Why is this project being delivered as a public private partnership?
Representatives of the Massachusetts Trial Court and Hampden County court officials clearly and consistently raised concerns about the conditions in the current Hampden County court facilities. Upon taking office, Governor Healey made building a new Regional Justice Center for Springfield and Hampden County a priority, and asked DCAMM to identify ways to advance the project. The project was first evaluated as a traditional capital project to be executed by the Commonwealth. DCAMM even began the process of searching for locations to build a new facility. However, previously approved capital commitments, including several large courthouse projects, as well as legislative and fiscal constraints on the Commonwealth’s capital investment plan meant that a traditional capital project could not have been ready for occupancy until at least the mid-2030s.
Given the urgency of replacing this facility expressed by the Massachusetts Trial Court, this alternative procurement was recognized as a way to construct the facility considerably faster.
What has happened so far with the procurement process?
The process began with the Massachusetts Trial Court formally requesting the leasing procurement in Fall 2024. In order to solicit proposals for a long-term lease, the Massachusetts Trial Court needed to petition the Asset Management Board for authorization, which occurred in January 2025. The Massachusetts Trial Court then formally approved the Request for Proposals in June 2025.
Ten responses to the RFP were received in October 2025. A committee consisting of representatives of the Massachusetts Trial Court and DCAMM professional staff reviewed and evaluated the proposals, identifying four for further consideration. Interviews with representatives of the four shortlisted teams were conducted in February and March 2026.
On June 29, 2026, the Massachusetts Trial Court formally identified the submission from FDS MA Liberty Junction, LLC (“Liberty Junction”) as their preferred proposal, which they recently reaffirmed. DCAMM accepted this recommendation and issued a conditional selection letter on June 30, 2026.
What is the current status of the procurement process?
On July 1, 2026, FDS MA Liberty Junction, LLC agreed to the terms of their conditional selection to construct and lease a new Springfield Regional Justice Center to be located at 125 Liberty Street in Springfield. They will need to satisfy the provisions of the conditional selection letter and negotiate and enter into a lease with the Commonwealth prior to proceeding with the development.
DCAMM has agreed to pause the leasing process until a hearing scheduled for August 11.
When will a lease be executed?
Lease negotiations for a project of this complexity typically require 3-6 months.
When will the new facility open?
Liberty Junction has indicated that they can deliver the project within 42 months of lease execution.
Why was the Liberty Junction proposal conditionally selected? Was it just because it was the lowest price?
As detailed in the comparative proposal analysis and the proposal review documentation available on DCAMM’s project website, the Liberty Junction proposal was among the highest-rated proposals based on the qualitative criteria established in the request for proposals. Among the strong proposals, Liberty Junction offered the lowest cost to taxpayers by nearly $300 million and the primary developer, FD Stonewater, has the most experience delivering large-scale public facilities for state and federal government agencies. As a result, DCAMM accepted the recommendation from the Massachusetts Trial Court that the Liberty Junction proposal offered the best value to Springfield and the Commonwealth.
How does the comparative cost analysis address the fact that different proposers included different expenses in the base rent?
The analysis recognizes that the four finalists excluded different expenses from their base rent proposals. These are summarized in the “Exclusions” column of the comparative proposal analysis and estimates of these expenses were incorporated in the “Estimated Average Annual Excluded Costs” column. These cost estimates were added to the base rent to compare the “Total Estimated Annual Cost of Occupancy” for each proposal, which was the basis for establishing that the Liberty Junction proposal will save the Commonwealth and its taxpayers approximately $300 million over the forty-year lease term relative to the next cheapest proposal
Does the comparative cost analysis consider property taxes?
Yes. In a commercial lease, property tax liability is one of the largest annual costs outside of base rent that a tenant is typically obligated to pay. Because different proposers used inconsistent assumptions about property tax assessments and how they would impact the cost of occupancy, DCAMM employed a uniform approach to estimating property taxes and their escalation by basing them on the City of Springfield’s current commercial tax rates and the assessed value per square foot of recent large-scale non-residential construction in Downtown Springfield. DCAMM applied this approach to the four finalist proposals, which is reflected in the comparative proposal analysis.
