A heated public debate has erupted online just hours before the Portland School Board is set to vote on awarding Texas-based construction management firm Procedeo a $61.5 million, five-year contract to manage Portland Public Schools’ bond program. The controversy has drawn in board members, current and former district staff, and local education figures, sparking calls for a delay and deeper scrutiny of the deal.
Board member Virginia La Forte set off the discussion over the weekend after raising concerns on Facebook about the speed of the process and the depth of review board members were given. The contract—selected through a competitive request for proposals (RFP) process in mid-November—requires board approval Tuesday night.
In her post, La Forte warned that the board had only “one business day” to review extensive contract materials and that several issues had surfaced regarding scoring, Procedeo’s pricing model, and its status as an out-of-state firm.
“[This] decision will shape how our school buildings are planned, built, and cared for for years to come,” she wrote. “This isn’t about politics. It isn’t about personalities. It’s about our legal responsibilities as a Board and $61 million of taxpayer dollars that should be handled with care, transparency, and respect.”
Her concerns were amplified by a runner-up firm’s formal protest, filed days earlier, alleging that Procedeo’s selection was improperly influenced—heightening public pressure ahead of the final vote.
Former School Board member Julia Brim-Edwards joined the criticism, questioning the decision to send “$61 MILLION IN PORTLAND’S TAX DOLLARS HEADING TO TEXAS?” and urging the board to slow down: “Not so fast please!”
Within PPS, internal voices have also raised alarms. Keisha Locklear, an architect with the Office of School Modernization (OSM), previously warned that a firm brought into the district had made “impossible” promises and contributed to declining morale. On Facebook Sunday, she argued that hiring Procedeo for $61 million would be equivalent to bringing on 29 full-time staff members, despite OSM already having teams assigned to the four projects Procedeo would oversee.
She added that three members of the proposal evaluation committee lacked “substantive” design or construction training and questioned the scale of spending at this late stage of the bond program:
“The highest-value project management work of programming, master planning, procurement, aligning to PPS standards, selecting major building systems is already complete or WELL underway,” she wrote. “Paying top-dollar premiums once the hardest work is over does not align with industry practice or common sense.”
The selection panel consisted of five members, two of whom—the construction lawyer and project manager—gave Procedeo the lowest scores in both rounds, according to The Oregonian.
Despite the pushback, PPS Superintendent Dr. Kimberlee Armstrong has recommended approving the contract, writing in a Nov. 25 memo that the RFP followed a “standard and competitive” selection process to identify “the most qualified firm.” Procedeo beat two local competitors with offices in Lake Oswego.
Procedeo was first brought into PPS in June on a $149,500 consulting contract—small enough to avoid requiring board approval—to propose ways to accelerate Jefferson High School’s construction timeline. The firm later received a September contract expansion of $487,500 for oversight support during OSM’s staffing shortages, despite board concerns about bypassing a competitive process.
Board dynamics have grown tense as disagreements spill into public view.
Board member Rashelle Chase-Miller said La Forte’s portrayal leaves out important details, including that Procedeo has now established a Portland office and has been responsive to board inquiries. She acknowledged OSM’s challenges with delays and overruns, adding:
“It’s important to acknowledge the challenges they’ve faced.”
She emphasized that public transparency is essential but that “the whole picture” should be presented.
Board Chair Eddie Wang rejected the notion that the contract vote is a rubber stamp and said change is necessary:
“We have charged the superintendent to find ways to cut costs so we have more money for HVAC and seismic. She is doing exactly that.”
La Forte, meanwhile, maintains that her concerns stem from the public’s ability to meaningfully participate in the process. While she said she supports the superintendent’s efforts, she urged the district to choose the most transparent path:
“Part of our job as a Board is to ask difficult questions… I’m not advocating for any specific firm—just for a transparent, well supported process that gives the public a meaningful opportunity to weigh in.”
The board is expected to vote on the Procedeo contract Tuesday evening, with growing community attention focused on how the district handles the high-stakes decision.
Originally reported by Joanna Hou in WWeek.
