The committee’s discussion was robust, revolving around the qualifications of the two competing design firms. Studio G, known for its specialization in school projects, was noted for its extensive experience with elementary school designs. Conversely, Finegold Alexander Architects was recognized for its impressive renovation plans and positive local feedback from past work. The committee members weighed these strengths, considering the potential impact on the Shaker Lane School project.

A critical point of debate was the suggestion to conduct in-person interviews with the selected firms. Some committee members advocated for this approach, arguing that it would provide a better understanding of the teams and their working styles. The importance of these interactions was underscored by the committee members’ desire to gain deeper insights into the vision and approach of the potential partners.

Another focal point was the discussion of the firms’ readiness to commence the project.

The committee also grappled with restrictions on communicating with the design firms. It was noted that formal voting would be necessary to move forward with any decision. The committee’s intent to interview the firms was strongly recommended, with members expressing their willingness to participate in the MSBA’s decision-making process.

As the meeting progressed, it became evident that the committee was carefully considering the number of architects each firm could allocate to the project and how this could influence the outcome.

As the meeting drew to a close, the committee acknowledged the need for a formal vote to finalize their recommendation to the MSBA. The decision to adjourn was made.