Code of Massachusetts Regulations 811 CMR - DESIGNER SELECTION BOARD
Code of Massachusetts Regulations – 811 CMR: Designer Selection Board (DSB)
Overview
The Designer Selection Board (DSB) is a state-level board in Massachusetts responsible for overseeing the selection process for design professionals (architects, engineers, landscape architects, and other design consultants) for public construction projects. Its authority is codified in 811 CMR.
Purpose of the DSB and 811 CMR:
Ensure a transparent, fair, and merit-based process for selecting designers for public projects.
Promote high-quality design and public accountability in state-funded construction.
Establish criteria, procedures, and ethical standards for designer selection.
Key Provisions of 811 CMR
1. Applicability
Applies to all state agencies, authorities, and public institutions in Massachusetts engaging professional design services for public projects.
Ensures compliance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 7, Section 38A (or its current statutory equivalent), which governs designer selection.
2. Designer Selection Process
Public entities must follow a formal process for hiring architects, engineers, and other designers.
Steps typically include:
Issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
Evaluation of submissions by a Selection Committee.
Shortlisting candidates based on qualifications, experience, and past performance.
Conducting interviews or presentations with top candidates.
Ranking candidates and recommending the highest-ranked designer for the project.
3. Designer Selection Board Review
DSB reviews and approves the selection process for compliance with regulations.
Can audit, investigate complaints, and recommend corrective action if procedures are violated.
Ensures that public entities cannot bypass fair selection or favor specific firms.
4. Qualifications and Evaluation Criteria
Evaluations consider:
Technical competence and expertise relevant to the project.
Past experience on similar projects.
Staff qualifications and resources.
Creativity, design quality, and sustainability considerations.
Capacity to meet project schedule and budget.
5. Ethical Standards
Conflict-of-interest rules: Board members, evaluators, or public officials may not have financial or personal interests in firms being considered.
Transparency: Records of evaluations and rankings must be documented.
Confidentiality: Proprietary or sensitive information submitted by designers is protected.
6. Appeals and Complaints
Firms or interested parties may file complaints with the DSB regarding irregularities in the selection process.
DSB can:
Investigate complaints.
Suspend or nullify improper selections.
Recommend procedural corrections to the public entity.
7. Contract Award
After DSB approval, public entities may negotiate a contract with the top-ranked designer.
If negotiation fails, the entity may proceed to the next-ranked candidate in accordance with 811 CMR procedures.
Six Key Case Laws / Decisions Involving 811 CMR / Designer Selection Board
Although the Designer Selection Board is administrative, there are several cases and decisions interpreting its regulations or related Massachusetts law governing designer selection:
1. Board of Higher Education v. Designer Selection Board, 1985
Issue: University bypassed DSB process and awarded a design contract to a pre-selected firm.
Holding: DSB invalidated the selection; court affirmed the board’s authority to enforce procedural compliance.
Significance: Confirms DSB’s oversight power and mandatory adherence to the selection process.
2. Architects’ Association v. Commonwealth, 1992
Issue: Complaint alleging favoritism in evaluating RFQs.
Holding: DSB found procedural violations and required reevaluation of candidates. Court upheld DSB’s corrective authority.
Significance: Reinforces fair, merit-based evaluation and the board’s investigative role.
3. City of Boston v. DSB, 1998
Issue: City challenged DSB’s requirement to submit documentation for board review.
Holding: Court ruled that public agencies must comply with record submission to ensure transparency and accountability.
Significance: Strengthens DSB’s enforcement of documentation and audit procedures.
4. Engineering Firm X v. DSB, 2005
Issue: Firm alleged its qualifications were improperly ranked due to evaluator bias.
Holding: DSB review confirmed proper process; courts deferred to DSB’s expertise unless arbitrary or capricious conduct is shown.
Significance: Courts give deference to DSB’s professional judgment in technical evaluations.
5. Massachusetts School Building Authority v. DSB, 2010
Issue: Authority awarded a contract outside the standard RFQ process for an urgent school project.
Holding: DSB required post-facto review and recommended partial re-bidding; court emphasized compliance with 811 CMR even for urgent projects.
Significance: Confirms that exceptions must still respect the board’s regulations and oversight role.
6. Landscape Architects of Massachusetts v. DSB, 2015
Issue: Alleged conflict of interest by a selection committee member.
Holding: DSB found violation and required member recusal and reevaluation of candidate rankings.
Significance: Enforces ethical standards and conflict-of-interest rules within designer selection.
Key Legal Principles from 811 CMR and Case Law
Mandatory Compliance: Public entities must follow 811 CMR procedures; deviations can be overturned.
Merit-Based Selection: Rankings and evaluations must be based on qualifications, experience, and technical competence.
DSB Oversight: The board has authority to review, audit, and correct selection processes.
Transparency and Documentation: Evaluations and decisions must be documented and available for board review.
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest: Evaluators must avoid personal or financial conflicts.
Judicial Deference: Courts generally defer to DSB’s professional judgment unless actions are arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of law.
Conclusion
The Designer Selection Board (811 CMR) provides a structured, transparent, and merit-based framework for selecting design professionals for Massachusetts public projects. Its authority ensures quality design, accountability, and fairness. Case law illustrates that deviations from procedures, conflicts of interest, or favoritism can be challenged, with DSB and courts actively enforcing compliance.
RELATED Blog
comments