001board workshop. Tuesday JANUARY 13, 2026. Broward county. The clearly emergencies marked exits. Once the the room reach capacity, attendees will be directed to the overflow area. If the fire alarm sounds, continue outside building and remain until authorities give clearance to return. Thank you for your cooperation. All please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. as we begin, we reaffirm our vision, 100% proficiency for all students. As an a rates district, we remain committed to sustaining this achievement and supporting every student to reach their highest potential. Our theme this year is believe, empower, achiever one broward. Today's
002school board meeting will operate with school policy 1020, the board will review the items as presented by the superintendent. The superintendent release add revised agenda for certain changes and published on the school district's website. The chair finds pursuant to 120.525 that good cause exists for such clang and is accepts the revised agenda. MAY I have a motion and second. Moved by DR. Zeman, second by MS. Hixon, all in favor, say aye. the agenda is now closed. MAY I have a motion and a second on item 1, agr26-157. moved by DR. Zeman, second by MS. Alhadeff. it is moved and seblgded to mover item 1 to the mraor. Any public comment on item 1? yes, there are two registered speakers, since this is a memo to vote down I assume these speakers will like to speak
003on item 2. Natalie lynch-walsh and doty keith. DR. Natalie lynch-walsh, yes, you are correct, MR. Hill, we can cross that off and change that to item number 2, although -- wait a minute, this is a regular meeting so I get three minutes plus another three, that could work too. Alright. So, since I'm here and then I'll go quickly sign up for item number 2. Just to be clear, I'm interested in speaking to both. So you have handouts and one of the reasons I'm speaking now is to make sure you're paying attention to the sheets of paper I gave you. I did a little math, so the handout that looks like this -- you didn't get it, MR. Sullivan assured me he shall hand them out to everybody, he said. He's working on it, okay, good.
004So, whi looked at the list of projects, I was reminded that some of them are in their infancy and some of them haven't moved much. So, I went through and by phase yanked out some projects because if this is a one year contract and most of the projects are like 84% complete, you could theoretically have a second firm, it's not like you didn't do negotiations with more than one, and give the second firm some of these projects so what I did is pulled them out and under scenario 1, it assumes the projects would remain -- the rickards would rename with aecom, the breakdown the second firm would be 177 million, less that norfolk 1.5 million because that's probably not going happen and then aecom would have 109 million. Under scenario 2, if they kaoek rickards
005because that's a hot mresz and you have to play hot potato to decide who gets to finish it, then the second firm would have 153 and aecom would have 133. The other handout in the spirit of getting the most for the taxpayers' dollars and not paying for things you do not need, I know that people have married themselves to these percentages but I promise you if you get [Inaudible], that 39, 34% is going to come back to haunt you. Many the spirit of reducing it, I pulled out the smwbe staff augmentation, that's not needed, procurement, I'm not sure what that's about anymore, and communications. So, for each firm, you can see the impact that would be, it's going from about 600 thousand to 700 thousand depending on the firm and then there's some additional notes,
006please get out your glasses, on things I found on the contract that I have some concerns about and I'll be back to speak more to that in my next three min nutsz. Thank you. next speaker, doty keith. just to be quick, I intended to sign up for number two, just to take a second to compliment, I haven't done a procurement in 24 hours, your staff handled that really well, very well, given the time constraints and how they did everything, just a compliment. no further speakers. thank you, board discussion on item 1 which is a a memo to vote down. Okay. So, remember you are voting had down. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. no. the motion fails. MAY I have a motion and a second on item 2? so mao fed. .
007Er moved by DR. Zeman -- second. seconded -- sorry, moved by DR. Zeman, second by MS. Alhadeff. MAY I have -- are there public speakers for item number 2. two speakers, DR. Natalie lynch-walsh followed by doty keith. okay. DR. Natalie lynch-walsh again, plantation, florida. I think most of you know that until I was removed and I will be -- that will be coming back for that, I was on the facilities task force since 2011 and spent much of it as the chair. So, I was there in 2020 during covid when we did the solicitation that got us aecom. And in the the spirit of continuous improvement and looking at what was done in 2020, the quarterly evaluation -- the proposed agreement says an evaluation shall be conducted by rsm on behalf of sbbc, so in
0082020, that used to read shall be conducted by rsm and the assigned district staff. The quarterly evaluations have been getting done by rsm, you can find them with the office of the chief auditor. I could not find where the revised tool went o board but there is an initial evaluation tool that the ocp staff was supposed to be doing. And the directors did it but then it landed with whichever exec tier director and you can think back as to who those were and they never got share witched the program manager. So, I don't know if you want to continue that but basically you're now creating two problems, one, you should not be naming a specific firm and, two, you cannot give an audit firm a management function. Either there's oversight on evaluation by the staff
009or you're going need a second audit firm, one to do what you're proposing that rsm do and the other one, the audit because then they'll be auditing theses. That maoeds to get hashed out. The other thing is once again we have an exec tier summary that doesn't match the agreement. I could not find anything in the agreement when I did a word search that referred to and newly funded capital projects because what that suggests is every time you fund something, it's going to be included in this award which I don't think is the intent and it's not in the contract but I don't know why staff keeps writing things this way, it's handy dm nr the 180 days you can get out of a contract. I suggest you would look closely at these projects because
