Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Rfps Architecture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scranton school board debates pace and process for architect/construction-manager RFPs; consensus taken to advance hiring and question process
Summary
Board members clashed over how to evaluate multiple architecture, engineering and construction-management proposals for a slate of school projects, with some urging faster action and others pushing for a committee or independent review; administrators said proposals are varied and asked the board to submit standardized questions for vendors.
The Scranton School District board spent an extended portion of its meeting debating how to evaluate proposals for architects, engineers and construction managers for planned facility projects, with several members urging faster action and others urging more structured review. Administration said it had received multiple proposals and provided summaries; the board ultimately gave consensus direction to proceed with hiring an architect/engineer and to collect board questions for vendors.
What the board discussed
Operations staff said multiple proposals (seven total) had been received for architecture/engineering on a multiproject list that includes auditorium improvements, interior doors and science labs. Administration recommended moving forward and giving the board time to digest proposals, which varied in format (hourly, percent-based, flat-fee) and in what services were included.
Board members split on approach: some called for a small committee or outside independent reviewer to speed evaluation and avoid repeated full-board presentations; others said a committee process had slowed past projects and urged hiring an architect now and asking that firm to quickly review the multi-site proposal. Several members suggested collecting written questions from the board and giving the same set to each firm to standardize responses.
Late proposal and transparency concerns
A separate concern was raised about a firm whose proposal was submitted by email after the initial public opening of proposals. Directors asked the solicitor to document the legal basis for accepting the late submission and requested a formal memo. Administration said the firm’s late technical submission could be waived under RFP wording and that solicitor advice had supported taking consensus; some board members requested formal ratification on the record.
Consensus actions and next steps
The board chair and administration said they would (1) include architect/engineer award on the Sept. 8 agenda for formal action, (2) publish synopsis documents for the board to review, (3) circulate a shared form so directors can submit standardized questions for vendors, and (4) ask administration to seek a short-term independent reviewer if needed and to work with counsel on conflict-of-interest and procurement rules. One director urged the board to hire the architect first and ask that firm to provide a recommendation quickly so construction design work could proceed.
Ending
Administration said it will provide cost-clarification requests to vendors (for example, asking firms to quote fully burdened costs on an $8.5 million hypothetical project), will seek solicitor guidance on the late submission, and will return with a formal recommendation and documentation before the Sept. 8 vote.
