Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Performance Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves business and personnel resolutions after debate over 5% advisory fee for proposed EPC
Summary
Board members questioned scope and a 5% advisory fee for a professional services firm to assist on a proposed energy performance contract; assistant superintendent Glenn O'Curie said the firm would prepare the RFP and assist through implementation and that the 5% applies to the SED‑approved EPC value. The board approved the resolution and other block resolutions unanimously (7–0).
During the business and operations portion of the June 18 meeting, board members focused questions on a proposed agreement for professional services in support of an energy performance contract (EPC).
A member asked whether the 5% fee tied to the item (referenced in discussion as item 315) represented design work or an advisory role and whether the firm would act as an owner’s representative during construction. Assistant Superintendent for Business and Operations Glenn O'Curie responded that the firm (identified in the discussion as a firm of architects) would not design the project. "They are not designing the project," he said, describing the role as preparing the district’s RFP, reviewing responses, helping organize vendor presentations and assisting with implementation and final punch‑list activities. He added the 5% is calculated on the State Education Department (SED)‑approved value of the energy performance contract and is paid from escrow if the EPC proceeds.
Board members pressed for clarity about how the fee compares with prior work; O'Curie noted that in a prior EPC (cited in the transcript as $13,000,000) a vendor was paid about $1,500,000 for initial RFP review services and that the current arrangement was presented as providing broader services beyond that earlier engagement. One member said the scope description and fee level "have me a little concerned," and the board discussed the option of tabling the item and issuing a new RFP.
After questions and discussion about contingency language and what services would be provided during construction, the board voted to approve the business and operations resolutions, including the EPC advisory services item; the chair announced the vote as 7–0. The meeting proceeded to approve personnel resolutions and adjourn.
The record shows the board approved routine minutes, financial reports and group resolutions (Board of Education resolutions and human resources lists) earlier in the meeting by voice vote (each reported as 7–0).