010there is an opportunity to pull some of them out and give them to a second firm, has way aecom can focus on the ones that aren't in their infancy and a second firm can focus on -- because whether you -- when you look at design, you have 72 million, tla's between parkway and the coral glades auditorium is 70 and there's a couple of others. In bidding, you have markham and bethune and you haver atlantic in construction, there's lauderhill at like I said, rickards is a good question mark, rather than assigning all of this because there are projects you know that are not going done until 28, they weren't smart and didn't start with aecom, I hope you have a discussion about that. Thank you. good afternoon, doty keith, pompano beach. time to move forward. You
011guys have a lot to do, you have a lot of stuff in front of you. I agree that the projects that are in design don't need to go to construction under an emergency contract, you can leave it with them or pull them out. Keith and exp as we presented could step in and help you any way. You need to move forward with withered emergency contract, you can't get caught in the position you're in, things have happened but I hope you remember and I'm going to ask your staff to remember because you're going to go into a new procurement process and DR. Zeman kind of mentioned, remember the broward way and remember the future can sometimes come back and get what you do today can hurt you later and I stand before you as a team
012member that's been on a lot of teams working for you for mo of my career and aecom has been a bad team partner for the six years they've been here to every sub consultant on the team at some point or another. And I will tell you as a person who has championed mwb programs for all of my career, I stand to you as a majority woman on company who will fight for the local and minority firms to have opportunities and have mentorship and have growth. This does not do it. I will tell you what aecom did here is they created a miami-dade outsourcing staffing firm for this contract, they painted lipstick on the pig and they stand here proud they're doing a 45 plus percent participation, it's a joke. They're not growing, they're not mentoring
013and they're not being diverse in their choices in this community which is what our program and your mbwbe department has foukt for for my entire career and that to me is vitally important. So, with you move forward nr next rfq ask look at that, pay attention where opportunity really is for minority firms that really are here and have been here, how do we help them grow, how do we help them be here whether a contract is over. That's what mentorship is and that's what this program is about. How did I graduate and become a firm of 200, please people helped me grow with what I did and gave me opportunities to enhance what I brought to the table so don't let somebody smoke screen you with fake numbers. When it's real, it's real and there's
014a bhoel bunch of broward mwbe firms that could have benefited but this emergency contract cuts broward firms, cuts out mwbe firms or an mbwbe firms that have provides ss and is reduces others and that's shame, that is greed and self-serving interest by people sitting in this room. So, you're under the gun, you have to do what you do because you have to keep your program and take care of your kids, I respect that, and I'm here the help you, anything you want from me, thank you. no more speakers. before I go to board discussion, DR. Hepburn would like to make a statement. thank you, MADAM Chair, board and public. I just wanted to thank the board for its direction and oversight on this emergency item. Through your actions, we were able to secure a price
015reduction of more than 1.25 million dollars on this current agreement that's before you today. Real savings to directly protect that taxpayers' dollars and also importantly, your direction resulted in new accountability measures in the contract that's in front of you today. This is the first time I think in a pmor contract or similar there's been accountability measures in any contract for broward county schools. I want to napping the team, they in 24 hours, 24 or 36 hours, they worked magic, up all night. Up early in the morning working with the team, working with the legal team, working with construction firms to get this done so my sincere appreciation to the procurement team torx the capital program team for making this happen. It's not going unnoticed. And we have an emergency contract before us today. I do
016want to emphasize this is due to an emergency declaration, this is a meant to be temporary while we go out and start our new process for new solicitation in FEBRUARY with the hopes that is completed for board vote in JUNE, so thank you, MADAM Chair, that's my comments. thank you, MRS. Alhadeff? thank you. So, thank you, DR. Hepburn, thank you to your team and for bringing this back with what the board asked for and so I'm going to look at the contract, so as DR. Hepburn said, this is coming back to us with over 1.2 million dollars savings and then on page 2 of 22, on 4, you can see that there is penalties in place and so that's wonderful and I would just like, DR. Hepburn, if your staff can explain the penalties to
017the board. I'll have MS. Coal ly talk about some of the accountability measures as it relates to the 3% -- or MR. White, go ahead, MR. White. thank you very much. What we've structured here in response to your desire to have accountability over the contractor is that there will be monthly and quarterly evaluations performed by an outside firm. They will review the performance of the contractor and ensure that they are meeting the established kpi's, if they fail to meet the kpi's and do not implement necessary corrective actions within 30 calendar days after receipt of a written report, then the board has the unilateral right to reduce their most recent invoice by an amount equal to 3% and keep that on a rolling basis until the kpi's are satisfied and brought back into line and that
018money is kept by the board, it is not returned to them once they start performing. So, it is a fairly severe penalty and if you assume that they're going to be billing at least one million dollars per month, then you're talking about a 30 thousand dollar hit each month. great. And DR. Hepburn, I expect these type of penalties be put into future contracts too. My question is to the general counsel, do we need o add any language in there in regards to this being done by an external firm or contractor? through the chair, first of all, I want to make sure that we don't use the word penalty, this is just a contractual provision that sets forth what will happen if certain demands are not met, so I just wanted to make sure we said