Did DCAMM consider capital repairs and maintenance costs and obligations in evaluating the comparative cost of the proposals?
Yes. The four finalist proposals presented differing approaches to addressing capital repairs and maintenance. Three of the four, including Liberty Junction, excluded these costs from the base rent, proposing instead to have the Commonwealth be responsible for reimbursement of actual expenses in compliance with the lease requirements. This approach is typical in commercial leases. The fourth included these costs in their base rent, an approach more typical of residential leases.
In addition to proposing to pass through only the actual capital repair and maintenance costs to the tenant, Liberty Junction offered to fund and establish a $5 million Capital Repair Allowance in an interest-bearing account and shared a capital replacement schedule that was consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Based on expected interest income and the capital replacement schedule, Liberty Junction represented to DCAMM that this fund is likely to cover all anticipated expenses in the first 20 years of the lease.
The Commonwealth will be responsible for the actual capital repair and replacement expenses in the second 20 years of the lease, but it is highly unlikely that these costs will exceed the approximately $150 million 20-year cost difference between the Liberty Junction proposal and the proposal that included these expenses in the base rent. The other two proposals excluded these costs entirely, so the $5 million Capital Repair Allowance offered by the Liberty Junction proposal increases its comparative value.
How does the Commonwealth prevent a developer from using poor quality materials or construction that might result in future cost to the Commonwealth?
As an attachment to the RFP, DCAMM and the Massachusetts Trial Court provided a 233-page document prepared by independent design professionals outlining building infrastructure specifications, material and finish standards, and other technical requirements for the construction of the building that all proposers were obligated to follow. These standards will be required in the lease.
Does the Liberty Junction proposal incorporate energy efficiency in their design?
The RFP required all projects to comply with Executive Order 594, which mandates that the building be designed to meet LEED Silver standards for sustainable design and comply with Massachusetts energy codes that are among the strictest in the nation, including the Specialized Stretch Energy Code.
The Liberty Junction team has committed to designing to this requirement and proposed to strive for a net-zero energy standard. They also expressed an intention to pursue a power purchase agreement to install solar panels and pass the energy savings from a discounted electricity cost along to the Commonwealth.
Did Liberty Junction document site control?
Yes. Consistent with the RFP requirements, the Liberty Junction team submitted documentation confirming their control of the property where they proposed to develop the courthouse. The conditional selection letter contains a provision that requires them to reaffirm this site control prior to lease execution.
Was there anything in the evaluation process that gave a preference to Springfield-area or Massachusetts-based developers?
No. The location of the developer was not a criterion identified in the RFP, which outlines the Massachusetts Trial Court’s objectives with regards to this procurement.
Did political influence affect the procurement process and recommendation?
No. DCAMM took successful precautions to insulate the procurement process from political influence in any form, including engaging a third-party advisor to promote the procurement opportunity and ensure a robust response to the RFP, appointing a neutral committee of appointed professional staff from the Massachusetts Trial Court and DCAMM to review proposals, and avoiding communication about the project between political officials and the selection committee during the review process.
Does the conditional selection letter address conflicts of interest?
Yes, the conditional selection letter provides, “As a condition of selection, the selected team must consult with the State Ethics Commission regarding any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may have arisen as a result of a team member becoming a state employee between the date of proposal submission and the date of this selection. The selected team must take all necessary steps to disclose, mitigate, or eliminate any such conflicts to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth prior to contract execution.”
DCAMM requires compliance with all applicable conflict of interest requirements prior to lease execution.
Is the conditional selection letter an attempt to address flaws in the proposal after the fact?
No. The RFP anticipates that DCAMM will make a conditional selection of a proposal and outlines the conditional selection process in Section 4.
