Board approves five-year contract for architectural and engineering services; construction management recommendation presented

Operations staff reviewed the district's request-for-qualifications process and the evaluation used to select vendors for architectural/engineering (A/E) and construction-management (CM) services for the district's capital projects list.

Josh (operations) explained the difference between RFPs and RFQs and said RFQs prioritize vendor experience and qualifications over price. He described the public posting procedures (including the state vendor self-service site) and said the evaluation used a predetermined scoring matrix that reduced personal bias by having multiple district reviewers score each respondent.

For architectural and engineering services the operations team recommended Whiteman Associates based on scoring in background, staffing and related project experience; the board motion to approve the firm (as identified in the board packet) for a five-year contract passed on a roll-call vote. Trustee McGee voted "Yay," Trustee Brooks "Aye," Trustee Davis "Aye," and the chair voted aye; the tally recorded at the meeting shows four affirmative votes and the motion was approved.

For construction management services operations presented two RFQ responses and recommended McCarthy & Smith. The construction-management comparison noted that McCarthy & Smith reported substantial K–12 experience (listed as multiple current and completed school projects) and proposed a construction-management fee of 2.5% versus Krigoff Lenawee's 3.5%, a difference the staff estimated would equal approximately $120,000 on a $12 million capital list. Operations recommended a five-year construction-management contract to align with the sinking-fund timeline; the construction-management recommendation was presented for board action at a later meeting.

Nut graf: The board approved the A/E contract on a five-year term and received a separate staff recommendation to hire a CM firm based on specialized K–12 experience and lower fee structure; the board emphasized adherence to the RFQ scoring criteria and public posting requirements.

Board action: A motion to approve the A/E contract as presented in the board packet passed by roll-call vote. The CM recommendation was not voted at this meeting but staff recommended McCarthy & Smith and explained it would save the district a projected fee difference of roughly $120,000 across the capital list.

Ending: Operations staff said the recommended firms would help the district manage planned capital work — such as pool repairs, roofing and HVAC projects — and stressed that skilled trades would still be procured through separate bidding processes and state bid thresholds when applicable.