Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-97-0013J-97-42 1/7/97 RESOLUTION NO. r-� 1.3 A RESOLUTION SELECTING FIREHOUSE FOUR, LLC, AS THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER FOR THE LEASING OF CERTAIN CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR RESTAURANT USE; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SAID PROPOSER; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT SAID NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ITS REVIEW, CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO EXECUTION; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE HEREIN SELECTION OF FIREHOUSE FOUR, LLC, DOES NOT CONFER ANY CONTRACTUAL, RIGHTS UPON SAID PROPOSER UNLESS AND UNTIL THE PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED. WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 96-528, adopted July 11, 1996, the City Manager issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the purpose of soliciting proposals from qualified individuals, corporations, or other legal associations interested in leasing, managing and operating a restaurant, for a term of fifteen years, with renewal options, at City -owned property located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 96-764, adopted October 10, 1996, the City Commission appointed members to a Review Committee to evaluate proposals received in response to the Request for Proposals; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 1996, the published date for receipt of said proposals, three proposals were received by the City from CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JAP1 1 6 19117 Resolution No. e 7 — a so The Guinness Irish Pub, Alamilla and Associates, Inc. and Firehouse Four, LLC; and WHEREAS, Staff determined that The Guinness Irish Pub proposal was nonresponsive and it was therefore disqualified; and WHEREAS, the remaining two proposers made presentations to the Review Committee, and based on the specific evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP which included qualifications and experience of the proposer, general and specific management and operational plan, return to the City, financial qualifications of the proposer and the financial plan, and extent of minority ownership/participation of the proposals, the Review Committee ranked the proposals as follows: Number 1 Firehouse Four, LLC Number 2 Alamilla and Associates, Inc.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this i Section. Section 2. Firehouse Four, LLC, is hereby selected as the successful proposer for the leasing of certain City -owned property, located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, for restaurant use. Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorizedl/ and directed to negotiate a lease agreement with Firehouse Four, LLC, The herein authorization is further subject to compliance with all requirements that may be imposed by the City 2 - 97- 13 I for said purpose, and is further directed to present said negotiated agreement to the City Commission for its review, consideration and approval prior to execution. Section 4. The herein authorization to negotiate with Firehouse Four, LLC, as the successful proposer ranked as Number 1 by the Review Committee, does not confer any contractual rights upon said proposer unless and until the proposed lease agreement has been executed. Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January 1997. ATTEST CATFOLLO, MAYOR , A 7E WALTER J . ( F�C E CITY CLERK PREPARED AND REVIEWED BY: JUL BRU ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: A. NN S, III CITY ATT EY W1369:BSS Attorney, including but not limited to those prescribed by applicable City Charter_ and Code provisions. 3 97- 13 f CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members TO: of the City Commission FROM: Edward M r e City Manager RECOMMENDATION DATE: JAN -- 6 1997 FILE: SUBJECT: Resolution Selecting a Successful Proposer for the RFP for the Leasing of 1000 South Miami Avenue REFERENCES: City Commission Agenda ENCLOSURES: January 9, 1997 It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution acknowledging the ranking of the proposals reviewed by the Review Committee for the leasing, management and operation of a restaurant for the City owned property located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida; thereby authorizing and directing the City Manager to negotiate a lease agreement with Firehouse Four, LLC, further directing the City Manager to present the negotiated agreement to the City Commission for its review, consideration and approval prior to its execution; and, further providing that the herein selection of Firehouse Four, LLC as the successful proposer does not confer any contractual rights upon said proposer unless and until the proposed lease agreement has been executed. BACKGROUND On July 11, 1996, the City Commission adopted Resolution 96-528, authorizing the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for the purpose of soliciting proposals from qualified individuals, corporations, or other legal, associations interested in leasing, managing and operating a restaurant, for a term of fifteen years, with renewal options, at the City owned property located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The RFP was issued on July 25, 1996, and contained specific evaluation criteria to be used by the Review Committee. The City Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-764, on October 10, 1996, appointing members to a Review Committee to evaluate proposals received in response to the RFP. Three proposals were received by the City in response to the RFP on October 25, 1996, the published date for receipt of proposals. The proposers were The Guinness Irish Pub, Alamilla and Associates, Inc. and Firehouse Four, LLC. The Review Committee received the three proposals and after extensive analysis and discussion, it was determined that The Guinness Irish Pub was nonresponsive and was disqualified. 9713 - i i ! 2 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Commission Page 2 The remaining two proposers, Alamilla and Associates, Inc. and Firehouse Four, LLC made presentations to the Review Committee, and based on the specific evaluation criteria in the RFP, that included qualifications and experience of the proposer, general and specific management and operational plan, return to the City, financial qualifications of the proposer and the financial plan, and, extent of minority ownership/participation of the proposals, the Review Committee ranked the proposals as follows: #1 Firehouse Four, LLC #2 Alamilla and Associates, Inc. Based on the Review Committee's recommendation (enclosed), I hereby recommend Firehouse Four, LLC as the successful proposer for the leasing, management and operation of a restaurant, at the City owned property located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. 97- 13 :144 I r 1 t> FACT SHEET The following are the minimum. requirements, as stated in the Request for Proposals, for the leasing of the City owned property, for restaurant use, located at 1000 South Miami Avenue: Minimum Base Rent and Percentage Rent: Any Proposal offering less than the minimum acceptable base rent and percentage rent (based on gross sales), as specified below, will be automatically disqualified. i L':Pgf'1�r,: •%�. ,.r _ :. 1-3 F7PPo�7_I�IVl�4i".I\iClWTtlCiEf�EIV1 $ 76,500/YR 4'�.; %. 6% over $2,200,000 4-6 $ 83,385NR _plus plus 6% over $2,400,000 7-9 $ 90,890NR plus 6% over $2,600,000 10-12 $ 99,070NR plus 6% over $2,850,000 13-15 $107,896NR plus 6% over $3,100,000 Lease Term: Any lease entered into will be for a term of fifteen (15) years with two five (5) year options. Proposers Qualifications: No Proposal will be accepted from or contract awarded to, any person, corporation or other legal association which does not have at least seven (7) years of direct restaurant experience during the last ten (10) years or five (5) years of experience directly involved in the ownership and day to day operation of a restaurant during the last ten (10) years. FINAL REPORT BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE LEASING OF THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY FOR RESTAURANT USE LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA January 1997 4 97- 13 5 'IT tj of fflt t 4Y�Y OF I f9� EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ Director p o December 23, 1996 Mr. Ed Marquez City Manager City of Miami Riverside Center 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Dear Mr. Marquez: EDWARD MARQUEZ City Manager Three proposals were received on October 25, 1996, in response to the City of Miami's Request for Proposals (RFP) issued July 25, 1996, for the leasing of City owned property for restaurant use, located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The proposers were The Guinness Irish Pub, Alamilla and Associates, Inc. and Firehouse Four, LLC. The Review Committee selected by the City Commission to evaluate proposal submissions received the three proposals and after extensive analysis and discussion, it was determined that The Guinness Irish Pub was nonresponsive and was disqualified. The Review Committee convened for a total of two meetings, and on December 19, 1996, voted to recommend to the City Manager the following rank and order of the proposals received: #1 Firehouse