By GARRETT SAGER
Hays Post
On Monday at the Rockwell Administration Center, the Hays USD 489 Board of Education heard from four different construction firms vying for the job of the construction manager at risk for the district.
“Each presentation did a nice job of presenting information on their company and really tried to sell their company to us on why they should be selected for the CM at risk,” said John Thissen, USD 489 Superintendent.
Monday’s meeting was held in executive session due to an open meetings exemption created by Kansas House Bill No. 2267.
Thissen said all four firms would be great selections for the job, a large part of which will entail another bond issue to upgrade facilities district-wide. The district’s last bond issue, which sought $94 million for district improvements, failed soundly in June.
McCownGordon Construction, Hutton Construction, Crossland Construction and Nabotlz Construction were the four firms making presentations.
The presentations, however, are not the hard part in selecting which firm will get the job, Thissen said, but rather a point system the state signed into law in 2013.
“There’s a rubric that identifies different areas that those individuals (board members) will score based on a point system,” he said.
There will be six board members in charge of providing a point total to the firms in different areas such as company overview, experience/references, project team, reconstruction services, contingencies, cost management, local business utilization, construction plan, self-perform capabilities, site management, critical issues, and interview.
The only grading porting of the formula not handled by the board members is the fee portion for the score sheet, which is handled by a state employee.
At the first official board meeting of 2017 on Monday, Jan. 16, the six board members in charge of grading the different firms will present their score sheet and an action will be made on which firm to select.
“It will be an action item,” Thissen said. “Typically, it would go to whoever scores closest to 100, but it may not go that way.”
DLR Group, who was recently selected as the architectural firm for the district will also assist in the process of selecting the right firm for the CMAR position.
Thissen said there will still be an open discussion after the point totals are presented, but that that discussion should not be too long because of the formula.
“There are still many different pieces that need to be discussed or two firms may be so close that that would open up a discussion,” he said.
Thissen has experience working with Hutton when he was the superintendent at Herrington.
“It was a very good experience. They were very smart and, in my mind, did a very good job at keeping the project moving and on schedule and keeping the price in the original price range,” he said.
A CMAR is the best option moving forward, according to Thissen. In his one experience working with a CMAR, he said the project would not of been completed without them.
‘They do such a good job in keeping the project on pace,” he said. “There is no way the construction would of been done and the school would of been done and ready for when school began without them.”
The benefit of selecting a CMAR said Thissen is that they understand the process of construction better than an architect, but the best option for a budgetary plan is probably the CM at risk.
“To have both together really makes sense at the front end,” Thissen said.
Thissen feels hiring a CMAR will be instrumental in getting a successful bond campaign together.