Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner's‑rep outlines process safeguards and examples of savings for proposed Arrowhead capital project
Summary
An owner's‑rep consultant described RFP design, construction‑management selection, contract baselines, bid competition and invoice audits as mechanisms to reduce project cost and risk, citing prior projects that yielded six‑figure to multi‑million‑dollar savings.
Kurt, an owner’s‑rep consultant with Building Solutions, explained the firm’s role in large K–12 projects and how owner advocacy can reduce costs. He described using a clear RFP baseline to compare the originally budgeted scenario with the final project, insisting on competitive subcontract bidding (minimum bids in each category) and performing invoice and payoff audits to catch errors.
Kurt said those steps can recover material sums: he cited a recent $80 million project where proactive bidding and oversight returned roughly $5.6 million in tangible savings to the client (including about $1 million from improving competition on demolition and concrete packages). "I've never done a project where we haven't found errors on invoices," he told the board.
Kurt also summarized how the contract with the construction manager (BJS) was set up during the RFP to include management plans, contingencies and clear adjustment methods if scope or schedule change between baseline and final design. He described typical owner‑rep tasks—change‑order negotiation, bond and fee reviews, and oversight of self‑performed work—and said the district’s competitive RFP and contract provide foundation to defend process decisions to the public.
Board members asked about the owner's‑rep fee model and examples of savings; Kurt said his firm charges a percentage tied to project size and timeline rather than a contingency on realized savings. He offered to remain engaged if a referendum passes and to continue advocating for competitive procurement and invoice verification.
No contract was approved at the workshop; the presentation was informational to explain oversight options for a potential capital project.
