 on the room and give Jonathan a few minutes to join us from wherever he's coming. So we're ready. Okay, for recording. Good morning, everyone. We apologize for whatever the glitch was that had us in two Zoom rooms, which is what the delay on the meeting start was. And we are trying to consolidate them. I'm Kathy Shane. I'm the chair of the committee and we'll pull up the agenda in a moment. But one of the first things I want to do is go around the room to make sure everyone can hear and be heard. We are conducting this meeting by Zoom and virtually and we are recording the meeting. So you will be able to see a virtual meeting later and we are posting these on our webpage. So I'm going to go around based on the people, faces that I can see on the screen, just to have people say, yes, they're here and they can be heard. So I'll start with Paul Bachman. I'm here. Steve Schreiber. I'm here. Phoebe. I'm here. Rupert. I am here. Ben. I am also here. Allison. Present. Anthony. Dwayne. Here. Mike. Present. And Diane. Present. And I think you said that Jonathan was in the other Zoom room, so I'm assuming that he will be joining us. And we were told that Ben, Sean Magnano is going to be joining us late. So we have a quorum of the full committee. So I think we will start now. And Anthony, if you could just pull up the agenda so that everyone can see what we are trying to go through this morning. We're going to be reporting out on the MBA meeting on February 11th, which I think you all know, because there have been a press release from the town. It was announced the school committee that we have officially been invited in to the feasibility study. And we can talk about what that means in terms of timeline. The big point of business for today's meeting is to discuss and review the draft for the request for services for the owner's project manager, the project manager that we will be contracting with to assist the committee, the building committee, as well as the school in designing and making key decisions on the school. We do have a draft that was done by the subcommittee. I'm anticipating that we may have some changes or suggested edits to this. So the committee will take notes on that to get to a final draft. Then the next after that is to discuss the proposed timeline for the OPM selection and key decision points and the roles of the subcommittee and the full committee in choosing the finalist, which will have to be done in a very telescope time if we want to make the June 7th board meeting for the MSBA, the panel that makes a decision on whether we're good to go with the selection of the OPM. And just for those in the subcommittee, when we were drafting it, on the 11th of February, we heard the timeline on the earliest we could be in was June 7th, because some of the advance drafts we have to give to MSBA before we can go out and post the request. So you'll see in the draft, we've adjusted some of those timelines. And then given that timeline, there's some suggested meeting dates for the full committee, but these are all in a suggested for discussion. So with that said, let me see whether Jonathan has joined us yet. Jonathan and Sean are both joined us. OK, so I think what we might want to do is just, Mike and or Paul, you were both at the MSBA meeting when we were invited in. If you want to just give a quick summary of what we heard at that meeting. And then I've asked Jonathan, who's the chair of the subcommittee, to walk us through some of the key parts of the draft, which are the goals that we're setting out for the all-owners project manager and the weights that we're giving. We have to say what we value in terms of the responses and the high scores will be invited for interviews and they become our finalists. And it influences the decision-making process. So Mike and or Paul, if you want to talk about what we heard on the 11th. I deferred to Mike. I can be very brief. I know the point of the meeting is much more at the OPM level, but it's a very pleasant meeting for a couple reasons. We were first. That always helps. But more seriously, MSBA noted that we'd completed all the tests required to be considered to enter the feasibility stage, which we'll talk very much about the rest of the meeting as a first step in that feasibility process around the OPM. I want to thank Matt from Desi. He's the Desi rep on the MSBA. He made a point to note that our buildings are in poor condition. He would definitely give us great feedback. He was very involved in the last project and just noted that he was really pleased to see us back again because he knows our staff and students really need a different learning and working experience than what they currently have. MSBA board voted unanimously to support the project to move to the next phase. Following that, there was a OPM module orientation that a number of us attended as well. But I'm sure Kathy and others may go over in terms of the steps and process there. But it was really nice. I know a couple of us, Paul and Kathy, for sure, stayed on and got to see some other schools who were at the next stage. They did all the feasibility entries, the rear four of us, and then they were able to see what it was like at the next phase where there's much more detailed design. And that was really, I found it really neat. I think there was a lot to learn from district, even if it was a secondary school, just what they shared and their process. So that was really, Paul, Kathy, Sean, I know you were there and others. Is there anything you want to add? That's kind of the quick summary of the meeting. It's like they vote and then right away you're whisked away to an orientation for the next phase. They're very efficient, which we appreciate. But Paul, Kathy, others, anything I'm missing? I think the only other thing is I did stay on for the module as did others. And when we got to the groups that were ahead in terms that they were starting to say their project and what they were doing, one thing of note is there was at least one net zero energy project in the pipeline for elementary schools. So we will have other places to look outside of Amherst for what those designs