Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atlantic board debates procurement model for bond-funded construction; no decision
Summary
Board members spent the bulk of the meeting weighing two procurement approaches for upcoming bond-funded school construction — construction manager as adviser (CMA) versus construction manager at risk (CMR) — citing trade-offs in speed, administrative load and contractual risk; no selection was made.
The Atlantic Comm School District board devoted a lengthy discussion at its Dec. 10 meeting to how the district should procure contractors for projects funded by a recently passed bond.
Superintendent Dr. Johnson outlined two approaches under consideration: a construction manager as adviser (CMA), in which the district would hold contracts and the adviser would play an advisory/coordination role, and a construction manager at risk (CMR), which places the prime contract and related risk with the contractor and typically simplifies monthly pay applications and subcontract administration. Dr. Johnson said the district had already done preparatory work in an earlier workshop and that the selection affects timelines and the superintendent’s involvement.
Board members raised practical concerns. Several said the CMA could accelerate start-up because it allows the district to manage bid packages and keep more direct control; others said CMR shifts risk to the contractor and simplifies administration because one contractor pays subcontractors and submits single pay applications. One member said the CMA model may require substantial time from central-office staff: “With the CMA the district holds the contracts. So I would be supervising the contracts,” the superintendent explained during the discussion.
Members debated trade-offs around speed, oversight and staff workload. Some board members said they felt an urgency to start construction sooner rather than later; others urged caution and recommended slowing the process to ensure the district has the staff capacity and clarity on legal steps (RFP/NOI/RFQ sequences) required by either model. Board members also discussed the use of a scoring matrix and prequalification process for interviews and stressed the architect’s comfort with the chosen model.
No formal motion was recorded at the meeting to select CMA or CMR. The board agreed to continue the conversation and indicated interviews with candidate firms and further review of timelines and contract administration will occur in coming weeks.
The discussion leaves the district with next steps that include confirming a procurement timetable, deciding whether to start interviews in January or later, and clarifying the superintendent’s level of involvement under each model.
