Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Build School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design‑build presented as option for Washington Community Schools' construction project
Summary
At a board work session, consultant Daniel Rollins explained design‑build procurement, arguing it transfers risk and can reduce change orders; the board scheduled preliminary determination hearings in November and December and will hear a Baker Tilly financing briefing.
Mr. Frank opened a Washington Community Schools work session and introduced Daniel Rollins, an architect and certified design‑build professional, who presented options for delivering the district’s planned construction project and took questions from board members and the public.
Rollins framed “project delivery” as the system that organizes design, procurement and construction, and said owners must be clear about goals, legal constraints and when to involve contractors. “As an owner, you need to be proactive and not reactive,” he told the board, urging early engagement with design and trade partners to improve cost and schedule outcomes.
Why it matters: the board is preparing to decide how to procure a major school construction effort. The delivery method affects who holds risk for errors, how contractors are selected, potential for change orders and how quickly a project can be completed. The board announced two preliminary determination hearings — one at its regular November meeting at 7 p.m. and a second hearing in December — and will receive a Baker Tilly presentation on financing at the November hearing.
Rollins reviewed common public‑sector options and contrasted them with design‑build. Under the traditional design‑bid‑build model, he said, owners hire architects to finish full designs and then put the work out to lowest bid; that sequence, he said, can create adversarial relationships and a legal environment that generates change orders. He described a century‑old court doctrine he called the “spirit doctrine,” under which bid documents effectively become a warranty for contractors and can be the legal basis for many change orders.
On expected magnitude of change orders, Rollins gave a rule‑of‑thumb: “If it gets beyond 5%, then that's that's pretty alarming and typically it's around 2%.” He said change orders tied to errors or omissions in documents are a common driver of cost growth in low‑bid work and argued that involving contractors and trade contractors earlier can reduce that risk.
Rollins described design‑build as an integrated contract for both design and construction in which the design‑build team warrants that the finished product will meet performance requirements the owner sets (energy use, durability, number of classrooms, technology standards), rather than prescribing every product or detail in advance. “Design‑build is an integration of design and construction,” he said, adding that the model can eliminate the standard change‑order basis created by the spirit doctrine and encourage collaborative solutions.
He explained procurement variations: a two‑step best‑value RFQ/RFP process that shortlists three teams and evaluates technical and price proposals, and progressive design‑build, where a team is selected early and final scope and price are negotiated collaboratively. Rollins said progressive design‑build can be faster and less expensive for proposers because it reduces the cost of competition and allows the owner and team to develop the design together.
Board members pressed for practical detail. When asked what percentage a district should plan for change orders, Rollins repeated his guidance that well‑executed projects tend to be around 2% and that higher levels are cause for concern. He also said staff and teachers should be involved early to distinguish needs from wants and to protect learning environments during construction.
During public comment, an audience member with industrial construction experience urged the district not to act as its own construction manager, saying owner‑led projects he observed produced conflicts and large overruns. The commenter said he had seen projects “a $100,000,000 over budget and a year after when they're supposed to be done,” and recommended design‑build to reduce owner risk.
What the board will do next: Mr. Frank closed the session by announcing the district will hold preliminary determination hearings — the first at the regular November board meeting at 7 p.m. at the central office and a second in December — and said Baker Tilly will present on tax‑neutral bonding and financing options at the November hearing. The hearings are the next formal steps before any bond issuance or procurement decision.
No motions or votes were taken at the work session.