019that because we're not going to put penalties into future contracts. Second of all, and what I'm talking about is just the word penalty, it has like legal connotations and that's all I mean, it is what was described but I wanted to ensure that we just don't call it a penalty because that's not what it is, just as a point of explanation, MS. Alhadeff. Second of all, are you talking about the word rsm? well, not yet, but he spoke to an outside contractor to be the one to decide I guess whether they met these different kpi's. And it doesn't say about anybody who's going to do this analysis. so, if you can guide me to what provision you're speaking of. page 2.2 -- page 2 of 22, number 4. article 2.03b1, we call out rsm as
020going to perform the evaluation. no, I'm not there yet. I'm talking page 2 of 22, number 4. Yes, roman numeral number 4. so, b, roman 2.03, b, roman numeral 4 is what you're referring to? yes. and if you start with roman numeral 1, MS. Jacques-adams, do we need to put -- yeah, so I'll just start with the easy ones. so, please excuse me, I had to make sure that I read it so I understood what your question was, so, the way that it reads, it appears that the school board is the one that establishes what those kpi's are, so, the school board and/or whoever the school board assigns would be the one to determine whether those kpi's are done. okay, let's come back to this. Let me start with number 1 where it says an
021evaluation shall be conducted by rsm, us, llp op behalf of the school board of broward county on a monthly quarterly basis to measure kpi's and qualitative evaluation criteria, I would like to remover rsm, uslp and my motion is going to be to substitute it with an external audit firm. moved by MRS. Alhadeff, seconded by MS. Hixon to remover rs mr, and replace that with external auditor. audit firm. thank you, public xhen on the motion? DR. Natalie lynch-walsh, plantation florida, I support the motion obviously. This way you could have some xet tier selection there. I would even hesitate on the word audit, but only because -- and I guess it's if you untangle the fact that as of the way this is written, the district is not evaluating the performance, they're coming up with the kpi's
022because we're doing a lot of copy, pasting here, but they don't seem to have a role in any oversight. When this was written originally in 2020, the idea is that the ocp staff and the fact that you don't have a facilities chief is a huge rob and part of the problem here, but I support the motion to removing it, it's step one and I guess we'll see if we get to step 2. Thank you. board member discussion? MRS. Hall deaf? -- alhadeff? MR. Rhodes, can you opine? yeah. I do agree that the evaluation function would be that, that would fall on the side of a management function and it would be done by someone who would not have been providing routine oversight of the function. One of the reasons that I looked at this initially
023and saw a problem with rsm is that they would then potentially be auditing their own work having been the primary capital auditing function for the last five years or so. We would not want them to get tangled up in being unable to audit work because it was their own work. The other part of that is that monthly quarterly, the folks that are providing the closest oversight should be the ones who provide that evaluation, so just for example we're just past the dasa season where snab plays are being evaluated. So, for example, my direct reports, I provide an evaluation for because I'm most familiar with their work. They then provide evaluations for their direct reports because they're most familiar with their work. If it wouldn't make sense there for the chief auditor to dip down two
024or three levels into his organization and evaluate his own people, then it would not make sense a group that doesn't provide any oversight or any review of the onginger work be used to e evaluate that process. So, for me, it would make it a much cleaner way to have someone else to provide that evaluation process and leave it for one of our five external firms to do the audit of those kpi's as have been evaluated by that firm. so, MR. Rhodes, you're acceptable for the motion of using an external audit firm? I'm acceptable to that because it makes sense but also I would say with one caveat, that we would do everything necessary to ensure that none of the five firms in the oka cadre would be the firm to provide those services because that
025would just take you from one possible conflict to another possible conflict. okay. is that it? yes. MRS. Hixon? are we still on MRS. Alhadeff's motion? that's right, yes. a quick question because we talked about changing it to not just a particular firm but it still says an evaluation shall be conducted and what I'm hearing is the audit firm shouldn't be doing the evaluation, it should be broward county staff, so shouldn't that be changed also? through the chair, that's a very good point and point that I would make is that that would be a management decision as to whether or not they felt that the most qualified and competent individual or firm to perform that evaluation would be an audit firm or some other external resource that they could bring in similar to what we've talked
026about in the past is a resource multiplier or I forget the term at the moem that was being used, it was ultimately a rent fill in the blank for that particular function and they would be someone who would have the necessary and requisite skills and experience to perform that evaluation. If that turned out to be an audit firm or turned out to be a project manager or a program manager employee, something along those lines, that would definitely be someone that would be more likely to have an understanding of what the work was that they were overseeing and the kpi's that were designed and were they able to document that they were met. if I can add, MS. Hixon, an external firm, external audit firm would be the way we would want to go to have
