Board staff presented two acceptable project delivery methods under the administrative procedures noted in the meeting: construction manager at risk (CMAR) and a traditional general contractor approach.

Staff described CMAR as a delivery method in which the construction manager holds subcontract contracts, assists with packaging bid packages later in the process, and takes on schedule and contract risk during construction. The general contractor approach, staff said, relies on the architect to develop the front-end specifications and bid documents; if the board selects a general contract method, the architect could be paid an additional fee (staff cited an example $50,000) to prepare front-end specifications.

Staff estimated that 90–95% of the projects currently under contract overseen by their office use construction manager at risk and that about 18 projects are active in various stages. Staff recommended waiting to issue RFPs for construction manager at risk until after the architect is selected and site selection steps are further along so the CMAR has substantive information to evaluate during selection.

A board member moved to table further action on the delivery method to give members time to consider architect proposals; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. No final procurement or contract was authorized at this meeting on delivery method.