Four, LLC 42 Alamilla and Associates, Inc. On behalf of the entire Review Committee for the Request for Proposals, we apprecia opportunity o work with you to bring Miami a restaurant which will si cantly contribute to the p erity and quality of life for our community. Sincerely, TNeal L.H. Chairman Enclosure OFFICE OF ASSET MANAGEMENT 7 444 S.W. 2nd Ave., 3rd Floor, Miami, FL 33130/(305) 416-1450/FAX: (305) 416-2156 W Mailing Address: P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 9 e — TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Review Committee Members Background Proceedings Evaluation Process Recommendation EXHIBIT A Professional Services Agreement EXHIBIT B Pertinent Legislation EXHIBIT C Composition of the Review Committee EXHIBIT D Meeting Minutes EXHIBIT E Minority/Women Business Report City's Restaurant Consultant's Report EXHIBIT E Review Committee Ranking Summary and Evaluation Forms 2 3 3 5 6 97 - 13 9 REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR, THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE Members of the Public: Neal L. Harrington (Chairperson) Loretta H. Cockrum Clinton Gulley Diego F. Calderin Manny Alonso-Poch City Employees: Arleen Weintraub, Assistant Director, Community Planning & Revitalization Sarah Eaton, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner II, CPR Anna Proenza, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager's Office Gregory Wright, Assistant Auditorium Manager, Conferences & Conventions Support Staff to the Committee: Eduardo Rodriguez, Director, Office of Asset Management Sharlene Adelman, Lease Management Specialist, Office of Asset Management Anne Whittaker, Procurement Contract Officer, GSA City .A.ttorney's Office Liaison: Julie 0. Bru, Assistant City Attorney City's Restaurant Consultant: i Monette Klein -O'Grady 10 2 ' 97 13 BACKGROUND On July 11, 1996, the City Commission adopted Resolution 96-528, authorizing the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the purpose of soliciting proposals from qualified and experienced individuals, corporations, or other legal associations interested in leasing, managing and operating a restaurant, for a term of fifteen years, with two five year renewal options, at the City owned property formerly known as Historic Fire Station No. 4, located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The City entered into a Professional Services Agreement on February 9, 1996, with Prime Sites Inc., for the purpose of assisting City staff in the preparation of the RFP and the evaluation of the proposals received in response to the RFP. The Professional Services Agreement with Prime Sites Inc. is attached as Exhibit A. The RFP was issued on July 25, 1996, and contained specific evaluation criteria to be used by the Review Committee. The City Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-764, on October 10, 1996, appointing members to a Review Committee to evaluate proposals received in response to the RFP. Pertinent legislation is included as Exhibit B. On October 25, 1996, the published date for receipt of proposals, the following three proposals were received by the City in response to the RFP: The Guinness Irish Pub Firehouse Miami Bar and Grill/Alamilla and Associates Firehouse Four, LLC. i PROCEEDINGS The Review Committee, appointed by the City Commission, held a total of two (2) meetings; on Friday, December 6, 1996 and Thursday, December 19, 1996, respectively. The composition of the Review Committee, as convened on its meeting dates, is attached as Exhibit C. Meeting minutes from the two meetings, including the agenda, are attached as Exhibit D. i 3 11 �'� ~- 13 Throughout the proceedings, the Committee observed requirements as set forth in the Government in the Sunshine Law, Public Records Act and City administrative policy as promulgated in the City Charter and Code. All Review Committee meetings were duly advertised and recorded. Meeting of December 6, 1996: The first meeting of the Review Committee was held on December 6, 1996, at 9:00 am. The purpose of this meeting was organizational, in order to familiarize Committee members with the process and their duties during the meetings. This proceeding was audio recorded for the record. The Committee was briefed by the Office of Asset Management staff in reference to the Request for Proposals process and committee responsibilities for evaluating the proposal submissions. Written reports were presented to the Committee by the City's minority procurement officer and the City's restaurant consultant, which are attached as Exhibit E. The Review Committee was also briefed by the Law Department liaison regarding the Sunshine Law, including external contact with any proposal team during the project evaluation process. At this meeting it was determined by the Committee that the proposal submitted by The Guinness Irish Pub was nonresponsive and was disqualified. It was further decided that at the next Committee meeting, the remaining two proposers would each make a presentation to the Committee. The length and order of the presentations were decided by the Committee. Nominations were made by the Committee for the position of Review Committee Chairperson. Neal Harrington was nominated and accepted the nomination as Chairperson. The Review Committee selected December 19, 1996, as the next and final meeting for the evaluation of the proposals. Meeting of December 19, 1996: The final meeting of the Review Committee was held on December 19, 1996, at 9:00 am. This proceeding was audio recorded for the record. The proposers, Firehouse Four, LLC and Firehouse Miami Bar and Grill, respectively, made presentations to the Committee, based on the specific evaluation criteria in the RFP followed by a question and answer period. Following the proposer's presentations, the Committee deliberated and evaluated the proposals. 12 a 97- 13 EVALUATION PROCESS City of Miami Charter Section 29-A, requires the Review Committee to "evaluate each proposal based only on the evaluation criteria applicable to the Review Committee and contained in the Request for Proposals". Section VI of the RFP document contains extensive criteria to be used to evaluate the proposals. The following specific evaluation criterion and their respective assigned weights were used by the Review Committee for the purpose of rating and ranking the proposal submissions. In accordance with City administrative policy, each proposal is given a subjective score from 0 (poor) to 6 (excellent) for each criterion, which is then multiplied by the respective weight. Weighted Criteria Value Qualifications and Experience of the Proposer 15 General and Specific Management and Operational Plan 30 Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum 15 Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 TOTAL 100 A matrix displaying the criteria and weighted values was established to evaluate, rank and recommend proposals submitted in response to said RFP. Each member of the Review Committee evaluated all relevant components of the proposals submitted, by assigning points to each proposal based on the matrix; described above. Each member of the Review Committee then totaled their points and rated each proposal either #1 or #2. The members then orally cast their respective votes for proposals #1 or #2. The votes for #1 and #2 were summed for each proposal. The proposal receiving the lowest point score was determined to be the #1 recommended proposal; the proposal receiving the second lowest point score was determined to be the #2 recommended proposal. 5 9,7_ 13 13 14 The ranking and the results were as follows: Rank Proposer Points #1 Firehouse Four, LLC 11 points #2 Firehouse Miami Bar and Grill 16 points Alamilla and Associates Review Committee evaluation forms and the summary form of all votes are attached as Exhibit F. RECOMMENDATION Following deliberations and ranking of each proposal, the Review Committee's recommendation is as follows: #1 Firehouse Four, LLC #2 Firehouse Miami Bar and Grill Alamilla and Associates All correspondence between the Review Committee, City Staff, the City of Miami Law Department, proposal documents, supplemental materials, tape recordings of the Review Committee meetings and any other materials related to the RFP are on file and available at the City of Miami, Office of Asset Management, 444 SW 2nd Avenue, Third Floor, Miami, Florida, 33130, Telephone (305)416-1450. i i 6 97- 13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this day of 1996, by and between the City of Miami, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Prime Sites Inc., a � Ai 124- corporation qualified to do business in A?4 O - hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT". RECITAL WHEREAS, the CITY is preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for purposes of soliciting and receiving proposals from persons interested in entering into a long term lease for the CITY owned restaurant facilities located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida (the Property); and WHEREAS, the Office of Asset Management has determined that the CITY requires the expertise of a restaurant consultant to assist the CITY in the preparation and evaluation of the RFP; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT has the necessary professional qualifications required to assist the CITY and is ready, willing, and able to perform the required professional services for the CITY. