space feasibility: For each renovation project entering concept design, staff will require feasibility analysis comparing phased‑occupied renovation versus swing‑space options (on‑site trailers, new on‑site building or off‑site moves). For several CIP schools a consultant review found on‑site swing options to be feasible in some cases and not in others; staff recommended a site‑by‑site analysis embedded in the architect’s concept phase.

- P3 visioning and risk discussion: Staff recommended a board‑level visioning and risk‑tolerance session before launching a P3 solicitation. A P3 champion and careful board/county coordination would be required prior to an RFQ. Staff proposed the last six renovation schools in the current CIP queue plus the first new build in the CIP as a logical test package for initial analysis (the same set used in the consultant’s cost‑benefit study).

Clarifying details (from the presentation and discussion)

- Funding per square foot: staff showed FCPS as approximately $8.54 per square foot of capital construction funding, compared with an average among the listed peer divisions of about $21.80; staff said closing that gap would require roughly $97.5 million of additional annual funding.

- CPAR and schedule impacts: Staff estimated that moving away from phased‑occupied renovation to an unoccupied swing approach could reduce construction timelines by an estimated 6–12 months for elementary renovations, depending on site conditions and permitting.

- Implementation sequencing: Staff recommended beginning feasibility work during the concept design phase for projects in FY26 and suggested CMAR may be an easier evolutionary step because it preserves the two‑contract model while adding a construction manager during design.

Authorities and policy references

- Policy 82‑40 (procurement / capital project contracting) — staff presented redlines to allow CMAR and design‑build as options.

- Virginia Public Procurement Act (VPPA) — referenced as the statutory procurement framework that design‑bid‑build is the default method but provides for alternative delivery with local governing‑body approval.

- Consultant analysis: Brailsford & Dunlevy (BND) cost‑benefit analysis of P3 packages for the last six renovation projects in the CIP plus one new build (late 2024).

Speakers (attribution whitelist)

- Janice Symansky — role/title: Chief of Facility Services and Capital Programs. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County Public Schools). First reference evidence: 8254.03–8287.149 "Thank you, doctor Reed, and good afternoon to the board..." - Jessica Gillis — role/title: Facilities staff (presenter team). Affiliation: government (FCPS). - Scott Eschbach — role/title: Facilities staff (presenter team). Affiliation: government (FCPS). - Dr. Reed — role/title: Superintendent (participating in handoff to staff). Affiliation: government (FCPS). - Mister Dunn — role/title: Board member (led facilities introduction). Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board). - Chair Frisch — role/title: School Board chairman. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board). - Miss Lady — role/title: Board member. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board). - Mister Moon — role/title: Board member. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board).

Actions (formal and informal recorded in the transcript)

- Informal consensus (board polling/consensus note): "Incorporate design‑build and construction management at risk as options in future RFPs where appropriate." Transcript records unanimous board consensus (named board members present: Doctor Anderson; Mister McElveen; Mister McDaniel; Miss Anderson; Miss Lady; Miss Marin; Miss Dixit; Mister Frisch; Mister Moon; Miss Saint John Cunningham). Outcome: consensus_note. Notes: staff said any contract would return to board for approval and GMPs would require board review where thresholds are exceeded.

- Informal consensus (board polling/consensus note): "Incorporate on‑site swing options (temporary trailers and new on‑site construction) as options in future RFPs where appropriate." Transcript records majority support; staff will embed swing‑space feasibility into architect concept phases. Outcome: consensus_note.

- Informal direction (staff tasking): Board asked staff to explore using existing FCPS assets as potential off‑site swing spaces and to coordinate a visioning/risk session for P3 options with board governance and with county partners; the transcript records discussion but no formal board vote.

Provenance (evidence spans supporting this article)

- topicintro: {"block_id":"8254.03","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"Thank you, doctor Reed, and good afternoon to the board, and thank you for having me here today. As doctor Reed mentioned, my name is Janice Symansky, chief of facility services and capital programs.","global_start":8254,"global_end":8374,"tc_start":"02:17:34","tc_end":"02:22:54","text_sha256":"e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855","reason_code":"topicintro"}

- topicfinish: {"block_id":"11153.545","local_start":0,"local_end":60,"evidence_excerpt":"So with that, I'd like to just confirm that there's consensus to support facilities incorporating design build and construction management at risk as options and future RFPs where appropriate.","global_start":11153,"global_end":11213,"tc_start":"03:05:53","tc_end":"03:06:53","text_sha256":"e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855","reason_code":"topicfinish"}

Searchable tags:["construction procurement","design-build","CMAR","swing space","P3","FCPS","capital projects"]

Ending note: Staff recommended governance move forward with Policy 82‑40 redlines to authorize alternative delivery and return with a timeline and a visioning session; board members asked for deeper briefing materials and joint discussion with the county before finalizing any P3 solicitation.