School building committee endorses design‑bid‑build approach for Blackstone‑Millville high school

The Blackstone‑Millville School Building Committee voted unanimously March 11 to endorse the design‑bid‑build (DBB) delivery method for the towns’ high‑school replacement project.

The motion to “endorse the design bid build approach” was moved and seconded, and a roll‑call vote recorded members Mike Buckley, Mary, Terry, Jen, Jane Reio, Scott, Jill Pilgalerani, Kristen Donado, Jeff Silverstein, Chuck, Tara Larkin, Rachel Anderson and Sarah Peters as voting yes. Tara Larkin, who led the meeting, announced the motion passed.

Consultants and project staff said the choice reflects the project’s character as a largely new‑construction job and the MSBA schedule: the Massachusetts School Building Authority approved the project’s PSR on Feb. 25 and the work is now moving into schematic design. Vivian (project presenter) told the committee that DBB (referenced in the discussion as Massachusetts Chapter 149) requires fully completed construction documents before final bids and selects the lowest responsive, responsible bidder from a prequalified pool; she contrasted that with CM‑at‑risk (Chapter 149A), which brings a construction manager on earlier and results in a guaranteed maximum price.

“DBB awards based on the lowest responsive and responsible bidder,” a DRRA presenter said when explaining procurement steps, adding that both public methods use a prequalification process for prime contractors and that the filed sub‑bidders (trades) are solicited in either case.

The committee and consultants discussed cost and risk tradeoffs. The PSR‑level cost estimates presented to the group showed a total project estimate of roughly $189 million under DBB and roughly $199 million under CMR — a difference the presenters described as “a little over $10 million” and on the order of a few percent in the models used for the PSR submission. The consultants emphasized that contingency lines and owner‑level allowances are included in the total project budget and that MSBA accounting and district appropriation rules govern how savings and overruns are handled.

Design representatives from DRA Architects and Colliers (project advisers) told the committee they have worked with both delivery methods and said DBB was reasonable for this project’s scale and complexity; Colliers and DRRA noted that CMR remains an acceptable choice if the committee prefers more early contractor involvement. “I don’t feel like this project is so complex that it would require a CMR,” one presenter said, while acknowledging sanitary sewer phasing as one potentially complex element.

Committee members asked about contingency sizes, warranty periods and who bears responsibility for change orders; presenters confirmed warranty durations are specified in the project specifications for both delivery methods and that the owner’s project manager will provide on‑site oversight regardless of the procurement path.

Next steps: with the DBB approach endorsed, the project will proceed through schematic design and a cost‑estimate reconciliation planned for May, with MSBA reviews in June and August and a planned SD submission vote later in the spring. The consultants reminded the committee that MSBA guidance requires selecting a delivery method during the schematic phase so cost estimators can proceed with the appropriate assumptions.

Action recorded: motion to endorse DBB passed by roll‑call vote.