Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Admin Building Rfp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates whether to publish budget in RFP for new administration (ancillary) building
Summary
Staff sought direction on whether design RFP/RFQ for the district’s new ancillary administration building should disclose a budget, present a range, or omit budget numbers; procurement manager outlined options and staff and directors discussed tradeoffs and committee participation.
Pueblo West procurement staff presented a draft request for qualifications/proposals for an architectural consultant to prepare design documents for the district’s ancillary administration building and asked the board whether to disclose a budget, a budget range, or no budget in the solicitation.
Michael Winters, procurement manager, described the choices: “There’s kind of 3 options. Each has their own pros and cons. One option is to list the specific budget amount. Another option is to list the budget range. And then the third option is to not list the budget in the RFP at all.”
Staff summarized prior financial decisions: the district purchased 63 Spaulding (about $710,000) and a neighboring lot (79 Spaulding, roughly $65,000) and estimated available funding for the ancillary build at about $2,425,000 after those purchases. Early square‑foot and unit‑price targets staff cited included roughly $300 per square foot as a working metric and a 5,000‑ to 7,000‑square‑foot target (which would yield design cost estimates in the $1.5–2.1 million construction range based on that metric). Staff warned that publishing a budget can steer respondents to design at the upper end of a disclosed cap while not publishing can produce widely divergent proposals.
Board members discussed procurement approaches (IFB versus RFQ/RFP), the value of firm specifications up front, and whether to appoint a board member to serve on the evaluation committee. Several directors favored not publishing a hard budget to encourage competitive proposals and then negotiating with the top‑ranked firm; others said a budget range helps designers calibrate scope and prevent proposals that are either overly lavish or impractical.
Staff said they will finalize the draft solicitation, invite a board volunteer to participate in the evaluation committee and present the finalized RFP/RFQ and evaluation approach at the regular meeting. The board did not adopt a formal motion during the work session; staff recorded direction to return the finalized solicitation and ask for committee appointment and final direction at the next public meeting.
