Vendors pitch digital dashboards, geothermal and regional cost estimating for Richland County facilities study

Richland County Facilities Committee members heard three competing vendor presentations that laid out how a countywide facilities condition assessment and master planning study would be done, what tools would be used and how community engagement would be structured.

HGA, working with the Concord Group and SLAM, presented a team‑based approach that pairs on‑site assessments with a digital capital‑planning dashboard and local market cost estimating. Corey Powers (HGA) told the committee that the team would "immerse ourselves in the plans, in the building, in the operational cost" and provide a dynamic, manipulable dashboard so the county could examine individual buildings, systems and filters. Justin Johnson (Concord) described a conceptual budgeting approach and stressed the firm’s database of contractor‑sourced market pricing to produce regionally accurate estimates.

A second presenter, Dimension 4 with Apex engineering, highlighted experience on courthouse renovations and retrofit projects, noting key risks such as asbestos (pipe wrap) and trade‑specific lead times for equipment. Presenters said asbestos and other hazardous materials would be identified through the assessment and handled per regulatory requirements; they emphasized sequencing and phasing to limit disruption to occupied buildings.

Venture Architects and Metro Architects demonstrated a live facility‑condition platform (described in the presentation as a map‑based dashboard / AkitaBox‑style tool). The software links room‑level condition pins to RSMeans cost models, produces multi‑year renewal curves and can generate committee‑ready extracts for a single building or an entire campus. Presenters said the dashboard can be licensed so county staff have ongoing access and can update items over time.

Board members asked frequent operational questions: how geothermal compares on lifecycle cost to forced‑air systems, whether staff would participate in data gathering, how long lead items (generators, main panels) change sequencing and how incentives (IRA/federal programs; FEMA for safe rooms) might alter payback calculations. Presenters answered that lifecycle and first‑cost tradeoffs would be modeled, the county could be given a reduced‑rate viewer license for the dashboard, and that the assessment would include energy modeling and potential incentive research to improve project ROI.

Several committee members called out the value of a "living" dashboard to help the committee move from reactive maintenance to proactive capital planning by producing prioritized, regionally adjusted budgets and enabling quick "sniff tests" before hiring contractors.

The committee recessed for a closed‑session procurement review later in the meeting and ultimately forwarded Venture Architects for board consideration.