FAQs

Yes, and they are also subject to Veteran Business Enterprise (VBE)/Service-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (SDVOBE) goals. To ensure goals are set properly, districts should contact SDO.Construction@mass.gov or (617)-872-4064 as soon as possible for assistance from SDO and DCAMM in goal setting.

The School Project Designer and OPM Certification is administered by the Office of the Inspector General. For more information about this program, click here. MSBA Partnership

Districts can hold informational pre-proposal conferences prior to the deadline for receipt of applications provided that invitations to such conferences are publicly advertised and open to all interested parties. Districts should record all questions raised along with the answers provided and distribute them to all parties that requested copies of the Request for Services.  Questions raised outside of these pre-proposal conferences should be requested in writing and the questions and answers, along with any other additional information provided, should also be distributed to all parties that requested copies of the Request for Services.

No. The District, usually through the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM), should verify each applicant’s qualifications under MGL c.7C, s. 44, et seq., and check all listed references, but all applicants that meet the minimum qualifications set forth in the RFS must be presented to the full DSP (including the local representatives) for discussion and deliberation. Any interviews of the applicants are conducted before the full DSP at a scheduled DSP meeting, only after the DSP decides (through a vote of the full Panel) that such interviews are appropriate.

Once it has been determined that interviews will be conducted, all communication regarding the potential project must be forwarded in writing to the MSBA DSP staff.  Communication relative to the project before the DSP between applicants and any individual associated with the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM), District or MSBA other than the DSP staff is strictly prohibited. Failure to observe this rule will result in disqualification of the applicant.

The DSP uses the Standard Designer Application Form for Municipalities and Public Agencies not within the DSB Jurisdiction developed by the Designer Selection Board of the Commonwealth.

Currently, the MSBA Designer Selection Panel (DSP) utilizes the same form as required by the Designer Selection Board of the Commonwealth.

There is no list of “approved” designers. Each request for designer services is individually advertised by the respective city, town or regional school district in the Massachusetts Central Register and a local newspaper and each project designer is procured separately. Applications can be submitted by and are encouraged from any designer that believes they are qualified to provide the requested services.

The DSP’s meetings are open to the public and all discussions relating to applicants and the selection of designers for specific projects are conducted in open session. (To encourage discussion, however, competitors are asked to voluntarily leave the room when designer candidates are being interviewed by the DSP for specific projects). Executive sessions (i.e., – sessions closed to the public) are rare and would only be warranted under certain circumstances. Anyone, including designers who have responded to the RFS for a Project as well as other interested parties, is welcome to attend the DSP’s meeting and listen to the DSP’s discussion.

Yes. The District must use the MSBA Designer RFS Template for the procurement of a designer to qualify for MSBA funding. The template should be downloaded each time there is a new procurement as the document is regularly being updated. The MSBA must review and approve the draft RFS before any advertisements are published and the District should allow a minimum of 10 business days for MSBA review.

Each short-listed design firm has the discretion to invite any consultant of theirs that is included in their application to address the district’s goals as described in the RFS. As an open public meeting, anyone can attend, but only the prime consultants and their proposed sub-consultants from the submitted application will be allowed to represent the firm during the interview.

Under the MSBA’s statute and regulations, for projects with an estimated construction cost in excess of $5 million, the district will need to select a designer through the MSBA’s Designer Selection Panel (DSP). The district will be responsible for issuing a request for qualifications for designers. The DSP will evaluate the qualifications statements received and will refer a ranked list of up to three firms to the district. It is expected that the district will enter into a contract with the top-ranked firm. The DSP consists of 15 members, 12 permanent members and three members appointed by the school district.

The district and its OPM will begin the Designer Selection Process (“DSP”). The district and its OPM will work with their assigned MSBA Project Coordinator to determine available DSP meeting dates. Please reference the MSBA’s website, here, for further information.

After the district completes the OPM selection process, the district will commence fee negotiations with the first-ranked selection. If the district is unable to negotiate a contract with the first-ranked selection, the district will then commence negotiations with its second-ranked selection and so on, until a contract is successfully negotiated and approved by the district. The district may attend the targeted OPM Review Panel Meeting if the negotiations between the OPM and district are ongoing; however, the following must be communicated and submitted to the district’s MSBA Project Coordinator: 1.) immediately notify its MSBA Project Coordinator that the negotiations are ongoing and not expected to be completed prior to the OPM selection package due date; 2.) complete all other OPM section package materials to the satisfaction of MSBA staff; and 3.) acknowledge that the contract is forthcoming.

