Committee moves toward vendor presentations for campus reconfiguration, cites closed-session review

The Richland County Campus Reconfiguration Committee voted unanimously to enter a closed session to discuss vendor proposals and facility-assessment bids and set vendor presentations for Friday, Jan. 26, at 11 a.m. in the County Boardroom.

Committee members said the item matters because the vendor selection will shape future partnership opportunities and influence whether and how county-owned campus buildings are repurposed or sold.

Staff reported eight submissions to the request for proposals, with seven price proposals received. Committee members said the mix of submissions shows increased interest but emphasized the need for a clear, legally reviewed selection process before choosing a vendor. A staff member recommended attorney review of the RFP language and the selection protocol to reduce liability and avoid the appearance of favoritism, and committee members repeatedly asked that scoring criteria be defined and publicly followed.

The committee used the statutory citation read during the meeting when moving into closed session: "section 19 85 per n 1 per n e" (as stated on the record) to deliberate or negotiate the purchasing of public properties and to review facility assessment proposals and bids. Committee members said some proposal review steps and any final award could require additional closed sessions for competitive or bargaining reasons.

The committee set a follow-up meeting for Friday, Jan. 26, at 11 a.m. for presentations by selected firms; meeting participants referenced inviting Venture and two other firms including HGA to present. Members said they expect to winnow the pool of respondents during closed sessions and then evaluate finalists using criteria that the committee plans to define in advance.

Procedural motions recorded during the meeting included approval of the agenda and approval of the minutes from the Dec. 12 meeting. The committee also voted unanimously to enter the closed session and later voted to schedule the vendor presentations on Jan. 26. The meeting was adjourned after setting that date.

The committee did not make a final vendor award at this meeting. Members said the next steps are (1) attorney review of the RFP/selection language, (2) completion of closed-session scoring/winnowing of respondents, and (3) review of finalist presentations before any decision.

The committee indicated it will report back in open session on scheduling and any public procedural steps after the closed-session deliberations.