Capital facilities committee recommends RFP for owner project manager on middle school project

The Concord School District Capital Facilities Committee voted unanimously April 23 to recommend that the full school board put out a request for proposals for an owner project manager, or OPM, for the district's planned middle school construction project.

The recommendation, made during the committee's meeting at 5:30 p.m., follows materials in the meeting packet that included a draft OPM job description, a list of firms from the Department of Education website, and a copy of the Department of Education rules labeled in the packet as "ED rules, 3 21." "Tonight we will be covering a couple of items. First of which is the discussion of an owner project manager for our middle school construction project," Superintendent Kathleen Murphy said as the committee opened the topic.

The draft job description was presented as a starting point and not final. Murphy said the Department of Education's rules permit appointing an individual currently employed by the district as the OPM. "It certainly can be a member of our school district," the superintendent said, referencing the rules.

Committee members discussed options for recruiting an OPM. Business Administrator Jack Dunn described the typical procurement approach: issue an RFP, form an evaluation committee that may include board and technical members, interview candidates and score them with a preestablished rubric. "You put out an RFP, a request for proposals, and you put it out on the street," Dunn said.

Facilities Administrator Matt Cashman was cited as having prior experience serving as an OPM on the district's previous elementary school projects; Murphy said the state had previously considered his experience consistent with OPM responsibilities. Committee members noted a budgeted position last year intended to provide project management capacity to support Cashman's workload.

Committee members emphasized that issuing an RFP would not obligate the district to hire an outside firm. "We should put out an RFP and just because we get responses doesn't mean that we have to accept those," one committee member said. The committee passed a motion to recommend that the board issue an RFP to solicit proposals for an alternative OPM; the committee also discussed asking the building committee and staff to help develop evaluation criteria and a scoring rubric.

The motion passed by voice vote without opposition. The committee asked administration to include the same materials in the full board packet and said it planned to bring the recommendation to the May board meeting.

Committee members also raised cost concerns. Some early cost estimates for outside OPM services prompted discussion about whether the potential cost savings from an OPM would offset adding another paid role to the project. The committee asked staff to prepare an RFP that would clarify costs and to draft an evaluation rubric for committee review.

Next steps identified at the meeting included directing administration to draft and post the RFP, establish an evaluation committee with representation from the capital facilities subcommittee, and present the recommendation to the full board in May.