Upon completion of the procurement process, the district must submit a detailed narrative that outlines a district’s procurement process by the deadline that is included within a district’s OPM RFS. This information can be found on the MSBA’s website here, under “OPM Selection Process Information”. Bullets three, four and five contain the necessary documentation to complete the package’s contents, in addition to bullet six, which is the MSBA’s template OPM contract.

*Please note, the narrative must be completed as directed, with minimal (if any) omissions, particularly, in regard to the final paragraph and the required signature lines.

No, only the OPM firm should sign the MSBA standard contract after both parties agree on a fee. After the MSBA approves the selected OPM, the district may sign the contract.

No. The MSBA does not participate in the fee negotiations between a district and the selected OPM. Information that may assist a district with the negotiations of an OPM contract can be found here: Capital Planning Data and Information: Cost Data.

No, this procurement must be a qualifications-based selection process. Therefore, a district may only discuss fees during its fee negotiations with the selected OPM firm, after the selection process is completed.

The MSBA recommends that the district conduct at least three reference checks for each short-listed firm. A district should adhere to the final selection process that is stated in the district’s RFS. For more information on reference checks, please review the MSBA’s OPM Process Guidelines.

The MSBA does not recommend that a district make an informational site visit mandatory because it may limit the applicant pool.

The Total Project Cost range indicated in the RFS should be determined locally; however, the MSBA does have historic cost information of other MSBA projects on its website. Please access this information through this link: Project Information and Cost Data

Yes. The MSBA has an OPM Request for Services (RFS) Template that districts must use. Although this template is intended to be comprehensive in meeting MSBA requirements for the procurement of an OPM, each district shall be solely responsible for ensuring that its particular RFS complies with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law, including, but not limited to, all procurement laws. Please note that the district should allow a minimum of ten business days for the MSBA to review the RFS. Actual review time may vary.

The district should publish its advertisement for OPM services in the Central Register under the Designer Services section and in its local newspaper(s). The MSBA has a template OPM advertisement; however, the advertisement does not need to be reviewed by the MSBA. If interested in obtaining the template OPM advertisement, please contact the district’s MSBA Project Coordinator.

Yes, the OPM Review Panel meetings are open to the public.

A district must work with its MSBA Project Coordinator to schedule an OPM Review Panel Meeting that coincides with the overall OPM procurement process and the dates included within the district’s OPM RFS.

The composition of the OPM Selection Committee should be authorized by the School Building Committee, School Committee, or other local body of government as dictated by the district’s bylaws and charter. Also, the OPM Selection Committee must obtain all the required local approvals in connection with drafting and advertising the RFS. The district’s procurement administrator should be a member (voting or non-voting) of the OPM Selection Committee. The district must provide documentation of any locally required approvals to the MSBA along with information about the make-up of the OPM Selection Committee and information regarding the background of the members. If the district has questions regarding local approval procedures, the district should consult with local legal counsel.

The district’s OPM Selection Committee should conduct the OPM Selection Process. The composition of the OPM Selection Committee should be authorized by the School Building Committee, School Committee, or other local body of government as dictated by the district’s bylaws and charter. The MSBA does not participate in the OPM selection process; however, the following must be completed: 1.) the MSBA must review the Request for Services (“RFS”) prior to it being published; 2.) a district must submit the OPM Narrative (Attachment A) to the MSBA for review; and 3.) the MSBA may require that the district attend an Owner’s Project Manager Review Panel Meeting. The selected OPM must be approved by the MSBA.

Pursuant to the MSBA’s regulations, specifically 963 CMR 2.03(2)(o), the Eligible Applicant or his/her designee who will be in charge of procurement for the project is required to be designated by the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) as an MCPPO for Design and Construction Contracting.

The Project Director for the OPM firm and the individual directly in charge of the project for the Designer are required to obtain MCPPO Certification for School Project Designers and Owner’s Project Managers from the OIG, as set forth in 963 CMR 2.11(12) for the OPM and 963 CMR 2.12(6) for the Designer.

Please find more information on the MCPPO Certification/Recertification Requirements page of the MSBA website.

Any qualified firm interested in applying for an MSBA-funded project should check the Massachusetts Central Register and local newspapers. Applications can be submitted by, and are encouraged from, any firm that believes they are qualified to provide the requested OPM services.

No. The MSBA does not have a list of “approved” OPMs; however, the MSBA has a report that identifies firms that are currently working on an MSBA-funded project.

A district will begin its OPM selection process after the MSBA Board of Directors invites the district into the Feasibility Study phase.

