The construction management firm apparently under contract for the school district’s master building plan is open to reconsidering the terms of its partnership with the town, according to one company representative.

Mike Kennedy, vice president of Gilbane Building Company, told School Committee members Wednesday that he wanted to “express our [the company’s] willingness to take a look at this contract.”

The contract signed between Gilbane and the town in September 2002 specifies that the “program manager shall work for the benefit of the owner until completion of all phases of the master plan.”

The Vision 20/20 school building plan was originally presented to the public as a three-phase project: the construction of a new middle school and high school renovations; more high school renovations; and elementary school renovations.

“We understand … things change, people change,” Kennedy said, joined by colleague John Senate, the firm’s district manager for Rhode Island. “We’re willing to take a look at this contract and make modification to it to reflect current thinking.”

He said the 140-year-old firm is among the largest builders of educational facilities in the country and currently has 19 school building or renovation contracts under way in New England.

Kennedy told board members that the company responded in 2002 to a Westerly request for proposal to serve as the program manager for “all phases of the Vision 20/20 master plan.” The contract was executed — between Gilbane and the town — in September of that year under the same terms, he said.

Voters ultimately shot down the accompanying bond referendum in May 2008 and the $30 million question for renovations to Westerly High School will be back on the ballot on Nov. 4.

School board member David Patten thanked Kennedy for his comments, which he said demonstrate the Providence firm’s openness to discussing and reconsidering the terms of its contract with the town.

“I think it just speaks to the notion … every dollar less we spend on legal fees is a dollar more we can put into the project,” he said.

At a past meeting, Patten described the contract as “flawed.”

Schools Solicitor William Nardone told board members at that time the town could potentially face a lawsuit if it proceeded with the project using a different project manager, should voters approve the bond referendum in November.

He clarified Wednesday that he was not going to issue a written opinion on the matter to the school board. He said Gilbane officials have said the contract remains in full force and effect, while the town could argue that may not be the case, partly because of the previously defeated referendum.

Board member James Murano Jr. said on Wednesday, “That’s not something we’re living by.We already made a statement that we’re going to go out and bid should that referendum pass.”

He added, “We’ve made a commitment to move forward with bids for this project and I hope that’s understood moving forward.”

Meanwhile, a bond referendum subcommittee created by the school board directed Schools Superintendent Thomas DiPaola to contract North Stoningtonbased A/Z Corporation to conduct a cost analysis for the proposed scope of work at the high school’s two buildings. A/Z Corporation served as the project manager for the new Westerly Police Headquarters.

School board members reviewed a draft report, 75 percent complete, from A/Z Corporation that put the cost for the proposed work between $20.2 and $24.7 million. That document divided proposed work into four categories: health and safety, teaching and learning, efficiency and conservation and soft costs.

Patten said of the cost figures, “These are not carved in stone. This is an estimate of probable cost.”

He added, “I think it’s encouraging that a fresh set of eyes has looked at this and come up with a number that’s less than $30 million.”

Patten said the subcommittee expected to bring a final document to board members within the next few weeks.

Patten, speaking as a citizen during open forum, said he has had good professional experiences with Gilbane in the past and described the new middle school as a “fantastic” facility.

“I would hate for the bond to be defeated because of misinformation,” he added.

Resident Fred Sculco asked board members, “Have we written a contract that will continue for 15 or so years without knowing whether or not we are obligated to it?”

During a requested open forum at the end of the meeting, Sculco questioned how the board could “give out” the contract without getting second or third bids — although the contract was signed by town officials and a resolution passed by the Town Council at that time.

He told board members that money should have gone to the children to cover educational costs. “It doesn’t belong in some contractor’s pocket because they got a wrap-up bid,” Sculco said, and moved on to address other topics.

In reaction to some of the statements, School Committee Chairwoman Nancy Burns-Fusaro responded, “I feel a little ambushed here, setting up this special time to be hammered.”

The discussion subsequently dissolved into a spat among Burns- Fusaro, who called the “harsh criticism” unwelcome; Sculco, who said his words had been “misinterpreted;” and resident Philo Willetts, who defended Sculco’s comments and told Burns-Fusaro she was “inadequate and insecure” as she exited the meeting after adjournment.