are, what they're thinking. And there is more than one elementary school in the pipeline as well. So it's not some of them were vocational schools and high schools, but there was one elementary school that is just it is basically just ahead of us, like six months, seven months. Not they were already putting a shovel in the ground. So I found that quite interesting. And then the thing that we had been warned or cautioned by Mike is that there is a schedule that MSBA has. And they work with us every step of the way. So even on the draft of the request for services that we're about to review, that we're drafting, they want to see that draft two weeks before it goes into a register to make sure that we've followed their template, that either that we're missing or that we did things that they have comments on. So that sets our timeline because then they want it to be out for a certain number of weeks for responses. And that means what and then they need our final selection at least a month before they take it to a panel. So it's each step of those things puts several weeks of time in it that's out of our control. I mean, it's in our control that we have to meet that deadline, but then we have to wait. So I think I'm going to turn at this point to Jonathan, who was chair of the subcommittee. And Anthony can pull the draft up, which we sent to everyone. And this is very much a draft. So we've had a couple readers send in some notes, but anyone should send us in some notes on if they see things that aren't quite right either in the background section or some wording they want clarified in later sections. So I'll do just the Anthony, maybe we can scroll through so people can get a sense. There's just a basic introduction that was more or less boilerplate on what we're doing. And then this background section, most of it was pulled from the original statement of interest that the school we submitted as a town. But it was updated what we've done since that statement of interest and gave a sense of where we're going. And including that we've done a space study in the middle school that determined there is enough room for the six to move up if we go in that direction. And so we do need to make sure all of these pieces are accurate. So all of this is the background for the bidders who are coming in and looking at this. And I'm now going to turn it over to Jonathan, whereas when we started filling in what the goals are we see for the project and what weight we've assigned to various characteristics of the bidders. So Jonathan. Good morning. So Anthony, why don't we start there. As Kathy said, a lot of this document is sort of pre-packaged boilerplate that comes from the MSBA. But there are parts that we can fill out and need to fill out. And one of the first and most important here, if Anthony scrolls up a little bit further, is the project objectives. Whoops. Sorry. We'll get to that. Yeah, there you go. You're seeing objectives, right? Oh, yes. I guess I was looking at the bullet point list because I'm assuming we don't want to try to read out every word during this process today. But some of these bullet points for project objectives, Kathy noted, were pulled from other documents. But we tweaked this to some degree and we tried to customize it for this project and for our community. And so certainly people should look at this and see if there are items that the subcommittee either missed or put too much emphasis on. I'll pause for a moment because this is kind of one of our big sort of instructions. But it's one of our opportunities to tell the OPM who will work for us what is important to us as a community. Can I ask a question? Yes. So dedicated space for a music computer and special education. Why were music and computer sort of separately identified as opposed to like R and P and other specials? Kathy, was that, did that bullet point get pulled from another document? Or maybe Anthony knows the answer to that one. Anthony may know because that was originally in Anthony's story during this. I think that particular bullet point came from the Fort River study, I think that phrasing. We talked about why we weren't calling out a gym and that was because a gym is part of the default MSVA setup. We did not discuss other art spaces. So maybe that needs an inclusion, I'm not sure. I see Mike's hand up. Yeah, Mike. Sorry, I can't. I guess I can see the hands, the little hand threw up on the screen, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I can do this thing too. So just a question or process question I may have missed a couple of years ago because I was having little Wi-Fi challenges. Is this an opportunity to offer feedback as we go through the sections now or from a process perspective, how would you like, because on that particular point, I actually do have some feedback. But if now is not the time, then I'm happy to offer it at a different time. I would say that now is the time to offer feedback on this. And then we haven't scheduled, but we will schedule another meeting of the subcommittee to go from what is very much a draft to more final. So it's both now people should raise issues. We will take notes and then share a revised draft with everyone, and people can send in any notes on this. Because this was done, as Jonathan said, using other documents, other towns, and then things that occurred to us. And it may even need some wordsmithing to make it clear what we're talking about. Sure. So I'll offer two pieces of feedback then. On the bulleted point that was raised, the second one down, I might suggest that we say dedicated space for special programs and special populations. For instance, computer is a tricky one. My recollection the last time is that MSBA wasn't really supporting building computer labs for elementary schools because it's part of the project. Most districts go into Chromebooks. And the idea of a lab instead of a maker space is a conversation we'd have to have. But I think keeping it more general, I think, talks about instrumental music without getting into the specifics that maybe misinterpreted. I think the other piece is going to be the least popular comment I make, perhaps. I