Pursuant to state law, if the construction cost is estimated to be $1.5 million or greater, an OPM is required. For school construction or renovation projects seeking funding from the MSBA, the MSBA must approve the OPM. In some instances, the MSBA will require an OPM for projects under the $1.5 million threshold.

Chapter 149 of the General Laws provides that a public agency may allow an existing employee to serve as the OPM, however, they are subject to the same qualification requirements as an outside entity and the MSBA must approve all OPM’s for school construction and renovation projects. The selection and approval process is a qualifications-based process and the MSBA’s regulations require an OPM who is registered with the Commonwealth as a professional engineer or architect to have a minimum of 5 years of experience in the construction and supervision of the construction of public buildings. If a candidate is not registered with the Commonwealth as a professional engineer or architect, they must have 7 years of experience in the construction and supervision of the construction of public buildings. A candidate’s experience must be similar in type, size, dollar value and complexity to the project being considered.

Yes. The MSBA has developed an OPM Model Request for Services (RFS) that school districts may use to procure an OPM. Although this model is intended to be comprehensive in meeting MSBA requirements for the procurement of an OPM, each city, town and regional school district shall be solely responsible for ensuring that its particular RFS complies with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local law, including, but not limited to, all procurement laws.

Yes. The MSBA has developed guidelines and a standard contract for design-bid-build projects. Click on these links, OPM Selection Process Guidelines and OPM Base Contract for Design Bid Build (DBB) and Construction Manager at Risk (CM-R), to view the MSBA’s guidelines and the standard contract. Please note these documents are subject to further review and revision and may be updated from time to time.

Yes. An OPM is important when CM at Risk is employed. The OPM assists and advises the Owner as a member of the CM-at-Risk Prequalification Committee and the CM-at-Risk Selection Committee. The OPM is responsible for evaluating cost estimates provided by the CM at Risk and overseeing the CM a Risk’s involvement in the design process. In addition, the OPM plays a critical role in developing the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) with the CM at Risk and auditing the CM at Risk’s job costs to ensure compliance with the contract.

Yes, the MSBA has completed this contract, it can be accessed here: OPM Base Contract for Design Bid Build (DBB) and Construction Manager at Risk (CM-R)

The selection of an OPM is subject to MSBA approval. Therefore, it is essential for school districts to contact Brian Kelley at the MSBA at 617-720-4466, to discuss the MSBA’s guidelines and any other requirements before beginning a procurement process for an OPM.

An SOI is an electronic template form accessed by cities, towns, and regional school districts (“districts”) that are seeking funding from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (the “MSBA”) for a proposed school building project. Submitting an SOI is the first critical step in notifying the MSBA of the district’s interest in the grant program.

The SOI asks the district to select the most appropriate program, either Core Program or Accelerated Repair Program, and state the deficiencies in the school building and how they fit within one or more of the Statutory Priorities as articulated within the “SOI Main” tab of the template form.

The Core Program is intended for major construction projects involving renovations, additions, or new construction. The Accelerated Repair Program is intended for partial or full roof replacements, window and door replacements, and heat pump conversions in existing school facilities.

School superintendents lead in the completion of the SOI and seek authorization to submit the SOI to the MSBA from municipal and school officials (typically city council/aldermen/board of selectmen/school committee). In regional school districts, school superintendents seek authorization from regional officials (typically school committees). School superintendents are responsible for submitting the SOI and often work with local staff and local officials to complete the process. Further instructions are provided in the SOI User Guide.

The deadline for submitting an SOI for the Core Program for consideration in 2026 is Friday, April 17, 2026, at 11:59 PM.

Yes, when the SOI system is open, individuals will coordinate with the school superintendent to gain access to the system. School superintendents operate within the “user system” application to allow access for all users.

Information from the previous year’s SOI (2025) can be imported to the current year’s SOI form (2026). School superintendents, once in the current year’s SOI, will access the previous year’s information by selecting the “pre-populate” button located within the “SOI Main” tab of the SOI template form. School superintendents can then further edit and update information throughout the template to reflect current conditions before submitting the current year’s SOI for consideration. Further instructions are provided in the SOI User Guide.

• Please note there have been changes to the MSBA’s SOI template that are in effect for the 2026 SOI filing period:
  • If the district submitted a Core Program SOI in 2025 and intends to pre-populate its Core Program SOI in 2026, changes to the SOI template may impact responses to certain questions.
  • If a district submitted an ARP SOI in 2025 and intends to use it to pre-populate its Core Program SOI in 2026, the SOI template will include both changes and additional questions that will require a review of prior responses as well as additional responses.
  • Any supporting materials required for the selection of Statutory Priority 1, Priority 3, and/or any supplemental material a district elects to submit with the SOI must be uploaded in the SOI system in order to submit an SOI. Hard copies will no longer be accepted.