027that level f independence, we will develop the kpi's but having an external firm come in and evaluate just to make sure they're clear because we're not fully totally staffed up as far as government workers here by our county public schools to carry out for me as far as confidence to carry out those evaluations and address them and correlate them to the kpi's we develop to make sure there's independence and to make sure everything is clear and coherent and applies to the kpi's that are written by the team. if an external -- because I don't see how an audit firm would have as MR. Rhodes just pointed out any kind of like knowledge about what they were evaluating, so, what would be the option -- what other firms would be -- we're developing kpi's, they would
028use the kpi's we develop to go out and audit and evaluate, correct. okay. So, that answers my question, thank you. any other board discussion on the motion? MS. Thompson? thank you. And I would just like to ask to not use so many acronyms. key performance ipd kate tersest it's important everybody's on the same page of what acronyms stand for and I for one am not. I was going to have this about -- the main item's comments but I think it's applicable to the motion. I don't understand atkins role in this, we have paid them over 20 million dollars is my understanding since 2015, they are supposed to be our watchdog, they are supposed to be evaluating what our projects and if our projects are on time and they are supposed to be throwing up the
029red flag when something is happening so why are we going and getting another firm to pay millions potentially -- money we don't have to evaluate them, so I just would like a deeper conversation on what atkins role in this is. yeah, so, I'll start the conversation and MS. Can coli can provide more detail than I do, atkins has specific functions, it's around cost and program controls and they've been doing that since 2015, I think the team has used them more aggressively in a more independent way, they have comprehensive monthly reports, cash flow projection, they do program delay analysis, schedule tracking, look at quarterly r I risk assessments and also market condition analysis that dictate the future costs of new projects or potential cost increases for existing projects due to cost increase across the industry. If
030there's anything I have missed, MS. Coli, that atkins provides. I think you answered it clear and they also do schedule management and track the master schedule for us. well, I would argue that they vn been doing a great job just as one board member's opinion on that and I still don't understand why we're getting an external firm to make sure that our metrics are being met if this is what atkins is supposed to be doing. if I can respond, atkins is not responsible for the oversight in terms of the kpi's for aecom. They are only our cost controls consultant. So, they manage the budgets, they develop the budgets. it's a different function. yup. are you done, ms. thompson? MS. Bulman? on the motion. yes, thank you for the motion, MS. Alhadeff. I don't know if
031this is appropriate but there's a couple of other things in this sentence that I thought we could clean up maybe since we're on the sentence if she doesn't mind. First of all, it says aen valuation shall -- you know, conducted on a monthly quarterly basis to measure using a combination of -- and then first of all I think that we should have key performance indicators and then it says kpi so it's clear what we're looking at. I know the people that are using this know what that is, for anybody else that is using it or has their hands on this later, and then to measure just seems to be dangling there, what are we measuring? measuring performance based on those key performance indicators that were developed by the team. right, I think we need to
032write it a different way to it makes sense and that it says that, so I guess to measure -- so, change the sentence, so with MS. Alhadeff's reason, external audit firm, is that the language we agreed to? I would like to modify my motion, I would like us to vote on my motion without your motion. okay. thank you. I would like to modify my just say external because there could be an architect or an engineer company or an audit company so don't want to limit us. so, MRS. Hall deaf modified her motion, it was seconded again by DR. Zeman, okay. Any further board member discussion on this motion? DR. so that staff can select the appropriate company type as oppose today putting any company. does that say it already says on behalf of the school
033board of broward county? so it a company dedicated but that can be as an additional language. So it would read, an evaluation shall be conducted by a company, a company, selected designated by spbc and you can cross out the rest. cross out what? on behalf of bcps, I agree with you. so I move to change that sentence to say an evaluation shall be conducted by an external company selected by broward county as bpc. second. any other discussion? all in favor say aye. aye. any opposed. motion passes and MS. Alhadeff you still have the floor. 1.43 to change rsm to take that out and to say an external company selected by spbc shall, and the rest of the sentence. second. motion made by MS. Alhadeff seconded by DR. Zeman, public comment on the motion? Board member
034comment on the motion? MS. Hixon. what page? page 9 of 19 on attachment a. point 93. 1.93. any other board member comment on the motion? All in favor say aye. aye. any opposed say no. motion passes. is there anything else in the contract that says rsm that needs to be changed? MR. White? I believe those are the only two areas but we'll do a word search and if we identify any other areas, we will remove rsm and include the language that you have recommended. I have already done that t there is only two. okay, I just want to go back to number 4, do we need to be more specific on any additional language in there to the general counsel? Or chief auditor, do you have any suggestions? MS. Jacques-adams or MR. Rodes. just a
035question when you say more specific to what topic would be like to be more specific and then I can take a look at it and then see if the language needs to be sharpened? so I guess it's bcps. i guess, who is going to hold aecom accountable. It's not referring back to bcps in any way? There is nothing connecting it to hold is going to hold them accountable for these KBIs. my assumption is contract with ae come any accountable language is inherently saying that we will hold them accountable. okay, if you feel comfortable with it. yes, there is only two parties us and ae come -- aecom so the other party holding them accountable is us . all right, MS. Hixon. thank you, I have a couple of a few questions, more than a couple.
