DPW & Public Safety Facilities Program - OPM RFQ

Agency:	Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea
State:	Massachusetts
Type of Government:	State & Local
NAICS Category:	236220 - Commercial and Institutional Building Construction 541330 - Engineering Services 541611 - Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services 541690 - Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services 561210 - Facilities Support Services
Posted Date:	Oct 15, 2026
Due Date:	Nov 19, 2026
Original Source:	Please Login to View Page
Contact information:	Please Login to View Page
Bid Documents:	Please Login to View Page

Description

DPW & Public Safety Facilities Program - OPM RFQ - Responses Due Nov 19, 2026 at 11am

MBTS - DPW Public Safety Facilities - OPM RFQ - 10-14-26

Attachment Preview

Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea | RFQ – OPM Services – DPW & Public Safety Facilities

TOWN OF MANCHESTER-BY-THE-SEA, MASSACHUSETTS

Department of Public Works

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)

Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) Services

DPW and Public Safety Facilities Program

M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A½

and M.G.L. c. 7C, §§ 44–57 (Path A study services)

Issued: October 14, 2026

NOTICE

The Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea (MBTS or the Town), acting through the Department of Public Works, is

soliciting Qualifications from qualified firms for professional Owner’s Project Manager services as defined in

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Section 44A½ and as further defined by this RFQ. The OPM will

provide project management services for the independent review of prior planning work, confirmation or

expansion of siting alternatives, feasibility and concept development, designer procurement support, design-

phase oversight, bidding, construction, closeout, and related services for a proposed new Department of Public

Works facility and potential Public Safety (Police and/or Fire) facilities (the Project). Because a Path A approach

(Section 1.2) may include feasibility, programming, and concept study services that are “design services” under

M.G.L. c. 7C, § 44, this RFQ is also issued under M.G.L. c. 7C, §§ 44–57 and the Town’s Designer Selection

Procedures for those study services.

The Town has completed substantial prior planning. That work identified 197 School Street as the leading

candidate for a new DPW facility and, potentially, a co-located or phased public-safety campus. The OPM’s first

charge is to independently review all previously considered sites and studies, confirm or challenge those

conclusions, and identify any additional sites or considerations not previously evaluated before the Town

commits to a preferred alternative and designer procurement.

Qualifications will be received at the Department of Public Works – Room 6, Town Hall, 10 Central Street,

Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA 01944 until Thursday, November 19, 2026 at 11:00 a.m., as specified in this RFQ.

Submissions shall be for the attention of Nathan Desrosiers, P.E., Town Engineer.

Detailed specifications are available online at https://www.manchester.ma.us/629/Bids-Quotes-and-Proposals

and at the DPW office, Room 6, Town Hall, 10 Central Street, Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

A non-mandatory site walk of 197 School Street will be held on Wednesday, November 4, 2026 at 1:00 p.m.,

meeting at the site entrance. Attendance is not required to submit. Participants enter at their own risk and shall

wear appropriate footwear. Statements made at the site walk do not modify this RFQ; any clarification will be

issued only by written addendum.

All inquiries shall be directed to Nathan Desrosiers, P.E., Town Engineer, at desrosiersn@manchester.ma.us.

Inquiries will be accepted until Wednesday, November 11, 2026. Responses will be issued by written addendum

posted at the web address above; the Town anticipates issuing its final addendum no later than Thursday,

November 12, 2026.

Page 1

Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea | RFQ – OPM Services – DPW & Public Safety Facilities

The Department of Public Works will lead a qualifications-based review process in which not fewer than three

(3) finalists will be selected for interviews (or all Qualified respondents, if fewer than three). The fee has not

been set and will be negotiated with the top-ranked respondent after final ranking; fee is not a selection

criterion. The Town has appropriated approximately $800,000 for this Project in total. That amount covers the

OPM engagement under this RFQ and all other consultants, studies, and expenses related to the Project,

whether or not they are part of this solicitation. No additional work by the OPM or by any other party will be

authorized, and no further phase will proceed, without additional appropriation. The Town reserves the right to

withdraw the RFQ or reject all responses, and to select the respondent ranked highest in accordance with this

RFQ. Non-responsive proposals may be rejected.