When selecting the Core Program, the school superintendent will, from the Program Type drop-down menu within the “SOI Main” tab, be prompted to select the Potential Project Scope from the following options: New School, Addition/Renovation, or Extensive Repair project (renovation to a school facility). The school superintendent is also prompted to indicate if school consolidation is being considered. If the answer is “yes,” the other school(s) subject to the proposed consolidation will require an SOI to be filed with the MSBA. If the district is considering grade reconfiguration rather than consolidation, the grade reconfiguration plan and the school(s) involved should be included in the response to the consolidation question. The district is not required to file additional SOIs for the other subject schools when proposing grade reconfiguration.

 Yes, if the district is submitting an SOI for the Core Program, a response of “yes” should be selected when answering the consolidation question, and a description of the proposed consolidation and/or grade reconfiguration should be provided where prompted. The district will also need to file an SOI(s) for the school facility(ies) proposed to be associated with a proposed consolidation project. The district is not required to file additional SOIs for the other subject schools when proposing grade reconfiguration.

The MSBA does not limit the number of SOIs a district can submit. However, an SOI should be filed only for a facility for which the district has the financial capacity to proceed with a construction project at the time of submission. The district should submit only one SOI per school facility per year and detail all facility deficiencies within that SOI. If the district submits an SOI for more than one facility under the Core Program in the same year, it will be required to select the SOI from all submitted in that year that represents the “District’s Priority SOI” for MSBA consideration. If the district has an active Core Program SOI in the MSBA’s Capital Pipeline, that SOI is considered the district’s Priority SOI for 2026 and will remain the Priority SOI until the building reaches substantial completion and the district assumes ownership.

 No, districts are not required to provide enrollment information as part of the SOI submission. However, districts will engage in enrollment discussions with the MSBA should an invitation to the Core Program occur.

To demonstrate community support for the submission of an SOI(s), certain local officials will review the proposed SOI submission, sign the document, and vote to authorize the school superintendent to submit the material to the MSBA. The “Vote” tab in the SOI template provides specific instructions on the MSBA’s voting requirements.

Yes. The votes of the local governing body and the school committee must use substantially the same wording outlined in the Form of Vote detailed within the “Vote” tab.

Please note:

1. The deficiencies should be listed in the text of the language reflecting the numerical Statutory Priority and include descriptions of the deficiencies by the district.
2. For the vote of the city council/aldermen/board of selectmen, the text of the vote taken must be submitted electronically on letterhead with a certification of the city/town clerk demonstrating the vote was duly taken and recorded on the date to be noted.
3. For the vote of the school committee, the text of the vote must be submitted electronically on letterhead with the signature of the school committee chairperson. All voting material as noted above must be uploaded into the “Vote” tab prior to submitting the SOI for consideration.
4. For the vote of a regional school district, the text of the vote must be submitted electronically on the regional school district letterhead with the signature of the CEO and the school committee chairperson.

If the district does not know the exact date the SOI will be submitted online (the SOI date) but is ready to take the required local votes to submit the SOI, the district should reference the month and year in which the SOI will be submitted. Please note: The district must have current votes to submit an SOI for consideration in 2026 and should not submit vote material from a prior year.

The school superintendent, the local chief executive officer, and the school committee chairperson will sign the SOI (electronically) before it is submitted. There are detailed instructions in the SOI “Signature” tab and the SOI User Guide regarding this process. In some cases, the same local official may serve as a signatory for up to two roles. For example, a mayor may also serve as a school committee chairperson.

MSBA advises school superintendents to confirm the name and title of their CEO, including in the case of regional school districts.

No. Districts should not seek professional assistance to complete an SOI. The SOI allows the district to articulate its thoughts about deficiencies that may exist in a local school facility. The MSBA expects that the SOI can be completed at no cost to the district. Districts will NOT be reimbursed for any expenses that may be incurred in connection with the completion and submission of an SOI. Completing and submitting an SOI will require dedicated time from the district. The MSBA recommends that the district plan ahead and allocate sufficient time to address the questions posed in the SOI, secure the required signatures, and hold the required local votes.

