Welcome to the Thursday, March 19th, 2026 meeting of the Margarite E. Small Building Committee. Please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Uh we will start with uh updates uh from the MSBA board meeting. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Uh so uh
first page of the packet just uh the official letter from the MSBA uh which followed the board meeting uh inviting us into the next phase uh into the feasibility
um study phase. So, uh, I was able, this was, uh, the the date of the meeting was actually sort of in our during our snowmageddon, snow, whatever phrase you want to use that we had the uh, week
after February school vacation. Um while we were simultaneously running shelter operations out of the high school, I was able to get on the Zoom meeting um from the principal's um office in the high school and I wasn't as prepared for the
meeting as I was hoping to be. Um but uh was still able to, you know, say on behalf of the district, you know, how grateful that we were to MSBA for, you know, being invited into this next phase. speak about uh our uh
appreciation for the work in partnership with the town of Yarmouth both on the staff side and the elected official side and again the you know we have one liaison uh specifically at MSBA who's been our go-to up until this point and
you know being able to thank that person um as well as being able to thank the board or the committee rather the building committee uh for your work uh thus far and helping us and the continued work and then just our excitement about continuing through the next stage stages in the process. But what the the you all have in your packet
is the official letter that then followed that board uh meeting um which just basically just says you've been accepted into the next phase um and outlines uh not really outlines just sort of summarizes the fact that we've been accepted and uh what feas the
feasibility phase is and is not. Um so that that's that's about that was you know we were on there with several other districts both for this process plus you know the board meeting included districts that were getting awarded funding for building
districts that were getting awarded funding for um uh that were being invited into the eligibility period. districts that were being in uh invited uh for their um accelerated repair
program. So there's a bunch of districts on there for a bunch of different reasons. Um but uh fortunately we were up in the front and uh so I didn't have to stay for the whole meeting. Um and I think that's about all I have to report on that. I'll take any questions if there are any. >> Any questions about the actual
invitation? We'll talk about what's next after that, but Seeing none, we'll move to the the owner's project manager, which we'll refer to as OPM. You'll hear that often in the next couple years. Um the request for services selection.
All right. So, as the chair mentioned, so next step, and I think I mentioned this at our last meeting, the next big step for us as a group is the OPM selection process. And um I think I've
thoroughly beaten this horse dead, but it bears repeating that everything with the MSBA is a process. Um everything MSBA outlines the process. They have templates for the process. They have templates for their templates. Um and
there's uh it so it's very cut and dry and everything needs to be approved and run back through MSBA. So where we are right now is in early stages in getting our RFS or our request for services
um ready to be published for selecting a uh OPM or owner's project manager. So there in order there's a a a rough schedule for uh what the district has to do. Um, so
we have to draft and I'm going to talk about um this in more detail in a second, but there's like there are in order for us to get um in in front of the the MSBA OPM panel because we have
to go in front of an OPM panel to get approved before we can actually put our our uh RFS out for public um bidding by um potential OPMs. We have to um have
uh you know it has to go out you know it has to go out in a central registar and but we have to first get our draft to MSBA for approval which means it has to go through us and then before that we're going to have to run it through our own
legal counsel. So, there are certain dates in order for us to get to a meeting um an approval by MSBA, we're going to have we there are um and and even after we go through a process where we select an OPM, we have to go back to
MSBA and get approval for the group that we've selected, right? So, in order to stick with all those timelines, there are dates that we have to hit. So, like for example, if we wanted to hit and then and then the MSBA review board only meets at certain times, right? So, if we
wanted to hit a June 17th date, for example, we would have to have um this document finished by April 23rd to have it advertised. And that's it has to be all draft reviewed by by um MSBA all
finalized and fully approved by MSBA by April 23rd in order to get to the registar the central registar by May 7th to be advertised by the 13th to have all applications in by everybody by May 27th um in order to get to that meeting for
June 17th. So again everything is very structured with MSBA. Um, so I'm not we're trying to move this process as along as fast as possible. Um, and
we're ambitious, but then also they only um the MSB only lets so many districts into each of these meetings. So I think it's if I remember correctly um there's only two districts that get to go to one of the panel meetings at a time. So if
you don't get into and but then you also can't sign up for a panel meeting until you're ready to get into some of the earlier stages. So until you have your draft ready, you can't say yes, I'd like to be at the June 13th meeting. So there's all these sort of contingencies for when you can get to certain things.
