Convention Center Committee - May 23, 2025

Present: Katlyn Balstad, Charley Johnson, Mallari Ackerman, Clare Hughes, Joe Raso, Kent Kolstad, Emma McIntyre, Taylor Snelling, Denise Kolpack, Tim Mahoney, Dave Piepkorn, Shannon Full.

Absent: Joe Raso, John Strand, Michelle Turnberg.

Others Present: Jim Gilmour, Assistant City Attorney Erik Johnson (via video conference), Michael Redlinger, Susan Thompson.

Charley Johnson thanked everyone who participated in the grid survey. The averages from the survey conducted by Mallari Ackerman were displayed on the screen. Mr. Johnson said this is the first opportunity for discussion and potential vote changes. The scoring was broken into three sections instead of four, as was decided last week, he said. The top section is weighted at 40% of the total, he said, with the other two sections each being worth 30%, totaling 100%. He said he and Mallari determined the weighting of individual lines within each section.
Mallari explained the calculation process: each section (Site Considerations, Concept Plan, Development Team) had to total 100% within itself for its 11 items. The weighted score for each line item is calculated by taking the average submission percentage (e.g., 16% for "Psych capacity for building program") and multiplying it by the section's weight (e.g., 40% for the first section), she said, resulting in a comparative weight (e.g., 6.4%). Scores, she said, are on a scale of one to five, with zero meaning no information provided and five points meaning excellent. The weighted score, she said, is the total weight of the item multiplied by its score (D3 x E3 in the calculation). The total score for the first section (Site Selection) is 1.384, she said and the sum of the three section totals (highlighted in blue on the explanation page) gives an overall total score (e.g., 3.925). This total score, she said, will be a number between one and five, used to compare different vendors (e.g., Sample 1, M&N would be another sample). She said the meeting participants provided 10 responses out of 14 Committee members for the survey. Input was largely consistent across participants, she said and the order of items on the current sheet is numerical (highest to lowest percentage), which differs from last week's order. The scoring chart uses formulas, she said, so only the scores need to be entered, and the rest will auto-calculate. She said hypothetical scores were used to demonstrate how changes in percentages affect the weighted score.
Jim Gilmour said he will draft the RFP and try to get it out by the next meeting. He said a specific monetary figure (e.g., $40 million or $39 million) is preferred for the RFP instead of a range, to avoid calls seeking clarification.
Susan Thompson stated she is not comfortable picking a single number.
Mr. Gilmour said the City Commission should pick the number.
A range of $37 million to $41 million (based on a 20-year projection) was discussed.
Mr. Gilmour said he would suggest a 30-day period for vendors to ask questions. He said these questions would be submitted online through the City's system and filtered through him. He said the Committee would then convene to draft official responses to policy-related questions. Simple factual questions (e.g., Fargo's population) can be answered directly, he said. The draft RFP would be taken to the City Commission on June 23rd for approval before issuance, he said. Once approved by the City Commission, the RFP would be issued, he said, followed by an 8-10 week response period. The RFP could be available to the public the day after the June 23rd Commission meeting, or within that week, he said.
In response to a question from Shannon Full regarding the timeline, Mr. Gilmour said once proposals are received, Committee members will have online access to review and score them. All submitted proposals and individual Committee members scores will be public information, he said and any proprietary information would require a strong case for non-disclosure.
Mr. Gilmour said after initial scoring, the Committee will discuss the results and determine if interviews are needed for a short-listed group (e.g., top two, four or six). Formal presentations and open interviews are envisioned, he said, for the second round, after narrowing down to finalists (e.g., top three). The criteria for scoring in the second round, he said, may shift to focus more on aspects such as financing and building layout. He said the RFP should clearly state that a second phase with more detailed requirements will occur. The second phase will likely involve more detailed drawings, he said and financial plans, potentially requiring 3-4 months for preparation by the finalists. The number of finalists is typically between three and five, he said, but can vary based on the quality of proposals. The language in the RFP will likely state "no more than five," he said and the presentations in the second round would add depth beyond the written proposals. A new scoring grid may or may not be used, he said, for the second round; it might be more subjective with robust discussion. More specific instructions will be provided in Phase Two, he said and the top selection from the Committee would then go to the City Commission for confirmation before negotiations begin. If negotiations fall apart, he said, they would move to the next ranked proposal. The entire process, including proposals and scores, will be open to the public, he said.
Ms. Ackerman provided a hypothetical proposed timeline:
• May 30th: Draft RFP available.
• June 13th: Committee meets to agree on RFP.
• June 23rd: RFP goes to City Commission for approval.
• June 23rd - July 23rd: 30-day period for online questions from proposers.
• July 11th (3 weeks after RFP posting): Committee meets to review questions (no scoring yet).
• August 18th (8 weeks after RFP posting): Committee meets to score proposals online (first round).
• September 12th (4 weeks later): Interview/Presentations for finalists; second round of online scoring.
• Following September 12th: Primary selection goes to City Commission.
The Committee requested that Mr. Gilmour provide this proposed timeline in writing.
The first item refers to existing or planned amenities around the proposed project (e.g., overflow hotels in the vicinity). * The second item, "Hotel and restaurant" within the Conceptual Plan, refers to proposed attached hotels and restaurants within the project itself (e.g., architecture, interior decor of the proposed hotel/restaurant within the convention center plan).
Mr. Johnson said Mr. Gilmour will work on drafting the RFP and a proposed process outline. He said the Committee will meet next week at the same time and location.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:43 p.m.