The Core Program SOI template form includes the ability for a district to select Statutory Priority 1 and/or Statutory Priority 3. The following supporting documentation will be required as a result:

• If the district selects Statutory Priority 1, an electronic version of the engineering or other report detailing the nature and severity of the problem and a written professional opinion of how imminent the system failure is likely to manifest itself must be uploaded into the SOI system. The district must also upload photographs of the problematic building area or facility system to the SOI system. Hard copies will no longer be accepted.
• If the district selects Statutory Priority 3, an electronic submission of the accreditation report’s executive summary focusing on the deficiencies as stated in the SOI must be uploaded into the SOI system. Hard copies will no longer be accepted.
• Any supplemental material the district elects to provide to the MSBA in support of its SOI should be uploaded into the SOI system. Hard copies will no longer be accepted.

Reports, pictures, or other information required or offered as a component of a district’s SOI submittal that may give the MSBA a better understanding of the issues identified at the school facility.

The information provided in the SOI will play an important role in helping the MSBA understand the needs at a particular school facility and decide whether to move forward with the district for further assessment of a facility. Once an SOI has been submitted and reviewed, the MSBA will work with districts to validate the deficiencies identified in the SOI and, if appropriate, seek additional clarification regarding the proposed solutions. The MSBA will notify districts of any actions required during the due diligence period, once all SOIs are on file and the SOI system’s filing period has closed. For more information about the MSBA’s 2026 SOI process, please click here.

The length of time depends on several factors, including but not limited to: the extent and urgency of the problems described in the SOI; the number of potential solutions that may need to be explored with the district; the amount of time required for the MSBA and the district to agree upon an educationally appropriate and financially sound solution; the ability of the district to appropriate funds for the agreed-upon solution; and the duration to complete the design and construction of the project. The MSBA remains committed to working diligently to review all SOI submissions and to collaborating with districts invited to move forward through all phases of project approval, design, and construction.

No. The MSBA grant program is based on an annual due diligence process that considers the urgency and need of all SOIs received in a given year. If a district does not receive an invitation to the Core Program, it is encouraged to file in a future year if it remains interested in MSBA support. The Core Program Overview provides more detailed information about the due diligence and selection process. Consult this link for more detailed information about the Core Program.

For more information about the MSBA’s 2026 SOI process, please click here.

For any general questions about the upcoming 2025 School Survey, please use the contact us form, available here.

The School Survey is a statewide assessment of the general facility conditions of all public elementary and secondary schools in the Commonwealth. The MSBA is sending design and engineering professionals to each school to evaluate several key factors including building conditions, general environment, capacity and maintenance.

The MSBA’s enabling statute requires the MSBA to “perform or commission a needs survey to ascertain the capital construction, reconstruction, maintenance and other capital needs for schools in the commonwealth.” The School Survey is designed to help the MSBA understand how the needs of individual school districts fit within the statewide spectrum of need. The data collected during the School Survey is critical to the MSBA’s efforts to ensure fair and equitable funding of school construction, renovation, and repair projects across the Commonwealth.

The MSBA is evaluating all public elementary, middle and high schools in the Commonwealth that may be eligible for a grant from the MSBA under Chapter 70B of the Massachusetts General Laws. The School Survey will include site visits at approximately 1,580 schools and the compilation of existing data at approximately 120 additional schools currently in the MSBA’s program pipeline.

No. The School Survey is being conducted at all school facilities, not just those for which a Statement of Interest has been submitted to the MSBA. The goal of the School Survey is to assess the building conditions, general environment, capacity and maintenance at school facilities. Senior Studies and Facilities Assessments are more in-depth architectural and engineering studies of school facilities for which a district has submitted a Statement of Interest.

No. The School Survey is being conducted to help the MSBA establish the current general conditions of the Commonwealth’s public elementary and secondary schools. While the data collected will help the MSBA understand and prioritize needs in both the short and the long term, it will not change the overall review process for projects which have already submitted a Statement of Interest.

No. The data collected during the School Survey is only one component in the MSBA’s decision on whether to fund individual school construction and renovation projects and does not, by itself, provide the basis for funding eligibility. Districts will still be required to submit a Statement of Interest in order for a school to be considered for funding under the MSBA’s grant program.

Each school will receive a comparative rating that will help the MSBA understand where individual school buildings fit within the statewide spectrum of building conditions. The rating is only one component in the MSBA’s decision on whether to fund individual school construction and renovation projects and does not, by itself, provide the basis for funding eligibility.

The MSBA will analyze the data collected by the assessors and develop a comprehensive report that summarizes the findings of the School Survey. The report is tentatively scheduled to be released in early 2026.

The School Survey is a similar assessment that was conducted in 2016. Some of the questions have been updated to reflect changes; however, the objective remains the same to gather a statewide inventory of all public school facilities in Massachusetts.