Committee reworks scoring for construction manager RFQ, debates references vs. presentation weighting

Committee members spent the bulk of the meeting debating how to structure scoring for the CMRF/QP (construction management) solicitation, including whether to add a 'references' category and how to balance references, fee, assigned personnel and presentation points.

A committee member cautioned that requiring five returned references could disadvantage firms because ‘‘it was very hit or miss’’ to obtain callbacks. The Chair and others responded that references were a useful shortlisting tool, saying references helped ‘‘weed them out pretty quickly’’ when firms did not provide reliable references. John Purcell asked for clarification on what counted as relevant experience; committee members referenced RFQ expectations that look for prior school projects over a stated dollar threshold.

Members proposed a range of numerical reweights: suggestions included lowering fee weight to 10–15 points, keeping references at 5, raising candidate presentation weighting to 20–30, and increasing the score for assigned personnel or ability to complete the project within required timeline and budget. Several members argued for separating evaluation into two phases: phase 1 for shortlisting on qualifications and references; phase 2 for presentations and final scoring. That change was framed as a way to avoid rescoring earlier qualification points after a strong presentation.

The committee asked purchasing staff (Adam and Lee) to be consulted on how to implement the two-phase process in Bonfire and requested a draft revised scoring sheet for review at the next meeting. Members also discussed logistics for presentations: allotting time for scoring immediately after each presentation and locking scores on the day to keep impressions fresh.

No formal vote was recorded on scoring weights at this meeting; the Chair instructed staff to draft the revisions and bring them back for a formal vote at the next meeting.