Board hears overview of lease‑leaseback procurement; staff seeks input on scoring criteria

Trustees received an informational presentation Wednesday evening on lease‑leaseback (LLB) construction procurement, prequalification procedures and how the district would score proposals for best value.

Ariel (staff member) reviewed the LLB process: the district leases a site to a contractor, the contractor constructs the improvements and subleases them back, and the district retains title at completion. Ariel explained that California law requires prequalification for public projects over $1,000,000 using a Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) model questionnaire and that certain prequalification materials (the questionnaire responses and financial statements) are exempt from public disclosure under Public Contract Code section 20111.6.

The presentation outlined a typical sequence: adopt LLB procedures (already done), prequalify contractors, issue an RFP to prequalified firms, evaluate proposals and, optionally, interview finalists. Ariel said the district must evaluate three statutory areas (relevant experience, safety record, and fee/price) and may include other objective factors such as local experience with subcontractors, prior work with school districts, apprenticeship and prevailing‑wage compliance, and dispute history. Ariel recommended that price often be weighted around 50 percent with qualifications and other factors comprising the remainder, but the board has flexibility to set precise weights.

Trustees raised verification questions and practical concerns. One trustee asked whether the district can independently verify responses on the prequalification form (for example, prior payroll or prevailing‑wage repayment). Ariel said contractors must certify their answers under penalty of perjury, that some records can be checked on state portals (DIR, CSLB), and that staff can follow up and request documentation for any answers that require clarification.

Trustees also asked whether LLB shrinks the contractor pool. Ariel said it depends on the region and the type of project; contractors experienced with LLB or design‑build typically have templates and respond readily, but the first project under a new method will reveal the size of the local pool.

Discussion of delivery‑method risk focused on change orders and unknown site conditions. Ariel and Melissa said the district’s strongest position is to pursue lump‑sum LLB contracts when DSA‑approved plans are available because lump sum gives a clearer upfront construction price; fee‑based LLB contracts that include preconstruction services may carry additional uncertainty until plans and DSA approvals are final.

Ariel asked trustees for input on localized scoring criteria and whether the board wanted optional interviews incorporated into the RFP. Trustees indicated they would review the draft allocation of points and return comments; staff said they will refine the RFP and scoring sheet with those preferences and return with a procurement calendar and next steps.

Ending

The board did not take formal action on procurement at the workshop; staff will bring back a draft RFP and proposed scoring weights for trustee review prior to issuing the solicitation.