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and obligations herein contained, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter' stated, the parties hereto understand and agree to as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES City: 16 The CONSULTANT shall provide the following professional services for the 97- 13 A. CONSULTANT shall assist the Office of Asset Management in drafting the RFP. The CONSULTANT shall provide specific recommendations with respect to the terms and conditions of the RFP which shall include language with respect to: (i) a specific criteria which shall serve to pre -qualify potential tenants which shall address all aspects of the tenant's ability to undertake and maintain a successful restaurant operation at the Property, including: ♦ soundness of business plan ♦ concept potential ♦ financial strength ♦ reputation in the industry ♦ lease payments and other financial return to CITY B. In the event that there are proposals received by the CTIY in response to the RFP, the CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in the evaluation of the proposals. C. The CONSULTANT shall perform any other services requested by the CITY, which are directly related to the Property and the Scope of Services set forth above. U. COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to pay to the CONSULTANT and the CONSULTANT agrees to accept as compensation for the services set forth in Section I hereof, an amount of money:; which shall be calculated as follows: Hourly Fee: $125.00 Expenses: Phone/Fax/Copies .25 per item Secretarial 20.00 per hour All messenger services and /or Federal Express and/or registered mail service expense shall be borne by the CITY. 01 A M CONSULTANT shall not bill more than 36 hours of time without prior written approval from the Director of the CITY'S Office of Asset Management. The CITY will be advised in writing by the CONSULTANT when time used has reached the 32 hour mark, at that time the CITY will determine the need for future time engagement of CONSULTANT. The CITY shall pay the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) as a retainer upon execution of this Agreement. The retainer shall be applied to the total fee at an hourly fee of One Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($125.00) for actual time worked. At the end of each calendar month during the term of this Agreement, the CONSULTANT shall submit a statement to the Office .of Asset Management detailing the work performed and the number of hours to be deducted from the Retainer. Within Fifteen Days (15) of receipt by CITY of such statement, CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT the hourly fee for work performed by the CONSULTANT in excess of the Retainer in accordance with the provisions hereof. It is expressly understood and agreed upon by the CONSULTANT that the amount paid by the CITY to the CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall not in any event exceed the total sum of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00). III. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes of, federal, state, and local governments. IV. NOTICE TO PROCEED AND TIME OF PERFORMANCE The services of the CONSULTANT are to commence upon the delivery by the CITY of notice to proceed and receipt of retainer by CONSULTANT, and shall be 18 3 97- 13 �s`: 'A' undertaken and performed in such a way as to assure the expeditious completion of the RFP. V. GENERAL CONDITION A. All notices or other communications which shall or may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by messenger service or by registered mail addressed to the other parry at the address indicated herein or as the same may be changed from time to time. Such notice shall be deemed given on the day on which personally served; or, if by mail, on the fifth day after being posted or the date of actual receipt, whichever is earlier. CITY OF MIAMI CONSULTANT Director Monette Klein -O'Grady ; Office of Asset Management Prime Sites Inc. 300 Biscayne Blvd. Way, Suite 400 P.O. Box 4637 Miami, FL 33131 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-4637 B. Title and Paragraph headings are for convenience reference and are not part of this Agreement. C. In the event of conflict between terms of this Agreement and any terms or conditions contained in any attached documents, the terms in this Agreement shall rule. D. No waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute.,. a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision hereof, rk and no waiver shall be effective unless made in writing. i E. Should any provision, paragraphs, sentences, words or phrases contained in this Agreement be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be 4 19 97- 13 V r invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable under the laws of the State of Florida or the City of Miami, such provisions, paragraphs, sentences, words or phrases shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary in order to conform with such laws or, if not modifiable to conform with such laws, them same shall be deemed severable and, in either event, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. VI. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All documents and electronic. data files developed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall be delivered to CITY by the CONSULTANT upon completion of the services required pursuant to Section II hereof and shall become the property of CITY, without restriction or limitation on its use. CONSULTANT agrees that all documents maintained and generated pursuant to this contractual relationship between CITY and CONSULTANT shall be subject to all provisions of the Public Records Law, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. It is further understood by and between the parties that any information, writings, electronic data, maps, contract documents, reports or any other matter whatsoever which is given by CITY to CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall at all times remain'; the property of CITY and shall not be used by CONSULTANT for any other purposes whatsoever without the written consent of CITY. VII. AUDIT RIGHT CITY reserves the right to audit the records of CONSULTANT pertaining to this Agreement and compensation paid by the CITY under this Agreement at any time during 20 5 97-- 13 the performance of this Agreement and for a period of one year after final payment is made under this Agreement. VIH. AWARD OF AGREEMENT CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained any person employed by the CITY to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not offered to pay, paid, or agreed to pay any person employed by the CITY any fee, commission percentage, brokerage fee, or gift of any kind contingent upon or resulting from the award of this Agreement. IX. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of Florida and venue shall be in Dade County, Florida. X. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties herein, their heirs, executors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. r M. INDEMNIFICATION CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save CITY harmless from and against any i and all claims, liabilities, losses, and causes of action which may arise out of CONSULTANT's negligent activities arising out of the scope of CONSULTANTS. services under this Agreement, which is the proximate cause of the damages claimed, including any person acting for or on its behalf, and from and against all costs, attorney's i fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in the defense of any such claims, or in the investigation thereof. 6 97- 13 21 R "In no event shall CONSULTANT be responsible or have any liability for the operator's success or failure at the Property. CONSULTANT will use it's best effort in evaluating the proposed tenant however, the CITY shall ultimately make the final choice and verify all data concerning the operator. NIL CONFLICT OF INTEREST CONSULTANT covenants that no person under its employ who presently exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with this Agreement has any personal financial interests, direct or indirect, with CITY. CONSULTANT covenants that he presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict with the performance of services required to be performed under this Agreement. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such conflicting interest shall be employed. Any such interests on the part of CONSULTANT or its employees, must be disclosed in writing to CITY. CONSULTANT, in the performance of this Agreement, shall be subject to all applicable laws and/or guidelines regarding conflict of interest promulgated by federal, state or local government. CONSULTANT is aware of the conflict of interest laws of the City of Miami (City of Miami Code Chapter 2, Article V), Dade County, Florida (Dade County Code Section 2-11.1) and the State of Florida, and agrees that it shall fully comply in all respects with the terms of said laws. 22 7 9'7 - 13 XIII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT and its employees and agents shall be deemed to be independent contractors, and not agents or employees of CITY, and shall not attain any rights or benefits under the Civil Service or Pension Ordinances of CITY, or any rights generally afforded classified or unclassified employees; further he/she shall not be deemed entitled to the Florida Workers' Compensation benefits as an employee of CITY. XIV. