After past community backlash, committee presses staff for clearer ‘value engineering’ timing and notice
Summary
Board members told staff the policy on value engineering should explicitly say when value engineering may occur and how the community will be informed after prior controversy over removing elements after project presentations.
Members of the Fairfax County School Board Governance Committee told staff on Jan. 20 that a value-engineering policy needs clearer timing and notification language after a past controversy in which components were removed from a school project after community review.
Dr. Anderson recalled the episode at Falls Church High School where, he said, the project “was presented and then went back and value engineered and pieces were taken out,” a sequence that left community members feeling blindsided. Committee members said the policy and accompanying regulations should be explicit about when value engineering may happen and how the public will be informed.
Staff and facilities leaders explained that value engineering can occur at multiple points in project delivery. Mister Gordon said it can happen before bidding during the design process or after a bid bust when the district must adjust scope to make the project awardable. He added that the current move toward a construction-manager-at-risk procurement model should reduce late-stage surprises because more information about cost is available earlier in the process.
Mr. Frisch offered draft implementation language the committee asked staff to consider: “the division superintendent shall establish regulations and procedures requiring that all school construction projects be value engineered as standard practice and that value engineered outcomes remain aligned with community expectations wherever possible with the community engaged and informed throughout the process.” Members asked that the policy both endorse value engineering as a standard practice and make plain to the public that it may—rarely—lead to scope changes after initial presentations.
Why it matters: capital projects involve large budgets and public expectations; clear, public-facing policy language can reduce community surprise and increase trust when design elements change for budgetary or procurement reasons.
Next steps: the committee paused further action on Policy 82-75 while staff drafts text that includes Mr. Frisch’s implementation suggestion, adds explicit notification language and cross-references relevant procurement and community-engagement regulations. The item will return to the Governance Committee for review before any full-board action.
