Cochise County updates jail project: RFQ posted, geotech/environmental work underway and financing options explored

County staff told the Cochise County Jail District board on March 18 that work on the proposed replacement jail is moving forward: the county issued a criteria-architect request for qualifications (RFQ) on March 2, held a sitewalk for vendors that staff said attracted eight firms, and put geotechnical, environmental and cultural scopes out for pricing.

The presentation, delivered by county project staff identified in the meeting as Joe, outlined a procurement schedule and next steps. "The RFQ was issued on March 2," Joe said, and staff listed key dates: vendor questions due March 20 with responses by March 25; statements of qualifications due April 2; shortlisting on April 10; interviews April 27; and a final selection no later than April 30, with a goal of having a contract before the board at the May 19 meeting.

Why it matters: officials said the geotechnical and environmental studies will determine foundation requirements, material choices and any permitting or mitigation for protected vegetation or cultural resources on the site. "The geotech is testing the soil, figuring out what the soil is, the makeups and anything you need to know about the soil," a staff member explained during the session. Staff added that while they have pre-identified protected vegetation on the property, the formal studies and any required permits have not yet been completed.

Site, scope and schedule details: staff reported the county property in question totals about 29 acres, which they said should be sufficient for the project (county representatives referenced needing roughly 20 acres). Pricing for geotech and environmental scopes was due March 20; staff said they requested schedule estimates from prospective firms so the county can integrate those timelines into the broader procurement and design schedule. An approximate activation and move-in milestone was shown on the project timeline as Aug. 29, subject to refinement as teams are onboarded.

Procurement and vendor evaluation: staff said the selection committee will evaluate firms on comparable detention-project experience, submitted resumes and past performance, and will score interview responses as part of the shortlist process. Board members pressed staff on how the county will check past performance and guard against design oversights that can cause expensive change orders. County staff answered that past-project outcomes, staffing commitments and cost-control approaches are part of the RFQ evaluation criteria.

Environmental and cultural review: the meeting clarified that cultural reviews will require professionals to consult restricted-access databases that track sensitive archaeological or historic resources; environmental scopes will check for protected wildlife and plant species and recommend mitigation or relocation if necessary. Staff said they have already obtained permits to harvest certain vegetation identified on the parcel and are seeking vendor pricing to complete formal studies.

Financing and bonding options: the board discussed timing for bond issuance and possible financing arrangements. Staff recommended timing bond sales closer to construction start to reduce interest carry and described one financing route that leverages pooled treasurer accounts to secure lower rates than Wall Street municipal bonds. The board also discussed the possibility of working with the Greater Arizona Development Authority (GA) for planning-fee assistance and lower-cost tools for issuing bonds. "They could help pay for some of the fees," a supervisor said of the GA; staff added that GA has supported similar public infrastructure projects and that the county is maintaining communication with the authority while it develops its options.

Budget risk and amortization tradeoffs: supervisors asked staff to analyze amortization schedules and early-payoff penalties so the board can evaluate whether accelerated payoff or a longer-term financing approach is fiscally preferable. Staff committed to bringing bond experts and cost-modeling (amortization schedules) to a dedicated work session so the board can assess risks and make an informed choice.

Next steps: staff said they will select geotech and environmental vendors after pricing responses, shortlist criteria-architect firms in April and bring bonding experts to a follow-up work session. The board did not take formal action at the meeting; staff will return with selection recommendations and detailed cost and financing scenarios.

Ending: The board confirmed follow-up meetings and adjourned; the next work session was noted for the following day at 10 a.m. in the hearing room.