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT If, at any time, CITY in its sole discretion desires to suspend or terminate CONSULTANT'S performance under this Agreement it may notify the CONSULTANT in writing of such fact and the CONSULTANT shall immediately suspend or terminate her performance and submit a billing to the CITY pursuant to Section II hereof. In the event of such suspension or termination CONSULTANT shall have no further obligation to provide services for the CITY and CITY shall not be liable for any costs, expenses or damages (including loss of anticipated profits) other than for work actually performed prior to notice of suspension or termination. In the event such termination occurs prior to CONSULTANT having performed the number of hours applicable to the Retainer, then in such event the CONSULTANT shall refund to the CITY the sum of money which has' not been deducted from the Retainer in accordance with the provisions of Section.,• II hereof. XV. NONDISCRIMINATION CONSULTANT agrees that it shall not discriminate as to race, sex, color, creed, national origin, or handicap in connection with its performance under this Agreement. 8 97_ 13 " i 24 XVI. MINORITY PROCUREMENT COMPLIANCE CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has been furnished a copy Ordinance No. 10062, the Minority Procurement Ordinance of the CITY, as amended, and agrees to comply with all applicable substantive and procedural provisions thereof. XVII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This instrument and its attachments constitute the sole and only Agreement of the parties hereto relating to said grant and correctly sets forth the rights, .duties, and obligations of each to the other as of its date. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force or effect. XVIII. AMENDMENTS No amendments to this Agreement shall be binding on either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed by the respective officials thereunto duly authorized, this the day and year first above written. ATTEST: FOEMAgxLTFty Clerk CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal Corporation of the State of Florida By CESAR H. ODIO City Manager 9 97- 13 WITNESSES: CONSULTANT: PRIME SITES, INC. Ey MON E KLEIN-O' GRADY Partner APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: A. Q JO III City Attorne EXHIBIT B Pertinent Legislation f W. J-96-593 7/01/96 RESOLUTION NO. 9 6 — 528 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITY OF MIAMI CHARTER SECTION 29-B FOR PURPOSES OF SOLICITING PROPOSALS FROM QUXLIFIED INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, OR OTHER LEGAL ASSOCIATIONS INTERESTED IN LEASING, MANAGING AND OPERATING A RESTAURANT, FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS, ..WITH RENEWAL OPTIONS, AT CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SAID RFP; FURTHER APPOINTING MEMBERS OF' A REVIEW COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE AND RANK SAID PROPOSALS. WHEREAS, the City of Miami is a municipal corporation and is authorized by Article VIII, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Florida to exercise any power for municipal, corporate and proprietary purposes except as otherwise provided by law; and WHEREAS, Section 3(f) of the Charter of the City of Miami, as amended, authorizes the City to lease City -owned real property. subject to the conditions set forth in Section 29-B of the Charter of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami owns real .property located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida (the "Property"); ano WHEREAS, the City desires to promote the general comfort; welfare and commerce of the City and its inhabitants; and cry z ti IQ co �t . tit• �t y- 13 WHEREAS, the City deems it necessary for such promotion, to enter into a lease agreement to provide a restaurant at said Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; Section 1. The re.cital's and findings contained in the lPreamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth 'in this Section. Section 2'. The City Manager is hereby authorized to issue, in accordance with the requirements of Section 29-B of the Charter of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, a Request for Proposals, in substantially the attached form, for purposes of soliciting proposals from individuals, corporations or other legal associations, having the requisite qualifications. and experience in the restaurant field, to lease, manage and operate City -owned property located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, for a lease term of fifteen (15) years with two (2) five (5) year options, with a minimum return to the City which. includes a base rent plus a percentage of gross sales as follows:. :wA\" v. 1-3 $ 76,500/YR 6% over $2,200,000 4-6 $ 83,385/YR 6% over $2,400,000 7-9 $ 90,890/YR 6% over $2,600,000 10-12 $ 99,070/YR 6% over $2,850,000 13-15 $107,896/YR 6% over $3,100,000 and, authorizing a fifty percent (50°6) reduction in the total amount of base rent due for the first six (6) months of the - 2 - 1 ..:ieys.•1 lease term to be utilized by the tenant for initial marketing expenses. Section 3. The following individuals are hereby appointed members of the review committee which is to evaluate and rank all responsive proposals: MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC To be Appointed To be Appointed _ To be Appointed To be Appointed To be Appointed CITY EMPLOYEES To be Appointed To be Appointed To be Appointed To be Appointed Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED .AND ADOPTED this 11th day July 1996. 9DO GORT, VICE MAYOR 7� ]WALTE�n R J. F CITY CLERK ARED.AND REVIEWED BY: 1 - IE 0. BR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: /I ♦ d T CITY ♦ . • •I ` i • • • 97-- 13 30 - 3 - e Na J-96-1140 1012196 41' A11*091NEYS �ZIYFIGL MIA.MI FL RESOLUTION NO. � - I A RESOLUTION APPOINTING-DOMEERS TO 4 REVIEW COYMTTEE TO EVALUATE AND RANK PROPOSALS' IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR P90POSALS ("RFP") ISSUED BY THE CITY OF MI,AMI ON JMY 251 1996 FOE,' T= LEME, MMMGEMWr AND OPRRATIMT OF A RESTAURANT, LOCATED ON CTTY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI A7ENUE, MIA T, FLORIDA. WHFREAsS, pursuant to Resolution No. 96-528, adapted duly lit 1996, the City Commission authorized the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for the purpvbe of soliciting proposals from qualified individuals, n rporations, or other legal associations interested in the lease, management., and operation of a restaurant, for a tear: of fifteen years, at City - owned property located at 1000 South Miami .Avenue, Miami., Florida; and W-3EEREAS, on vuly 25, 1996, the aubject RFP was advertised with all proposals in response to rhis''RFP being due by 2:00 p.m. Friday, October 25, 1996; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 96-528 provided for the City Co=* ssxon to appoint members of a review committee to, evaluate ` and rank said proposals; NOW, THER.EFUM, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF 71M CIT-5e. ' OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; Oct. 2. 1996 4,1241M CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE-MIMAI, I, No.3918 F. 3i8 Section I. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resoi uLiuii are hereby adopted by reference thereto and innnrporated herein as if fU11V set forth in this Section. Section 2. The following individuals are hereby appointed as menbers of the review committee which is to evaluate ;and rank all responsive proposals: Neal Harrington selected by: Mayor Carollo _ Loretta Cockrum selected bv: Commissioner Gort Clinton Gully selected by:_- Commissionerummer Diego Calderin selected by: Commissioner ReQalado.. Manny Alonso-Poch selected by: Commissioner Hernandez 11 ' . _!. O PW Arleen Weintraub, Assistant Directar, Community_ Planning & Revitialization SArah Eaton, Historic Preservation Officer, CPR Amna Proenza, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager's Office Gregory Wright, Assistant Auditorium M r. ConfP es & Conventions Section. 3. This Resolution shall 1jeuc:nne effectivG immacuately Lpoa its adoption. PASSEj AND ADOPTED this day of 1996. r; JOE aAROLLO, M YOR ATTEST: WALTER J. ROEMAN CITY CLFRR PREPARED AND REVIEWED BY: JU...,IE O. BRU ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 32 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: A. QUINN JONES, III_ CITY ATTORNEY -2- 9'7 -W 13 \ I M REVIEW COMMITTEE Request for Proposals for 1000 South Miami Avenue Members of the Public: Mr. Neal L. Harrington Mr. Diego F. Calderin Ms. Loretta H. Cockrum Mr. Clinton Gulley Mr. Manny Alonso-Poch City of Miami Emplovees: Appointed By: Mayor Carollo Vice Mayor Regalado Commissioner Gort Commissioner Plummer Commissioner Hernandez Arleen Weintraub Assistant Director Department of Community Planning & Revitalization Sarah Eaton Historic Preservation Officer/Planner II Department of Community Planning & Revitalization Anna Proenza Assistant to the City Manager City Manager's Office Gregory Wright Assistant Auditorium Manager Conferences, Conventions and Public Facilities 97- 13 36 SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE LEASING OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY FOR RESTAURANT USE LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE December 6, 1996 9:00 AM City of Miami Riverside Center 444 SW 2nd Avenue loth Floor Miami, Florida AGENDA Introduction of Committee Members Staff Announcements • Discussion of Public Records Act and Government in the Sunshine Law • Selection Committee Responsibilities Overview of Project Discussion of Proposals • Submissions Received • Staff Reports • Requests From Committee Review of Selection Procedures Election of Committee Chairperson New Business _._. 