Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Giza Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Radnor facilities committee advances Guaranteed Energy Savings Act advertisement for district office
Summary
Radnor Township SD staff sought permission to advertise an RFQ under the Guaranteed Energy Savings Act (referred to in the meeting as Giza) for renovation work at the district administration building; administration argued GESA could reduce change orders and improve subcontractor selection, and the committee moved the advertisement to the March 24 board meeting.
At the March 10 facilities committee meeting, administration reintroduced consultant David Schrader and invited him and Site Logic to explain the Guaranteed Energy Savings Act procurement approach (referred to in the meeting as “Giza”) and how it might be applied to a renovation of the district administration building.
Schrader (Shrader Group) said GESA is typically used for renovations that reduce energy or utility costs and is performance‑based: a provider (also called an energy service company or ESCO) proposes improvements and expected energy/utility savings, with actual savings measured after completion. He said eligible scopes commonly include HVAC, lighting, roof, windows and work to the building envelope; GESA can be combined with cooperative purchasing in a hybrid model when some site or specialty scopes (flooring, casework, major site work) remain direct owner contracts.
Proponents argued the model enables pre‑qualification of subcontractors, early collaboration between designers and subcontractors during pre‑construction, and more transparent, open‑book pricing — all of which, they said, reduce the frequency and cost of change orders compared with traditional design‑bid‑build procurement. Schrader described the 15% incidental work allowance (work performed while crews are on site) and said the GESA contractor generally coordinates subcontractors while the architect remains a third‑party quality arbiter.
Committee members raised standard procurement and accountability questions: whether GESA increases overall cost, who holds contractual accountability, how subcontractors are selected (competitive bids from a pre‑qualified pool, not public bid day take‑it‑or‑leave‑it), and whether the district can exclude specific firms. Staff said the selection of a GESA firm requires a public RFQ advertisement under state regulations; the RFQ seeks qualifications and administration plans to return with a recommendation promptly. Administration proposed advertising the RFQ with a target timeline (RFQs due April 8), planned to present a recommendation to the facilities committee in April and asked the committee to allow the advertisement to run (the committee agreed to move the advertisement authority to the March 24 board meeting).
One committee member said they opposed moving forward with the process; others supported advertising to allow time to evaluate respondents. Administration said the GESA approach would not eliminate the district’s existing board approval steps (schematic approval, design development approval and construction document estimates) and that the district would continue to bring key milestones to the board.
Next step: the committee agreed to move the advertisement for a GESA firm to the full board for consideration at the March 24 meeting; administration said it expects to return with a recommendation in April following the RFQ response period.
