The issuance of an RFQ (request for qualifications) for a “construction manager as contractor” for the convention center expansion project will be one of the first actions considered in the new year by Monroe County’s capital improvement board of managers (CIB).
The issuance of such an RFQ, with a three-week turnaround allowed for responses, is the recommendation of a three-member committee of the CIB, which met on Friday morning.
Meeting at the offices of the Bunger & Robertson law firm, which is kitty corner across from the existing Monroe Convention Center at 3rd Street and College Avenue, were: Adam Thies, Mick Renneisen and Doug Bruce. They were joined by Jim Whitlatch, a Bunger & Robertson attorney, who has been brought on as legal counsel for the CIB.
The consideration of the committee’s recommendation, about issuing an RFQ, is intended for the CIB’s Jan. 17 meeting.
Members of the CIB are leaving to elected officials a question that is still for the politicos to decide—the ratification of a four-way interlocal agreement that provides the framework for project contributions by the city and county governments.
The interlocal agreement includes the Bloomington city council and the mayor, which have already signed off on it.
But the county’s side is taking a minute to review the interlocal agreement.
At the county council’s first meeting of the year on Jan. 9, it should start to become clear if the delay by councilors and county commissioners will prove to be just a hiccup, or if county officials will insist on amendments that would require re-approval by the city council and the mayor.
The recommendation to issue an RFQ for construction manager as contractor was at the same time a choice against making the RFQ about a construction manager as advisor. Thies weighed in for a construction manager as contractor by pointing to the fact that on that approach, some of the risk is shared by the construction manager.
In addition to its recommendation to issue an RFQ for a construction manager, the committee agreed that an RFQ for an owner’s representative should be issued. The idea is that none of the CIB members will have sufficient time to staff the project, and that role should be assigned to an owner’s rep.
Committee members agreed that the selection of the owner’s rep, as a professional service provider, could be made based just on responses to the RFQ. That stands in contrast to the eventual selection of the construction manager for the project, which is recommended to be made after issuing an RFP (request for proposals) to just a subset of the respondent’s to the RFQ.
The three-week timeframe for responses to the construction manager’s RFQ came at Renneisen’s suggestion. More conventional would be a 30-day window. But the sense of the committee was that the players who will be responding would likely have a standard set of documents for their qualifications already assembled. The fact that the convention center expansion has been so long in the works also means that there’s a certain amount of general awareness of the project in the community of potential respondents.
Shortening the timeline to three weeks means that if the RFQ is issued the day after the CIB’s January meeting, there will be a week to review responses before the February CIB meeting. The responses could be winnowed down to a smaller set in time for the February CIB meeting. And at that time, the full CIB would be in a position to authorize issuance of an RFP to just that smaller set.
A point of emphasis for Thies during Friday’s committee meeting was the idea that the RFP issued to the finalists for the construction manager work should be based on a budget.
And that means the budget has to be determined. Thies put it like this: “Until we know our budget, you can’t hire an architect—or shouldn’t.” About the design work that was done by Schmidt Associates in 2019 and before, which was summarized for the CIB at its December meeting, Thies said, “We have done concept work. We’re past that.” Thies added, “We should know our budget and then say: Yes, we have a box to now work in, and be creative in our box.”
Determining the budget could depend in part on whether the project costs will include reimbursement to the city of Bloomington for the $5-million the city paid for the former Bunger & Robertson property, at 4th Street and College Avenue. That parcel is envisioned as a likely location for part of the expansion. How that reimbursement would be negotiated is one of the elements of the interlocal agreement that is yet to be ratified on all sides.
Even though the interlocal agreement appears on the agenda for the county council’s Jan. 9 meeting, that does not mean it will get majority support for adoption in its current form. Possibly a sticking point for county councilors is the way the interlocal agreement assigns appointments to the five-member convention and visitors commission.
The CVC appointments are set out in state law. Under state law, two of the five seats are appointed by the county commissioners and the remaining three seats are appointed by the county council.
So an interlocal agreement signed between city and county governments could not delegate a statutory duty of county elected officials to some city entity. That’s why the interlocal agreement has to set up the appointing authorities to the CVC so that they match the state statute.
But under the terms of the interlocal agreement as drafted, the county council’s CVC appointments come with a wrinkle. The county council has to consider the recommendations for appointments that are made by the city council.
The interlocal agreement divides the three county council CVC appointments into two categories. One category is the two seats that are subject to a statutory requirement that they be owners or general managers of hotels or motels with at least 40 beds. The other is a seat with no restrictions.
For the two hotel-related seats, the county council would have to make the appointments only after giving “good faith consideration to a list of at least three recommendations made by the city council.”
For the other, unrestricted seat, the county council would have less latitude under the interlocal agreement. For the unrestricted appointment, the county council would have to choose from a list of four recommendations made by the city council.
It’s the CVC appointments that could lead the county council to balk at adopting the interlocal as currently drafted.
As for the other group of county elected officials, the interlocal agreement will not appear on the agenda for next Wednesday’s (Jan. 10) meeting of the county commissioners.
Reached by text message, county commissioner Julie Thomas told the B Square that the commissioners are waiting until the county council votes on it, before putting the interlocal agreement on their own agenda.