9'7 -i 13 I t i MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6T`,1996 Selection Committee Meeting Request for Proposals for 1000 South Miami Avenue Members Present Members Absent Neal Harrington (NH) Loretta H. Cockrum (LC) Clinton Gulley (CG) Diego F. Calderin (DC) Manny Alonso-Poch (MAP) City of Miami Employees City Of Miami Employees Members Present Members Absent Arleen Weintraub (AW) Gregory Wright (GW) Sarah E. Eaton (SE) Anna Proenza (AP) City of Miami Staff Present Eduardo Rodriguez, (ER), Director, Office of Asset Management Sharlene Adelman (SA), Lease Manager, Office of Asset Management Julie Bru (JB), Assistant City Attorney, Law Department Bid Proposers Present Carlos Alamilla, Alamilla & Associates Amador Fernandez, Alamilla & Associates Kim Driscoll, Firehouse Four, LLC Gary Farmer, Firehouse Four, LLC Location of Meeting Miami Riverside Center 444 SW 2"d Avenue 10' Floor - Conference Room Rev. 1/2/97 N W SA We are recording this meeting, I would like to thank you all for coming here on behalf of the City to assist us in this process. My name is Sharlene Adelman. I work for the Office of Asset Management. I am a Lease Management Specialist. This is Eduardo Rodriguez who is the Director of the Office of Asset Management. ER Good morning. SA And Julie Bru who is the Assistant City Attorney. I would like everybody to please introduce themselves and tell us where you are from for the record -if you wouldn't mind. Go around the table. Ms. Cockrum. LC Loretta Cock -rum, President of the Foram Group, Inc. an asset management company. Our headquarters is on Brickell Avenue. We also have offices in Boca, Jacksonville and South Carolina. DC My name is Diego Calderin. I am a real estate broker, mortgage broker and business consultant. I have worked for my own. company for around 28 years. I live all the time in Miami. I am from Cuba originally. MAP My name is Manny Alonzo Poch, I am a local lawyer and I also . do some development, preowned estate development. SA Sarah Eaton, preservation officer for the City of Miami. - CG My name is Clinton Gulley, Senior operations Manager for McDonalds corporation, where I have a regional office in Boca Raton. I've been with McDonalds for 23 years. NH Neal Harrington, Harrington & Co., we're a shipping agent, contracting, Port of Miami, third generation Miami. We came here in 1894. SA And I'll introduce Arleen Weintraub who is behind me. She's the Assistant; Director with the City of Miami. I would like to thank you all very much for coming herd and assisting the City in this Request for Proposal (RFP) process. You've been appointed by the City Commission to assist us in reviewing these proposals that we have received for the previous Firehouse Four Restaurant. I hope everybody has had a chance to review the RFP. I've given you all packages. In the packages, there is various information to try and assist you. The City of Miami hired a consultant by the name of Monette Klein - O'Grady at the beginning of this process to review the proposals. NH I like that as the name for the restaurant. ON 9 17 - 13 SA Monette has reviewed all of the proposals for the City and her analysis is included in your file as well ,as a preliminary analysis from the Women and Minority Participation. When we meet again, if you would like, we will have the City representative and Ann Whittaker present at that meeting to go in depth and explain to you the City's process and her evaluation of these proposals and how they apply. Sarah Eaton will give a very short presentation on the historic preservation analysis for these proposals. Sarah has a dual role here. The Firehouse Four, I am sure most of you are fanuliar with it, was a fire station built in the 20's. It was leased in the 80's as a restaurant. The City received the property back a little over a year ago. Now we are very anxious to put it out, lease it out and have a very competent, qualified restaurant come in and take over and operate and manage the property for the City. Julie Bru is here to answer any questions and to discuss with you the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Law. JB: Yes, if I may just briefly. I'm sure, some of you are familiar with the government and Sunshine law and probably knows how to conduct himself under it. Because you are a conunittee that has been constituted to advise the City on a decision that there going to take in respect to this real estate property, the government and Sunshine law, "Sunshine Law" it's called, applies to you also and to your conduct with respect to these proceedings. Basically, the requirements are, the meetings that you have, tlus meeting also, the meeting next week where you are going to be evaluating and reaching your conclusion with respect to the ranking, must be open to the public. We need to give reasonable notice of the meetings. We'll take care of that and we must take minutes of the meeting. With respect to your particular personal conduct, just be on notice that you are not to discuss amongst yourselves or between each other any information pertaining to these proposals unless you are at a public meeting. When you take these proposals home and next week when you are going through them, if you have a question, please don't call one of the other committee members and discuss it on the phone. Wait until we have the next publicly noticed meeting and discuss it at that time. That's about it. SA There have been three proposals received and these will be the three proposals that we request you assist us in evaluating. I would like to know if you would like the proposers at the next meeting to make a small presentation. If you would, I could request it of all of them. That's up to you all to decide. Additionally, if you would like Monette Klein -O'Grady, who is our consultant, who has prepared that report that's in your folder, 'she would also be willing and happy to be here at the next meeting to discuss anything; that you have concerns on or anything you would like her to elaborate on. You can let me know and I will have her at the next meeting. AW It would be very helpful to hear from the proposers. SE I think we should limit the presentations too. I don't know what would be the appropriate amount of time. SA I would like you all to let me know how long you want the presentation to be and =_ in what order. 3 97- 13 39 " NH I think you should have it in the same order that there presented, 1, 2, and 3. I am not so sure that they should make a presentation. They should be here to introduce themselves so we may ask questions of them if we so desire. AW What do you mean by 1, 2, and 3? NH Well the way I saw it listed in here Concept 1, Concept 2, Concept 3. SA Okay, we can stick to that. When our consultant did her analysis, she took away the names and just made it 1,2, and 3. We'll use the same 1,2, and 3 concept that she did. ER Okay. The same order. The attorney wants to clarify one item here. JB The Law Department, I, have reviewed the three responses. There is one response to our RFP that we feel, I discuss this with the City Attorney and the Deputy City Attorney, that is nonresponsive. Because it didn't include the required documentation or information, as matter of fact, by it's .very own admission, in one of the sections that they in fact state they didn't have time to submit financial information so forth and so on. Also the Minority Participation forins were not completed and executed. Since you have been constituted to advise the City and we are considering you almost part of the staff, the RFP indicates that the staff will niake the preliminary determination as to whether or not the proposals are responsive. So I want to add a deference to your involvement in this process, give you the opportunity this week when you are looking through them to also reach the same conclusion that I've reached. Now if that's the case, when you come back on Friday, you concur with our determination that it is in fact nonresponsive. At that point, that proposal and the entities representing that proposal need go no further. We are not going to evaluate that proposal. We are not going to rank them and they are not going to make a presentation. They'll just be automatically excluded. CG So wouldn't we have to make that determination today since we are going to have the meeting next week. JB Well we can go through it and make the determination today. I think that's probably a better approach to take than leaving it hanging for a week. I think today we probably should make that determination that one of these is nonresponsive and need not.; be considered any further. CD I think we shouldn't wait, then we don't lose time. JB You don't waste time looking