OPM selection subcommittee advances RFS for Medford High project, votes to expand committee

Jenny Graham, member of the OPM selection subcommittee, led a remote meeting Tuesday to review a draft request-for-services (RFS) the district will use to hire an owner’s project manager (OPM) under the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) module 2 process.

“This is module 2 of MSBA, which is where we hire our team that’s actually going to help do the lion’s share of the work,” Graham said, outlining the two core tasks for module 2: hiring the OPM first and then the designer.

The nut graf: The committee reviewed MSBA’s RFS template, discussed required procedural steps (MSBA review, advertising in the central register, a newspaper and COMMBUYS, and a shortlisted interview process), evaluated proposed scoring and finalist procedures, and approved two committee motions: to expand the OPM selection committee from three to five voting members and to forward the revised RFS to the full building committee for input and approval.

Discussion and RFS details

Committee members walked through the MSBA-provided RFS template and owner-specific language the district staff drafted, including background, project objectives and evaluation criteria. The draft describes the Medford High School campus as an aging facility that the district is planning to renovate or replace; it notes enrollment projections and program needs that the OPM should consider, including vocational/Chapter 74 programs and potential co-location of therapeutic or specialized programs (Curtis Tufts was named as an example of a program the district is considering relocating to the campus).

Committee members flagged missing numeric placeholders in the draft (enrollment and childcare counts) that staff committed to fill before submission. The draft includes an agreed-upon projected enrollment for a new Medford High School of 1,800 students, with sub-allocations that staff listed as placeholders: 1,395 grades 9–12, 200 pre-K and 100 daycare/stay-care seats; staff said those figures would be verified and completed using official enrollment certification.

The RFS discussion focused on evaluation criteria and scoring. Staff proposed weighted point brackets emphasizing required technical knowledge (state building code familiarity, commissioning, LEED/NC), life-cycle cost expertise, and experience with construction-delivery methods the district is considering (the draft calls out construction-manager-at-risk). The draft used a multi-tier points system (10, 20, 30, 40, 50 brackets) totaling 270 points; staff said they preferred that structure to a 100-point scale.

On how cost would factor in finalist selection, the committee debated options. Fiona Maxwell (procurement staff) said procurement practice varies and she would review the proposed wording; Graham said she revised the language to treat cost and the technical response as a combined “value” package for the final 20 points, and that the committee would open cost proposals after finalist interviews so price would inform a value judgment rather than be the sole determinant.

Timeline, outreach and MSBA review

Staff proposed a draft timeline anchored to an anticipated MSBA OPM review panel meeting in early April. The draft timeline included posting the advertisement (central register, paper, COMMBUYS) and holding a bidder informational/site visit, then shortlisting, interviewing finalists and notifying MSBA of the selection. Procurement staff warned the group that statutory lead times for advertising and submission deadlines likely require shifting the timeline by about a week; staff agreed to coordinate offline with MSBA and procurement to finalize dates.

Other points flagged for bidders

The RFS draft asks bidders to address community engagement, life-cycle operating costs, potential alternate sites, and site egress adjustments if the project remains on the existing Winthrop Street campus. The committee noted practical constraints for vocational programs (for example, culinary or automotive CTE spaces are difficult to replicate in temporary trailers) and asked bidders to show strategies for continuity of instruction.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to increase OPM selection committee from 3 to 5 voting members — Mover: Dr. Cushing; Second: not specified. Vote: Jenny Graham — yes; Dr. Cushing — yes; Aaron Holdpatti — yes. Outcome: approved. (Recorded roll call: 3–0.)

- Motion to forward the updated RFS to the full building committee for input — Mover: not specified; Second: not specified. Vote: Jenny Graham — yes; Aaron Holdpatti — yes; Dr. Cushing — yes. Outcome: approved. (Recorded roll call: 3–0.)

- Motion to adjourn — Mover: Aaron Holdpatti; Second: Dr. Cushing. Vote: unanimous (3–0). Outcome: approved.

Decisions, next steps and implementation

The committee approved the two substantive motions and asked staff to (1) complete missing enrollment and program counts in the RFS attachments, (2) confirm legal and procurement language with the district’s school committee attorney (Howard Greenspan) and procurement staff, and (3) finalize timeline details with MSBA and procurement to ensure statutory advertising lead times are met. Staff said they will present the revised RFS and recommendation to the full Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee at its next meeting (noted in the meeting as February 24).

Quotes of record

- “The Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee is comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders,” staff wrote in the draft background text read aloud during the meeting (draft language provided to committee members).

- “The only my only suggestion would be where we talk about facilities, art spaces, perhaps, say, fine and performing arts,” Dr. Cushing said when asked to review the RFS background wording.

Ending

Staff will finalize the RFS attachments and numeric placeholders, confirm procurement/legal language, adjust the public-advertising timeline for statutory lead times, and bring the revised RFS and the committee-expansion recommendation to the full building committee for input and confirmation. The subcommittee adjourned after approving both motions.