So we are hopeful to get to the um or where we've roughly told our to be a little bit conservative. What we're shooting for is the August panel meeting which is August. I have this in a separate document here. August 3rd is the one that we're shooting for. Um
gives us a little bit of a little bit more runway um to get, you know, with all the other stuff we were trying to get done in the district and get this done at the same time. Um, but we're we are moving along and what I have for you all and we're going to spend uh spend a
little bit of hoping to spend a little bit of time with tonight is uh I have been able to go through the template document. So this what you have the next 29 pages in the packet is the
uh the template the RFS the request for services template that comes from MSBA and then what we what we are required to do as a district is to go through this and there are sections in it where it's boilerplate we don't get to make changes
and then there's uh in uh a section where it says okay the district must and And then you have to insert certain information. Um so for example, if you uh go to page two in this document, some of it's basic like you have to enter
your town or city or district name, right? Um but then other stuff is like you have to provide background information on the district. And then you get further into this and it's going to be uh the selection criteria. Again, they outline the selection criteria, but
we have to assign point waiting like so how do we uh value uh and compare one? So, when we're going to get to get all these applications in, how are we going to weigh one criteria over another criteria? So,
I've gone through this document and taken a first pass at all of this, everything that was required to be edited, but I'm one person sitting at my computer doing this stuff um over a couple days while I was, you know, had a couple screens open and was probably working on a few other things at the
same time. So, what I'm looking for from the committee, uh, so the next steps after this will be once we finalize it as a group is then I'll send it to legal counsel, get have them look it over, and then we'll send it to MSBA and they're going to send it back edits. I I know
they will. But, um, before sending it to MSBA, I want it to run through us, run through legal, and then go send it off to MSBA. It'll be a back and forth process because everything, like I said, has to go through MSBA. Um, so what I was
hoping to do was to have us because um, you all just got this yesterday or the day before, so you probably haven't had a ton of time to read this over in your free time. So I wanted to through the chair give everybody some time to go through and all the changes are in red line. So that's where you see a change,
right? Um, and there are a couple places where I've actually have a couple of comments. Um, you'll see there aren't too many places, but in the sidebar outside of like the italic where it'll say like a format change, but there's a couple places where I have like actual comments because I'm waiting for either a legal opinion or I know I have to seek
one. Um, like there's a a purple section where um I need to get information from legal like I've highlighted that section. So um there there are very few of those, but there are a couple places where I inserted a comment. Um, but
anyway, so what I was hoping to do was to have some time for everybody to go through this, make any comments, and then so I don't know, 15, 20 minutes for people to read through this, make any notations that they have for themselves, and then for us to have a conversation, um, and then I can go back and take any
edits from this group back to this document, uh, and then send it off to legal before and then bring it back to our next meeting. the um the the the com combination of both what this group provides as edits and what illegal
provides as edits and then submit it to MSBA is my thought sort of on a timing process. >> Any questions? >> I think we're all reading. Okay. So, we have about 15 minutes. It should be about right about 5:00
and we will reconvene. I don't know if you can play music for the one person watching or not. They can mute us and turn their TV back up. have about two more minutes. Anyone need more time?
Seeing none. Um, Dr. Smith, it's easiest to go page by page and, you know, raise your hand if there's something that you see. We'll start on page two, the first page with red. The only thing I noticed was uh in
number two background it says six school should say schools before five buildings because the sentence were we who were educated in six schools within the district. Anything else on page two? >> Sorry, page two paragraph two.
>> Uh this is Richard Simon. um to identify consolidation of a state station avenue elementary uh as one of the options. Uh we had also discussed other possible options. So uh at another townown school building which would be potentially
MacArthur uh Madaks as well theoretically u not to take them off the table as a question. Um so that was thing that was on page one. Sorry. And I guess that's the question. Do we
have to >> Yeah. How comprehensive does the list? >> Right. Because I the purpose is for them to evaluate, but do we have to put it in scope for again this is for the OPM, not necessarily for the feasibility. >> Correct. That's my question. >> Right.
