Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Decision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members praise simulation approaches and flag MEP as a key differentiator as they prepare to choose two firms
Summary
After three finalist interviews for the Moose Tower dentistry renovation, board members said all teams presented strong concepts but differed on engineering emphasis, simulation demonstrations, and contingency planning; the board paused to deliberate and will notify finalists shortly.
Board members at the State Designer Selection Board meeting on May 26 praised the finalists’ presentations and identified a handful of decision factors they expect will determine which two teams are forwarded to the university.
Board member Steve Modrow opened the panel feedback during the discussion, calling out strengths in the most recent presentation and asking where dental education is heading. "Brian did a really good job talking about opportunities, floor layouts, and some of the nuances of the basics," Modrow said when discussing clinic layout and technology directions.
Members repeatedly flagged mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) work as the single largest cost and risk driver. Several members noted that two of the finalist teams named the same primary MEP engineer, which could concentrate expertise but also create overlap if both teams are advanced. One member explicitly raised the potential downside: if the board forwards two teams that share a primary MEP firm, the board may be less able to differentiate approaches based on independent engineering solutions.
Funding and contingency planning were another recurring theme. Board members said the firm that had explicitly considered partial funding scenarios and bonding uncertainty seemed better prepared for possible budget variability. Members also compared how each team demonstrated stakeholder coordination: some teams presented strong, face-to-face collaboration evidence while others relied more on remote coordination.
The board asked practical questions about procurement and equipment contracts, noting that university-wide furnishings and equipment agreements will influence clinic outfitting and pricing. Several members emphasized the importance of early coordination with a contractor so pricing can reflect unknowns discovered while investigating the 1970s building.
After roughly 70 minutes of presentations and questioning, the board thanked the teams and scheduled a short huddle to deliberate. The chair said the board will select two firms to forward for the university’s final selection and that the executive secretary will notify teams of the board’s decision today or tomorrow.
