Will DeKalb District 428 keep its architect for $31.8M elementary school? Board to vote in May

DeKALB – The DeKalb District 428 school board this week postponed a vote on an architect contract that would oversee design and construction for the $31.8 million plan to build a new elementary school on the city’s north side, slated to open by June 2025.

Action taken by the Board in a 5-0 vote is the latest since the district acquired the roughly 23,000 square-foot nursing school building from Northern Illinois University. The plan is expected to convert the facility into a three-section elementary school with an approximately 52,000 square-foot addition. Board Secretary Ariel Owens and Board member Amanda Harness were absent.

[ DeKalb District 428 OKs $31.8M plan to turn NIU building into new elementary school by 2025 ]

Board member Jeromy Olson questioned when’s the last time the district considered other architectural services firms.

The district has been working with the architectural services firm Richard L. Johnson and Associates for more than 15 years, officials said.

“I’m just curious, when’s the last time that we put this business to bid?” Olson asked. “There’s a lot of architectural firms. Given the 15-year history, I understand that but this is a public entity. So, I’m just wondering, when’s the last time we actually went to bid on an architectural firm services contract?”

“I just think it is always good idea to get a comparative quote for services, especially when it’s been 12 years. These guys basically have been just rolling on a contract. I think competition is healthy for a public entity.”

—  Jeromy Olson, DeKalb District 428 School Board member

Tammy Carson, the district’s director of facility and safety operations, said district has pondered whether or not it is necessary to consider competitors in the past.

“The last time that I’m aware of is when we had the referendum and if it was before the referendum,” Carson said. “It would have been prior to 2009 when Cortland [Elementary School] opened up.”

Carson emphasized that a request for proposal was not a requirement of the bidding process.

“With our long-term relationship Richard L. Johnson and Associates and the support we’ve received over the years as well as the support leading into this new elementary school, that’s why we’re bringing this forward,” Carson said. “It’s a formalization of the relationship we’ve already had over past year.”

Still, Olson suggested that the district obtain some comparative quotes for architectural firm services.

“I’m not saying these rates are aggressive,” he said. “They’re not insane, either. I just think it is always good idea to get a comparative quote for services, especially when it’s been 12 years. These guys basically have been just rolling on a contract. I think competition is healthy for a public entity.”

Board member Sarah Moses agreed.

“I think that’s a smart thing to do, too,” Moses said.

Not everyone shared the same sentiment.

Board President Samantha McDavid acknowledged the purpose of competition but said she understands the district holds a longstanding relationship with Richard L. Johnson and Associates that has proved to be positive.

“If the numbers looked way off, that would be more concerning,” McDavid said. “I guess I’m not as concerned with getting another comparable. But if it doesn’t need to be action tonight, it won’t delay anything, then I think that we could act at our next meeting to provide that kind of time and transparency.”

Board member David Seymour questioned if postponing consideration of the contact for two weeks would prompt concerns for the project’s timeline.

During the school board’s next regular meeting in May, three new members will be seated.

“Is there any particular concern about making it information/action today that giving it two extra weeks is going to delay anything significant for us?” Seymour asked.

Carson refuted the idea.

“I don’t feel it would bring any delay to this,” Carson said. “We typically don’t bring in an item for information and then crossover for approval with three new board members meeting on May [7].”

Seymour asked if soliciting more competition for the contract would present a concern for the project’s timeline.

Carson replied, saying it is a possibility but she’s not had that discussion with the architectural services firm to be certain.

“We are probably I would say a minimum of six weeks or more out from making a selection from the publication, the collection, the review, the interview, the selection and then approval … from what we’re going to be doing for construction management services,” she said. “We’re probably a good six to eight weeks from that. That potentially could have a delay when it comes to the elementary school.”

The school board is expected to vote on the architectural firm services contract at the board’s May 2 meeting.