Design-Build and Construction Management Project Delivery Methods 3-40.1

School Board of the City of Virginia Beach
Regulation 3-40.1

BUSINESS AND NONINSTRUCTIONAL OPERATIONS

Design-Build and Construction Management Project Delivery Methods

The School Board is committed to the efficient use of public funds and the use of various construction delivery methods allowed by Virginia law. Therefore, the School Board adopts Design-Build and Construction Management project delivery methods for use in Capital Improvement Program projects (CIP). Design-Build and Construction Management are project delivery methods used when competitive sealed bidding is determined not practicable, not fiscally advantageous, not efficient for a complex project or when accelerated project delivery time is needed. Both project delivery methods are intended to minimize the project risk and to reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and the construction phase of a project.

1. Definitions

   “Complex project” means a construction project that includes one or more of the following significant components: difficult site location, unique equipment, specialized building systems, multifaceted program, accelerated schedule, historic designation, or intricate phasing or some other aspect that warrants an alternative to the design-bid-build project delivery method.

   “Construction Management” or “CM” means a project delivery method in which a firm is retained by the School Board to coordinate and administer contracts for construction services for the benefit of the School Board and may also include, provided in the contract, the furnishing of construction services to the School Board.

   “Design-Build” or “D-B” means a project delivery method in which the School Board awards a contract a party to both design and build the structure, or other item specified.

   “Design Builder” means the party contracting with the School Board on a Design Build project.

2. Approval of the Use of Design-Build or Construction Management project delivery method

   After School Board approval for the use of Design-Build or Construction Management for a specific project, the School Board authorizes the Superintendent or designee to use Design-Build or Construction Management project delivery and contracting in accordance with this Policy, applicable law, and School Division procurement procedures.

   1. The determination to use Design-Build or Construction Management is a matter of administrative discretion and is not appealable.
   2. Written justification for use of D-B or CM - Approval of Design-Build or Construction Management must be done in writing and include the following:
      1. Determination that the design-bid-build delivery method is not practicable or fiscally advantageous for the project.
      2. The basis of the determination to utilize D-B or CM.
      3. A written determination to of the project’s complexity.
      4. The written determination shall be completed prior to the issuance of the RFQ. The determination will be maintained in the procurement file and included in the RFQ.
3. Design-Build project delivery method

   The Design-Build project delivery method shall be a two-step competitive negotiation process. The following procedures shall govern the selection, evaluation and award of Design-Build contracts:

   1. Intent of the use of D-B

      Design-Build procurement is intended to minimize the project risk for the School Board and reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and the construction phase of a complex project.

   2. Basis of award

      After evaluation of technical and financial proposals and selection of a Design-Builder, the award of a Design-Build contract for construction, shall be either a fixed price, or a not-to-exceed price. Cost shall considered along with technical factors in determining best value in the selection process.

   3. Evaluation Committee

      The Chief Operations Officer or designee shall establish an Evaluation Committee ("Committee") to be responsible for evaluating the Statement of Qualification submitted by offerors responding to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) stage and the proposals submitted by those offerors determined best suited to participate in the Request for Proposals (RFP) of the Design-Build procurement process. The Committee shall consist of a minimum of four (4) and a maximum of eight (8) voting members. The members of the Committee shall have expertise relevant to the project, with backgrounds in such areas as project design, construction, finance, contract review, and project management.