036To the point of not nothing what acronyms are in aecom's proposal, they refer to a bim, can somebody tell me what that means. I tried to figure it out. But I couldn't. They never spelled it out, it just says bim there. It never indicates are you going to actually use them? addison just responding on behalf of aecom, billing modeling. that's correct. and it refers to how that is helpful but it does not say whether you're going to be use them or not. Are they going to use the bim, they did not say how they were going to use it. Anyone from aecom? what page are you looking at? it's in their proposal na came to us. tt in the proposal, if mac entire. this is part of the proposal, this is not part of our
037contract with them. MS. Hixon? it said, oops, it says, that it was going to be helpful and I would like to know if they're going to use it or not. I think it's useful. somebody from aecom? Mr.Mac entire? mac mac entire. It's gently used by the contract and -- but they are utilizations of four bim and we're appropriately used. thank you very much. Also, this is all from the proposal it says that garth now can somebody say if that's the case. MR. White. yes, ma'am, I actually have one construction contract administrator that has succumbed to via garth. thank you. And the reason I ask is as I ask about the contracts, legal coming, the answer from legal is the contract often comes to them incomplete because the people in procurement are not aware of some
038of the scope and the stuff that they're suppose to have. I just have concerns if paying somebody that they would be bringing forward contracts that were having those particular issues. So I just wasn't aware that they did that. And the other thing in the contract says that garth conducted over 200 community meetings. Can somebody do a follow-up to give us when those meetings occur because I'm not really aware of any of those. And the bigger picture is we're paying for ten communication people for one-year contract and I'm, just concerned because in the keith contract not the keith contract in the jacobs contract, they were proposing to be able to do it with two communication people. So why do we need such a big number of people for communication for one-year emergency contract? so correct me
039if I'm wrong, MR. White, the commune casing is allowance meaning we would utilize what we need not the total amount. okay, it just seems excessive. On 43 of the proposal, it did indicate that they were going to get try to guarantee 80 projects minus if something happened beyond their control. So two things to that. First, I would say to aecom, if there are issues that are coming up, it says you're going to go to staff but I would hope that you can go directly to the superintendent or to the school board for us to light a fire under whatever those holdups are going to be. Because going to staff didn't seem to speed it up any, in the last five years that we've had it. But my question more to that is, I don't see
040the 80 projects listed in the contract. Tt in their proposal. And the 3 percent if they don't meet the KPIs, did I say that right, I always get the letters mixed up. But if they don't meet the 80 projects what would be the accountable for that? I appreciate it in the proposal but the ask for is for it to be in the contract because how do we actually hold them accountable if it's not in the contract? so, MR. White, I'll start it and then you can finish it. So the KPIs will be developed by the team. There is a lot of nuances and program management of this entire program. And then, I'll turnover to MR. White to get more detailed about or sonya about the message schedule. There is a schedule that attached to the,
041I want to say tt attached to the executive summary, if I'm not mistaken or one of the attachments within the actual item. But there are specific KPIs that we will develop looking at the master schedule, what needs to be completed? What can be completed? What is not in design but in construction right now with specific time lines and those will be part of the KPIs that will develop to hold accountable for the number of projects that we think can be completed within a certain time frame within this window? so I have a problem with that, because, they're willing to say they can get to 80 projects and I believe it needs to be written somewhere in there. Even if you put will be incorporated into the KPIs, 80 projects will be incorporated, I just think
042that if it's not in the contract, all we're holding them accountable is their quarterly a evaluations which don't address the project which projects are getting done. As a board member I ask for that in the contract. They agreed. Initially said 85, if you have to put it 75 with the caveat that if it's something beyond their control, we cannot hold them accountable for it but they felt confident with that number and I believe it should be in the contract. And I make a motion that to hold in the contract that aecom will be accountable for completing 80 projects if they are within the year time period of the contract. Obviously if the contract is cut short, you would not hold them accountable. second. motion by MS. Hixon, second by MS. Rupert. Public comment? Speaker: nathalie
043lynch-walsh, this gets back to the way information is presented to you. I cannot repeat some of the words I used when I realized that I could not convert these things easily to excel, it's always pdf, even though they clearly came out of excel and starting with the project. You cannot sort them by completion date which you don't flow if 80, yes, it's a number. if it is presented to a proposal to you to include it as one of the exhibits as a basis for the kpis to be developed, it's a reasonable request. It was presented by them, copy and paste and it becomes an additional exhibit which your staff utilized to do their KPIs from. It a very legitimate request and it makes it very clear, the intention that's you're looking to get things done.
044Last week, that same number was presented as projects that were almost complete to close out that you should move through quickly. Should not even take a year to get those done. I support it. Move it forward. board member comment on the motion? DR. Zeman? thanks, chair. Just maybe for our general counsel, I understand MS. Alhadeff's motion on changing the words around, there hopefully it will pass quickly, it makes sense. That's something that we need to go back to the vendor and renegotiate. But if we decide to make changes, to add. Whether you like it or not, there is going to be KPIs developed, an extra firm that holds aecom and their partners accountable for those KPIs and if they don't, they will get 3 percent. Which is exactly what the board asked. If we add,
045chair, a material change to this contract like complete 80 projects, and would that require us to go back and negotiate with them outside of this meeting and get their concurrence on a substantiative change like that? MS. Jacques-adams. through the chair, any change that is made via motion, needs to be accepted by aecom. In other words, you motion to add language in, they have to initial or resign the contract with the revised language. So if aecom is in disagreement with the language that is proposed to be added via motion, then, you're correct, there is going to have to be a negotiation with that item. So you even though the board approves it, if they disagree, then it would have to be negotiated. I think the best thing to do would be to ask them right now,
046if they are in agreement with that language so that you can have an understanding. while I have the floor, chair, is there anybody here from aecom that is authorized to change the contract? hi, I'm here to make those decisions. terrific. And chair, would it be okay to ask them or after we vote on? I have a suggestion, through the chair. If there are items within the proposal that you believe is advantagous to the school board, I suggest that in this section 2.02 we proposal is in the contract. That way we do not have to piecemeal portions of the aecom's proposal, we can incorporate the entirety of it. It will be part of the contract. terrific. And I'm wondering if they can amend the motion as a piece of this contract? yes, sure. terrific. I'll second
