Subcommittee reviews OPM RFP, agrees to send to counsel and solicit comments

The North Kingstown School Department building subcommittee reviewed a draft request for proposals for owner’s project manager (OPM) services on March 12 and voted to forward the draft to the town attorney for review while committee members submit comments to the superintendent within 72 hours.

Committee members discussed timeline and procurement mechanics for selecting an OPM to provide services for stages 3 through 5 of the middle‑school work and for other capital improvement projects. The superintendent and staff laid out a proposed schedule: school committee review on April 8, posting the RFP April 9, a closing date of April 25, and a recommendation to the school committee on May 6 followed by town council action (tentatively May 12). One committee member said the calendar is tight but feasible if the attorney reviews promptly.

Members debated scoring and procurement approach. Staff explained procurement distinctions: an RFQ is typically evaluated on qualifications and may not include price; an RFP can combine qualifications and price using a scoring formula. The draft before the committee contained a voluntary formula assigning points across experience, staff, local presence and cost. Members agreed to send the RFP to counsel and to return comments within 72 hours so the attorney can incorporate them before the April school committee packet is finalized.

Committee members raised several scope points they recommended including or clarifying in the RFP and contract: minimizing disruption to instruction during construction, coordination of parking, drop‑off and traffic during construction, move management and packing/relocation procedures, the OPM’s role in certificate of occupancy and project closeout, and clear delineation of responsibilities between the OPM and the construction manager at risk. Staff noted some of these tasks are often performed by the construction manager but that the OPM must coordinate them. The committee also asked that the RFP reference industry guidance on typical fee percentages for architectural, OPM and commissioning fees to keep soft‑costs within stage 2 allowances.

The committee voted by voice to forward the draft RFP to the attorney and proceed with the timeline described; the transcript does not list a numeric roll‑call of votes. The superintendent will circulate the RFP materials to committee members and post the submission packages and links once finalized.