just wonder under objectives if we also include a fiscal objective that I am aware, Sean, to be really pleased with me. I am aware that there's multiple projects being considered. And so I think we want to do all these things, but just being explicit because this is, again, trying to get an OPM, one of their jobs is to manage cost control and how many changes there are. I don't have all the language Jonathan, Rupert, others do. And Steve, but just something about that we want to we want these things. But we also want to be realistic about the cost of the town as well as the MSBA. So I don't know if that goes here or not, but it just said project objectives. And I think one of the project objectives, I think, has to be delivering all those, having all those deliverables happen and the town still being able to function financially. So I don't know if it's worth putting there. That's up to the group. But for me, it just seemed like it was missing. Well, I'll give you a reaction. I think it is definitely worth putting in. And we had an example from one other town that had cost effectiveness, doing what is needed, but being really paying attention to the cost. So we can, Anthony, you can put a placeholder there and we can wordsmith it. But it's in a cost effective way while controlling costs. Yeah. Kathy, I see another hand up. OK. Rupert. Yeah, I'm going to try to figure out how I can see hands. Rupert. Yes. I think I'm unmuted. One of my concerns, of course, going forward with the new building would be the maintainability of the building. And that may be reflected in the bullet point that says life cycle costs. Or maybe it needs to be pulled out specifically. I've seen a lot of especially high end, low energy buildings have extremely complex, difficult to maintain systems. And I think there needs to be some kind of a balance to keep the building maintainable. OK. I would say that I think that is the intent of that bullet point. But we can at the subcommittee look at that and figure out if there's a way to frame that a little better. Thank you. Kathy, I can't raise my hand because I'm a host. So in terms of smaller editorial comments, just put those in writing and send it to the committee. Is that your request? Yes, absolutely. Either write on the document or in an email to us. Either way, whichever way is easiest to you. And I think if we didn't, we can send you the Word document and you can plunk in a comment bubble if you don't have exactly how you want to word it. Got it. Thank you. Everyone should have the Word version, right? That was sent out. This question, I think, is more for Anthony, is the bullet point of compliance with the towns, wage stuff, bylaws. Is that meant to cover both of those, the two that we looked at, one that was more focused on sort of construction and then the other one? That was meant to be kind of all-encompassing, yeah. OK. I didn't really want to go into a long discussion here so much as this should prompt someone to look into what those bylaws are. Maybe have a link. Maybe we'll have a link to it. One thing people should just know on my screen, I've got the faces going down. If I try to put the hands up, I can't necessarily see them. So if anyone sees hands up, just please tell me. Kathy, if you open the participants window and you have another window open, you should be able to see the whole list of attendees. I can. And then I can't see, well, maybe make it smaller. I can't see the text, but that's fine. I've got it. Would it be too disorderly if people just spoke up like I just did? I don't mind if people just speak up. Because we don't want to move through this when people haven't had a chance to read. One of the questions I asked was auditorium space. So the same way people just called out special programs, if we call out an auditorium space, I think it says that we definitely want one in the school. And I'm certainly not against that. But I just think that there should be some agreement that we do. I grew up in a grade school that we use the gym and the gym. And it was what did you call it, Steve, a gym auditorium? Gym or cafeteria. We had something that was in two ways. But so it's things like that that I think we set these as goals and objectives. But we are somewhat same with the content of the building will be at this point too. This doesn't necessarily lock us into any particular configuration of the building. But it is a communication of the community's goals. If folks feel like they've given the comment they want to give, we could move on. But I don't want to rush things. Yeah, I just have one other comment, Jonathan. Is the creation of a net zero energy building, is the Northeast collaborative for high performance schools? Is that redundant? No, these are a series of different options that the MSBA requires. I believe at least my memory from the Fort River process was that you have to pick one of these to comply with, or the designer has to comply with as they're moving the project forward. And that net zero is really, that's a town requirement that's sort of on top of that. And so I think there's value to having all three items while they all get a greater interest in sustainability. It should be prudent. In fact, I think that point on the chips and the lead, that language I think is straight out of the boilerplate part of the document. Correct. OK, thank you. And there were some discussion about whether or not creation of a net zero energy building, so whether or not that should just state net zero ready or something like that, because you can't measure net zero until the building's operating. So you don't know if you've created it until after it's done. Yeah, I think we should probably talk a little bit at the subcommittee level about whether or not we have the right language. In the end, we're going to have to expound as a committee and a town significantly on what those goals are, and both the OPM and the designers will have to work with the bylaw as it's written. Right. I think the bylaw does have that test to see about performance. So thank you. Anthony, let's scroll down to four if we could. So the next section, as it says, is