What does an owner's representative actually do?
An owner's representative sits on the district's side of the table and works with the district to manage the program on its behalf, from the first planning meeting through final reconciliation. In practice that means a single point of accountability across the architect, the construction manager and the contractors; oversight of budget, schedule and contingency with board-ready monthly reporting; bid and procurement support; review of pay applications and change orders; and site quality walks through punch list, closeout and warranty documentation. The district keeps every decision. The owner's representative makes sure the district is making those decisions with accurate information. SAG has also developed a new product that provides concise, accurate data on bond finances, covering the construction manager's work, district-run projects, architect fees, environmental costs and other ancillary expenditures.
Do we need an owner's representative if we already have a construction manager?
They are different roles, and the distinction is who each one answers to. A construction manager is responsible for delivering the construction — coordinating trades, managing the site, holding the schedule. An owner's representative is responsible to the district for whether what is delivered is what the district agreed to buy, and reviews the construction manager's own work: their pay applications, their change orders, their schedule claims. A district with a capable construction manager still has nobody independent checking the construction manager. That is the gap this role fills. Stoner Advisory Group also supplies a piece that is often missing: an owner's representative with direct facility-operations experience.
Can our architect or construction manager just do this for us?
They can absorb some of the coordination, and on a small project with strong internal staff that may be enough. What the district gives up is independent review. An architect asked to evaluate a change order arising from a design question, or a construction manager asked to assess its own schedule slippage, is being asked to review its own work. Neither is acting in bad faith; they simply cannot be the impartial party on questions that touch their own performance.
When should a district bring in an owner's representative?
Before the election, if the goal is a program that survives public scrutiny. The scope and budget a district takes to its voters are the hardest things to change later — once a number is on the ballot, it is effectively fixed, while costs are not. Pre-ballot work tests whether the scope and the budget match, which is why we structure it as a separate engagement funded from the general fund and never contingent on the election outcome. Districts that engage after a successful vote are still in good time; the two decisions that set the tone for everything after are how the program is delivered and who delivers it.
Do you design or build any of the work?
No. We do not design and we do not build, we hold no stake in the architect's drawings or the construction manager's contracts, and we accept nothing from vendors. That is deliberate: the value of the role depends on having no interest in the outcome other than protecting the district's budget. It also means we are never in the position of reviewing our own work.
Who do you report to — the board or the superintendent?
Both, and the reporting is designed for the board. Districts get board-ready monthly reporting on budget, schedule and contingency, in a form a trustee can read without a construction background and defend in a public meeting. Day-to-day coordination runs through district administration; the record that goes to the board is the same record, not a summary of it.
How do you handle change orders?
Cause is established before cost is negotiated. Whether a change arises from a design error, an unforeseen field condition, or a district-requested addition determines who bears it — and settling that question first is what keeps a change log from quietly becoming a second budget. Contingency is tracked and reported rather than absorbed into line items, so the board can see what remains.
Do you work on sinking fund and millage programs, or only bonds?
All three. Michigan school bond, millage and sinking-fund programs are the entire practice. The rules governing each pot of money differ in ways that matter — what a sinking fund may lawfully pay for is narrower than what bond proceeds may — and a program that mixes funding sources has to be tracked so that every dollar can be shown against the authority it was spent under.
Do you only work with Michigan districts?
Yes. Michigan K-12 is the whole firm, not a service line inside a diversified consultancy. That focus is what makes the work specific: school calendars, occupied buildings, board approval cycles and the state rules governing bond, millage and sinking-fund dollars are the normal conditions of every engagement rather than something to be researched for each one.
What does it cost?
Fees are quoted per program and provided directly to the district. Each of the three phases is separately engageable, so a district can hire us for one, two or all three, and the fee for a program engagement is fixed at contract execution rather than accruing by the hour. Ask us for the schedule and we will send it.
