Monthly Archives: June 2015

Photo of Runcie and Messier at July 15 meeting at Stranahan

Special Meeting – 7/16/15

The Facilities Task Force will hold a special meeting on July 16, 2015 at Ft. Lauderdale High School at 7 p.m. The meeting is currently scheduled to be held in the training room on the third floor of the Administration Building. The school’s address is 1600 NE 4th Ave, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33305.


The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed 2015 – 2016 DEFP (district educational facilities plan) which is scheduled for its first public hearing before the school board on 7/21/15. Omar Shim from Capital Budget to attend.

Other topics for discussion will include the following:

Program Manager Selection Committee Meeting Reenactment

Dear Facilities Task Force

In what can only be described as a bad sequel to an equally bad movie, the all-employee program manager selection committees met yesterday in what was purported to be the 13th floor conference room, but appeared to be more of an open area amidst a sea of cubicles.

The purpose of yesterday’s meeting was to respond to a “speaker’s” concerns from the last board meeting that the selection process hadn’t fully met the requirements of Sunshine Law. You may watch all four glorious hours or so at

You’ll need to select “Misc” from the orange drop down menu and then look for the meeting in the gray boxes to the right of the screen. I have yet to be informed of a more direct way to view the video.

While construction purchasing agent IV Phil Kaufold facilitated the meeting, he read primarily from a script, with attorney Bob Vignola sitting right next to him, correcting every deviation from the script.

What transpired yesterday appeared to be the district’s attempt at curing the apparent sunshine law violations, but would probably be ruled a “perfunctory ratification of the action taken outside of the sunshine” (2015 Sunshine Law Manual, p. 51) as for the most part both sets of committee members merely copied their scores from the first evaluation onto the new score sheets, making no attempt to even appear to review the proposals or any notes. When I asked Phil for a copy of the proposals I was told I couldn’t have one because the committee members might need them. Committee members were asked to provide a summary explanation justifying their shortlisting scores. However, except in a few cases, most comments were generic, rather than specific.

Although shortlisting scores differed for cost and program controls, owners rep final scores were IDENTICAL (even to two decimal places) to the scores reported on 6/8/15.

Staff did make sure to take formal action in recommending the award of the contracts for both RFPs.

You may remember the purpose of having two RFPs was to both “mitigate risk and add additional controls to protect the District’s interest” (see E5 from 3/17/15 when the prior RFP bids were rejected).

I’ve asked Derek to explain, so that I may forward to you, how we find ourselves in a situation where Skanska, as the top scorer for both RFPs, is being recommended for award of the Program Manager – Cost and Program Controls contract, as well as one of the two Program Manager – Owner’s Representative contracts (along with Heery). 

The agenda, scoresheets, and Excel file I used to check their numbers may be accessed from

Public comment was not taken at the meeting, although it could have been. The district appears to have adopted an a la carte attitude toward Sunshine Law in that they appear cognizant of any part of sunshine that allows for the avoidance of public input, access, or participation, but ignore any part of the same rule that encourages public input:

However, as the court observed in Herrin, s. 286.0114(2), F.S., now mandates that “[m]embers of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission.” The opportunity to be heard does not have to occur at the same meeting at which the board or commission takes official action if the opportunity “occurs at a meeting that is during the decisionmaking process and is within reasonable proximity in time before the meeting at which the board or commission takes the official action.” Section 286.0114(2), F.S.

The terms “proposition” or “official action” are not defined in the statute, nor is there a distinction between official action taken at a formal meeting versus an informal setting, such as a workshop. Inf. Op. to Jacquot, April 25, 2014. “In light of the purpose of the statute to allow public participation during the decisionmaking process on a proposition, it should be liberally construed to facilitate that purpose.” Id.


Cost and Program Controls
Atkins Heery Skanska
shortlist 587.6 552 587
interview 143 144 152
total 730.6 696 739
avg 104.3714 99.42857 105.5714


Owners Rep
AECOM cordoba cumming heery skanska
shortlist 596 481 502 598 605
interview 141 0 0 144 152
total 737 481 502 742 757
avg 105.2857 68.71429 71.71429 106 108.1429

Nathalie Lynch-Walsh

Facilities Task Force Chair


In Florida, transparency is not up to the whim or grace of public officials. Instead, it is an enforceable right. 

— Attorney General Pam Bondi


Watch 6/2/15 program manager shortlisting meetings
Select Misc from the orange drop down menu, then Program Manager Eval from the gray drop down menu to the right.

Interviews scheduled to start 8 am Monday, June 8th.


Dear FTF
Following our May meeting I read the scope of the owner’s representative services very closely and was surprised to find that it mentioned the program manager would be responsible for the “construction and construction management functions assigned to the OR.” I then consulted the Construction Management Association of America by phone and reviewed their CM/PM handbook. As a result I identified a number of construction management functions embedded in the Owners Rep RFP. Findings were included in the May 19th email sent to the board. See June Docs/Links for supporting materials.
On May 19th the Broward County School Board took no action on the motion, with the lack of action implying that not only do they support the superintendent and staff in removing the public from the selection process–they are willing to do so even if it means ignoring past reform efforts and violating their own policy.

Continue reading

Org Chart Questions from 05/12/15

06/03/15 Update: See June Docs/Links for 06/09/15 Board Item II-6 changes since 05/12/15
. . . in anticipation of the types of questions that will be raised at the June 4th facilities Task Force meeting, we are requesting the following be provided at the June 5th FTF meeting:
1) Executive officer salary band changes:
There appears to be a movement toward standardizing the salary ranges for top executive officers, so that anyone with the word “chief” before their name is now in salary band “s.” (see chief human resource officer, chief portfolio services officer, and chief public information officer). Is the omission then of the “chief” AUDITOR accidental or by design? 
If by design, the Task Force would expect to see some sort of salary range analysis substantiating these changes, and the lack of change for the Chief Auditor. Additionally, we’d expect to see an analysis of the current staff qualifications and performance evaluations, compared to job descriptions for the purpose of either determining either that current staff was worthy of the increase–or that a search for better qualified staff was warranted. 
So if not an oversight, we are requesting such analyses be provided at the June 4th FTF meeting, because the lack of objective analysis supporting the foundation for a pay grade increase for every top executive except the position charged with the audit function sends a very clear message–one that will not be lost on task Force members or public perception.
A related question I expect FTF members to ask, is why on the eve of an $800 million bond program, the number of facility auditors is being cut from two to one–instead of being increased. We can see that operational audit staff is being increased by one position–but in terms of perception it raises questions–we’re requesting an answer be provided to FTF at the June 4th FTF meeting.
2) The disappearance of the Safety and Fire director and manager positions:
While we can see that there is now a Chief Building and Fire official reporting to the chief of staff. We can also see that the safety manager is now Manager I–emergency management under risk management. Where is the rest of the SAFETY function? Where are the safety inspectors? We are requesting an explanation be provided at the June 4th FTF meeting.
3) The complete reboot of what was left of the Facilities department. 
    The types of questions FTF members will be looking for answers to at our June 4th meeting would include
  • Justification for the new structure, positions, and reporting changes
  • Job descriptions and salary ranges for all the new positions
  • Cost/benefit analysis of all the changes. Ex. directors vs PM IIIs
  • Total cost of revamped department–the goal in outsourcing facilities was to cut costs and increase efficiency and effectiveness–one presumes. What will the new structure–coupled with four program managers give the district, how will it work, and what will it cost?
  • With the elimination of the PM IIIs, who will interact and work with school-based personnel, and how and when will this change be communicated to school-based personnel?
Nathalie Lynch-Walsh
Facilities Task Force Chair