The Fort Lauderdale City Commission directed staff on Oct. 7 to advance four developer teams for further review in the unsolicited proposals process to build a new City Hall.

The commission’s decision followed a presentation by Jonathan Jordan and Alan Cohen of Jacobs, the city’s owner's representative, who summarized Jacobs’ review of six unsolicited proposals and the preliminary evaluation criteria used to screen them. Ben Rogers, assistant city manager, told the commission the city had received six proposals (one original from Fort Lauderdale Civic Partners and five competitors) and that Jacobs’ first task order was to develop preliminary criteria and conduct an initial pass/fail review.

“The first task order that we did with Jacobs was to help us with the review of these initial unsolicited proposals,” Ben Rogers said, introducing the Jacobs presenters. Jonathan Jordan of Jacobs summarized the firms, the evaluation criteria and the team-level review that focused on developer capacity, municipal and office-building experience, P3 experience and compliance with the state P3 statute.

Jordan told the commission Jacobs found one team met all nine screening criteria and several others met most of the criteria. “Of the 6 proposals, it was found that, 1 firm met all the criteria or a 100%, which was Fort Lauderdale City Hall Partners,” Jordan said. Jacobs recommended shortlisting multiple firms for additional review rather than eliminating most applicants at this stage.

Mayor Dean Trantalis and several commissioners said they wanted to expand the review beyond a single top-ranked candidate. Commissioners asked staff to ask shortlisted firms to update cost proposals and confirm design, space and amenity requirements based on a refreshed project scope. Ben Rogers described the next steps: staff will finalize a refined square-footage and amenities package within about a week; that package and questions for proposers will be released to shortlisted firms; PFM will be retained to perform a financial review; and firms will respond with updated, comparable cost information in time for a Dec. 2 presentation.

Commissioners agreed on a process timeline and a shortlist of four teams to advance: Balfour Beatty; Fort Lauderdale Beacon Collaborative (Gilbane-led team); Fort Lauderdale City Hall Partners (Plenary/Fort Lauderdale City Hall Partners); and Fort Lauderdale Civic Partners (Meridian-led). The commission and staff discussed presentation length; commissioners expressed differing preferences but aimed for roughly 30 minutes per candidate on Dec. 2, with flexibility. Staff said Dec. 16 would be the target to authorize negotiations with a selected firm following presentations and PFM’s financial review.

Several commissioners requested additional due diligence be provided in advance of the Dec. 2 presentations, including detailed financial statements, litigation history across full teams, facilities-management capabilities and options for delivery and financing (for example, lease versus city-financed options). Commissioners also asked staff to circulate the proposed evaluation criteria to the commission and invited individual commissioners to provide comments to staff before the next public meeting.

Jacob’s presentation noted the review at this stage was a high-level pass/fail and that deeper financial and litigation reviews would be part of the next phase. Commissioners discussed allowing public presentations by proposers at a later meeting and whether to require shortlisted teams to present alternatives (lease, design-build, operate-and-maintain options). Staff said the updated scope would standardize responses so PFM could compare cost estimates on an apples-to-apples basis.

The commission’s direction on Oct. 7 was procedural: advance the four named firms to the next phase, release a refined scope of space needs and amenities to shortlisted bidders, onboard PFM for a financial analysis, and hold shortlisted-team presentations at a Dec. 2 meeting followed by potential authorization to begin negotiations on Dec. 16. Commissioners asked staff to provide the detailed due-diligence materials in advance of those presentations.

The commission did not record a formal roll-call vote in the conference meeting minutes during the Oct. 7 session; staff confirmed it will seek formal confirmation of the shortlisted proposals during the evening meeting.

Background and why it matters: The city received an initial unsolicited proposal in May 2025 and five competing proposals during a 60-day open window that closed Aug. 5. The City Hall site and delivery approach are likely to shape downtown development, cost exposure and long-term operations; the commission’s next steps will determine whether the project advances via a public-private partnership structure and which teams proceed to negotiate a comprehensive agreement.

What comes next: Staff will distribute the refined scope and evaluation criteria to shortlisted firms, PFM will review updated cost submissions, shortlisted firms will present at the Dec. 2 conference meeting, and the commission plans to consider authorization to enter interim negotiations on Dec. 16.

Who said it: Ben Rogers, assistant city manager; Jonathan Jordan and Alan Cohen, Jacobs; Mayor Dean Trantalis; Vice Mayor John Herbst; Commissioner Ben Sorensen (appearing remotely); Commissioner Steve Glassman; Commissioner Pamela Beasley Pittman.

Clarifying details and outstanding items: The initial Jacobs review was a high-level pass/fail on nine criteria; Jacobs noted that only one lead developer team had delivered a prior city hall, and that team (Fort Lauderdale City Hall Partners) met all criteria. Jacobs used Dun & Bradstreet reports for an initial financial review and recommended a deeper financial statement review for shortlisted teams. Jacobs also recommended reviewing litigation history for all team members during the next phase.

Commissioners asked for— and staff agreed to provide—full financials, team litigation histories, and documentation of proposer experience across design-build, P3, facilities management and municipal projects prior to December presentations.

Ending note: Commissioners emphasized the need for a transparent, documented evaluation process and for staff to circulate the draft evaluation criteria and timeline to the commission before the next public meeting.