Design-Build Options Expand
Design-build options available for school districts have been expanded under AB 1358, which takes effect for bid requests issued on or after July 1, 2016. The new provisions lower the minimum value of the contract to greater than $1 million (previously $2.5 million) and now allows an evaluation of the design-build proposing entities on either a “Best value” or “Low bid” basis. The addition of a best value option is anticipated to assist school districts in reducing project costs, expediting project delivery, and incorporating design features that are not achievable through traditional design-bid-build methods. The new provisions, contained in Education Code sections 17250.10-17250.55 provide a clear and straightforward selection process.
The law requires that the district prepare initial scoping documents to adequately describe the project, prior to soliciting proposals. A two-step solicitation process is mandated. First, the district must prepare a request for qualifications (RFQ) that will be used to re-qualify or “short list” design-build entities. In the second step of the process, the district issues a request for proposals (RFP) to pre-qualified or short-listed entities to submit sealed competitive proposals. The RFP must identify the scope and cost range, significant factors to be considered in evaluating proposals and relative weight given to each, the methodology for evaluating proposals, and whether the selection and contract award will be based on “best value” or “low bid.” Minimum criteria that must be considered for best value selection are price, technical design, and construction expertise, as well as life-cycle costs over 15 years or more. If the best value selection is used, the district may request proposal revisions and negotiate with proposers, as long as procedures for this process are published to ensure good faith negotiations. “Skilled and trained workforce” provisions apply, starting with a 20% requirement in July 1, 2016, and increasing 10% each year, up to 60% as of July 1, 2020.
By Tina Cullors, Associate and Melinda Pure, Senior Associate
If you would like more information on the design build process, please visit, or contact Melinda Pure at melinda@ehanda.com or Tina Cullors at tina@ehanda.com
Across the state, the message is getting out for the need of this bond measure and the importance to raise campaign contributions. Sessions in May are now scheduled or have been conducted in Lakeside, Irvine, Oakland, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Ontario, and Pasadena.
Your school district can help to get this important message out by joining the list of districts supporting the bond measure and by voting for a resolution in support of the measure.
A sample resolution can be found at: https://www.cashnet.org/meetings/2015_Workshops/documents/SampleBondResolutionandMessage.pdf
For more information on this article, please contact Bob Nicholson at 858-414-6268 or bob@ehanda.com or contact Eric Hall at 760-602-9352 or eric@ehanda.com.
As part of the shift in federal and state accountability measures, there is more emphasis on how districts are serving students with disabilities. For many years California has generated Annual Performance Report (APR) measures for each school district. The 14 indicators include data such as graduation rates and drop-outs, suspension and expulsions, performance on statewide assessments (deferred for 2013-2014) and 2015, least restrictive environment, disproportionality, assessment timelines, etc. Based on that data, each district will receive an overall compliance determination as “meets requirements,” “needs assistance,” “needs intervention” or “needs substantial intervention”. Disproportionality and least restrictive environment are two indicators that are often deficient.The APR data for 2014-2015 was posted in mid-March. To view your district’s data, go to http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/leadatarpts.asp. The APR for 2014-2015 will serve as the baseline, so districts have a chance to begin needed system changes to improve the data for 2015-2016 and future years. There will be training sponsored by both CDE and your SELPA as to these requirements. Failure to make improvement in the next few years will result in increasing interventions and potential sanctions by CDE.
It’s critical for district leadership to work together to address these challenges utilizing proven interventions. For additional information, contact Carol Bartz at (760)-822-8933 or carol@ehanda.com or your local SELPA Director.
The priority funding process allows projects that receive unfunded approval by the State Allocation Board (SAB) placed on the Unfunded List (Lack of AB 55 Loans) to receive apportionment with accelerated timelines. The eleventh priority funding request filing period begins May 11, 2016 and will run through June 9th.
Information regarding the priority funding period, submittal requirements, and the non-participation regulations can be found here at:
by Julie Romero, Associate
For additional information on this article, please contact Bob Nicholson at (858)-414-6268 or bob@ehanda.com
The State of California’s Department of Education (CDE) made available information on sustainable communities and school planning.