      1. The Office of Procurement Services shall administer and oversee the procurement process for all Design-Build solicitations to ensure compliance with applicable law, School Board policy and regulation, and School Division procurement procedures. A procurement specialist designated by the Office of Procurement Services shall serve as the Procurement Lead in a non-voting capacity and shall be responsible for procurement governance, including issuance of solicitations, management of communications with Offerors, administration of evaluation procedures, coordination of negotiations, procedural guidance to the Evaluation Committee, maintenance of the procurement file, and recommendation of award documentation.
      2. The Executive Director of Facilities Services or designee shall serve as the contract administrator and will chair the Committee.
      3. A licensed architect or engineer with professional competence appropriate to the project must be employed or under contract with the School Board to provide advice and assist with the preparation of the RFQ and the RFP and evaluation of the responses.
      4. The Chief Operations Officer or designee shall appoint the Committee members. Should a Committee Member not be able to undertake or complete their service on the Committee, the Chief Operations Officer or designee (or the Superintendent or designee if the Chief Operations Officer is not available) may make a substitution for a Committee Member.
      5. The School Board may assign no more than two School Board Members to serve as non-voting liaisons for a Committee created for a CIP project over $40 million and approved to use Design-Build project delivery. School Board Member liaisons may not have a conflict of interests related to the CIP project and will not participate in scoring, ranking or negotiation.
      6. An owner advisor(s) may also be engaged to provide unbiased technical expertise and support throughout the process and may serve on the Committee.
   4. Step 1 - Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Short List Process
      1. The School Division shall publish notice of its RFQ at least thirty (30) days prior to the date established for receipt of the Statement of Qualifications (“SOQ”) by posting to an electronic bid board, the School Division website or other approved locations in accordance with applicable law.
      2. The RFQ shall provide a description of the project, the services required by the School Division, building and site criteria, site and survey data (if available), any unique capabilities to be required of the offeror, and the criteria to be used in evaluating the offerors for advancement to the RFP step. All offerors, at minimum, shall have a licensed Class "A" contractor and an Architect or Engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Virginia as part of the offeror's team.
      3. Following receipt of SOQs, the School Division, through its Office of Procurement Services and with assistance from the subject matter expets as deemed appropriate, may conduct an administrative review of SOQs to determine responsiveness and compliance with the mandatory submission requirements established in the RFQ. This administrative review is intended solely to assess responsiveness and compliance with the RFQ requirements solely to assess responsiveness and compliance with the RFQ requirements and shall not constitute evaluation or scoring of qualifications. The School Division reserves the right to implement such additional administrative review, qualification verification, or procedural requirements as may be permitted or required under applicable law or the RFQ.
      4. Offerors determined to be non-responsive may be removed from further consideration in accordance with applicable law and the requirements of the RFQ.
      5. The Committee shall comparatively evaluate responsive SOQs and any other relevant information submitted by Offerors in accordance with the criteria established in the RFQ for the purpose of determining which Offerors are best suited for advancement to the RFP phase.
      6. Prior Design-Build experience or previous experience with the School Division shall not be considered a prerequisite for participation in the procurement process. However, the Committee may evaluate an Offeror’s experience over a period of up to ten (10) prior years to determine whether the Offeror has successfully completed projects of similar size and complexity by any method of project delivery.
      7. The RFQ shall establish procedures whereby comments concerning the RFQ may be received and considered prior to the time established for receipt of SOQs.
      8. The RFQ evaluation process shall result in a shortlist of between three (3) and five (5) Offerors determined by the Committee to be best suited to advance to the RFP stage based upon the evaluation criteria established in the RFQ.
      9. There may be fewer than three (3) Offerors on the shortlist if fewer than three (3) Offerors respond to the RFQ or if the Committee determines that fewer than three (3) Offerors are most qualified and best suited to advance to the RFP phase. If only one Offeror submits an SOQ, or if only one Offeror is determined responsive and suitable for advancement after reasonable competition, the Committee may proceed with evaluation and recommendation regarding that Offeror in accordance with applicable law.
      10. The School Division shall notify Offerors in writing regarding determinations of non-responsiveness and shortlist determinations regarding advancement to the RFP stage.
   5. Step 2 - Selection of the Design-Builder
      1. The School Division shall prepare a Request for Proposal that includes the items listed below.
         1. the instructions for submitting the proposal, the criteria for evaluation and award, and the terms and conditions of the Design-Build contract.
         2. a narrative description of the project requirements.
         3. general conditions and technical specifications.
         4. facility and site plans as appropriate for the project.
         5. Other requirements as the School Division determines appropriate for a particular project.
         6. Details regarding the project quality and performance requirements, concept design documents and information regarding the offeror’s sealed Technical Proposals and Cost Proposals to determine the best value in response to the RFP.
         7. The RFP will advise whether responses may be submitted electronically and/or via paper response.
      2. The School Division shall send an RFP to the qualified Design-Build offerors on the short list for the project and request formal proposals from them. Offerors will have at least thirty (30) days to submit a proposal.
      3. The Committee may grant each offeror an equal opportunity for direct and private communication with the Committee. Each offeror shall be allotted the same fixed amount of time. In its conversations with the offerors, the Committee shall exercise care to discuss the same owner information with all offerors. The Committee shall not disclose trade secrets or proprietary information for which the offeror has invoked protection in accordance with the procedure set forth in Code of Virginia § 2.2-4342, as amended.
      4. The Committee will inform each offeror of any adjustments necessary to make its technical proposal fully compliant with the requirements of the RFP. In addition, the Committee may require the offerors to make design adjustments necessary to incorporate project improvements and/or additional detail information identified by the Committee.
      5. Based on the adjustments made to the technical proposals, the offeror may amend its financial proposal. In addition, the offeror may submit cost modifications to its original sealed financial proposal which are not based upon revisions to the technical proposal.
      6. The Committee shall make its recommendation for the selection of a Design Builder to the procurement specialist who will communicate that recommendation to the Chief Operation’s Officer or designee.
      7. The contract shall be awarded to the Offeror determined to have provided the best value response to the RFP in accordance with the evaluation criteria.
   6. Progressive Design-Build- alternative procedure
      1. When compensable design work is necessary or in the best interest of the School Board to deliver a final guaranteed maximum price, the School Division may pursue Progressive Design-Build as an alternative procedure. Use of Progressive Design-Build must be approved by the Chief Operations Officer or designee.
      2. The review of proposals for Progressive Design-Build shall be the same as described above. However, after the Committee’s determination to recommend award of a contract, the execution of the award may include compensable design work prior to the negotiation of a fixed price or not-to-exceed amount for construction of the project.
      3. The Design Builder that is awarded the Phase 1 Agreement shall be compensated at agreed upon intervals throughout the process of Phase 1 design work. The School Board must approve the Phase 1 Agreement for CIP projects over $40 million.
      4. The design collaboration process shall include representatives of the School Division and the Design-Builder who will advance the design of the project beyond the design included in the RFP. The goal of such design collaboration is to reduce contingencies and bridge any design discrepancies. At the end of the design collaboration in the Phase 1 Agreement, and prior to construction, the Design-Builder shall present the School Division with a guaranteed maximum price (“GMP”) for the final design and construction.
      5. The School Division shall evaluate the proposed GMP for reasonableness, consider an independent cost estimate or other cost validation methodology, and determine whether the proposed GMP represents best value.
      6. At the School Division’s (for projects $40 million or under) or the School Board’s (for projects over $40 million) sole discretion, the School Division or School Board may:
         1. negotiate and agree to the GMP by entering into a Phase 2 Agreement for construction services; or
         2. decline to proceed to a Phase 2 Agreement for construction;

