Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Courthouse Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County chooses top‑ranked architect and directs phased contract negotiations for old courthouse design
Summary
After receiving nine proposals, staff presented rankings for an RFP to design the old courthouse remodel; the board directed staff to negotiate a phased contract with the top‑ranked firm and include seismic/phase‑1 work, voting 5‑0 to proceed.
San Benito County staff told supervisors on March 11 that they received nine proposals in response to an RFP for interior and exterior design of the county’s old courthouse and recommended negotiation with the top‑ranked team. The board authorized staff to negotiate a phased scope of work with the top‑ranked firm and to return the recommended contract to the board for approval.
Public Works Administrator Steve Luke described the procurement process and results: the county released an RFP in November 2024 and posted it through OpenGov; 105 entities downloaded the notice, about 20–25 downloaded the full RFP and nine firms submitted proposals. "We received 9 very, very good proposals," Luke said. He also explained that points were included in the evaluation for firms that attended an optional pre‑proposal site walk and that seven of the nine teams attended the scheduled walk.
Staff presented ranked scores and fee proposals. The top‑ranked team (Anderson Brulé Architects, ABA) scored highest in the evaluation and proposed a design fee the county described as roughly $924,000; the second‑ranked firm (Christina Perez Architects) proposed roughly $803,000. Staff said both proposed schedules were similar, with the top firms estimating roughly eight to nine months to complete construction documents.
After public comment from both competing applicants and a representative of the Friends of the San Benito County Free Library, the board discussed process fairness and cost uncertainty. Several supervisors asked for more flexible contracting and for staff to pursue a phased approach given that the county has not yet received final insurance reimbursement figures and that asbestos remediation and other restoration work have only recently been completed. The CAO and staff confirmed asbestos remediation had already occurred and that the county held a $1,800,000 set‑aside; staff said the restoration/remediation billing totaled approximately $1,284,000.
To keep the project moving while limiting fiscal risk, the board voted 5‑0 to direct staff to negotiate a phased contract with the top‑ranked firm that would allow preliminary, investigatory, and seismic evaluation work to proceed first and that would return later with a recommended overall contract amount and schedule. The board also asked staff to seek a narrow cost range estimate that would map design fee percentages to several construction‑cost scenarios (for example, lower and higher budget assumptions) so the board could compare design fees to likely construction outcomes.
Board members also requested staff to pursue a second mandatory site walk or more robust notice procedures in future procurements to avoid disputes about optional site walk credit. Several supervisors said they expected staff to return to the board at a near term meeting with a phased contract authorization and a clearer picture of the insurance reimbursement and construction budget.