minimum requirements and evaluation criteria. Some of this is boilerplate, and there's other areas where we've edited it. And I will do my best to remember which sections are which and where we made edits. But I would freely welcome my subcommittee members pointing out stuff that I may miss as I'm going through here. Those first two bullet points are pretty much boilerplate. I don't think we edited the length of time for either or the experience levels for either of the two bullet points. They seemed reasonable to us. The next section that starts with the owner, that is the section we added. The standard document does not speak to minority business enterprises or women business enterprises. And while the town does not have a specific goal, we felt that it would be good for OPMs to work to discuss how they can be inclusive in what they bring to us in the way of services. Scrolling down a bit to evaluation criteria, I should probably back up and just talk briefly about if folks had a chance to look at the samples that Steve was able to find from other communities, most of them had a point category or a way to grade people on their responses. And so we have a list of evaluation criteria that we're proposing to judge the applicants against. And then we have a weighted maximum number of points that folks can achieve for each category. And so while we did use some of the documents that we looked at as guidance, we also made some of our own judgments on the points and therefore the weight that we thought and the importance as it were that we thought a certain thing held. And obviously we want to look both at the criteria but also the weighting. And again, folks can focus and tell us today in this format what they see, what they like or don't like, but we can also gladly take comment, as Kathy said, via email. So can I make a comment before we start here? So this is related to the previous stated goal of really encouraging women and minority participants. So which is the other direction. But this is going to be a comment regarding the whole thing. So we just had a speaker as part of the architecture lecture series who's from Minneapolis. And he made a comment that really has resonated with me that if you have the criteria in RFPs, so he used an example of performing arts like a theater in Minneapolis. And they issued an RFP. You must have done two other theaters. So he responded that no black architects in Minnesota have been able to do a theater. So therefore, by that very criterion, you have eliminated the possibility of a black-owned architecture firm responding to this RFP. So I hope that we'll look at all of these points that we have in all of these criteria that we have through that lens, that who are we eliminating the possibility of diversity by having criteria that or by having a point system that might have sort of a subtle bias like that in it. So I didn't mention this to the subcommittee because he literally just spoke at our school. But I thought that really resonated with me. And I just want to ask a question on this to show my ignorance of OPM versus the designer and the architect roles here. At the point where choosing a project manager, we haven't yet chosen the architect and the designer, although we're setting the stage for all of that. So do some of those concerns you've just raised, Steve, particularly come in when we are picking the group that's actually going to design the building for us? Absolutely. You'll come in to play then also. And so we should just, I would suggest that we just be really careful as we look through all of these points to consider whether or not there's an implicit slanting of our requirements towards something. So the thing I hear from by looking at this is that we sort of rate value everything about the same. Everything gets five points. There are a couple that get 10 points. And it seems like that doesn't really establish what our highest priorities are other than the ongoing maintenance and knowledge of net zero because they get twice as many points as everything else. And I just wonder if we truly do value everything the same, that putting together a website is as important as knowledge of the state building code or whatever it is. I'm not sure which would have more importance to us, but it seems like just a lot of small things here that are there any things that we think are really hyper-important that we really need to give a lot of points to that we care a whole lot about. And I don't have an opinion on that, but just wondering if we should be communicating to the people responding what we're really concerned care about. Well, certainly at the subcommittee level, the ones that got the 10 points were ones we were valuing a little bit more than others. It doesn't necessarily mean we hit the right note, but kind of management, the ability of the OPM. So stepping back a second, what does the OPM do? The OPM represents us and works for us. And there, now I'm speaking for me personally, their ability to communicate for us and to us and with the designers and with the community, that's something that seems very important to me. Likewise, having the knowledge about it, how to get to a net or at least try to get to the net zero requirements seemed important. But others may value other items. And just one other thing I thought through, Jonathan and Steve had come with two possible ways of waiting this. One is just the straightforward you're seeing here. And one, another was extra weights, like if you were extraordinary on something, you got double the count. But if you look through this, the capacity and skill, the knowledge, and the team you're bringing to us, if you add those three together, it's a lot of weight. So that you've done this before, you're bringing a team we really like and they've got enough time to do it. They're dedicated time. And then that capacity and skill thing, we've given a lot of emphasis to what team are you proposing to us and what knowledge do they have and what evidence do we have that they've done a good job in the past. The other thing. Yeah, they're heavily weighted in the cluster of pieces. The other thing I would say is