Sharing resources and facilities are excellent ways to leverage public and private funding, reduce costs and increase the amount of community and education assets.
Applying principles of sustainability in school facilities planning, school districts can have a significant, lasting and positive impact on the communities they serve.
For more information on sustainable Communities and School Planning, please contact the California Department of Education, School Facilities Services Division, at 916-322-2470 or visit https://kapost-files-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/published/56f02c3d626415b792000008/2016-state-of-our-schools-report.pdf?kui=wo7vkgV0wW0LGSjxek0N5A.
by Julie Romero, Associate
For additional information on this article, please contact Bob Nicholson at (858)-414-6268 or at bob@ehanda.com.
There is vast evidence that well-equipped and up-to-date schools have a direct impact on student learning, health, and school finances. Yet despite the significant investment made by local communities, the nation could fall short a projected $46 billion in school facility funding.
On March 23, 2016 the Center for Green Schools released the “State of Our Schools: America’s K-12 Facilities” report, compiling the best available school district data about U.S. K-12 public school facilities funding into a national and state-level summary. In addition, 50 individual state profiles are available atstateofourschools.org.
To read the full report and learn where schools stand in this investigation, please visit 2016 report on the Nationwide state of School Facilities.
by Julie Romero, Associate
For additional information on this article, please contact Eric Hall at (760)-519-8531 or at eric@ehanda.com.
The State Allocation Board (SAB) met on April 20th. The minutes from the January 27, 2016 and February 24, 2016 were approved (Huff abstaining). SAB’s March 9th meeting was canceled. Click to view the meeting agenda.
Lisa Silverman provided updates on the following:
- Upcoming Priority Funding Filing Round: The next filing period begins May 11, 2016 closing on June 9, 2016. Requests will be valid from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. There are 10 projects for 5 school districts on the Unfunded List (Lack of AB 55 Loans) totaling $ 51.7 million.
- Requirements for Participation in Priority Funding: Reminder that non-participation regulations are in effect.
- Seismic Mitigation Program Update: There is one item on the consent calendar to provide an unfunded approval for design funding in the amount of $402,908.
- Fund Releases for Priority Funding Apportionments: On February 24, 2016, the Board approved $81.7 million in priority funding apportionments for 31 projects representing 20 school districts. Districts that received an apportionment are required to submit a valid Fund Release Authorization (Form SAB 50-50) containing an original signature by Tuesday, May 24, 2016 to OPSC. The SAB provided apportionments to Career Technical Education Facility Program (CTEFP) projects in April and September 2015. As of April 8, 2016, there are 10 CTEFP projects from the April action and six projects from the September action that have not submitted a Form SAB 50-50.
The Consent Agenda was approved unanimously. Items included, but limited to, were:
- High Performance Incentive Grants
- Emergency Repair Program Grant Adjustments
- Facility Hardship/Rehabilitation Program
|
|
|
SFP Program
|
Prop. 1D
|
Prop. 55
|
Prop. 47
|
|
New Construction
|
$7.4 million
|
$6.4 million
|
$1.0 million
|
|
Seismic Repair
|
$86.2 million
|
—-
|
—
|
|
Overcrowding Relief
|
$7.0 million
|
—
|
—
|
|
Modernization
|
$10.6 million
|
$0.0
|
$0.1 million
|
|
Career Technical
|
$9.5 million
|
—
|
—
|
|
High Performance
|
$0.0
|
—
|
—
|
|
Charter School
|
$33.4 million
|
$2.0 million
|
$3.5 million
|
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Wednesday, May 25, 2016.
The April CASH Monthly meeting was held on April 27th. The Next Monthly meeting is scheduled for May 25, 2016.
Please visit the web sites for SAB and CASH for information on upcoming meetings and status of funds.
For additional information on this article, please contact Eric Hall at (760)-519-8531 or at eric@ehanda.com.
We are pleased and honored to serve California school districts and county offices of education and provide services, support and guidance necessary for success.
All the best,
Eric Hall, President
Eric Hall & Associates
cell (760) 519-8531
