Flatland Views has advertised for proposals to build a new community center, but the city council cannot agree on how to evaluate the submitted proposals. The request for proposal (RFP) specified that respondents had to meet certain basic needs, although optional items could be included. The RFP also asked that each respondent calculate a benefit/cost (B/C) ratio using a discount rate of 12%. The RFP did specify the approximate size of each optional facility and the use that could be expected (and the value of such use in dollars per hour) The RFP stipulated that the council would select a package of facilities based on estimated construction costs and B/C ratios. Since this package might not match any proposal, the council could issue a new RFP. However, if a new RFP is issued, only respondents to the first RFP may respond. The council's intent is to provide an incentive for participation in the first RFP. Instead of a second RFP, the council could choose to simply negotiate with one of the original bidders Three firms responded to the RFP, but they used different assumptions on how to calculate the ratio as well as including different options within their proposals. Their construction materials and associated lives are similar, but their designs differ substantially The proposals can be summar ized as follows. Tightfisted Proposal Averel Johnson, the conservative patriarch of the city's construction community, has proposed a bare-bones facility (see Table 16-1). Assuming 50 years of use and end-of-period