CCC Board Takes First Look at Dormitory Bids During Special Session
December 1, 2025
The Colby Community College Board of Trustees held a special session on December 1 to hear presentations from two construction teams vying to build a new 80-bed residence hall and a new maintenance facility on campus. No action was taken, but the board spent more than two hours listening to proposals, comparing design features, and outlining what additional information will be required before a selection can be made.
QMC of Quinter presented first, bringing a large team that included their architectural partners from Nebraska and engineering representatives. The company, a third-generation family business operating since 1962, emphasized its long history of work in rural communities and its commitment to tightly managing client dollars. Their architecture partners underscored extensive experience in campus housing, including roughly 100 dormitory projects across the Midwest.
QMC’s presentation focused on phased construction strategies, lifecycle operating costs, and maintaining campus functionality during the build. Their dorm concept featured quad-style suites, each with four bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a small kitchen and living space. The firm’s preliminary pricing, however, drew the board’s attention. While the college issued a target cost of $6.5 million, QMC stated they could not meet that figure for an 80-bed building. Their alternate plan reduced capacity to 56 beds at the desired price point. The full 80-bed option carried an estimated cost of $9,480,930.
Have you seen our new Calendar Page?
The company also discussed options for accelerating early construction phases to meet the college’s desired August completion timeline, including fast-tracking site work and foundations before all design details were finalized.
Stephens Construction followed with a 40-minute presentation led by owner Mitch Gatz and his project designer James Mellin of Mellin & Associates. Their design proposed a single-story, 27,279-square-foot dormitory arranged in a slight C-shape. The layout included 20 four-bedroom pods, two storm shelters, a computer lab, laundry facilities, study areas, and common spaces. The firm proposed a blend of brick and stucco on the exterior, a shingle roof system, and aluminum windows. Their estimated cost for the dorm was $6,471,200.
Stephens also outlined plans for a new 8,400-square-foot maintenance shop with seven overhead doors, office space, and a storage mezzanine. Their total project estimate, including the dorm and shop, was approximately $7.2 million.
A significant concern quickly surfaced: room size. Stephens’ bedrooms measured roughly 120 square feet, smaller than QMC’s 144-square-foot layout. Several trustees said they believed 120 square feet would be too small for modern student expectations, especially given the likelihood that this dorm may serve the campus for 50 to 60 years.
Trustee Jessica Vaugh, who echoed concerns raised by other board members, said the two proposals were too different to compare in their current form. The differences included room sizes, common-area configurations, study spaces, kitchen layouts, and even materials such as concrete versus asphalt millings for parking surfaces. Price differences between the bids totaled approximately $2.4 million.
“Right now, we are not evaluating apples to apples,” Vaugh noted during the discussion.
Board members also talked at length about long-term operating costs, storm-water drainage concerns, the slope of the building site, heating and cooling efficiency, and the need for a minimum of 140 square feet per bedroom. There was general agreement that the college must build for long-term viability, even if the upfront cost is higher.
President Dr. Seth Carter said he will work through both proposals, remove items not specified in the RFP, address inconsistencies, and request revised bids that reflect comparable room sizes and features. Trustees also asked for additional comparisons of dorm room standards at other regional two- and four-year institutions.
The board emphasized that no decision will be made until both bids can be evaluated on the same criteria.
No formal action was taken, and the meeting adjourned shortly after discussion concluded.