>> So >> I guess that's a question we'll have answered. So we'll put a question mark next to it. >> Yeah. Let me sorry. Um that is a good question to which I'll get some um because later um in here somewhere I have like
page four identification of community concerns that may impact study options including a study of options that include a no build I should say for constituents. I left the s off, but um so yeah, do we need to list all the
options or does the process expand all the options? So, I'll I'll consult MSBA and get some clarification on that cuz the MSBA process was either a standalone building or
consolidate and that was like sort of what like from their big picture it's like are we looking at an enrollment for just a single school or are we looking at an enrollment that could potentially include those two schools? schools. I
think that's all they care about from like like what number of kids are we potentially talking about. But let me get some clarity because I would assume we'd be doing something similar for the feasibility study giving parameters I would assume
at some point, but we'll get clarity on that. Anything else on page two? Seeing none, we'll may move to page three. Anyone see anything or have any feedback or questions on page three?
>> I do have a question. >> Thanks. >> Um, officials from Dennis are in on the loop and I see Dennis mentioned. Is there any expectation that Dennis is going to participate in this in any way? >> That's what I think. >> No, this is just providing back this
section is just providing background on the district. Yeah. So I was just un just trying to provide some background for somebody who has no idea about yeah about that we are part of a region that includes two towns and it's governed by
a regional agreement but in this particular case with this particular school because of the regional agreement this project only invol involves one of the two towns. >> I have a question.
>> Sure. So um in the first paragraph on there it says the new school design will need to consider these students needs carefully um talking specifically about some of the um students with special needs should it be I know it's word smithing
but need to consider or that needs to be included in the design like is that are those services going to continue >> sorry which paragraph are you first >> on the top of this page. >> Yes. >> Yeah. All right. Sorry. Um
>> last sentence, first paragraph. A new school design will need to consider these. Um Miss Sullivan saying, do we say must include these instead of needs to consider I think is the question, >> right? Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Rather than not giving them a choice, say that
>> it must include >> new school design must >> include >> consider these student needs carefully. Is that what you're saying? I think well she's saying are we allowing them to consider it or are we telling them it has to have it I guess is >> right well right will that with students with special needs will still be in the
in the school building right so it's not really >> right >> I mean it has to be included >> yeah okay >> so they can make that >> the question is saying to must include instead of use the word need to consider right yeah or some type of >> definitive thing of that it has to
include Give me time to write. Any other questions on page three? Page four. There's a lot of red, so I'm sure questions. Miss Mahadei. >> Thank you. Um, my first one is we have a plaque in the building that says it was
built in 1963. Is that >> okay? I this this almost a whole chunk of this I pulled off the S soi which I and the S so SOI I revised but I wasn't
the original drafter of the original S so SOI. So, um, >> all right. >> I think the brick is the first the year they put the first brick on, right? Cuz Mr. Sears, if I'm correct, this building says the year before it opened as well.
>> On the outside, >> I think it's the year the first brick is put, not necessarily the year it's opened. >> So, I think that's we can we can verify, but I know for this building. >> So, you're thinking 63 versus 64? >> I think it's 63. >> All right. Let me do some verification.
Um, I have a couple more things and they're on the good news side. Um, thanks to our maintenance team, we no longer have the five gallons of water. We have water fountains that work and they have filters. Um, so that's
um been solved and we do not have the same um consistent problems with one bathroom that doesn't work. >> Okay. Shout out to Steve. >> Thank you, Miss Foucher and her team.
>> Emily, >> um I just have a question about the last sentence in that really big chunk right there. And maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but it says construction of a new Emmy Emmy small elementary school is the most desirable solution. And I wasn't sure if we're really allowed to specify
that before the feasibility study. >> I had rework this as a note to myself because again I copied and pasted this from the um SOI. So in the SOI we're really trying to make the case for you know >> right >> push us you know to the front of the
line. And so it really needs to so I had scratched out like that part and had for and it still needs some reworking but like for all these reasons a desirable um solution would take the current building out of service due to the
extensive needs for major renovation something along those lines. It just needs some reworking but you're right it it forecasts a solution before all the options have been studied. So it does need I had written myself a note to rework
So, thank you. We're flagging that. Okay, Mr. Sears, >> uh, CM at risk has been struck out. Is there a reason for that? So just when I looked into that um >> method >> method u it just seemed like something
that we internally did not have the capacity to So are you familiar with CM at risk? >> A little not a lot. >> Yeah. So it just it we you keep the designer and the like you hire well one
we didn't approach it up front. So like you would hire the construction manager upfront and the construction manager would um be brought in like earlier in the process. So we would have had to have request ear like money from the
town earlier >> to bring the construction designer. Now there are potentially some potential for savings but you then have to be the gobetween between the construction person and the um uh the designer. And I I just I know
pretty confident we don't have the capacity internally to manage that type um as opposed to the design bid build um process which >> we're more familiar with. So I I again if we want to consider it we would just
have to change our trajectory. >> Yeah. The and I didn't realize that difference but I know that the contractor who did this school apparently I was told maybe I'm wrong but they would not be interested in a uh design, bid, build type of arrangement.