that, although in one sense items like knowledge of the building code and knowledge of procurement laws are extremely important. In another sense, they're also kind of basic expectations and rather low bars to clear. So even though items five through five and on might not matter if you don't have item two, it's also our expectation that everyone who inquires is gonna clear number two pretty easily. So if we're gonna differentiate them, having a bigger point spread somewhere else. So you could, or the other way you could say it, Anthony, is you could lower the points you're giving for two because everyone's gonna get them. And put it back down at one point, financial stability was only given a three. And then we realized we were two points short of 100. So we gave him two more points, just to be rounded back up, but we could look at those again and say, if we really think they're not gonna, if they're not a viable company, they're not gonna be make the cut either. So we could lower points and redistribute a few points to make more of a differentiation would be one possibility. If Mike Morris has his hand. Mike. Yep. So I think that's right. I agree with all the comments that I heard. And I think the thing to, just for people who haven't been through a process like this before, is this is really good to find the package by which we evaluate them, right? So most of the people on the call, I have to, some of the people on the call, we have a lot of architects on this call, aren't going to be able to answer and evaluate number two, right? So I think, you know, the point thing, point differential for me, I'm not gonna weigh in on what should or shouldn't be how many points. It's really gonna define where the potential applicants put their work. So if there's more points for familiar energy zero building projects, we can then expect that all the architects whether they've done what or not are gonna invest a lot of resources into describing how they would approach that. So I think, you know, the points piece, I would, in general, you're gonna probably find lots of qualified people to do this role. And so I think that the advantage of being more to Paul's point of being more clear on the points is that's really gonna define and let the potential applicants know they really care about net zero bylaw. We're gonna put a lot of time. We're gonna put our green person onto, you know, really doing a lot of work. And I think it's a signal that's important more than actually the points and how they get calibrated because likely there's gonna be people who are really solid, although people are really tiered points made or we're gonna be really solid on some of the core pieces. So I think that's the reason to be more clear and make sure they align. I just wanna say this for the general group is that it actually defines the presentation and the packet that each of these potential vendors creates. And I think if they don't have much experience, for instance, I'm picking on the net zero one because it's the one that's in the middle of my screen that says 10 points, then it's gonna stand out like a sore thumb, right? And so I think that's more than just how they all add up together. That's its own thing, but I think it's much more a signal. So the packets we get are consistent with the values that the committee has. I see Steve's hand is up, Steve, is that? Yeah, no, that's a... Yeah, so I'm gonna make a slightly counter. Well, I'm gonna make... And I know that I'm also on the subcommittee so I have a voice there. If I were in the zoo, I would move as many things up into minimum requirements as possible and then leave the evaluative criteria, the ones with points to those ones that we really think are important. So we've already talked about things that we think are baseline. Of course, you have to know the building code. Of course you have to, and quite frankly, you have to know A because that's in the template, right? So if you're working with schools and you have to know that already, but there are other things that I think that are immeasurable. In Amherst, the ability to work with a complex, with a very engaged community, that's kind of critical. In other words, and that's not, so for me, I would give many more points on a proven track record of working with a diverse community that wants to be very engaged in projects like this. That would be something that I, I've talked about diversity about how I think that's also very important for this, just to send a message through the people that we hire as consultants that we're committed to diversity, I would give more points to that. So that would be my suggestion is to put as much as we possibly can up into minimum requirements and then leave the points for things where we can really express our values. I don't think that's an option to us, unfortunately. Okay. To change the minimums. I don't, you know, they said there, but they said- Here's another thing that my most direct experience working with an OPM is on the design and construction of the design building at UMass. So at the time that that building was being considered, we did not know that that was gonna be a timber frame, mass timber building. So nothing about mass timber was written into the OPM criteria or into the designer selection criteria. So that all changed during design development where both the OPM and the architects had to quickly become experts in mass timber construction. What everyone knows about that building now is that it's made of mass timber. That was zero points on the OPM and zero points for the architect. What was critical in both the OPM and the architects was the ability to pivot. So they basically to have the flexibility to learn about a completely different construction system. So that's another criterion that I think is critical is this ability to learn, to know, to pivot. So even at zero, so I think that most OPMs and most architects can become well-versed in how one achieves net zero fairly quickly, whether or not they've actually had that direct experience. So, Anthony, can I just ask on the minimum, are you, I know we can't get rid of any of minimum, but what Steve was