Richland County committee weighs on‑call engineering retainer and 20‑year facility plan

Speaker 4 and colleagues discussed adopting an on‑call engineering approach or a retainer contract to produce engineered scopes for county building and infrastructure projects.

The conversation centered on repeated procurement problems where some bidders submitted "apples‑to‑apples" proposals while others offered higher‑end alternatives, complicating comparisons and contributing to unexpected costs for projects such as recent HVAC and boiler work. "If we'd had an engineer say, no, it's not feasible to put on, well, the billing is not designed to put a slow growth on it," Speaker 3 said, arguing that pre‑specification could have avoided later problems.

Speaker 2 and Speaker 7 advocated using consultants on a per‑project basis to prepare scopes and RFPs. Speaker 7 described a model used elsewhere: a general contract that is triggered with a not‑to‑exceed scope when needed, which avoids paying a standing fee until services are requested.

Committee members also discussed the need for a comprehensive inventory and an HVAC audit to identify aging rooftop units and other building systems. Speaker 9 noted the campus has many air conditioners and suggested an audit would help prioritize replacements and reduce emergency breakdowns.

Several members proposed combining those audits and engineered scopes into a multi‑year capital plan (five‑ to twenty‑year horizon) to guide budgeting and minimize ad‑hoc emergency repairs. Speaker 4 said the committee should identify firms that can handle building HVAC, roofing and structural work and that the county could keep multiple firms on an "on‑call" basis depending on specialty.

The committee did not approve a contract during the meeting but agreed on next steps: prepare scopes, consider on‑call or general contracts, and allocate budget lines for engineering services in future fiscal cycles. Speaker 2 said funds have been set aside this year for the HVAC system audit.