So they not I mean we have to be open-minded to whoever's out there bidding anyway. >> Yeah. >> You know, I thought they did a pretty good job and >> kind of takes them out of the loop on us. >> Just I'd toss in there. I I've I've done
construction manager at risk projects before and you know it is a process where you bring in the designer and a construction manager in the beginning and the project is designed in conjunction with a contractor and um you
negotiate it as you're designing it. And um it is a form of construction that is more suitable when there's limitations in the in the market that you may not be able to get significant bidders on a
design build or there are elements of the project that are unique such that it might um you know cause the normal bidding process to you know not have as much competition. I I would think in a case like this where it's a fairly
standard construction um you know the level of competition might be high enough. I don't necessarily view it as something that if there's a lot of competition that's available in the market. You start this and then it um you know has a ton of
cost savings. The one benefit that you get um is once you set the design and negotiate it with the builder, they get their premium, but they're tied in to that contract. So, you have fewer change orders and things of that nature. So, I
I wouldn't push it unless I had uh you know some misgivings about um you know the competitive environment and how many bids we were going to get, that kind of thing. >> Yeah. I mean my view of this is that again where it says at risk now that
construction company is taking the risk as opposed to the district because I can tell you from the other building committees town and school change orders drive me crazy and you know sometimes I think I know it's been lack of oversight or somebody
missed something along the way that you know we're paying because somebody made a mistake. We paid them to do it right. Why couldn't they? So that again, that's I guess there's a lot of hidden factors in the CM at risk, but if it
comes with a more stable pricing, that that was kind of what I was thinking when I when I think of it. >> So here here's the thing that that you know you get hung up on is that you you pick the construction manager. So the
contractor you pick based on his qualifications before you get a bid. So when you select your contractor, you don't know what the the price is. you negotiate it out and you
know it it it can be done but um it there is you know the the risk when they say construction manager at risk um the the people that are at risk are us just so you know um and you know it is good that you have fewer change orders
because they have to sign off on the design but um you have to have such high faith in that contractor that you're gonna pick them and then negotiate the price based on the design. You know, it's it's a it's a difficult process,
but um you're absolutely right. Once once you do that, you have fewer change orders, but the the question is who do you pick and and you know, how do you get that so you know that you're getting the best price. So, but it's it's a a
very interesting process. >> Yeah. I I also think be not being the first time we're going through this now, I think we'd be a little wiser at looking at things, right, Steve? I think there are things that didn't get and I'm not blaming Steve, but Steve's had to
live with some of this that um you know, if you had another look at it, you would do it differently. >> Thank you. Anything else on page four? Page five, there's no red, so I'm going to skip. >> Page six is where we talk about the points point value.
>> Yeah. >> Mr. Simon. >> Yeah. On on page six specifically, uh there are some specific uh MSBA tools uh that are you should be uh competent in. You know that. So the MSBA space summary
uh template and other things I don't know it is it important to pull to call those out because that would be another piece of what they should know and I guess the last the other question is how much should they because we potentially
would be facing questions about site and traffic issues. Do they need to have any relevant expertise in that area as well? So just for clarity, are you talking about adding additional criteria?