suggesting is adding some things to minimum. You think we can't add to minimum? I don't think so because we expanded some of these evaluation criteria, but most of them are already here in the evaluation criteria rather than minimum. So I don't think so. I mean, our instructions in that conference call were to not mess with anything that wasn't specifically highlighted as something we were supposed to fill in. So then, Steve- Like honestly, I'm not even sure about adding this here. Like we debated where it really belonged in the document. Oops, where it really belonged in the document and I'm not- Well, that is, they get this two-week period to review our draft, but then if we want to respond to what Steve's suggesting, it would be to lower the points in the evaluation and redistribute points as the way of strongly signaling this, correct? If we need to keep a particular category, even though we think it's more or less minimum, they're not gonna be applying if they don't have it. Yeah, okay. I can see that Sean has his hand up. Sean's hand is up. Can you hear me? Yes. This is just a more of a functional comment sort of based on the evaluation criteria. If you're allowed to, I would suggest, and maybe I missed it, maybe it's already in there, but I would suggest putting something later in the document that says the submissions that you get from the OPMs will clearly identify where this information is in their package. One of the things that's always been a challenge in evaluating OPMs and architects is trying to find, you're looking through the document and spending lots of time just trying to find how you can evaluate these criteria. And so if you can get them to submit it in a way where it's clearly marked, number one, here's our information. Number two, here's our information. It'll make the process that you guys have to do for evaluating it much cleaner and more straightforward. Yep, go ahead, Anthony. So everyone is going to submit the state form, the designer selection form, which is pretty restrictive and it lays out exactly how they're going to... Yeah, I'm talking about some of the ones like their approach to up above, there's things about how they're gonna, their approach to doing something or information on net zero. Those types of things won't be on this form or at least not their approach to how they're gonna do them. Yeah, there should be a section at the end of the state form. For architects, it's typically a maximum of six pages where you're supposed to address the evaluation, you're supposed to address specifically the evaluation criteria. I don't know if it's six pages in this one because I didn't look at that end of it, but I'm sure it's of some form of that is there, Anthony. Correct? Yeah, anything you can do to make it as straightforward as you can for comparing it will be good because I just know the last time around, it's a long time just kind of searching for things. Yeah, three double-sided letter size sheets. Is this what you're talking about, Jonathan? Yes, that is the spot. Okay, that's good. Yeah, I would expect that most of, we're not most, but much of our evaluation is gonna be based upon the information placed there because a lot of the rest of the response will be somewhat boilerplate. Just as much of this is boilerplate. Do others have additional criteria or additional comments on the evaluation criteria? I think we've had some good feedback and there'll be a good opportunity for us to revise it at the subcommittee level. Jonathan, this is Mike. I just wanted to note that Rupert and I both have a meeting at 9.30 when the meeting time was changed, it bumped into it. So I'm not pushing Rupert here already, shared some feedback, but just, we will be departing at 9.30 and just wanted to communicate it wasn't because we're not committed, but with the time change, we just couldn't change our 9.30 meeting. Well, you know, Paul with, Mike with that said, I think you should definitely then send comments, you know, and we will bring them into the committee and we will bring them in as a public document so that it's when you get a chance to focus on this and we will commit to, this is first draft, there will be second draft before it's final. So we'll figure out some way of, did we address concerns before it leaves the town? You know, goes into somebody else's mailbox. Yep, that'd be great. And I think maybe even with the minor edits when they get cleaned up, if we send it to the full committee, you know, I know Rupert and I will get back to you in a timely manner. So maybe Anthony just go next to the timeline on all of this. So this does not reflect the information we received at the last, at the meeting after our last subcommittee meeting. These are the old dates. Okay, so the one I think I sent to everyone, I went and changed those dates, but that's fine. You know, so these have the old dates in them, but now the target date is June 7th in terms of the panel date is June 7th. Sorry, that's the date. So working backwards from that, the earliest we would know for sure we're in is June 7th and they need to, a month before that is where they get who we've selected. And when you go back to the very beginning where it says it appears in the register, they need the draft two weeks before it goes into the register. So, you know, so that's what moves then this timeline and then it has to be out for at least two weeks. So that's the schema that we've been put into that's responding to them. So in between that, its respondents come back to us. We do an evaluation of them, we select a shortlist, we do interviews, and then we select a finalist. So the question here is when, what piece comes back to the full committee versus the subcommittee? So I will just- So just on this timeline, so we have to have this, the RFS finished by in two weeks. It has to, the RFS has to be, this timeline can't, they have to have our draft two weeks before it goes into the register. That's tomorrow, right? Right, so when we were listening in on February 11th and I verified this, I asked them a question, they said the earliest air mist is gonna come into a panel is June 7th. And it was because their