more on the on-going process

more on the on-going process of selecting architects, contractors, and an “owner’s representative.”

The School Board voted to adopt a relatively recently approved delivery model for the architectural and construction work envisioned to be completed once Issue 81 passes.  

This delivery model allows the district to select an architectural firm based on its assessment of “best value,” not merely “lowest price.”  This allows the district to weigh various criteria (such as proximity, relevant experience, proposed methods for continuing public engagement in the design process, etc.)  in an attempt to find the best “fit” for our community and our project.  [Oscar Wilde’s remark, “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing”  is still apt.  In my line of work, there are often multiple parts suppliers at a variety of price levels.  Like the School Board, we try to navigate towards the one that offers the best value, the most “bang for the buck.”  This is not necessarily the cheapest one, but it’s usually the one that lasts the longest, costs the least per mile, or in some other way represents the best value for that particular customer and his/her current situation.  As it happens, it is usually neither the most nor the least expensive option.]

A similar winnowing process will be followed in selecting a “construction manager-at-risk.”  This is also a relatively newly approved procedure for public contracts in Ohio.  It allows the district to negotiate a “Guaranteed Maximum Price” [ GMP] along with a strict scheduling deadline.  Any construction cost overruns beyond the GMP are swallowed by the CMAR.  

The district will also select an “Owner’s Representative” who will birddog the project on the district’s behalf, making sure that all work and materials meet specifications before payment is made.  (Don’t worry, there is also a Citizens’ Oversight Committee to ride herd on the owner’s rep and everyone else.)

The administration has asked a number of people to participate in the evaluation and interview process for these positions.  Included are a number of district employees, including teachers, administrators, tradespeople, custodians, and others.  There are also a few “community members,” including members of CH and UH City Councils,  as well as  Jim Cull, Garry Kanter, Jodi Sourini, and me. (Of course, a number of the district employees are also residential members of our community as well.)  While it’s an unusually large and somewhat unwieldy group for such a task, I am pleased to see how well the administration has been actively listening to our community and how well they have tried to include our concerns in the various “Requests for Proposals” they have issued for this project.  I am particularly pleased to see that the custodial and trades staff are at the table.  I believe they have a tremendous amount of practical insight to offer to this process.  Would I feel so hopeful were I not included myself?  I’d like to think so, at least so long as there was someone to represent my perspectives on sustainability.  

Some folks have been surprised to learn that the selection process is already under way.  Of course it is! Obviously, it’s all contingent on passage of Issue 81, but the timeline is short, so it’s the prudent path to prepare by pre-selecting the folks we’ll be relying on to get things done right and on time.  

Does this mean that the plan is set in stone?  No, we’re trying to select a stonemason first.  Is it that “the fix is in?”   Again, no.  But we need to be ready to start the “programming phase” of the design process as soon as we reasonably can.  The architects to be selected will have their work cut out for them trying to digest and integrate the wealth of suggestions that all of us (not just at the committee table, but in the greater community as well) have for them.  

All of which raises some questions of interest:

• How do you feel the architects could best publicize their upcoming efforts to engage the community’s expertise?  How can they best engage you in the process?

• Do you have specific ideas that you think they could benefit from?

• Are there ideas you’d like to explore and develop with others in the community?

Finally, a comment asked whether I am a district employee.  No, I am a private citizen.  I am an alumnus of the district, a local resident and property owner, and the owner of a small business in Cleveland Heights.  I have no financial interests of any kind in the schools beyond those of any (and every) property owner and resident who wants his or her town and its schools to do well.  I have spent literally hundreds of hours of my own time on this ever-evolving facilities project, often as a critic, out of a simple sense of civic responsibility, just as I continued to serve as an Assistant Scoutmaster long after my kids were done with scouting, or as a Ski Patroller for over a decade.  (And, no, no one in my family is employed by the district in any way, shape or form.)