Proceedings of the Board of Trustees
Lockwood School District No. 26
Yellowstone County, Billings, MT
Special Meeting of November 29, 2006
Back to Minutes Home
Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5


The special meeting of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 26, Lockwood Schools, Yellowstone County, was duly held in the Board Room, 1932 U.S. Highway 87, Billings, Montana on Thursday, November 29, 2006.  Chairperson Teresa Stroebe led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance and called the meeting to order at approximately 5:00 p.m.

Trustees and officers present were Trustees: Greg Bochy, Becky Malenowsky, Barbara Forrester Frank, Sue Vinton, Teresa Stroebe, and Tim Trafford, Superintendent Eileen Johnson, and District Clerk Diane Brook. Trustee Thomas Jones was absent

Attorney Ken Tolliver was present.

Chairperson Teresa Stroebe closed the session at 5:01 p.m. for purposes of litigation strategy regarding United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Joe E. McCracken and Leah K. McCracken,
Plaintiffs - Appellees versus Lockwood School District No. 26, Defendant – Appellant.
At 6:10 p.m. Chair Stroebe concluded the closed session and opened the board meeting. Chairperson Teresa Stroebe led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance and called the meeting to order

Staff members present were:  Mike Bowman, Mike Sullivan, Art Anderson, and Johanna Freivalds.

Registered guests present were:  Architects John Eisen and Terry Sukut, Tim Sather, Waldi Bloom, Luella Brien, Peter Freivalds, and Jim Coons.

Mrs. Stroebe welcomed visitors and advised the following:

If you wish to speak to the Board of Trustees at this meeting about agenda items, please complete a form and give it to the Board Chair or the clerk.

Any person present, who wishes to do so at this point in the agenda, may address the board or raise any question about public school district matters or governing policies. No discussion of personnel or individual students is permitted at this time. A limit of three minutes is placed on each speaker. Persons who want more time may make arrangements to be placed on a future agenda.



Back to Top

Page 2
Special Meeting
November 29, 2006


None received


Eileen distributed examples of the Request for Qualifications and Proposals and the Advertisement for Services used by Bozeman Schools for hiring a contractor via Alternative Project Delivery Contract. 

Architect John Eisen led the discussion of the pros and cons of the two types of contracts:

Traditional Project Delivery Contract and Alternative Project Delivery Contract (General Contractor Construction Management Contract (GCCMC).

He advised that the traditional method is: design, prepare the construction documents, put out to bid, open bids, award bid, then build. 

The alternative method was authorized by Senate Bill 342 in the last legislative session.  It was written to Montana Code §18-2-501. For this method a Request for Qualifications (Credentials) and Proposal is advertised, contractors respond, the architect and Board of Trustees interview the contractors; they choose the one that they feel will be the best for the project.   The contractor makes sure equipment and materials are correct for the job.

The Alternative Project Delivery Contracts and the Project Delivery Methods informational sheets provided by JGA were reviewed and discussed.  These sheets provided specific information about each method and the pros and cons for each.

Architect Terry Sukut advised:  Even though this GCCMC process is new to Montana, JGA has used this process in Wyoming.  Montana law varies some from that of Wyoming, but the process is similar. Documentation is important if you are going to use the Alternative Project Delivery method.  The contractor is selected on qualifications; not on low price.  It must be publicly shown that there was no bias and the process was done fairly.

There was discussion about contractor’s fees and guaranteed maximum price versus low bid.

Supt. Johnson advised that the district would be hiring an entire contracting company, not just an individual.

Mr. Sukut distributed and reviewed his proposed schedule and timeline for completing the building project using the GCCMC Alternative Project Delivery Contract method. 

Back to Top

Page 3
Special Meeting
November 29, 2006

It was noted with this method, pre-construction services would have an identified fee.  That fee can be reached through negotiation after the award of contract.  It was also advised that it may be important to have the construction superintendent participate in the interview process when selecting a contractor.

Peter Freivalds asked if requesting information about the contractor’s markup and profit fees would be part of the interview process. 

Terry responded that he is not sure what is allowed by statute; he needs to get clarification about that. 

There was discussion about whether a GCCMC would be in charge of the HVAC retrofit project as well as the new middle school building project.

Trustee Tim Trafford asked if we would pay the GCCMC a certain fee or is his fee a percentage of amounts paid for the subcontractors. 

Terry responded that the GCCMC manages the subcontractors and he gets a fee for his managing duties.
The Guaranteed Maximum Price for the project would be documented into the contract of the GCCMC. 

Tim Trafford noted that the fee negotiated with the GCCMC could include sharing a portion of project cost savings as an incentive.