So I wasn't clear because often, you know, yeah, I wasn't it often it would say like the district can add criteria and there was no space for that. So I can but I can ask that question. Can we add additional criteria? So yeah, should or
can because I I I don't know if we have the permission to or whether this is the way I understood this was we had the ability to um uh add waiting to the criteria but not determine the criteria. So but I can ask
for clarity on that and I will um but as I read the directions um which I didn't strike out, they're at the top here. the the owner should designate specific number of points to each of the criteria listed below based upon the relevant importance to the owners placed in each criteria. So that's what I did and then
um based upon what I thought was and again that's all up for discussion. I wanted it to add up to 100. So just so so people understand why some of this like why is there an eight and a 12 and I was looking for a nice round number some some numbers that would add up to 100 just for some easy math. um when you
get to the end. Um and uh but so that was but I don't know if we can add criteria. So >> um I just maybe want to throw in there um you know I I do a lot of procurements
um I think having 12 evaluative criteria is an exceedingly high number and I I think it's manageable. I understand it's their template. I I read through them all. They all make perfect sense. I think we can work with it. I I wouldn't take the route where we're going and
adding 15 16 different individual criteria. But I I want to say I mean I think the point is an excellent point and you know if you look at it you know maybe the issue of traffic can be um you know just a note in the um say for
instance the one about thorough knowledge um of construction procedures and things of that nature. just like to add in in traffic. But um I mean I I thought for a second about well maybe we should cut down the number of criteria but I can see this is clearly their
template. I think we can work with it but I just you know I don't want to go around and make it 20. >> There we go. Um I was given some um some aspect qualifications from um the energy manager who's no longer with us and I it
kind of follows with the traffic considerations and where you want to um handle some expertise that uh would be preferable and in this case it's it's um energy related and so again I think it
would be too expansive here. So, but I guess I'm just throwing it as another hat in the ring. She got very specific about um experiencing experience evaluating air source versus ground source heat pump
systems for instance um if it were a new build or even for the high school for the new build and life co life life cycle costs and financial analysis things like that. So, I hold it back, but it's another kind of where do we
where does that go? >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I mean I think eight specifically speaks to green school programs. Um, and then like green building rating systems like lead. Um, and then there was something about financial analysis. I
just can't find it. >> It's in there. Life cycle cost analysis. Right. >> I knew I had seen it somewhere. Thank you. So on page seven again, >> can I back you up a little bit? Sorry. >> Uh page going to page five is hopefully a quick answer. Is the uh time frames of
2024, 1012, etc. Are those yours or those an MSBA template also? >> That was all MSBA template. Okay. >> And it was not in red, so we could not adjust it. No, that's fine. There's no recommend. No, no allowance. just
and then um on six project director project representative. Now those are employees within the OPM I assume. >> Yes, >> cuz I believe it said project director must be an architect or some equivalent. >> Yes. >> Okay.
Yeah, these are all so when we would get the packet from the from the potential biders. Um these are the like criteria that we would be looking at their you know they'd have uh >> yeah they'd have a cover like one of the
initial pages would be here would be the key people that would be working on the project and what are their qualifications etc. anything on page I think we're still in seven six and seven. The only thing I saw on seven was in the
red paragraph before the word OPM. It says the word and instead of n OPM there's a D on >> I appreciate appreciate the typo. Sorry. No, no, I I appreciate it. Yep. feel like I proofread proof read a lot
my previous any questions on page eight seeing seeing none >> the one word on that page for those who are not watching um page nine there's a lot on page nine now obviously we have
insert date because we don't have a date as of yet >> I had a couple of questions um maybe just a quick one. So, we get the written responses in and they're
reviewed by the superintendent, the director of facilities, and the director of business operations to determine the short list. >> And then the short list and that it refers to um a selection subcommittee in
paragraph number three. I was just wondering is that the selection subcommittee or is there a different selection subcommittee um that would do the actual interviews um and then
>> sorry it's the review by the facilities director director of finance and business operations is just to ensure that the minimum criteria is met which is on page page uh five.
Um uh actually no, sorry, it's on top of page six. There's two bullets on the top of page six. The project director shall be a person who's registered in the Commonwealth. Um right, those are the
minimum requirements. Yeah. Um and if not, there's a reg like so we're just going to essentially it's like an initial screening. Do they meet? Do the packets have these two things? It's like like when you first get applications, you know, is the person released for us?
