Committee rejects RFP to hire outside construction manager for Government Operations Center

A majority of the Ulster County Public Works and Capital Projects Committee voted against a resolution to start a request-for-proposals process to hire a construction manager as agent for the Government Operations Center capital project, saying the measure risked duplicative oversight and additional costs.

The resolution, introduced by the Legislature’s sponsor (not present at the meeting) and designated Resolution No. 214 of 2025, was moved for adoption by Legislator Kovacs and seconded by Legislator McCullough. After discussion, the committee recorded a vote the chair summarized as failing “1 to 3 to 1.” The resolution was not adopted; one abstention was noted “due to employment.”

Committee members and county staff debated whether an RFP at this stage would add value. A county staff member told the committee that the county is already “working with the Colombo Group as our construction manager. They have been on the job for about 2 years” and that the project team uses Procore construction-management software and New World financial systems for accounting and transparency. The staff member said introducing a separate construction manager mid-process could “add complexity and not really value to the project.”

Legislator Kovacs, who moved the resolution, described the measure as an RFP only — “we're not making a commitment to hire this person” — and urged the committee to review responses before deciding. Other legislators said they supported an up-or-down vote so the sponsor would get a decision. Chair Nolan said she personally opposed hiring an extra construction manager and raised concerns that adding another manager could create “additional cooks in the kitchen.” Another legislator said the Legislature has a fiduciary duty to ensure large capital projects are run correctly and on budget and preferred to see proposals before making a final determination.

County staff also said national best-practice guidance (the American Institute of Architects and some national firms) typically does not recommend having competing or “dueling” construction managers for the same project and suggested that the county’s existing arrangements had produced positive results on other projects, including an on-time, on-budget Family Court project.

Discussion items were limited to the scope and timing of oversight; no alternative motion to hire or to require specific deliverables from a hired construction manager passed. The committee distinguished between the procedural step of issuing an RFP and a binding commitment to hire: several speakers emphasized that the RFP process itself carries staff time and cost even if it does not obligate the county to retain a vendor.

The committee’s decision leaves the executive branch and project staff managing the Government Operations Center work as currently configured. Committee members asked for continued transparency and access to project materials, including project accounting and Procore records, and suggested legislative representatives might attend existing project meetings.

Resolution 214 had been postponed at a prior committee meeting and was brought back for this vote. No further votes on this resolution were recorded during the meeting.