Thurston County seeks design‑build teams for $25M Waste & Recovery Center reconfiguration
Loading...
Summary
Thurston County public works asked the Board of County Commissioners to authorize an RFQ for progressive design‑build services to reconfigure and expand the county Waste & Recovery Center, a project staff estimates at more than $25 million, with a state review scheduled Feb. 26.
Thurston County public works on Tuesday asked the Board of County Commissioners to authorize a three‑step request process to select a design‑build team for a major reconfiguration of the county’s Waste & Recovery Center.
Public Works Director Karen Reese said the project — which she estimated at “$25,000,000 plus” — is intended to address maintenance needs, improve customer access, reduce queue lines and maintain operations during construction. Reese said the county will use a progressive design‑build delivery method, in which a single design‑builder handles both design and construction to improve coordination and reduce surprises.
"For this project, it's where a single entity known as the design builder is responsible for both the design and the construction of the project," Reese said during the work session. She told the board staff plan to select up to four teams from an RFQ pool to proceed to a management plan and fee proposal step, then interview finalists and negotiate a contract with the highest‑rated firm.
Reese said Thurston County has applied to the state Department of Enterprise Services Project Review Committee for permission to use the progressive design‑build approach; that committee is scheduled to meet Feb. 26 to review the county’s application. If approved, staff said the county expects to release the RFQ shortly thereafter and hopes to have a recommended contract in front of the board by August 2026.
County staff emphasized the operational complexity of the site: the facility handles all solid waste generated in the county and must remain open to commercial and residential customers while work proceeds. The progressive delivery method, staff said, will help coordinate design and construction around ongoing operations and safety needs.
No formal vote on contract authorization was taken at the work session; staff requested authorization to proceed with the RFQ once state approval of the delivery method is confirmed. The board did not provide substantive objections and commissioners asked clarifying questions about funding, state review and project timeline.
The next procedural step is the state Project Review Committee meeting and, if approved, issuance of the RFQ to prospective design‑build teams.