Although the exact conditions are project specific, a conditional selection letter with compliance provisions is part of DCAMM's leasing process and an important tool to reaffirm the successful proposer’s commitments to meeting the requirements of the procurement, since it is not uncommon for the proposal evaluation process to require several months following the deadline for proposal submissions.
How does DCAMM ensure that a proposer is in good standing as a corporate entity?
DCAMM’s practice for leasing transactions is to confirm the proposer’s standing during the conditional selection/negotiation period, prior to lease execution, by verifying the information on the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s website and their standing with the Department of Unemployment Assistance. The proposer is also required to certify tax compliance and unemployment contributions in accordance with G.L. C. 62C, s. 49A and G.L. C. 151A, s. 19A when executing the lease.
Will there be sufficient parking and public transportation access to the new courthouse?
Yes. In addition to demonstrating compliance with the on-site parking requirements of the RFP, the Liberty Junction developers control the existing Bay State Garage directly across the street from the project site, which will provide 550 parking spaces for courthouse users and occupants. A total of 2,300 public parking spaces are available within a quarter mile of the project site and the site is adjacent to Union Station, a hub for regional multi-modal transportation options. The site also enjoys convenient access to the interstate highway network with an interchange located one block from the property.
Is the proposed design a copy of a courthouse in Florida?
The Liberty Junction team includes Leers Weinzapfel Associates as their architect for the project. They are one of the most accomplished designers of courthouses nationally and in Massachusetts, including several successful projects for the Massachusetts Trial Court and an active project to comprehensively renovate the Lynn District Court. Their portfolio includes award-winning buildings in multiple states, including the United State Courthouse in Orlando, Florida, that was recognized by the American Institute of Architects as one of Florida’s top 100 buildings. Given their extensive knowledge of how to design an efficient and effective courthouse, it is not surprising that they might apply some common design strategies to their projects, especially at the conceptual level that was included in the proposal. It is anticipated that as they develop the design following lease execution, it will continue to advance and distinguish itself based on the specific needs of the Massachusetts Trial Court and the particular conditions of the 125 Liberty Street location. This will ultimately yield a facility that benefits from their extensive expertise and responds to the unique conditions of this opportunity.
Why was the conditional selection announcement made during the week of July 4?
In multiple public documents and forums leading up to and following the proposal deadline, DCAMM officials shared project schedules that included developer selection occurring in mid-2026. The announcement was made consistent with this schedule.
Since this project will be built by a private developer, will construction labor be paid prevailing wages?
Yes. The Asset Management Board vote that authorized the procurement specifically required that Massachusetts prevailing wage laws will apply to the construction contract for the Springfield Regional Justice Center, as if it were a publicly constructed building.
What happens at the end of the lease term? Will ownership of the building revert to the Commonwealth?
Ownership will not automatically revert to the Commonwealth at the end of the lease term. Similar to the current Roderick Ireland Courthouse that is approximately fifty years old, forty to sixty years from now the facility will likely be due for significant capital reinvestment and may be programmatically obsolete due to changes in judicial practices that cannot be anticipated with any certainty. As a result, the facility will likely be of little net value to the Commonwealth at that time. Not automatically assuming responsibility at the end of the lease term maintains the Commonwealth’s maximum flexibility to consider constructing, leasing, or otherwise acquiring this building or another new facility to address the future needs of the Massachusetts Trial Court.
What happens if the Commonwealth is not able to successfully enter into lease agreement with the current selected proposal?
Under the terms of the RFP, DCAMM reserves the right, if deemed to be in the best interest of the Commonwealth, to negotiate with one or more other proposers or reject all proposals and consider issuing a new RFP.
Does the conditional selection letter address the process for a developer to make changes to the team identified in their proposal?
Yes. The conditional selection letter includes a provision that, “[a]ny replacement, substitution, addition, or other material change to any member of the proposed development team shall be subject to the prior written review and approval of DCAMM and the User Agency, in their sole discretion. No such change shall be made without obtaining such approval.”
Find frequently asked questions - July 2026