Antonio Barletta, Town Administrator

Chuck Dam, P.E., Director of Public Works

Nathan Desrosiers, P.E., Town Engineer

Page 2

Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea | RFQ – OPM Services – DPW & Public Safety Facilities

1. Introduction and Background

The Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea is a coastal community on Cape Ann. Town facilities serving Public Works,

Police, and Fire are aging, operationally constrained, and no longer aligned with current program, safety, energy,

or resiliency standards. In 2023 the Town completed a Townwide Facilities Master Plan (Tetra Tech, November

14, 2023) that prioritized a new DPW facility, followed by public-safety facility needs. Earlier and subsequent

work evaluated siting, constructability, energy, and order-of-magnitude cost.

1.1 Project Goal

The goal of this solicitation is to retain a single OPM who will act as the Town’s advocate from the current

planning state through occupancy. The OPM will be under contract to the Town, acting through the Town

Administrator as awarding authority, will report day-to-day to the Department of Public Works, serve as an ad-

hoc member of the Facilities Planning Committee, and coordinate with the Town Administrator’s Office, Police,

Fire, Inspectional Services, Planning, Conservation, Finance, and other boards and committees as required.

Construction of any recommended alternative will be contingent on local appropriation, potential debt exclusion

or other Town Meeting action, and applicable grant or reimbursement awards. The OPM shall structure work so

the Town can pause, phase, or resize the program without losing decision-quality information.

Advancement of this Project beyond the initial OPM engagement is not assured and will be extremely

contingent on total project cost. A preferred site and program will move into designer procurement, schematic

design, and construction only if the Town can see a financially viable path at Town Meeting and in the capital

plan. Respondents shall therefore place special emphasis, in their Project Approach and throughout the initial-

phase work, on alternative project delivery methods (including Design-Bid-Build, Construction Manager at Risk,

and any other method lawful for this Project), on building systems and materials that reduce first cost without

transferring risk into operations, and on measurable reductions in both capital cost and long-term operating and

maintenance cost (energy, staffing, maintenance, and lifecycle replacement). Cost discipline of that kind is

critical to project viability. Recommendations that do not confront cost, delivery method, and operating burden

will not be sufficient for the Town to proceed.

1.2 How the Town Will Use the OPM to Choose a Preferred Site and Program

Respondents shall not assume a single mandated sequence for choosing the preferred site and programming.

Instead, each Respondent shall state, in Section 2 of the Technical Proposal (Project Approach), which path it

recommends, why, who will do the work, and what it costs and takes in time relative to the other path.

Path A — OPM-led decision package (no Architect of Record yet). The OPM, using its own in-house registered

architectural and/or engineering staff, supplemented as needed by named subconsultants (none of whom may

become the future Architect of Record), produces the alternatives analysis, concept blocking, comparative costs,

energy/life-cycle comparison, and a written recommended preferred site and program. The Town will use that

package to decide the final site and programming. Only after that decision does the OPM help the Town procure

the Architect/Engineer of Record under M.G.L. c. 7C for schematic design forward. The purpose of Path A is to

avoid carrying a full design team through a still-open siting decision. Concept work under Path A is owner-

decision material. It is not stamped construction documents and does not make the OPM or its subconsultant

the Designer of Record. Because Path A concept, programming, and alternatives work is a study within the

meaning of “design services” under M.G.L. c. 7C, § 44, Path A services will be contracted under, and must

Page 3

Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea | RFQ – OPM Services – DPW & Public Safety Facilities

comply with, M.G.L. c. 7C, §§ 44–57 and the Town’s Designer Selection Procedures, including the fee provisions

in Section 4.1.

Path A eligibility. Path A may be proposed only by a Respondent that itself qualifies as a “designer” under

M.G.L. c. 7C, § 44 (for a corporation or other entity, the ownership/control, chief-executive, and project-lead

registration requirements stated in that definition; for a joint venture, each venturer must qualify). A

Respondent proposing Path A shall so certify on Form 7 and provide the supporting information required in

Section 1(C) of the Technical Proposal. A Respondent that does not so qualify shall propose Path B or a hybrid in

which any study, programming, or concept design services are procured by the Town in compliance with M.G.L.

c. 7C. A Respondent will not be scored lower solely because it is not eligible to propose Path A.

Path B — Traditional OPM sequence. The OPM comes on board and promptly helps the Town procure the

Architect/Engineer of Record. Alternatives analysis and site/program selection are then performed by the

combined OPM + design team, with the future Designer of Record at the table from the start.

Either path must still end with the OPM assisting the Town in selecting and contracting the Architect and

engineering team of record before design documents are bid. Path A simply allows the preferred-site and

preferred-program decision to occur first, with a smaller team, if the Respondent can show it has the talent to

do that work well to the best interest of the Town.