Are they certified as a teacher to do this job? You know, did they submit their three letters of recommendation? Then it goes off to the subcommittee. So like did they submit the basics so that when it then goes to the subcommittee to actually go through the evaluation criteria that they're getting completed
packets like did they meet that minimum criteria? Then the subcommittee is using the evaluation criteria to get down to the short list. Does that make sense? >> Sure. Okay. The sub >> and if I didn't word that correctly, then I can clarify it. >> There's a separate committee. I I mean it's fine for the purposes of the RFP. I
was wondering how it worked. I I would um recommend that we consider having So we have the selection subcommittee conducts its evaluation. Um, and then I I noticed it just there's a lot of
interplay between, you know, it I I like it. It says owner, owner, owner. Now all of a sudden we're saying selection subcommittee. And I'm thinking that, you know, it's a good idea that between
somewhere between um going through the evaluation criteria and the interviews and doing the contract, we need to transition it away from the selection subcommittee and back to the owner. And
you know, one way of doing that is to um say that the selection subcommittee makes its recommendation to the superintendent of schools, right? And then when we start into the negotiation, go back to saying owner. And and I think the reason I I bring that up is it's
important in that in the event of a dispute among one of the proposers and the town with respect to the evaluation process, >> um I I would prefer if their >> um dispute had to be settled with the
owner and they weren't filing individual claims against the selection committee. So if the selection committee just does their job, hands it off and then the owner sort of takes over then it it just makes it neater. >> Then I guess the question is are the
subcommittee this group or do we now have to in future meetings create a subcommittee? So the way I had had it structured based upon somewhere something I read somewhere was the idea would it be it would be a smaller
subgroup of this group right so this group would designate a selection subcommittee um that would go through this because it's going to take some time right so it's going to have to be a different sub meeting that that group's going to go through that group is going to and it's just you'll see it in the back of the
packet but there's a like a checklist we go through each of these and then get to a short list. Then you have to bring your short list group in for interviews and then I I recognize and appreciate u Mr. Written's point. Then that group
then makes a recommendation to the to the superintendent and then then negotiations begin separately with the with superintendent through legal counsel. I have that I think on step four there. Um then you get into setting the price etc etc. But um but yeah, it
would be to it's a long-winded answer to your question, but yeah, it would be a subgroup of this and then that um that was my thought, but we can if I think it would be cumbersome if it was all 18 of us, but
>> and doesn't the whole process actually end up as a recommendation to the school committee at some point because they have are they the ones with the power to actually execute a contract or someone. >> So, I have to go back and reread and I
have to have this conversation with uh with council, but I have to go back and reread the motion that the school committee what authority they gave this group. >> I'm just trying to remember back to last week. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I feel like the chair of the
school committee, the building committee was able to make decisions, but to what capacity, I guess, is the question. >> And I don't care what it is. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Another tiny thing I is under four
um I would maybe put in um once a final candidate is selected fee negotiations or negotiations including fee. So it's clear that we're going to be doing the that's how we do the price. >> So sorry I was writing the last note that you made. Could you just repeat
that? Under number four, once a final candidate is selected, it it should mention fee negotiations in in there just so it's clear that that's when we set the price. >> Okay. Yeah. Feel. >> So that's the second part of the says final candidates will be expected to provide detailed fee proposal including
a fee structure. >> Yeah. Five. I see. >> So I was reading four. So each when you read these things, each individual thing has its own meaning. So one doesn't cancel the other out. So they all need
to be consistent. That's how a lawyer went here. Any other questions about page nine? page 10. Uh, there's just a little typo in nine responses.
Those results says, "Oh, yeah. Thanks. I normally use uh AI to do my typo work. So, thank you for all this. Anything else on page 10? Page 11, 12,
and uh >> put my old district's uh phone, the three-digit exchange. >> Mr. Mr. Steers has noticed that the phone number was incorrect. It >> was 398. So, >> so we will put the correct district number for >> He was trying to avoid the phone calls.
Dr. Gilson. >> Apparently, someone he disliked at another district will get the calls. >> But other than that, looks like Dr. Gillson's name is right. Her title is correct. I believe 296 is correct. I have too many
>> school addresses in my head. And then bottom page 12, four hard copies, PDF format, and then USB. Questions about that. We'll move to page 14, which we talked about the purple already.
Uh where they'll have to include certifications on what it is. Any questions about that on page 14? Seeing none. Page 15, we'll adjust the phone number again there. Page 16, there's nothing in red.
We keep going. I can make the musical next door. Page 17 starts at seven. We got time. You guys can all make it. Page 18 is blank. Page 19, contract.
