Commissioners heard hour‑long presentations from four shortlisted teams and two adviser briefings before deciding to enter negotiations with FTL City Hall Partners. Jacobs and PFM provided the technical and financial comparisons staff used to evaluate proposals.

What advisers found: Jacobs’ review showed proposer building sizes ranged from roughly 295,800 to 408,800 square feet and total proposer cost estimates ran roughly from $216.9 million to $344.3 million. Per‑square‑foot total costs cited by advisers and proposers fell roughly in the $773–$1,140 range, depending on scope and what individual teams included in direct vs. indirect cost buckets. PFM’s analysis highlighted that the city’s strong credit could lower the city’s cost of finance if used; PFM cautioned that availability‑payment structures will be treated as on‑balance‑sheet liabilities for credit and audit purposes.

Key proposer differences:
- Balfour Beatty: emphasized local presence, vertically integrated team and a DBFM option; presented a $773/ft2 construction cost and a DBFM availability example of about $17.9 million per year (team estimate). It proposed a roughly 38‑month delivery and a 14‑month interim agreement to reach financial close.
- FTL City Hall Partners (Plenary/CORE/Stiles): presented a distinctive nautical design with resiliency measures and said its financing and indirect cost assumptions would produce a lower equity IRR and lower overhead percentages, but a higher headline availability payment driven by a larger direct construction estimate; the team committed to design‑to‑budget work during an interim agreement.
- FTL Beacon Collaborative (Gilbane/Architectonica): proposed an aggressive 22‑month schedule option in one variant and emphasized LEED/Well/wellness and safety and a conservative contingency and insurance approach.
- Fort Lauderdale Civic Partners (Meridian/Suffolk): emphasized community hiring, long‑term operational guarantees and lifecycle handback standards.

Litigation and disclosures: the city attorney summarized proposer litigation histories compiled from proposer‑submitted disclosure forms and a Westlaw docket search. Staff noted two matters the city had settled that involved proposer teams (Los Olas garage and a prior fire station matter); commissioners asked proposers to clarify subcontractor or principle litigation in Q&A.

Why it matters: the headline availability payment and the direct construction cost are interrelated; neither alone tells the whole story. City staff and its advisers emphasized that many of the assumptions (equity IRR, contingency, escalation, split between capital vs. O&M) can be adjusted during the interim agreement; commissioners will use the interim agreement to narrow designs and costs to a city budget.

What happens next: staff will test proposer breakdowns, refine assumptions and negotiate an interim agreement with the top‑ranked proposer; Jacobs and PFM will analyze and validate any changed assumptions and produce cost comparisons for the commission before final approvals.