Respondents that propose Path A shall name the architect or engineer who will lead the decision package, state

whether that person is an employee or a subconsultant to the OPM and confirm that person and firm

understand they will not be eligible to apply for, or to participate as a member or consultant of any team

applying for, the Architect/Engineer of Record selection for this Project. Respondents that propose Path B shall

describe the designer-procurement schedule they would run immediately after OPM notice to proceed and how

they will keep early designer fees proportionate to a still-open alternatives set.

A hybrid is acceptable (for example, OPM-led screening of sites with a limited workshop by a peer architect,

then c. 7C designer procurement). Hybrids must be explained with the same staffing, cost, and schedule detail as

Path A or Path B. Any study, programming, or concept design services in a hybrid that will be performed by a

designer other than a c. 7C-qualified Respondent shall be identified, and the Respondent shall state how those

services would be procured by the Town in compliance with M.G.L. c. 7C (for example, a separate c. 7C study

procurement, or services below the thresholds in M.G.L. c. 7C, § 54(f)). Services shall not be divided to avoid

those thresholds.

Independent review. The Town reserves the right to obtain an independent peer review of any Path A or hybrid

decision package before acting on it, by an independent qualified consultant procured in accordance with

applicable law or, at the Town’s election, by the Town Engineer. The OPM shall cooperate with any such review

and respond in writing to its comments as part of its Path A services.

1.3 Anticipated Schedule

The following schedule is anticipated and may change. Dates after November 19, 2026 are approximate.

• RFQ issued: October 14, 2026

• Non-mandatory site walk: Wednesday, November 4, 2026, 1:00 p.m.

• Deadline for written inquiries: Wednesday, November 11, 2026

Page 4

Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea | RFQ – OPM Services – DPW & Public Safety Facilities

• Final addendum (anticipated): Thursday, November 12, 2026

• Qualifications due: Thursday, November 19, 2026, 11:00 a.m.

• Evaluation, scoring, and selection of finalists: December 2026

• Finalist interviews and re-scoring: December 2026 – January 2027

• Fee negotiation and contract execution: January – February 2027

• Initial authorization (document review, siting concurrence, and Path A decision package or Path B

designer procurement): February 2027 – Spring 2027

• Town/FPC decision on preferred site and program: Spring/Summer 2027

• M.G.L. c. 7C Architect/Engineer of Record selection: Summer/Fall 2027 (designer contract award subject

to appropriation)

• Town Meeting action on design and/or construction funding: Spring Town Meeting, 2028

• Design, bidding, construction, and closeout: to be scheduled following Town Meeting action

1.4 Prior Work the OPM Must Review

The selected OPM shall obtain, review, and independently evaluate the following documents and work product,

including all appendices, figures, cost tables, and supporting technical files. Documents not posted online will be

made available to any prospective respondent upon written request during the inquiry period, and any

document provided to one prospective respondent will be posted on the RFQ webpage so that all respondents

have equal access:

• Townwide Facilities Master Plan (Tetra Tech, November 14, 2023), including all appendices and existing-

conditions assessments for DPW, Police, Fire, and other municipal buildings. (online)

• Department of Public Works Facility Site Options Review / DPW Siting Study (Tetra Tech, December 5,

2022), comparing 85R Pleasant Street and 197 School Street. (online)

• Considerations for Redevelopment of the Existing DPW Facility at 85R Pleasant Street (Tetra Tech

memoranda dated January 19, 2026 and April 7, 2026).

• Department of Public Works Facility Siting Options – Quantitative Analysis (Tetra Tech, March 5, 2026

draft), including order-of-magnitude costs and phasing comparisons.

• Geotechnical investigations, topographic and existing-conditions survey work, and the geothermal test-

well program completed at 197 School Street.

• Presentation to Select Board May 5, 2025

• Any additional historic facility reports posted on the Town DPW Reports and Information (online)

1.5 Sites Previously Considered

At a minimum, the OPM shall consider and provide written concurrence, refinement, or recommended revision

of the following sites and combinations. The OPM shall also identify any additional sites or delivery approaches

not previously considered that reasonably warrant evaluation:

Page 5

This page summarizes the opportunity, including an overview and a preview of the attached documents.

Get Government Bids Like This by Email Receive daily bid alerts that match your keywords, business categories, and target regions.

View Sample Report Start Free Trial

DPW & Public Safety Facilities Program - OPM RFQ

Description

Attachment Preview

See Also