>> Yeah. So really from here on it's um attachments that we'll have to include. So um and then it gets into the OPM's um application documents and so I didn't make any changes from here on out. So
these are just the some of it like when when we have the thing ready to go we'll have to attach the the statement of interest. Uh we'll uh we have to attach the enrollment letter the certified enrollment letter from MSBA. there's certain other things that we have to
attach as as um uh as attachments. Um and then but the last document on here you if you get to the very end right before the minutes from the previous meeting is uh just what the evaluation criteria score sheet would look which is
really just taking the stuff from the previous um uh section that we already reviewed putting it in a single page double-sided document. Um, so for the people that would be on that team, um, to be able to fill out as they went
through each uh, submission, um, and be able to score, uh, and then for us to then be able to tally to in order to rank, come up with a short list. Um, but give you uh, a look at what that would look like, provide any feedback. Uh, but why would we need to submit this to
MSBA? We don't submit the score sheets to MSBA. We keep them internally. Um, again, it's like if we were to get challenged to Mr. Written's point. Um, but we do submit our uh a draft of what our our scoring sheet would look like.
And then are we again, are we required to, you know, we're not we're scoring the the criteria. So, it's not like we're scoring an amount. So, it's not like people are bidding an amount and we have to go with the lowest amount. We're we're scoring the actual
uh evaluation of the >> No, in this particular case, it's a request for services. So, we're evaluating the vendor based upon criteria. Then we select the vendor. Then we get into fee negotiations. So,
it's a different process. Then, when we get to the building aspect, it'll be we'll have a design, we'll go out to bid, and then it'll be low bid. That'll be a different process, but this is this is a different process. >> Any questions about the evaluation
criteria scoring sheet? Again, it's what we looked at prior. And then the how many people would typically be on that subcommittee just again just so we all know and we can get in our mind and think about it. There's 18 of us on the committee here.
>> It's really up to the chair. you know, I think um you know, and we can amend this. We're submit, we've requested four binders, you know, we could change that number, we know, but sort of like what's the
what's the number of, you know, a couple people could share and we can get digital versions of it as well if they're going to get it on a PDF, but uh I mean in a on a flash drive. Um a reasonable size group is
six people. That's probably a reasonable size group, but you know that's just >> I was my number in my head was five, but I think five was a nice So then you have an if they're an odd number for voting purposes, but
um any feedback on that, Mardo? So the subcommittee to go back to the process will make the determination to the 18 the group of 18 >> the recommendation >> recommendation. So the group of 18 does
have an opportunity to weigh in on the decision by the subcommittee or not >> not the way it's currently structured. The way currently structured is the the small the the >> it would be a report back to this group but the the sub
>> group would >> the group of five would >> the group of five would make the would make the recommendation to the superintendent. The superintendent would then negotiate with with the support of legal counsel. But yeah, it would be the group of five that would work work through the process. This group would is
giving feedback on the process. um giving feedback on the RFS once the RFS goes out. Um that's sort of where this group has had the pro has had opportunity to provide the feedback but that small group is now using what this
group has established as a whole to evaluate what comes in um and then make the recommendation and then negotiations again happens to Mr. Mr. Written's point at one point so that if there's a challenge point that comes back to the
the lead executive for the district. >> Okay. I just would be cautious for everybody to to recognize that they the group of 18 will not be a part of the decision making. >> Thank you.
Any other questions? You wrote a lot. You actually didn't write that much, Mr. Sears. I expected more. >> I have to write that. Someone was asking one more. >> Any other questions that that we missed? I know it was a lot and I appreciate the
time of going page by page, but and uh I know for our next meeting, Dr. Smith, we'll put together the changes and we'll re re-review it again. Um I know we're the timing is not great. Um but again, for the August state, I think we we do have plenty of time. Um because our next
meeting, which I'll announce a reminder now, is April 30th at 5:30, not at 4:30. So, April 30th at 5:30. So, we wouldn't meet the April 23rd date to review this again. So, but that will give us time. It'll give you you time um to get any
answers, make any changes, and have another draft for us to review. Any other questions? Okay, moving down the list. We have the consent agenda for the minutes from February 12th, 2026. We have moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> We have a motion and we have a second. Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Any abstain? Perfect. Uh, public comment. Anyone in the public looking to speak? I think they came in by accident
for the show. No, they don't look like they're looking to speak. Um and then do anyone make the final motion? >> Move to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? >> Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all
those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. All those abstain. Thank you so much for a great meeting.