timeline has them for the June 7th, the ad would go in no later than March 25th, but they had to have it two weeks before. And if you want it to be on the earlier, the May 11th, the May 3rd fall. Yeah, so- My question is, do we have to have the RFS ready by March 3rd? Is that my question? No, no, under the timing for June 7th, two weeks before March the 25th, so subtract 14 days from 25. So we have a little bit more time than that. I just changed them to the dates in your PDF, Kathy. Perfect, okay. Thank you, that's helpful. Okay, so that's what it actually comes out in the register. You have to do it a few days before, before them to post it. And then they want it two weeks before. Okay, and I said, if we can get it to them earlier, we can post it earlier. This is a deadline if we wanna get to June 7th. So if we're ready in a week, they will review it as soon as we're ready and give us a go ahead, to go ahead and post it, which would give us a little bit more time in the timeline to get the responses back and evaluate them. So we could look at our own, what's possible for us to do a selection process that makes sense. And that was, I think, Anthony, that was the news we got on the 11th on that they needed a full two weeks to review our draft. So we couldn't just, we could try to move really fast, but we couldn't move fast enough. And then the rest of that section is pretty much all boilerplate. Well, I don't think we have to make a decision right now, but when we look at the next time we would meet as a full committee, at what point in the, everyone can get a revised final draft before it goes out. And then it's a question of, in the selection process, when we're down to three on interviews, Mike is either waving goodbye or are you waving goodbye? I am, yeah, Rupert and I do need to get another call. Thanks everybody, appreciate it. But we'll follow up as indicated with the revised draft and offer any feedback we have. Okay, and future meetings will be at 7.30, we'll make the posting in time. Oh yeah, no, and I don't have a preference. It was just that I already, we both had already had another meeting scheduled, if it works better to be later for folks that's sort of arbitrary to me of just this week, this time I couldn't change a meeting that was already set. Okay, so maybe Anthony, I think you could take this down at this point. And so the scheduling meetings for the full committee and certainly if people want to be, we will schedule another meeting, at least one more meeting for the drafting committee, the full committee, the process would be, we get to a full graft, it goes in for review, then it gets posted, then we start getting responses back. We're sitting down and assigning evaluation criteria, doing background reference checks and interviews. So at what point are we doing which things at a full committee level was my question? We didn't have an answer to that in the subcommittee. Any suggestions or thoughts? I would suggest that it be at the subcommittee level, but be prepared to open it up to all committee members and post as a committee of the whole. That way if people who don't want to participate in that level don't have to, but if people do, they have the option. The document has written assumes that the OPM subcommittee will be the ones doing evaluations and reference checks and such, that was true. It was more at the final selection point when we're down to our top two, top three. So does that mean that the subcommittee will evaluate and do interviews, but then the decision will go to the full committee? Well, I'm just, I'm raising that as a question. I'm just raising it as a question. And Paul, I think was saying we could do everything at the subcommittee level, but invite everyone in to be part of those key decision points. Sean's hand is up. Yeah, sorry, I think, so I think it's a sort of a combination of what you both are saying. I think the subcommittee does it all and does the short list. And then at some point explanation of that short list of the full committee, why was this the number one would probably be helpful for the full committee, explaining what separated them from the other ones. And one of the things they said in our briefing on the module was when we submit our choice, we're supposed to do a full narrative of why we gave the points we gave, what the interview was like, what we heard in the interview, a narrative thing. So they want documentation that we went through these different pieces. So we will have to do that in any case. So that would be something we can be preparing both for the full committee, but it's something we have to prepare when we go and say, here's our selection. They want a full narrative report. And they said, they will turn it back if it doesn't have that. So they encourage us to take good notes. Any other thoughts on this? Because it does it, we can kind of think this through on when we would next meet as a full committee then. Everything will be much more active in terms of the full committee once an OPM is when our office, the owner's project manager is on board and there's going to be some waiting time once this is out. But I think we could be talking about what the steps in the process are going to be. So we can set a date for March and set another date for April. If people are ready to do that now or I can send out potential dates. You know, we would need to have a full draft in by the middle of March to make the deadline. So we could do a Wednesday in the middle of March date at 7th or in the morning is the next time the full committee meets would be my suggestion. And to be more specific, that would be the 17th of March. The 17th of March is the next full committee meeting? That would be next full committee. And by then I would expect we have a full draft and we may have already submitted it. Okay, so we wouldn't. So we're not looking for the full committee to approve the final draft then. We'll let the subcommittee do that. If that's all right with everyone. Can we, you know, with the open meeting law if we do a second draft and we submit it and get comments back from people and then discuss it at a full committee? I