Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clayton board advances facilities planning; hires BSI as construction manager-at-risk
Summary
Architect teams presented design options for elementary and athletic projects and mapped an approval timeline; after interviews the board selected BSI Constructors as the construction manager at risk to support design-to-bid budgeting and pre-bond planning.
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The School District of Clayton on Tuesday heard presentations from two architect teams about early work on a long-range facilities plan and selected a construction manager at risk to take part in pre-bond planning and delivery.
Architects from Paragon Architecture working with Perkins and Will reviewed findings from recent workshops with teachers, staff and community members focused on the district’s three elementary schools and portions of Clayton High School. BLDD Architects presented an initial approach to upgrades of outdoor athletic facilities including Wyedown Middle School fields, Adzeck Field, Aztec Field and options tied to Gayfield and Shaw Park.
The presentations emphasized flexible learning space, more small-group and collaboration spaces at the elementary level, and a phased approach at the high school focused on performing-arts improvements and a West-side academic and vocational cluster. The architects described a sequence of workshops, community engagement events and cost-modeling meetings intended to produce conceptual options by early October and firmer cost estimates in time for board decisions in December: community engagement events are scheduled for Sept. 10, Oct. 21 and Nov. 18, and board approval of ballot language would be scheduled for the Jan. 21 meeting in order to meet a spring ballot timeline.
At the same meeting the board conducted public interviews of two firms competing to serve as construction manager at risk (CMAR) for the program. After questions from board members and a scoring process, the board approved a motion to hire BSI Constructors as the CMAR. The board’s action followed interviews with SM Wilson and BSI; a third responder was not interviewed because staff judged its bonding capacity insufficient for the program. The selected CMAR will work with the district and the architect teams to develop pre-bond cost models, early procurement strategies for long‑lead items and constructability input during design.
Board members and staff emphasized that the CMAR role will include active pre-bond planning to align scope and budget, help prioritize projects and produce the reliable, itemized cost information a successful bond campaign requires. The architects and CMAR candidates also discussed deliverables and timing: the design teams plan to bring conceptual site and program diagrams to the board and public in October, refine cost and scope through November and December, and provide the detailed packet the board would need if it decides to place a bond measure on a spring ballot.
The board’s selection of the CMAR concluded a public procurement step that included RFQs/RFPs, two formal interviews in open session, and a ranking exercise by the board. The motion appointing BSI passed in open session after a second was recorded and a roll-call-style verbal vote that produced unanimous approval.
Next steps described by staff and the architects include: a community workshop to present conceptual options in early October; more detailed cost modeling and phasing options in October–November; preparation of bond ballot language in December; and continued outreach and surveys to the Clayton community. Staff said the team is planning regular updates to the board during the fall so members can review cost tradeoffs and community feedback before the board must approve ballot language in January.
Implementation details — including responsibility for permit and third‑party inspection costs, contingency strategies for long‑lead items, and how contingency savings will be shared — will be defined in the CMAR contract and during the preconstruction budget exercises.
Authorities and procurement notes recorded during the meeting said three firms responded to the CMAR solicitation, two were interviewed, and the third was not interviewed because of insufficient bonding capacity. Board members asked for, and staff committed to provide, follow-up detail on budget assumptions, contingency amounts, and how long‑lead items will be procured and tracked.