         However, the School Board at its sole discretion, may require the Design Builder to complete any remaining Phase 1 Agreement work when the decision is not to proceed to a Phase 2 Agreement.

      7. The Design-Builder shall be required to transfer to the School Board ownership and the right to use technical solutions, design concepts, and any other work product developed during the design collaboration and Phase 1 Agreement and agree that such materials may be used by the School Division to complete the project through other means if the Phase 2 is not executed.
   7. Optional Proposal Compensation -Design-Build RFP proposers

      For designated Design-Build procurement efforts and only when set forth in the RFP, short-listed firms that are not selected but have fully complied with all aspects of the RFQ and RFP may be provided with proposal compensation under certain circumstances. The value of the proposal compensation will be determined on a case-by-case basis and shall be conditioned upon the proposer conveying to the School Division the right to use technical solutions or design concepts in the proposal. The Chief Operations Officer’s or designee’s approval, either by direct action or in the relevant project page of the CIP, shall be required for the provision of Optional Proposal Compensation.

4. Construction Management project delivery

   Construction Management project delivery method shall be a two-step competitive negotiation process. The following procedures shall govern the selection, evaluation and award of CM contracts:

   1. Intent of use of Construction Management

      Construction Management project delivery may be approved for use on projects where:

      1. fast tracking of construction is needed to meet School Division program requirements, or
      2. value engineering and/or constructability analyses concurrent with design are required.
   2. When Construction Management Contract must be entered into

      The Construction Management contract must be entered into no later than the schematic phase of design, unless prohibited by authorization of funding restrictions.

   3. Basis of award

      The award of a CM contract shall be based on either:

      1. an acceptable technical proposal at the lowest fixed price, or
      2. not-to-exceed price basis. Cost shall be a critical component of the selection process.

      The basis of the award of the contract shall be in accordance with competitive negotiation for nonprofessional services, and the criteria for the award shall be submitted to the procurement specialist, in advance, for approval. Cost is a critical component of the selection process.

   4. Evaluation Committee

      The Chief Operations officer or designee shall establish an Evaluation Committee ("Committee") to be responsible for evaluating the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) offerors and reviewing proposals submitted by those offerors determined best suited to participate in the Request for Proposals (RFP) step of Construction management approved projects. This Committee shall consist of a minimum of four (4) and a maximum of six (6) voting members. The members of the Committee shall have expertise relevant to the project, with backgrounds in such areas as project design, construction, finance, contract review, and project management.

      1. Following receipt of SOQs, the School Division, through its Office of Procurement Services and with assistance from the subject matter experts as deemed appropriate, may conduct an administrative review of SOQs to determine responsiveness and compliance with the mandatory submission requirements established in the RFQ. This administrative review is intended solely to assess responsiveness and compliance with the RFQ requirements solely to assess responsiveness and compliance with the RFQ requirements and shall not constitute evaluation or scoring of qualifications. The School Division reserves the right to implement such additional administrative review, qualification verification, or procedural requirements as may be permitted or required under applicable law or the RFQ.
      2. The Executive Director of Facilities Services or designee shall serve as the contract administrator.
      3. A licensed architect or engineer with professional competence to the project must be employed or under contract with the School Board to provide advice and assist with the preparation of the RFQ and RFP and evaluation of the responses.
      4. The Chief Operations Officer or designee shall appoint the Committee members. Should a Committee member be unable to undertake or complete service on the Committee, the Chief Operations Officer or designee (or the Superintendent or designee if the Chief Operations Officer is unavailable) may appoint a replacement Committee member to ensure continuity of the procurement process.
      5. The School Board may assign no more than two School Board Members to serve as non-voting liaisons for those evaluation committees created for CIP over $40 million approved to use Construction Management project delivery. School Board Member liaisons may not have a conflict of interests related to the CIP project.
   5. Step 1 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Shortlist process
      1. The School Division shall publish notice of its RFQ at least thirty (30) days prior to the date established for receipt of the Statements of Qualifications (“SOQ”) by posting to an electronic bid board or other approved locations in accordance with applicable law.