047that. all right, any other board discussion on the motion? Go ahead. the proposal is already incorporated in the contract in attachment b in xwlaoetion. terrific, so we don't need the motion. I think that we need to, is, where within the contract is exhibited via attachment be referenced. sorry. page 20 of 22, under table of attachments, attachment b, aecom proposal dated JANUARY 8, 2026. okay, my suggestion would be usually when you have a summary provision that indicates a list of, attachments, you would need to place within the body of the contract what that is. So in other words, in section 2.02 add in that, the proposal is in, add some language with regards to proposal. You know. So it's not enough to say, let's say for example you have a list of ten attachments, you can't
048just plug it into the contract that you have a list of ten attachments. You would need to describe what it is within the body of the contract and then you have that, those attachments are listed. So my suggestion would be in section 2.02 where it's priority of documents, you're already describing which documents takes precedence, that's where I would add some language that references, you know, proposal. In other words, for example, the contract documents are composed of this agreement and a ei's proposal attachment b, it's just that simple. terrific, do I have the floor still, chair? you do. thank you. I would proposal and move on page 1 of 22, it reads currently the contract documents shall consist of this agreement for provision of the program manager and attachment aecom's proposal. moved by DR. Zeman seconded
049by MS. Alhadeff. Public comment on the substitute motion? Speaker: DR. Nathalie lynch-walsh plantation florida, I know it's been a long day can I read this b agreement proposal dated JANUARY 8th, are you just adding attachment b to that language, because it's already mentioned there? I just don't want you to be adding it in twice. any other public comment on the motion? Board discussion on the motion? DR. Zeman? Any other board discussion on the motion? MS. Hixon? to the public speaker's point, would b, would you just put attachment b at the end of that sentence? the way that the motion reads is better, because a and b just describes the priority of the documents. At where the motion indicates to add, is defining what contract documents are. perfect, thank you. any other board member discussion on
050the motion? MR. Cervera? I'm referencing page 8 of the contract, paragraph 2.03 scope of services. I quote, program manager services in setforth in attachment a. This might be cleaner to accomplish the objective of DR. Zeman here to say along the lines of following. A and b all terms of which are fully incorporated here in and then list, whatever goes on to the next paragraph and I think that's fine. I think that captures everything we're trying to do in the easiest cleanest fashion. But of course in the general counsel. MS. Jacques-adams. I agree with the language but there is already each of the a catchments, already says that abcde is incorporated I agree everything just leaving out that it's incorporated. That language is already duplicative. So the beginning of what you said, this is the part
051that I 100 percent agree with you. When you said to add attachment a and b. I agree that that is a value added language. okay, thank you. That would be my suggestion. any other board discussion? We have a substitute motion on the floor so those with the substitute motion before we do anything. as a maker of the motion I suggest we vote it down. all opposed say no. all in favor say aye. no. substitute motion fails. thank you, I would keketo contue ononhe motitions. so wee ckckto MS. Hixon's motion but you still have the floor. thank you so much. And I think that, MR. Cervera, correctly if I'm wrong your discussion is program manager in 203 a, provide setforth on attachment a and b. So my motion, on 2.03 a is simply to incatnate the
052words. motion made by DR. Zeman, seconded by MR. Cervera, questions on the substitute motion. Board member on the substitute motion? All in favor of the substitute motion say aye. aye. all opposed say no. Substitute motion passes unanimously. MS. Hixon, you still have the floor. I have a couple more things, sorry. On the heath proposal, they mentioned that they can reduce the budget by 10 percent. And on page 63, they said they would eliminate and reduce functions, I would hope that aecom can also do that. I know there was a reduction and thank you for that, the cost of the emergency contract coming to us. But I would hope that as you're moving through, you're trying to accomplish those two things. On page 10, 2.12 about travel. I would like to make a motion to delete
053that section from this contract. We have a no-travel for our district. And I don't think we should have any travel in this contract. is there a second? so it's on page 10 of 22 and it's local travel will be billed as reimbursable expenses in accordance and then it talks about, all travel, per diem. And as I mentioned we're in a no-travel for anyone in our district. So I would like to travel that in our contract. is that a motion MS. Hixon. yes. is there a second. seconded by MS. Rupert. Motion made by MS. Hixon. Public comment on the motion? DR. Nathalie lynch-walsh plantation florida, I think you need clarification. Get somebody to explain what this really means. any other public comment on the motion? sure, barren banner. Many iterations of travel, there is one I
054want to call to the attention of the floor. Regularly the individuals who are working on this project are driving. In some case, I have employees that are driving 500 miles and they suggest reimbursement on that mileage. I would hope that is not strike thating that is significant for those individuals that are driving hundreds of miles every single month. doti, yes the coordinator use personal vehicles to get to the projects and they follow the contract. But I do agree that anything is not a cc travel internal to the county that is not specific work hours they cannot get reimbursed from driving to the house and county and any travel of anybody flying in and anyone else, no reason this contract should cover that. Just the ones that have reimbursement. The rest can be taken out. board
055discussion on the motion. DR. Hepburn. chair, not chair but MS. Hixon, I want to clear up, we have a travel ban for conferences but for in county for work, we still reimburse people that go beyond their office to provide services. I'll reword my motion. It was spent to say specifically, cause the travel ban for the county is out of the county. I'll reword it to say that I like to strike the language that that allows the reimbursement for out of county travel. okay. all right, DR. Zeman? I don't have anything to say, thanks chair. any other board member discussion on the motion? MS. Bulman? I mean, the way na it's written right now, per diem, it would not be reimburses if the school would not agree. So if we left it in, you have to
056approve it. niz other board member discussion on the motion? DR. Zeman? yes, I'm sorry, do we need this motion if it says you have to get prior approval before you do it? MS. Hixon would you like to withdrawal your motion? no all in favor say aye. aye. all opposed say no. no. roll call. alhadeff. no. bulman. demo. -- no. cervera? no. hixon. yes. holness. no. leonardi. no. rupert. no. thompson. no. zeman. no. motion fails, 1-8. MS. Hixon, you still have the floor. last thing, so when you're looking at the cost of everybody and payment, and maybe I just don't understand, reading it but you know it has list, what the job is and then how much they're getting paid. And then in the contract it says that part of that pay, includes overhead and when
057you look at, and I'm not trying to, it was just the highest number so I don't want anyone like I'm picking on them, but director of construction, 510,000 for the one year, office manager, 250,000, program director 735,000. For the year, and when you go into the contract, I know that covers their salary and some other parts of it. Those are large numbers, so it was confusing to me. But my question is, do we charge aecom to, nair in their school. They're in our facilities. Aecom works out of our facility. Am I correct? DR. Hepburn. you're correct. do they pay rent for being in these facilities or they're colocated? they're co-located. We do not charge them rent. so why would we be covering the cost of overhead in those areas? It's, I have it in different.