Trustee Greg Bochy asked what the incentive would be for the GCCMC to get low bids from the subcontractors. 

Terry said they would be soliciting competitive bids as part of the district’s team.  A regular general contractor usually solicits bids from subcontractors, adds his markup, then he compiles all bids into his final project bid.

Eileen said Gary Griffith is facilities manager for Bozeman Schools and a Monforton School District Trustee.  He is the “guru” for alternative project delivery contracts.  She advised that this method isn’t new to contractors because Wyoming has done it and private industry has done it.

Tim asked the architects to give an example of how this method saves money.  John Eisen said Lander High School is their best example of this; he said approximately $1,000,000 less was spent.  He does not know exactly where the savings came from.  The project went smoothly and the team concept worked well.

Peter Freivalds commented that he thinks that bringing in the contractor up front makes sense; he just thinks it is important to have the fee structure well identified.

Sue Vinton agreed with Peter’s comments.  She said she hopes to be able to determine who has the most to offer the school district for the amount we are planning to spend.

There was also discussion of the fees for JGA architectural firm, how each project delivery method may affect their fees.  There may be some savings in fees if the GCCMC method is used because the contractor  manages the process for soliciting bids instead of JGA. 

Back to Top

Page 4
Special Meeting
November 29, 2006

It was felt that there would be time savings with the GCCMC method as there should not be as many change orders.. 

Teresa called for a motion.

Greg expressed concern about the architect’s fees; he wanted to know if it would be significantly less.

Tim asked Facilities Director Art Anderson for his opinion.

Art said because the process GCCMC method is so new for schools in Montana he has questions about it.  He thinks the quality of design would be better with a contractor involved sooner.  In reading through the RFP example, he noticed that it does not contain a request for any information regarding contractor’s fees.  He would also like to see what their fees are during the interview process if statute allows.  He commented that he felt the HVAC project could be included with the GCCMC.  The projects need to be tied together, and there is benefit to having the mechanical contractor involved.

After the discussion Becky Malenowsky moved to use the Alternative Project Delivery Contract method or a General Contractor Construction Management Contract. Sue Vinton seconded the motion. 

Teresa said we have approached this project as a team effort all along; this method is a team effort and it is a good way to go.  She then clarified that the motion included using this method for both the HVAC retrofit/renovation and the new building.  Becky and Sue concurred that it did.

Sue Vinton commented that it is important to bring in the contractor early for a collaborative process.  We should ask about fees and should explore incentive for the contractor for bringing in the project under budget.

Tim also agreed that the incentive was a good idea; he also suggested it for timeliness with a penalty for lateness.

Greg called for the question.

Teresa called for the vote.

Greg Bochy, Tim Trafford, Teresa Stroebe, Susanne Vinton, and Becky Malenowsky voted aye.  The motion passed five to zero.  (Barbara Forrester Frank had left the meeting previous to the vote.)


Middle School Principal Mike Sullivan asked if it would be possible to change the dates of the symposium from January 19-20, 2007, to January 12-13, 2007.  Middle School Pride Day had to be re-scheduled to January 19, 2007, due to a change in schedule of the facilitator.  No Middle School teachers or staff would be available for the symposium on January 19 because of the conflict.

Back to Top

Page 5
Special Meeting
November 29, 2006

After this discussion, the Design Symposium dates were changed to January 12-13, 2007. It will be held at Hope Lutheran Church. It must be in a publicly accessible building within the district. 

John Eisen distributed a handout entitled “Proposed Design Symposium Process for Lockwood Schools.” He reviewed the process and schedule with those present.  He explained that there would be three teams of 10 or 12 each.  They will work within their team; then present to the group as a whole.

He suggested using an application process so attendees will make a commitment.  John suggested to touring other schools prior to the symposium.  He advised that a core team of approximately 12 to 15 people would need to be defined.  The results of the symposium should be a starting point for the design. 

Sue Vinton suggested that the Steering Committee group would be a good core group.

Schools in Bozeman, Laurel, Manhattan, East Helena, Polson, Worland and Riverton were suggested for tours.  Trustees thought it would be helpful if they could get the pictures taken during the tours that the Laurel Board of Trustees took, also.

Tim Trafford moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m.  Greg Bochy seconded the motion.

Greg Bochy, Tim Trafford, Teresa Stroebe, Susanne Vinton, and Becky Malenowsky voted aye.  The motion passed five to zero.



Respectively Submitted,

___________________________      ___________________________
Teresa Stroebe, Chairperson                  Diane M. Brook, District Clerk

Back to Top