Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Architect Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town of Westborough committee recommends BFE as primary architect for Golf Club feasibility study in 5–2 vote
Summary
The Town of Westborough Municipal Building Committee voted 5–2 to recommend BFE as the primary architect to perform a feasibility study for the Golf Club building and named Smook as the alternate; the committee directed staff to send a contract and scheduled follow-up meetings.
The Town of Westborough Municipal Building Committee voted 5–2 at its meeting to recommend BFE as the primary architect to conduct a feasibility study for the Golf Club building, with Smook named as the backup firm.
Committee members said the decision followed review of three proposals and interviews called for by the request for proposals. One evaluator said Smook scored highly for local fit and technical merit, while others favored BFE for presentation strength and available resources, leading to a split among members before the roll call.
"I thought Smook had the best proposal," an evaluator identified in the record as Speaker 6 said during the discussion, adding that Smook and BFE were the top-rated teams. Another committee member said BFE "was very enthusiastic" in its interview and emphasized prefab construction options the firm presented.
Speaker 4 moved to recommend entering negotiations with the top-picked firm and to identify a second firm as an alternate; the motion was seconded and carried on a recorded vote of 5–2. Speaker 1 announced the result: "We are going with, BFE," and the committee recorded the tally as five in favor and two opposed.
After the vote, Speaker 7 said they would send the contract package to the recommended firm and post the award; the firm was given 10 business days to return a signed contract. Committee members noted that the price proposals are fixed as submitted in the RFP and that successful contract execution remains subject to completing the formal contracting process.
Members also discussed whether a small subcommittee should meet more frequently with the architect to advance the work between full monthly meetings. Some cautioned that subcommittee meetings can limit full-committee input and recommended appointing a point person to handle logistical issues and relay information back to the full committee.
The committee scheduled follow-up meetings for June 27, July 11 and July 25 to receive updates and, if needed, to hear the architect’s presentation. The committee adjourned by unanimous voice vote.
