How can the high school project move forward?

Superintendent Dr. Diane Gullett listens during a meeting of the Marion County School Board in Ocala, Fla. on Tuesday, May 28, 2024. [Bruce Ackerman/Ocala Gazette] 2024.

After two months of heated standstill on the southwest Marion County high school project, the school board must choose among three options on how to proceed with choosing a contractor—with the danger growing each day of failing to build and open the school in time for the 2026 school year as promised.

In April, a district selection committee chose Wharton Smith Inc. as the winning bidder for the $120 million contract to build a high school in Marion Oaks. In the days and weeks following, competing firm Ausley Construction and School Board Member Sarah James were accused of tampering with the procurement process by violating the “cone of silence” policy and issuing threats to school district staff, another board member, and Superintendent Diane Gullett. An external investigation by the GrayRobinson law firm substantiated the allegations.

Before the school board resumed the process of deciding which contractor would build the high school, attorney Brian Williams and Jaime Torrens from Miami-Dade County Public Schools were brought in to conduct an external review of Marion County Public Schools’ overall construction procurement policies, assessing the district’s compliance with state statutes on procurement, and compared the district’s procurement policies with those of other school districts and local governments in Florida.

The review found MCPS’s policies were completely valid and legal, but the report recommended some improvement to the policies. They also found that MCPS deviated from its policy when it allowed James to serve on a selection committee for the project and to score bid submittals and conduct interviews with bidders.

On Tuesday, the board heard more details about the next steps. Gullett and staff outlined three options but after nearly two hours of discussion, the members could not reach a decision. The board will have a workshop on July 11 to discuss the options, and a special school board meeting will take place immediately after the workshop so that the board may hold a vote.

Option 1:

The school board would restart the entire interview and scoring process by posting a new invitation for bid, using the same scoring criteria with an updated procedure the district finds appropriate.

“This would give us the ability to open the main buildings for the 2026-27 school year, which is what the estimate was to begin with. However, some aspects of the project, such as the auditorium, gymnasium and athletic fields would likely not be completed in time for the first day of school,” Gullett said.

Once the GrayRobinson investigation concluded, Ausley Construction said it would not submit a new bid for the project.So, if the school board moves forward with Option 1 and decides to restart the process, Ausley would not be in contention for the contract.

Option 2:

The board would proceed with the results of the selection committee and award Wharton Smith the contract to build the high school. In both investigations that were conducted, the procurement process and the selection of Wharton Smith were found to be legal and without fault.

This option offers the best chance for the entire school to be completed and ready for opening by the promised date, Gullett said.

Option 3:

The implementation of policy changes and the convening of a committee for local stakeholders to provide input would happen before any decision is made on the high school contract. The committee would provide recommendations on another review of the scoring criteria and processes.

“If the board prefers this option, understand that the school would be further delayed and certainly will not open in the 2026-2027 school year, and we will be looking at an opening in 2027-2028,” said Gullett.

Divided opinions:

Regardless of the option that the school board chooses, there is a plan in place to convene a committee to include local stakeholders moving forward.

Gullett, School Board Chair Nancy Thrower, School Board Member Allison Campbell and Executive Director of Operations Barbara Dobbins all voiced strong support for Option 2.

During the procurement process, Dobbins faced criticism over the validity of the procurement process and the selection of Wharton Smith. The GrayRobinson investigation found Dobbins’ actions to be without fault and disproved any wrongdoing by her or the Facilities Department staff.

“Since April 23, I have been under attack by community members (and) by staff about these processes. I have had to answer many, many records request and answer many questions,” Dobbins said. “My answer today stands no different than my answer on April 23, and it’s that the process is valid, and the process is legal.”

Dobbins reminded the board of why Wharton Smith received the most points during the selection process in the first place, reinforcing that decision given that both investigations backed up MCPS’ decisions and policies when selecting the winner.

“Wharton Smith had the most points. Wharton Smith has built this prototype six times. The person and the company that continues to attack and question the facilities department has not built anything close to that,” Dobbins said. “I stand by a selection committee of a principal, our superintendent, facility staff and a community member who selected Wharton Smith… If we want to do the right decision for our students, it is to go with (Option 2), get going, get moving, and get the high school built as much as possible for the August 2026 opening.”

School Board Members Lori Conrad and Eric Cummings expressed concerns about how the options were presented to them, saying they would like to have the choices in writing in order to take time to think about them privately before making a decision.

“To be given three scenarios tonight, and to say this is what we have to do tonight, that puts me in a very bad situation,” Cummings said. “When I look at this whole report, both reports, there is room for growth.”

Conrad said she didn’t feel the board should move forward with the selection and construction process until the appropriate policy changes are made.

“I feel just as strongly that having these procedures in place and available for the public to view are also equally important, and it does break my heart that we are going to be behind on the timeline,” she said. “But I can’t in good conscience move on when we’re feeling like that we have not done everything that we need to do.”

She added, “I don’t want to go through this process again, and we have 10 or 12 recommendations on how we need to improve our process. I want these procedures fixed and corrected before we do it again.”

James, the subject of much of the bid controversy, had limited comments to offer during the meeting. She suggested bringing in more public opinion and spoke in support of the half-cent sales tax going on the general election ballot to generate additional revenue sources to the district.

“As a board member, what I want to see here is, ‘What does our community want to see us do in our process to represent our community’s needs?’” James said.

The debate lasted more than an hour and a half, with the board ultimately unable to come to any consensus except to bring back the topic to discuss at the soonest opportunity.

“I’m not sure what more reassurance we need, when we’ve already spent $23,000 on reassurance that our process was sound and passes muster,” Thrower said. That price tag encompasses the cost of both the GrayRobinson and the Williams/Torrens investigations.

Thrower noted the community already has had plenty of opportunities to comment on the procurement and construction process at the many school board meetings on the high school project.

Campbell echoed Thrower’s statements.

“I’ve heard comments about needing to wait and hear what the community has to say about this decision. We didn’t involve the community in the selection of them in the first place, and to Chair Thrower’s comment, we’ve had this on our agenda a couple of different times, and no one has ever come and spoken about any of our construction (policies) when we have special board meetings,” Campbell said.

If the board on July 11 agrees on Option 2, the members may vote to approve Wharton Smith as the contractor for the new high school and begin negotiating a contract.

“We should not still be debating this and pushing this off. We are here. We need a decision,” Dobbins said. “Facilities stands ready to work with whatever company we select, but we have to move, and we have no more time to waste.”