Webinar: Procurement Innovations

This webinar, co-hosted by the National Council on School Facilities (NCSF) and the National Center on School Infrastructure, focused on modernizing how schools approach procurement, delivery, and financing of construction projects.

Facilitator Brandon Payne (NCSF) was joined by three panelists:

• Jo Ann Armstrong, Chief Financial and Operations Officer for Belvedere Community Unit School District in Illinois;
• Alex Donahue, Executive Director of the Interagency Commission in Maryland; and
• Lettie Boggs, Board Chair for Colby Technologies and a former assistant superintendent with experience across California school districts.

Together they worked through three questions: how to match delivery method to project, how to move beyond low bid, and when alternative financing actually improves an outcome.

• There is no single right delivery method — only the right fit for the project in front of you. Panelists agreed that project complexity, building age and condition, occupancy constraints, staff capacity, and state rules all shape which delivery method makes sense. Armstrong described starting every project with a needs assessment rather than defaulting to one approach, because Belvedere’s buildings range widely in age and condition. Donahue described Maryland’s approach as offering districts a toolbox of delivery method options and helping them evaluate fit for each project rather than mandating a single method. Boggs uses a matrixed approach to evaluate which delivery method is best in a given situation, taking into account the district’s capacity to manage the process, the district’s expertise with construction and/or a given delivery method, the financing structure to be used for each delivery method option, and state constraints on delivery method choice all have to be weighed together. The reality is that the “right” answer can change even for a similar project done a second time.
• Procurement options beyond low bid exist, but they remain underused. Cooperative purchasing, quality-based selection, and competitive negotiation are all permitted in many states, but panelists pointed to real barriers to wider use: unfamiliarity among state reviewers, hesitation from school boards new to a method, and in some states, the risk of bid protests when moving away from a purely price-based process. Boggs noted that introducing something new usually requires bringing the state or oversight body along early, addressing their specific concerns, and sometimes piloting an approach before it’s formally adopted.
• Defending a procurement choice depends on trust built well before the decision. Armstrong described routinely walking her board and community through the full procurement process, tying choices back to defined outcomes, predictable schedules, and reduced change orders rather than assuming residents can see the value in something like an HVAC upgrade. That transparency, panelists agreed, is what allows a district to introduce newer approaches like cooperative purchasing without losing community confidence.
• Total cost of ownership deserves as much attention as the construction price tag. Multiple panelists pointed to the limits of low bid: it doesn’t account for the change orders and long-term operating costs that often follow. Donahue described using facility condition data and remaining useful lifespan estimates to project future renewal needs, feeding into a master plan updated annually. Armstrong echoed this, describing her district’s shift toward treating its facility conditions report and master plan as a living document rather than a one-time report, revisited as needs shift (a new leak, a new security priority) rather than left on a shelf.
• Small, local, and newer vendors need a deliberate on-ramp. Because ranking and prequalification often depend on a track record with school projects, panelists described building structured paths in: for example, California’s small-projects list for newer, vetted vendors; scaled evaluation criteria that give preference to businesses located within the district; and an annual vendor workshop model (used in Long Beach) that walks new bidders through requirements and expectations. Breaking off smaller projects, like a roof repair or shop renovation, from larger capital work was one concrete way districts made room for vendors who couldn’t yet compete for bigger contracts.
• Alternative financing can solve for speed, not necessarily for savings. Donahue described Maryland’s roughly $2.25 billion P3 delivering eight new schools quickly, but noted that private financing carries a higher borrowing cost, true savings are hard to pin down until the deal is signed, and risk isn’t meaningfully transferred away from the district. His conclusion: P3s are useful when a district urgently needs a large volume of work done fast, not as a general cost-saving or risk-shifting tool.
• Smaller and rural districts can gain leverage by pooling resources at the county level. Boggs described counties with several small rural districts forming consortia to share procurement capacity and facility planning staff that no single district could support on its own, calling out county-level leadership as the key ingredient in making that cooperation work.