Walsh County commissioners approve construction-manager-at-risk approach for jail project

The Walsh County Commission voted to pursue a construction-manager-at-risk (CMAR) delivery method for a planned county building project after a lengthy discussion about contractor liability, schedule control and local subcontractor participation.

Commissioner Kelly, who led the reconvened discussion, said the CMAR model “takes that liability away” from the county because the construction manager at risk holds and manages subcontractor contracts and provides a guaranteed maximum price. Kelly said other public owners in the region have used CMAR for similar projects and argued the county lacks capacity to manage 20 to 30 individual subcontractor contracts itself.

The commission first rescinded an earlier motion that had favored the construction-manager-as-agent model. That rescission passed on a unanimous roll call. Commissioners then moved to proceed with CMAR; the motion carried on a majority vote (four in favor, one opposed). Commissioners said staff will issue requests for qualifications and return shortlisted firms for interviews by the commission.

Supporters said CMAR offers a guaranteed maximum price and centralized coordination that can reduce schedule risk and change-order ripple effects. Jason, a parks staff member who advised the commission, told commissioners the procurement documents and RFQs are being prepared and that the county would receive qualification packets for evaluation. “The process would be…we get all those proposals for qualification, the commission would have an option to look those over and decide who you want to interview,” Jason said.

Opponents and some commissioners raised concerns that CMAR can concentrate subcontractor selection with the awarded firm and may reduce opportunities for local subcontractors. Commissioners discussed contract language and evaluation criteria to protect local bidding opportunities. Jason and other staff said local subcontractors would still be able to bid and that contract specifications could be drafted to require outreach and opportunity for local firms.

Commissioners also discussed transparency and public-record obligations, with staff noting government procurement records remain public regardless of delivery method. The commission asked staff to circulate draft RFQs and contract language to commissioners for review before public advertisement.

Next steps outlined by staff include finalizing the CMAR RFQ and related contract templates, publishing the RFQ, receiving qualification submittals, and returning a ranked shortlist to the commission for interview and final selection. No firm was selected at the meeting, and no contract was signed.

The vote and procedural direction recorded at the meeting reflect discussion and a formal motion to pursue CMAR; commissioners requested staff return with procurement documents and a timeline for evaluation and interviews.