at something that in fact is not going to be evaluated. NH Well let me ask you this question. So far you are saying, it looks like there are only two proposals. Who gets the duty if we decide on neither one of the two. Do we go _ back to bid? What do we go back to? 40 4 7 - 13 You mean if neither of two responsive should be recommended. NIA Yes. Just when I glanced through it quickly, I don't see that any of that are completely responsive to the UP. Jl3 I think that once the whole committee evaluates that, this decision is a collective decision. NH Well, but I am starting out, if we are already going"to make the determination. MAP So technically, we just evaluate them as we see best fit and then we are gging to rank them right. One, two three. JB Right. ASAP Let just rank them 1, 2, 3 and let the that issue of whether it conforms or complies or is responsive or not be decided by somebody else, not by us. I think we are here to rank and to determine which one is the best or which one is the second best or which one is the third best. JB But the decision as to whether or not it is responsive has to come first. NH Before you can do that. JB By the information in the RFP there has to be a preliminary determination as to whether or not it's responsive. MAP And we have to make that determination? LC Absolutely, it is the committee's responsibility to determine whether a proposal is not eligible for any consideration. JB I agree with you and I am ready this morning to say that one of them is nonresponsive and you can just take it and put it aside. However, the Deputy City;; Attorney and the City Attorney thought that it probably would be more out of respect:in deference to the committee since you've been appointed to do this, to also involve you in that decision, taking my legal advice into consideration. It's up to the committee, however you want to handle it. If you want to throw that responsibility back on my lap, I don't mind telling you right now that is my opinion that one of them is nonresponsive. MAP What does the RFP say about our obligation or our mission. What is our mission? JB Let me refer you to page 21 of the RFP. At the very bottom under subsection "A" 5 97- 1341 Initial Review Phase, it indicates that all proposals will be initially reviewed by staff for compliance with the minimum requirements. It goes on to say that any proposal which does not contain all of the required documentation will be rejected as nonresponsive and eliminated from further consideration, pages 21 and 22, bottom and top. AP But it says staff. JB Yes staff. AW It's not the committee's role. CG So that should have been done already. JB And it is done and I've all ready reviewed them and I've determined that one of them is nonresponsive. NH Why did we get it if it was nonresponsive? JB Well you haven't gotten it yet. We are just giving it to you now and it is going to be taken away. AW It has been removed from our consideration. JB Right. AW So we are now looking at two. ER For clarification, the Legal Department is telling us one of the proposals is nonresponsive. NH How many total responses did you receive? ER Three. That's the requirement we have in the City Charter. We have to get three. AW How does that impact that issue? JB We have discuss that and I have discuss it with the City Attorney. The charter Section 29(b) of the City of Miami Charter requires that if ever we're going to lease City owned property that unless we receive three proposals the City Commission cannot consider or enter into a lease if there hasn't been a referendum approving whichever one it is that they choose. We have interpreted that charter's provision, that in fact we have received three proposals. The charter doesn't say three responsive proposals, it just says three proposals. We received three proposals, now one of them is found nonresponsive. However, for purposes of whether or not there has to be a referendum we have determined that there doesn't have to be a referendum. Because it's not the case where 42 6 97 13 e one proposal was submitted as a sham or inclusion. We had for instance, not to long ago, an RFP for the leasing of City owned property. We received three, but one of them like a faxed piece of paper. Obviously, that doesn't rise to the level of an official document, a good faith effort to have submitted a proposal. So based on that, a fine distinction between an occurrence that could be a clear sham and attempt by perhaps one of the other two proposers to make sure that there were three and they don't have go through a referendum. We're considering that in this instance, that there were three received, they were good faith efforts and there's no problem with having to go to a referendum. NH Let me ask you about the third one, have they made any indication of supplying the rest of the data? ER Yes. They actual have, but we cannot accept the rest of the data. After they put the proposal in place, that's it. You close the doors. That's the provision that we have, you cannot add additional information to anything. AP It wouldn't be a level playing field. NH Yes, but then by the same token I cannot accept it to be included and then taken away. ER Well that's up to you. You want to erase that, it's okay. NH But it doesn't meet the criteria. Why even submit it to review? JB Sir, I think there's been a misunderstanding. At the beginning of the meeting, we told you the purpose of this meeting today is to distribute the proposals so that you can take them with you and at your leisure in the next week or so, review them so that when we meet again to do the actual Sunshine evaluation of the proposals, you'd be prepared. You haven't really technically been given the proposals yet. We put these documents on the table. Now we are discussing whether or not the initial review determines that they are responsive. I think we have pretty much now stated that one of them is nonresponsive, so you will not be taking that one home with you. It's a public record, you can have it. We are not going to throw it out. It is still a document that was, submitted in the normal course of business. It's a public document, it doesn't have to ,b'e destroyed, but you are not required to review it and we are not going to evaluate it. That's what we are doing. ER Feel free to add anything. That's the procedure that we have, the City attorney is giving us an interpretation, that the proposal shouldn't be that way. It was not complete when they submitted. AP I think you should just tell us which one it is right now and we will put it aside. a 7 9 7 - 13 43 SA When the minority participation office went to do an analysis, they also had difficulty with it. Is that the one you are looking at? CG I thought there was some reference. SA It's the Guinness Irish Pub. You can take it and look at it. Feel free to have it if you want it. ER This should not be part of the evaluation. MAP I am ready to evaluate all three right now. SA Are we all in agreement that one will be disqualified and there are no more comments or questions? AP I apologize for coming in late, but why is it being disqualified? Because it's just not responsive or incomplete. SA It was incomplete. There was information not included. MiAP According to the RFP, I don't think that it is our decision, I don't think we should be making that decision. JB And you are not making that decision. I've made it for you already. MAP Okay. Good. ER Because it's a public record, you should have everything related to this restaurant at this point. SA We wanted you to know that we received three proposals and based on staff recommendation, one is being disqualified as nonresponsive. ER The point is, you have all the information that we have and this is part of that. We received a proposal that is disqualified by the Law Department because it is not complete:' You should know about it. If you want to see it you have the same right like anybody else to see it. Now you can take it with you or whatever you wish to do, but the point is, this proposal will not be a part of the evaluation. SA The evaluation form is in your report and we provided that for you as I stated earlier to show what the evaluation form would be like. Some people have found it helpful to refer to it when they are going over the proposals. But you would be completing a brand new one when you come in at the next meeting and do your final evaluation. 44 8 97 - 13 ER If I can expand a little more on that, on page 22 of the RFP book. This is the same criteria that we have on this form. Later on we go and expand the criteria. How to arrive to the criteria. It would be up to you to evaluate these two proposals using this criteria. And to facilitate the process we provide this form. That is the standard ranking form that we use for all the RFP's. It's your decision, to rank them according to your interpretation of the proposals. We are going to be going from the excellent, that is six, to a poor that is zero, for each of the line items, each of the criteria points. The staff is going to add them up and we are going to come to a conclusion. That is the way that it is going to be done. AP But we are not going to do it for the County Kerry Pub? SA Right. So if you would all pull that one out of your package and we can.throw that away. And also there is an evaluation form in your package that you can discard. ER It's up to you. You can take it or you can leave it here. Whatever you want. Okay. SA Let's make a determination as to whether or not you all would like them to make a presentation. One of the committee members said they would and another said they would like them here for questioning. AP I would like to see a presentation. Not a long one. SA How long? I'd like you all to give me a time limit so I can tell the proposers. AP I think it should be within 15 minutes. ER I think we should get consensus because there is some members that say no. So let's see for majority? CG I would like to hear a presentation as well. If there just going to come hear to answer questions then, it doesn't add value as far as I'm concerned for my time and for the goals we are trying to accomplish here. ER Sarah you? SE Presentation. ER Manny? MAP I believe a presentation is a good idea. AW Yes. I was the one who requested it so I very much would like to hear it. MAP No more than 15 minutes. 