I suspect it's a very different thing asking people to put together another round of RFPs in the relatively commoditized medical equipment field vs. coming up with the kinds of proposals those 3 firms did. I suspect patience will wear thin quickly if the city makes a habit of declaring "do-over!" in these.

Brian Alg said:

---

I suspect it's a very different thing asking people to put together another round of RFPs in the relatively commoditized medical equipment field vs. coming up with the kinds of proposals those 3 firms did. I suspect patience will wear thin quickly if the city makes a habit of declaring "do-over!" in these.

---

Perhaps so, but I promise you, equipping an entire acute care medical facility is very, very complex.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

The more I think about it, saying it "wasn't fair" is perhaps being far too nice. Has anyone done an open records request for this project? Some of the same players as the Macy's boondoggle are at play here. One of the city's former employees just so happens to have now been advocating for the project that staff recommended (over the superior and comprehensive project submitted by a local company that would have kept dollars local).

But, I agree with your sentiment. Reopen the process, let OG rebid and have the city and stakeholders work with them on scope and design.

City staff failed the citizens of College Station in making the recommendation that they did. Council did ultimately reject that recommendation, but they also failed the citizens in not asking more questions about why the OG proposal was not treated with more seriousness and what role the former city employee that advocated for the other project played in its selection by staff.

---

Staff want the same for the city that we all do. The best deal for the taxpayer. The presumption simply was, with the larger bid offering the citizens could be proud of a deal that was made on their behalf, and even if in customizing the highest bid led to a lower net offer post customization, it would still net a higher sales price than the lowest offer. That we would have been able to achieve a quality outcome while netting a higher return on that land for the taxpayer. The problem with that thinking is:

A) that's a hypothesis, not a fact.
B) it's unfair to the lower bidder that, on information and belief, felt they were held to a different standard (rightly or wrongly).

But, there was no malfeasance on behalf of staff. They, and we, were just blown away at the difference offering prices.

That's essentially what happened. Nothing more or less.

Respectfully and transparently

Yancy '95

Even if it had netted a lower sale price than the highest bid, no other offer had the additional land piece to offer as part of their proposal that OG had. You said it yourself, it was the best proposal. It was the best use of the land. You have your answer. It seems the city still doesn't want that solution to work, despite being told countless times that the citizens prefer it to all other ideas that have been thrown around.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I appreciate your candor and respect that you are being so gracious to staff on this issue. I think this will be one of the few times we will have to agree to disagree.

---

You said that nicer than I was going to so I'll just say +1.

I can give you the uncensored version at Olsen some time

You gonna be there tomorrow?

lol sadly no. Friday, hopefully if the weather cooperates.

What needs to happen for a new RFP?

Stucco said:

---

What needs to happen for a new RFP?

---

The Northgate Small Area Plan needs to be completed. I would expect it will have feedback from residents and stakeholders identified regarding what they'd like to see happen with the city surface lot, if anything. Council will hear a presentation from staff where citizens will have a chance to speak. Then council will potentially give staff direction on what to do next. That could potentially be to reaccomplish the RFP with new parameters this time.

It could conceivably include a different approach through a local government corporation wherein we don't go to bid but rather enter a development agreement with a selected partner. It could also include an economic development agreement. It could look very similar to how Texas A&M approached Century Square.

The gamut of possibilities is extensive.

Whatever we do, if anything, I want Northgate to be preserved and enhanced. I want it to be handled appropriately and legally in all respects. I want it to capture the will of the citizens.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

People talking about wishing the city had gone with OG's proposal but extended out to the 1.57 instead of just the 1 acre:

What are important ways that would be different from the Capstone bid?

Was OG not basically edge to edge with the acre they were offering to purchase?

Or are you saying the OG proposal was for their purchase of 1.57 acres and they were only going to build the primary building on 1 acre of it?

For me it was the thoughtful development of both properties, the amount of green space, and the intention to work with the city and university to construct a grade separated crossing of University Drive.

The worst case here is the two properties are developed separately by private companies who only care about bottom line. You'll have conflicting right of ways and easements and no control over what happens to an extremely valuable 1.57 acres.

Brian Alg said:

---

Was OG not basically edge to edge with the acre they were offering to purchase?

Or are you saying the OG proposal was for their purchase of 1.57 acres and they were only going to build the primary building on 1 acre of it?

---

Had 10x the retail space, several times the park space, an outdoor stage, a rooftop bar, game day condos on adjacent property (gas station lot) et al

Respectfully

Yancy

OG plan was good with the caveat we have some hotel space on the site.