      2. The RFQ shall provide a description of the project, the services required by the School Division, building and site criteria, site and survey data (if available), any unique capabilities to be required of the offeror, and the criteria to be used in evaluating offerors for advancement to the RFP step. All offerors, at minimum, shall have a licensed Class "A" contractor registered in the Commonwealth of Virginia as part of the offeror's team.
      3. Following receipt of SOQs, the School Division, through its Office of Procurement Services and with assistance from subject matter experts as deemed appropriate, may conduct an administrative review of SOQs to determine responsiveness and compliance with the mandatory submission requirements established in the RFQ. This administrative review is intended solely to assess responsiveness and compliance with the RFQ requirements and shall not constitute evaluation or scoring of qualifications. The School Division reserves the right to implement such additional administrative review, qualification verification, or procedural requirements as may be permitted or required under applicable law or the RFQ. Offerors determined to be non-responsive may be removed from further consideration in accordance with applicable law and the requirements of the RFQ. Such Offerors shall be notified in writing following the determination of non-responsiveness.
      4. Offerors determined to be non-responsive may be removed from further consideration in accordance with applicable law and the requirements of the RFQ. Such Offerors shall be notified in writing following the determination of non-responsiveness.
      5. The Committee shall comparatively evaluate responsive SOGQs and any other relevant information submitted by Offerors in accordance with the criteria established in the RFQ for the purpose of determining which Offerors are best suited for advancement to the RFP step.
      6. Prior Construction Management experience or previous experience with the School Division shall not be considered as a prerequisite or factor for prequalification of a contract. However, the Committee shall evaluate a proposer’s experience for a period of ten prior years to determine whether the offeror has constructed, by any method of delivery.
      7. The RFQ evaluation process shall result in a shortlist of between three (3) and five (5) Offerors determined by the Committee to best suited to advance to the RFP phase based upon the evaluation criteria established in the RFQ.
      8. If only one Offeror submits a response, the Committee may proceed with evaluation and recommendation regarding that Offeror in accordance with applicable law.
      9. The School Division shall notify Offerors in writing regarding determinations of non-responsiveness and shortlist determinations regarding advancement to the RFP step.
      10. The School Division shall notify Offerors in writing regarding determinations of non-responsiveness and shortlist determinations regarding advancement to the RFP step.
   6. Step 2 Selection of a Construction Manager - Request for Proposals
      1. The School Division shall send an RFP to the offerors on the short list and request submission of formal proposals from them. When only one offeror submits a response, the Committee may proceed with review of the one offeror. The criteria for award shall be included in the RFP.
      2. Proposals as described in the RFP shall be submitted to the procurement specialist.
      3. The Committee may grant each offeror an equal opportunity for direct and private communication with the Committee. Each offeror shall be allotted the same fixed amount of time. In its conversations with the offerors, the Committee shall exercise care to discuss the same owner information with all offerors. The Committee shall not disclose trade secrets or proprietary information for which the offeror has invoked protection in accordance with the procedure set forth in Code of Virginia § 2.2-4342, as amended.
      4. The Committee will inform each offeror of any adjustments necessary to make its technical proposal fully compliant with the requirements of the RFP. In addition, the Committee may require the offerors to make design adjustments necessary to incorporate project improvements and/or additional detail information identified by the Committee.
      5. Based on the adjustments made to the technical proposals, the offeror may amend its financial proposal. In addition, the offeror may submit cost modifications to its original sealed financial proposal which are not based upon revisions to the technical proposal.
      6. The Committee will evaluate (and rank if technical rankings are to be considered as a criterion forward) the proposals. After evaluation of the proposals, the Committee shall conduct negotiation with two or more offerors; however, should the School Division determined, in writing and at its sole discretion, that only one offeror is best suited or that one offeror is clearly better suited than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and awarded to that offeror.
      7. The contract shall be awarded to the Offeror determined to have provided the best value in response to the RFP in accordance with the evaluation criteria established therein.
      8. The Committee will notify all offerors that submitted proposals which offeror was selected for the project. The Notice of Intent to Award may be used to make this notification.
   7. Required CM Contract Terms