mean, if the comments just come in, I think we can get to a final draft that way unless people want to review a full draft as a full committee. I'm looking for a hands up any response to that. Yes, Paul. I think the full committee should sign off on the full draft. Okay, then we would need to meet on March 10th. Can I, I would love to do it even earlier. I would love to, I would love to be able to start our timeline earlier and have this out in the wild for longer. Then March 3rd. If we could, if we could, if we could do that, if we, if we approve the final draft on March 3rd and submitted it to MSBA that day, got it in, got it in the register, you know, March 24th or even, all right, March 22nd or. Then the question is, so the subcommittee will need to meet today's the 17th. We can't meet before Monday in terms of posting, but we would need to meet Monday to get to a final draft to have, or at least that week. So you're saying, so then a full committee meeting on the 3rd is where you're pushing for Anthony. I would, I would like, I would like that. Like we could, we can't, we can go later and we'd be okay to go later, but given the option, I'd love to have this, I'd love to have this posted with a response deadline of a month instead of two weeks. You know, give people. So how, how, everyone on subcommittee, are you okay for meeting next week and getting to final? And if we need to, we could post two meetings next week, you know, beginning of the week and end of the week. And if we only need one, then, then we're done. And that, that, does that work? And then March 3rd would be posted as a full committee meeting, is that all right with everyone? Yes. I don't see anyone saying no. I don't think anyone's, and no hands are up. Dwayne, does that work for you? Subcommittee, Dwayne's on our subcommittee too. Okay. Okay. I think I asked a clarifying question. No. So maybe Anthony, so what happens to walk me through the processes? People submit their proposals, you, you gather them. The subcommittee reviews them to see if they meet the, to do two things. One is to see if they meet the minimum requirements and then ranks them. Yes. Subcommittee interviews all applicants or selected highest ranking applicants. It's, it selects its shortlisted applicants, which must be at least three. And then those three are interviewed. Yes. Subcommittee ranks those interviews, comes to the full committee with saying, here's the person we think should be put for, here's the group that we think should be put forward. And MSBA also has a, has their own people in there. I'm not actually a hundred percent sure how the, the document itself lays some of this out. Yeah, I just read the document. I didn't, I didn't feel there was clarity on that piece of it enough. So I guess the question to the larger group here is, are we comfortable with all that work being done by the subcommittee or do this larger group want to have us say and be part of, and that's what I brought up on the interviews. Do you want to make that a committee of the whole or not? Or are we comfortable with the subcommittee carrying that load? It's a lot of, it's a lot of work. So laying it on the subcommittee is good by me, but just want to make sure we're, no one feels disenfranchised by the process. So if we meet on March 3rd, we can reopen that question again, Paul. So the other thought I had is having heard all of this for that next stage, we could make a slightly larger subcommittee or bring someone else on if we really, wanted to make sure someone was in the room. But there is, there's, there are key time points. So one of the piece would be, there's background reference checks where we'd be calling people who have worked with the OPM team in the past. So once we get to the short list, we would be doing those as well. I would be, you know, I would be happy to take all comers as far as who wants to participate in interviews and look at the, look at the shortlisted finalists, but my strong preference would be that anyone that wants to be involved at the end should probably be involved in the whole process, like receiving the initial applications and reading them and, and hearing the feedback from, from references, coming in, coming in just to do the interviews, I think would, would be, would be a difficult, I think it would be worse for that person than to, if they were involved at the start. Not in drafting the RFS, but at least in getting the responses. No, I agree with that. And so that's just, you know, whether Ben, Mike, Paul, any of you who aren't on the subcommittee want to be there at the beginning and seeing some of this, we can make that decision on March 3rd, but that is, that we will have the time to make that decision. And then we can certainly hold these as committees of the whole at key points, but not, not as Anthony said, reading all the documents. Is there anything else? I'm going to open it up for public comments if the committee doesn't have any other comments. I don't see any. So I think we are now open. We do have four people. Any of you who would like to make public comments, please raise your hand. And please know that you can also send us comments by email and the subcommittee when we're looking at the draft will be taking those into account as well. I'm not seeing any hands up. You'll give it another minute. No, I don't see anyone indicating public comments. So I think we're, I think we are finished with the agenda. We have, we will send out a meeting notice and we'll make sure we get it posted in time for March 3rd, 730 in the morning for a full committee meeting. And we will post our subcommittee meetings for the draft you've just seen and revisions that people have already remarked on and or some that have been sent to us will be discussing them as a subcommittee. I think if I don't see anything else, I think we have completed our business for today. I don't see any hands up. Move to adjourn. Then there's a move to adjourn. Is everyone in agreement? All right, just raise your hands. We're ready to go. Thank you all. Thank you all for joining us. Thank you, Kathy. Thank you, everyone. Bye. Enjoy for a moment. Thank you.