The primary agenda centered around the pre-qualification process for a construction manager, a vital role in the Shaker Lane Elementary School project. The committee outlined a two-step process involving an initial Request for Qualifications (RFQ) submission and a subsequent Request for Proposal (RFP) phase. Members were reminded that an evaluation committee would assess submissions and score each firm to determine which would advance. The committee underscored the significance of experience and management personnel among the submitting firms, with these factors expected to weigh heavily in evaluations.

Notably, the committee accepted a recommendation to designate a chair for the pre-qualification committee, promoting Sean to this role through a motion and second. This appointment was part of the procedural steps to ensure a streamlined evaluation process. The committee was tasked with reviewing eight submissions, which some acknowledged could be a considerable workload. A scoring sheet was proposed for evaluating the submissions, with flexibility for adjustments in the point structure for different categories.

Discussions highlighted concerns over the references provided by the firms. The committee debated whether to limit inquiries to listed references or pursue additional contacts for better insights. The consensus favored the latter, with assurances that this approach had been supported by past practices. To manage the workload, the committee discussed dividing reference checks among themselves and organizing calls by reference type. They agreed to create a master list of references and a standard set of questions to ensure consistent evaluations.

The meeting also addressed procedural aspects related to the public nature of interviews. Conducted in a public meeting, efforts would be made to maintain comfort for interviewees, including the suggestion of a separate waiting area. Transparency was emphasized, with minutes to be published afterward, although certain financial information of contractors would remain confidential.

The timeline for the selection process was another focal point. While the goal was to issue an RFP by November 4th, there was flexibility to extend this timeline to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. The committee agreed that thoroughness should not be sacrificed for speed, acknowledging the long-term significance of the firm chosen for the project.

In discussing financial evaluations, a suggestion was made to involve an expert or smaller group, potentially including the town’s finance director, to assess firms’ financial information. This approach aimed to address concerns that some committee members might struggle with this aspect. The committee agreed on reallocating points from the litigation category to the experience category, reducing litigation points from ten to five.

Consideration was given to qualifying a minimum number of firms for the next phase, with a recommendation to qualify five firms to account for potential withdrawals.