9 97 13 45 ER What do think? LC I would like to hear a presentation, but I think they should be informed before they come. That as part of there presentation, we would liketo have the opportunity for questions and answers and that they specifically address the five criteria in there presentation. And that it is truly and simply for the evaluation and not go into something like putting on a song and dance. Really, specifically for criteria evaluation. ER Very good. SA Are you all in agreement with that? The whole purpose of this presentation is to discuss the criteria points listed in the RFP. AP Does that mean we are going to exclude additional information? LC No. It's just a guideline. I think they need a guideline. They might think they are coming to put on a song and dance, that's really not what we are looking for. ER I just want to clarify something here. Additional information should not be provided. In other words, the presentation will be based on the proposal. They should not analyze the other proposals, no other party, here should analyze the other one. They should concentrate on their proposal. How good is their proposal and that's addressing the points that we have in the RFP. MAP Before we get to that, are the proposers prepared to make a formal presentation as opposed to just a informal type of presentation? SA I believe they are and for your information they are all sitting over there. They are not allowed to participate, but just for you information I wanted you all to be aware of that. MAP Are they allowed to introduce themselves? SA I don't know, Julie. JB Of course, this is a public meeting. MAP We introduced ourselves but we didn't let them introduce themselves to us. SA Kim would you mind starting please? KD Sure. My name is Kim Driscoll, this is Gary Farmer, he's going to be my general manager and I'm the person behind the Firehouse Four big thick document that you'll take a few hours to read. This is just an introduction? 46 10 97- 13 ER Yes. SA Thank you Kim. Mr. Alamilla? CA My name is Carlos Alamilla. I am president of Alamilla & Associates and my partner is Amador Fernandez, the owner of the Malaga Restaurant. We're the other proposer. SA Would you all be able to make a presentation at the next meeting? Both proposers agreed. ER Thank you. MAP We presume that the Guinness Irish Pub is not here? SA I am surprised that Mr. Gibson is not. A gentlemen by the name of Bill Gibson put that proposal together and he was invited as everyone else was. MAP Was he told that lie was nonresponsive and that's maybe why? SA He was told that there was a problem with it. All right so there will be a presentation by both proposers at the next meeting. It will be a 15 minute presentation. NH I think it should be just limited to five minutes to those five criteria. SA Five minutes. Okay, lets set a time frame everyone. 1 AP Well why don't we just give them 10 minutes for a presentation and 5 minutes for questions and answers? SA Five minutes for questions and answers? AP Yeah. MAP I have another question, could we ask the proposers if having heard that they may have to go to a referendum. JB We've determined that they don't. i i MAP Oh, you've determined that they don't? JB We're considering that we received three proposals. _ I 1 47 97- 13 MAP Okay, I think my question is answered. SA Okay, lets determine the time frame. ER Let's determine the extent of the presentation. Mr. Harrington is proposing five minutes on specific items in the RFP. How does the rest of the panel feel. AP 10 and 5. SA On those five specific criteria points. AP That this is what they have to talk about and then reserve five minutes at the end if we have any questions. If we don't then it's ten minutes, if we do, then it's 15 minutes. SA Mr. Gulley? CG I agree with that. 10 and 5. SE It's fine. MAP Agree. SA Arleen? AW That will be fine CD I agree, 10 and 5. NBC I disagree. You can't limit the questions. ER That's a point. MAP Well I think we should have a standard and then if we want to deviate from the standard, we as a collective group can do that. ER So we are talking about 10 minutes for a presentation. Then 5 minutes or extend it if you need it. We have to get consensus here. This is very simple stuff. AP I think we have consensus. ER We have consensus. All right. SA Okay, so they will stick to the criteria listed in the RFP. It will be a 10 minutes presentation and 5 minutes for questions. 48 12 91-- 13 �ti. ER Open time for questions. SA Let me get from you the order. Since there is only two, I would like everybody to give me the order that they would like these presentations put forth. AP It doesn't make a difference to me. SA We will eliminate the one that's there and we can stick with the criteria that was assigned by our consultant if you all agree to that. It's not the criteria, excuse me, the order. She had put Concept 1, Concept 2. Let me see. Concept I has been taken out, so it's Concept 2 and 3. Concept 2 is Firehouse Four, LLC and Concept 3 is Firehouse Miami Bar and Grill. Is that acceptable for everyone. All committee members agreed. SA That would be the order of the presentations. I will have the consultant here, at that time and Sarah can make a presentation unless you want to do it now. You really didn't have a lot to say. Would you rather wait until the next meeting, Sarah? SE Yes. I think I'll wait until everyone has had a chance to read the proposals. SA Okay. Sarah will make a presentation at the next meeting. Ann Whittaker, our minority are women participation representative and the consultant will be here. Is there anything else or any other information that you all would like the City to provide for you at that meeting or prior to? LC Is there anything we need to know about the condition of the property? What's been addressed or what hasn't been? It's been there for quite a long time. ER You want to visit the site also? Anybody that wants to see the facility, we can do that also. LC Has there been any kind of structural examination? SA We have been patching the roof. We've had problems with the roof. We've been; patching it. It's been vacant for a couple of years. It does need work. Each of the proposer has addressed that issue to some degree. LC Okay. SA Whether or not it's satisfactory to you. That's up to you to determine, but they have addressed the improvements they intend to make to the property. I'd be happy to take anyone out there that would like to go and look at the Firehouse at anytime, just let me know and I'd be happy to make arrangements. 13 49 97- 13 a LC Have the proposers been allowed to have an extensive examination of the property? ER Absolutely. SA They had three months from the time the RFP was advertised until they were due. In that three month period, they had as many opportunities as they felt necessary to bring as many people in to evaluate the property. NH What is the air conditioning unit's claim status? ER We got the money already. NH You did. ER Yes. We received the money and that was a claim the City pushed the bank for, it was a complicated issue, but we received the money this week. We got $20,000.00. One estimate was $19,000.00. It should be around that amount. That money will be available to restore the air conditioner that was vandalized. SA But that money is available to whoever the successful proposer is. And they would use that only for the air conditioner replacement and nothing else. CG Speaking of the Firehouse, what kind of business, I know it was a restaurant, but why did it fail? What was there before? What was the niche? ER That's a complex question, very complex. I am going to limit my answer to the following, the lease was awarded to the master lessee. In order words, it was awarded to a person that subleased that facility. And that's precisely what happened. He got a good price, a good break and then after that he passed it to another corporation. Trying to get a higher rate, to make money out of the City. That was one of the factors. Also, there was money in the facility, a big buck mortgage against the facility that exceeds, in my opinion, the improvements that they put in the building. CG So you have something in the contract this time that will prevent this? ER This time we have different parameters. We have a Board looking through all the leases that we are doing. We have a Commission with a different mentality. So this time we are doing commercial