Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architects recommend CMAR delivery after feasibility study of district projects
Summary
Pearson Architecture and construction partners briefed the board on a feasibility study and recommended using Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) delivery to improve early budgeting, constructability review and schedule certainty for phased school projects; presenters noted state statute governs the alternate‑delivery process.
Consultants from Pearson Architecture and construction partners presented a facilities feasibility update and discussed the merits of Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) delivery at the Oct. 8 board meeting.
A lead presenter recommended CMAR for major, phased work and described several advantages: early contractor involvement for constructability reviews, an open‑book budgeting approach with recurring budget updates, a guaranteed maximum price, and the ability to procure long‑lead mechanical and electrical equipment earlier in the schedule. "CMAR allows a contractor to be engaged during design," a contractor presenter said, noting that early engagement can prevent late surprises and reduce change orders.
Presenters said the district's middle‑school work is likely to be complex and will require careful phasing and frequent coordination with school schedules to preserve operations during construction. They described a three‑stage statutory selection process that begins with a statement-of-qualifications, shortlisting of 3–5 firms, interviews and a weighted scoring system that includes fee proposals.
The consultants advised regular owner–architect–contractor meetings through design and construction, a conservative contingency approach during early budgeting and documentation to support competitive subcontract bidding. They also referenced earlier projects where the approach delivered predictable outcomes and discussed tradeoffs compared with traditional design–bid–build procurement.
The board asked about historical completion rates and how much scope typically remains uncompleted after bonds and construction; presenters said contingencies and early communication generally help districts complete most intended scope, though some trade‑offs and substitutions occasionally occur when budgets constrain the full wish list.
The presentation did not prompt a board vote; consultants recommended the board consider CMAR as the district refines scope and cost in the feasibility study.