058It's on, in the contract there. Where it says, project, director, I guess, it's project manager, I think it says. Where was that? It's just a very large number and I just want to be clear on some of the things so -- where was it? could you tell the page. hold on. sorry, you were writing. Overhead cost and project cost. So I just want to point out that they don't have overhead costs or their minimal because they use our facility. I know I'm nick picking. I just want po point that out. And I'll end with, I still have a problem with them changing staffing. And the point was to keep everybody moving in the same direction. So I have a problem with that and I would like to also reiterate what, public speaker said and I
059don't think we should be starting any new projects. i think we shall be finishing these projects. Because if we get a new program manager, we would not want to shift things around. Thank you. mr.MacMac entire can you speak to that. the overhead rate is a corporate costs. It's the taxes we pay, the benefits we pay. Unemployment taxes, county taxes, the benefits we have. Our contract tells us, that you, the district, will co-locate us, that way you're not paying for space. That would be much more more expensive than what you offer us, because we would have to rent b space. That's what that means. thank you, MS. Rupert? there is a lot said already and a lot said last week. A lot that has come to the wire has been difficult to stomach. And knowing that,
060different people in different companies were treated not in a very nice way. And opted out, because let me just start with this, sorry. My two questions today. And I was able to ask the attorney. So my first one was this. Ask the attorney if they considered a new contract not an extension because if it had been an extension, I believe that there, it would have been, more difficult to replace people and change the staffing. But it doesn't, it isn't a an extension it's a new contract so in a new contract you can say this is was a business decision. and I'll use, quotes here. Because I understand it was a business decision but it was like, some companies got the business and other ones were given the business. And I mean like, in -- way
061to -- and staff trying to make the best of chaos. So, my second question is how many migrated into this new staffing plan. If somebody can answer that. mike mac entire, you mean staff? yeah. people. Um, in the last three months, two staff people have been hired by aecom, one was let go by davis right around thanksgiving. Because that person's time had expired on the program. That person saw that we had been advertising a position. And that persona plied for that position online. And received an offer letter. Another person was told that their time was up that they need today look for a job. That person was informed by a colleague that they had seen a posting for aecom positions on linkedin and they applied online and they were given a job. Other positions are
062listed as tbd. They have not, we have not added positions or names staff names to our staffing list that are not employed, not employed by one of the team members. that is your response? Not one person besides those two people? two people hired, everything else in our proposal is tbd if they're not employed by aecom, bok, garth or coribino. In this proposal. this mish mosh of all of this, is driving me crazy, you I know I went from personnel name from keith and sun davis and there were several names that were added to aecom from there, so it could have been the timing. But I understand that and if I can find my votes before I find my notes. it could be staffing list. sorry to interrupt you, but this was, gosh sorry. If I
063actually had it in front of me but it's ridiculously too many pages. But I went through as as soon as I found the two companies were not included piqued my interest. I saw people from this list, going over on your side. The two companies, not people that they were not going to be carried forth in a new contract. So they need today make sure that all, they had, laid off their people by the 17th so they did. So I get it. So obviously then the employees on, you know on linkedin or which ever, word of mouth, hey I need a job. I get it. I don't have to like it but I get it. this proposal only has those two ex employees listed. Everything else is tbd if they're not actual employees of the team
064members. That's what this proposal is. okay. I built it myself. I believe you but I also, i have a visual memory so when I go data to data, person to person, company to company, it's dead on. I appreciate your information. I respect your business decision and answers that you just gave me. So I appreciate that. But still don't like it. MS. Rupert? yeah. MS. Thompson. my colleagues have covered my questions. MS. Bulman. thank you, chair. A couple of broad comments, I wanted to thank MS. Thompson for tabling this item last week. I think that was very smart because now, we've and MS. Alhadeff. Sorry MS. Alhadeff, I wrote MS. Thompson on my comments. It's been a long day, and MS. Alhadeff for bringing this because I think we've gotten a lot of work in the
065last week. I was thrilled to hear earlier what a great job our procurement team has done. It's wonderful to have compliments and you were able to put this together so quickly. Thank you so much. And I'm happy to see price reduction, so thank you guys. And I think, you know, I'm happy with the contract in general the continuity is necessary. And I did inquire about having the second pemore but that seems to be impossible. But I look forward to the workshop and looking forward how everyone can fit into that after we get to the next phase of that. soy actually, I wanted to clean up some language on page 2, in 2.03.. So I have a a motion. I have a motion and it might not exactly say what you what MS. Alhadeff say in