      Any Guaranteed Maximum Price construction management contract entered into will contain provisions requiring that:

      1. not more than 10% of the construction work (measured by cost of the work) will be performed by the Construction Management with its own forces.
      2. that the remaining 90% (or more) of the construction work will be performed by subcontractors of the Construction Management which the Construction Manager must procure by publicly advertised, competitive sealed bidding to the maximum extent practicable. Documentation shall be placed in the file detailing the reasons any work is not procured by publicly advertised competitive sealed bidding.
   8. Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

      The Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”) shall be established at the completion of the working drawings unless a waiver has been granted by the Chief Operations Officer or designee.

      1. One-Step Solicitation: The Chief Operations Officer or designee may approve a one-step solicitation for a project if adequate written justification is provided.

Legal References

Code of Virginia § 2.2-4301, as amended. Definitions.

Code of Virginia § 2.2-4303 as amended. Methods of procurement.

Code of Virginia § 2.2-4378, as amended. Purpose; applicability.

Code of Virginia § 2.2-4379, as amended. Definitions.

Code of Virginia § 2.2-4382, as amended. Design-build or construction management contracts for local public bodies authorized.

Code of Virginia § 2.2-4383, as amended. Reporting requirements.

Adopted by School Board: January 27, 2026
Revised by Superintendent: June 8, 2026