This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the
video of the full meeting.
Please report any errors so we can fix them.
Report an error »
The Comprehensive Planning and Development Committee on Oct. 30 heard an update that the School Division’s procurement options will now explicitly include design-build and construction-manager-at-risk (CMAR) in addition to keeping traditional design-bid-build.
Chair McDaniel said the change is intended to add “more tools in our tool belt” for construction and renovation projects as the industry evolves. A staff presenter explained the practical differences: design-bid-build remains the slowest procurement path; design-build is generally the fastest; and CMAR typically falls between the two. Staff described CMAR as a two-contract approach that brings a construction manager on board at approximately 60% design to provide a guaranteed maximum price and to manage construction, a model often used for complex or multi-phase projects such as high schools. Design-build was described as appropriate for projects where a single design-construction team can offer faster delivery.
Committee members pressed staff on how community engagement must be aligned with the chosen procurement method. Members warned that community input needs to occur at stages when the process can still accommodate changes and noted the county’s 2232 review requirements. Miss Sizemore Heizer said staff should ensure the regulation and community engagement processes (including the planning commission and county 2232 channels) fit all procurement pathways so public input remains robust and timely.
Staff said the procurement options are intended to give the division flexibility to select the method best suited to each project’s complexity, timeline and cost constraints rather than adopting a single method systemwide.
The committee did not take a vote on procurement selection rules at the meeting but agreed that the topic and its community-engagement implications should be folded into upcoming facilities work sessions.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
Search every word spoken in city, county, state, and
federal meetings
Real-time civic alerts and notifications
Access transcripts, exports, and saved lists
Premium newsletter with trusted coverage
Why Join Today
Stay Informed
Search every word in city, county, state, and federal meetings.
Real-time alerts. Transcripts, exports, and saved lists.
Exclusive Insights
Get our premium newsletter with trusted coverage and actionable
briefings tailored to your community.
Shape the Future
Help strengthen government accountability nationwide through
your engagement and feedback.
Risk-Free Guarantee
Try it for 30 days. Love it—or get a full refund, no questions
asked.
Secure checkout. Private by design.
What Members Are Saying
"Citizen Portal keeps me up to date on local decisions
without wading through hours of meetings."
— Sarah M., Founder
"It's like having a civic newsroom on demand."
— Jonathan D., Community Advocate
Not Ready Yet?
Explore Citizen Portal for free. Read articles, watch selected videos, and experience
transparency in action—no credit card required.
Upgrade anytime. Your free account never expires.
Secure checkout • Privacy-first • Refund in 30 days if not a fit