066her motion, because I didn't have it in front of me so if you can just correct the record for that. do you want to read it for the record, MS. Bulman. yes, starting in 2.03, b-1, I would like to change it, that section to read an evaluation shall be conducted by an external company designated by s B.C. E, whatever the name was on motion. Do we want to do monthly or quarterly? yes, both. okay, so monthly and quarterly, as setforth in exhibit a. is there a second? could this all be one motion? I just said, it was selected not designated. I used the word selected. oh selected, sorry. through the chair just as a clarification, to put and, it's what the staff means. okay. All right so I made changes. Do you want me to
067reread it. no, there is a desire to take this in one motion. so I made those changes, 2.03, b2. So will the school board or the company be providing it? the school board. okay, so bcps shall and in parenthesis is correct. And program manager should implement corrective actions and then 2.03b-4, program manager understand and agrees that if at that fails to implement any corrective action, sbpc should relukt 3 percent of the most resent basis due to program manager until such time the program manager has implemented all outstanding corrective actions. motion made by MS. Bulman. second. seconded by MR. Zeman. Public comment on the motion? Speaker: DR. Nathalie lynch-walsh, plantation florida. I have concerns about an external firm producing something monthly this was written performance base fees is not new. It was in the original contract.
068So to not repeat past mistakes, means that you have to be on top of enforcing this. Because there were fees to be deducted in 2020, it was just never enforced. So somebody, make sure when you're deciding that somebody is responsible for enforcing it. Because a contract is only as good as its enforcement. But this idea of, of accountability is actually not new. It was there before. And the difference being that staff, was suppose to evaluate and then share those results and then tt firm would come a long and audit, the KPIs. thank you. Any other public comment on the motion? Board discussion on the motion? MS. Hixon. thank you. I just have a quick question. MS. Bulman. So on the first one, 3.3bi which sets forth in exhibit a, shouldn't you also add and exhibit
069b since that is top of the 2.03? was that in MS. Alhadeff's motion? that was in the motion we already passed. yes. thank you. MS. Rupert. it's not on the motion, it is on a separate issue. DR. Zeman? this is great. any other board discussion? MR. Cervera. thank you, chair. To the make per of the motion, attachment a, not exhibit. Right? Okay. Thank you. Too many lawyers in the school board. any other discussion? DR. Holness. thank you, board member bulman for b4. Are you removing or fair the KPIs because it's redundant? yes. okay, thank you. any other board discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. aye. any opposed say no. Motion passes unanimously. MS. Bulman, are you done? I had a couple of other clean ups. On 2.05 page 5ef. Never mind not
070that one. I think you did a really good job of fixing that. Is have a question though for page 14, 3.07. Just wondering if this is a one-year contract. If this really needs to be in there? through the chair. I'm very familiar of that paragraph. buzz you do make an excellent point that whenever a contract is a year, sometimes we remove it because you already appropriated that for the year. do we have appropriated it, right? We have? Okay. So I don't think we need 3.07. And then in, I move to remove 3.07. second. moved by MS. Bulman seconded by MS. Thompson. Public comment on the motion? To remove 3.07. Speaker: DR. Nathalie lynch-walsh, plantation florida, considering this is the only thing you get between you and the handy lease. I get you appropriated this money
071but just in case of anything changes I'm not in favor of anything that can protect you. This might be the only thing whether you funded something or not. MS. Jacques-adams, so because this is an emergency item and you would like to extend it for any reason, I suggest you leave. I will -- that. 3.09, on page 15 there is a redundancy. I would just take out the second required on the first line. And then, on the third line, after, so I'll move to remove the second required on the first line. and to remove, whatever word was next to order on this. That's it. is that a motion? yeah, but it really, I mean it, does not really matter. I'll retract that. Everybody just knows that it's required. okay, any. Any other board discussion on the
072item? Before we go to round 2. I would just make a brief comment and then we'll go to MS. Rupert. I just want to thank staff and also all of the firms that worked very hard to bring us proposals. We in one week realized over 1 million dollars of savings. I recall last month, we were able to bring up a property offer by like two million dollars. So this is, you know, the board is taking direction to try to make sure that we're, you know, getting our bang for our buck and I appreciate the superintendent and staff for working hard to realize that vision of this board. MS. Rupert? thank you, I want today give the opportunity to aecom to actually edit their response to me. mike mac entire, it appears a previous document was
073issued in error there was a name that was then removed it should have not been on. In the final document there were only two. The document submitted as part of our proposal only that's two ex employees. The initial had extra name that was removed and doneder into a tbd. thank you. you're welcome. thank you, MADAM Chair. okay, any other board discussion on the item? All right, all in favor of item 2 say aye. aye. all opposed says no. item passes unanimously. a amended. as amended. multiple times. that concludes this meeting.