Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rockingham County Schools board awards project‑management RFQ to HICAPS
Summary
After presentations from three shortlisted firms, the Rockingham County Schools board voted to award the project‑management RFQ (agenda item 7.3) to HICAPS, citing the firm's local team and experience. The decision followed questions about change orders, schedule and community engagement.
The Rockingham County Schools Board of Education on Tuesday night voted to award agenda item 7.3 — the district's request for qualifications to serve as project manager for a replacement elementary‑school project — to HICAPS.
The board amended the published agenda at the start of the meeting to add the RFQ vote and then heard 10–15 minute presentations from three shortlisted firms: HICAPS, MBP (McDonald, Bollier & Peck) and MEG. After a round of board questions on change‑order history, scheduling and community engagement, a motion "based on local availability" to award the RFQ to HICAPS was made, seconded and approved by voice vote.
HICAPS founder Dan Hood and vice president Peyton Fairbank emphasized the firm's local presence and K–12 experience. "We are truly local," Fairbank said during the presentation, noting members of the proposed project team live within 20–25 miles of the project site. HICAPS told the board it has completed about $4,000,000,000 in K–12 design and construction work and currently holds approximately $900,000,000 under contract, and that its services include value engineering, safety and logistics planning, public dashboards and post‑closeout support.
MBP and MEG each described their owner‑representation approach and track records. MBP highlighted its independence as an owner representative (it does no general contracting or design) and the use of tools such as HoloBuilder and public dashboards; MEG emphasized community engagement, workforce development and experience coordinating with historic‑preservation bodies on older school projects.
Board members pressed all three firms on change‑order performance and schedule. MBP cited under‑2% change‑order experience on recent projects; MEG said it initially proposed a conservative 2029 delivery window but could accelerate to 2028; HICAPS described proactive scope control and estimation resources to limit change orders.
The RFQ the board voted on was described in meeting materials and by members during the meeting with inconsistent spellings in various documents and in the transcript (Riggs/Ritzville/Reedsville/Haysville). The motion and subsequent board action refer to the RFQ as the district's request for a project manager for the proposed replacement elementary school under agenda item 7.3.
The board did not record a roll‑call vote; the chair announced the motion passed by voice vote. Board members and staff said the selected project manager will be involved in the upcoming selection of the design team and in coordinating the schedule and public engagement for the project.
Next steps: HICAPS will be engaged as the district's project manager for the RFQ scope and is expected to work with the board and staff during the upcoming design‑team interviews and selections.
