Asheville City Schools hears three firms pitch facility feasibility studies, including early‑childhood and county collaboration options

The Asheville City Schools Board of Education heard three firms present proposals for a facilities feasibility study that the district issued by competitive request for proposals.

Superintendent Maggie, who led the item, told the board that the RFP sought firms to examine enrollment projections, building capacity and site footprints and to provide “potential restructuring ways that we could maximize and be most efficient on our current footprint,” as well as to assess early childhood capacity and options for combined services with Buncombe County Schools.

McMillan Pazdon Smith emphasized K‑12 architectural experience and a two‑phase approach: a boots‑on‑the‑ground facility discovery and a longer planning phase that would produce both a maintenance plan with prioritized budgets and longer‑term options such as consolidation, renovations or new construction. Presenter Aubrey Donnellan said the firm would marry condition assessments and utilization to provide “data driven decisions” for the board.

MGT Impact Solutions framed its proposal around data integration and transparent community engagement. MGT said it would produce building‑level condition assessments, prioritized budgets and an interactive community engagement process that uses heat maps and polling to produce “ambassadors” who can share the results with the community. Presenter Lance Richards said MGT would deliver “actionable phased recommendations” and budget estimates.

Perkins Eastman highlighted its research‑based approach and an educational adequacy assessment layered on top of technical building condition work. Perkins Eastman said it pairs engineering assessments and cost estimating (Axios) with a rubric that rates how well spaces support modern teaching and learning. The team also showed interactive mapping tools to model enrollment, access and equity impacts.

Board members asked about cost, timelines and community engagement. McMillan Pazdon Smith estimated roughly $282,500 for its line‑item proposal and an about‑eight‑month timeline; Perkins Eastman offered a not‑to‑exceed price of $335,000 tied to scope assumptions; MGT described fixed pricing tied to the RFP scope. Firms said community engagement could include web surveys, teacher and student input, task forces and joint sessions with county commissioners where appropriate.

Several board members asked whether selection of a firm obligates the district to sign a contract; counsel and the superintendent confirmed that the superintendent’s authority is limited and the board would need to approve any contract in excess of the superintendent’s procurement authority.

The presentations positioned the study to address two questions the board emphasized in the RFP: whether Asheville City Schools has capacity to expand early childhood programs and what opportunities exist for shared services or coinvestments with Buncombe County Schools. The board will receive the firms’ written proposals, scoring sheets and a recommendation from procurement staff; the superintendent said she would return to the board with a contract for approval if a firm is selected.

Ending: The board did not select a firm during the meeting. Members were given scoring sheets to evaluate the three finalists and told those public records will be collected and reviewed; the superintendent will use board input to recommend a provider at a future meeting.