leases. Strict leases. AW The other important thing though, the last time it was a empty firehouse, so it was a real development project first and then the restaurant came in as its' use. But the developer was required to take a vacant firehouse and rehab it into the restaurant. That is 50 14 97- 13 why that mortgage was so high. It was a 1.2 million dollar improvement to the building. Today, it is already a restaurant and there are some minor improvements. LC I'm very familiar with the area. May I comment, it was extremely successful, financially. The City may not have benefited from it, but I can assure you the operators benefited from it. They made a lot of money. SA I would like you all to elect a chairperson. Who will be the person that will be responsible along with the staff assistance for presenting their recommendation to the City Commission? JB I understand that the recommendation goes to the City Manager, not to the City Commission. Eli And the City Manager presents it to the City Commission. JB A lease. A negotiated lease goes to the City Commission. AW Could you repeat that? We're not taking a recommendation to the Commission? JB You are going to recommend to the Manager, in the rank order that you recommend. The Manager is going to negotiate with whoever is rank one. If the Manager feels that he's been successful with that negotiation, he will take that lease to the Commission for approval. AP Step one, we make a recommendation to the City Manager who we have selected among the bidders. Does that recommendation have to go from the Manager to the City Commission before the lease is negotiated? JB According to way that we have structured the process, the Manager negotiates and takes the negotiated lease to the City Commission. AP I see. AW Okay. I see. JB Hopefully, that will expedite things. NH And it should keep out what happened last time. ER As a matter of fact, Mr. Harrington was a member of my Asset Management Board. NH For two months. 15 97- 13 51 a 52 ER He knows what we are doing. Any nominations for Chairman? AP I nominate Arleen because she's very familiar with the development process. She is very familiar with the previous tenant, the situation and the pros and cons. That's my recommendation. AW I decline that nomination. I think it would serve us best to have somebody who is not a City employee head of our committee. NH Can I ask another question? Since she is not going to make a presentation until next time, has it, for instance, been determined the amount work that needs to be done for the historical preservation? SE There are certain requirements on restoring the building, primarily some work was done on the rear addition. That was done without permits. Unless the proposer is able to convince the Historic Environmental Preservation Board that is not necessary, but no other specific requirements on restoration has been put forth. It depends on what work the operators are proposing. NH Yeah, but there is a certain amount of work that has to be done in historical preservation that is continuous? SE There is no historic preservation work that is required. NH Okay. You've answered the question. SE Okay. NH There is none. SE That's correct. Other than the restoration of the doors in the rear. SA And that's about $15,000.00. We had a preliminary estimate done. ER Any deviation from there, they would have to go to the Board. Right? SA Right ER And get permitted. Can we go back to the nomination? SE I nominate Mr. Gulley. CG No. I would like to decline. With a great deal of respect, thank you very much. AP Why don't we ask for a volunteer? 16 I 9'7 -• 13 4 SA Do we have a volunteer to serve as the chairperson? ER The nomination should come from you, not from us. MA-P I nominate Mr. Harrington. SA Mr. Harrington, would you accept that nomination? NH Sure. I'm controversial. SA Thank you. ER Anybody else with nominations? Okay. CD We all agree. SA Mr. Harrington will be our chairperson. AT Congratulations. The next meeting was rescheduled for Thursday, December 19''', 1996 at 9:00 a.m., same place. Meeting adjourned. 17 /. i 97- 135� s la SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE LEASING OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY FOR RESTAURANT USE LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE December 19, 1996 9:00 AM City of Miami Riverside Center 444 SW 2nd Avenue loth Floor Miami, Florida AGENDA Call to Order Approval of Minutes from the 12/6/96 Selection Committee Meeting Committee Discussion of Staff Reports • Sarah Eaton - Historic Preservation Officer • Anne Whittaker - Minority/Women Business Affairs Office • Monette Klein -O'Grady - Restaurant Consultant Proposer Presentations • The Firehouse Four LLC • Firehouse Miami Bar and Grill - Alamilla and Associates, Inc. Committee Deliberations • Overview of Scoring Procedures • Committee Scoring • Ranking of Proposals Closing Remarks 54 P,, MIPTUTES OF DECEMBER 19TH, 1996 Selection Committee Meeting Request for Proposals for 1000 South Miami Avenue Members Present Members Absent Neal Harrington Loretta H. Cockrum Clinton Gulley Diego F. Calderin Manny Alonso-Poch City of Miami Employees City Of Miami Employees Members Present Members Absent Arleen Weintraub Sarah E. Eaton Anna Proenza Gregory Wright City of Miami Staff Present Sharlene Adelman, Lease Manager, Office of Asset Management Julie Bru, Assistant City Attorney, Law Department Monette Klein -O'Grady, Consultant, Office of Asset Management Bid Proposers Present Carlos Alamilla, Alamilla & Associates Amador Fernandez, Alamilla & Associates Kim Driscoll, Firehouse Four, LLC Gary Farmer, Firehouse Four, LLC Location of Meeting Miami Riverside Center 444 SW 2nd Avenue 10" Floor - Conference Room 55 97- 13 56 Selection Committee meeting called to order at 9:27 a.m. on the 190, of December, 1996 by Chairman Harrington Approval of Minutes from the December 6, 1.996 Selection Committee Meeting Arleen Weintraub and Chairman Harrington have revisions to last meeting minutes. Sarah Eaton - Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Eaton mention the City does not require the applicants to really address the preservation requirements. Anne Whittaker - Minority/Women Business Affairs Office Ms. Whittaker requested that each proposer must submit to her office no later than December 31', 1996 the Minority Business Certification documents. Monette Klein -O'Grady, Consultant for the City of Miami Firehouse Four Project Ms. Monette Klein -O'Grady was introduced by Ms. Adelman. Ms. Klein-O'Grady's attendance at this meeting were to answer any question. Ms. Proenza addressed a question to Ms. Klein -O'Grady regarding the procedure and the cost of obtaining a Liquor License. Ms. Klein-O'Grady's indicated that in Dade County, Florida with the capacity of 200 seats or more in your restaurant, you can obtain a liquor license at a very minimum cost. This process is done through the State of Florida. Presentations of Proposers: Concept 2 - Firehouse Four, LLC Kim Driscoll Firehouse Four, LLC will present the City of Miami with a cash payment in the excess of $218,000.00 which will consist of the first three years rent. Included in this fee, is the security deposit and last month rent. We are waving the rent abatement for the first six months of operation. In addition, we are proposing to invest a permanent. amount of money of $600,000.00 into leasehold improvements. We have 1.6 million dollars attainable and it could be raised if need be. My background experience, I was raised in the restaurant industry and my family is in the restaurant business. I have two degrees, one in Political Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Business. Gary Farmer is my assistant, and he assisted with the development of the "Strand Restaurant" on South Beach. The team I have put together has over 55 years of experience. My executive chef, who also worked for the Ritz Carlton, have a degree from the Culinary Institute of America. We are going to have full scale bakery and produce our own bread, danishes and deserts and sale those at wholesale level. Bakeries typically run at a 30% cost and make about 70% profit. In addition to the bakery, we are going to have a club room with 97-- 13 .ti tI;.M.. a built in humidor. We also want to allocate a thousand square feet for retail merchandising. Firehouse Four, LLC will be investing in our own coffee roasting equipment and we want to produce our very own firehouse coffee blend. In the rear of - the restaurant, we want create a wine cellar showcase, somewhat similar to the "Forge". I've marketed my idea, I've tested it and I've spoke to several people. I think I've covered everything Any questions? Arleen Can you elaborate on your revenue sharing plan? Kim We are at a minimum meeting the City requirements. In addition to that we are providing for quarterly revenue sharing. I'm not exactly sure how its' been worked out and that's going to be in the contract, but it will give the City a higher return. We are providing more than the 6% of the 2.2 million. The example is the easiest in the proposal to figure out what we are proposing, but we are waving the rent abatement which is about $39,000.00 for the first six months of operation in which the City was giving us. I don'.t know if I answered your question? Arleen No I don't think you did. I did read the example and it talks about the dollars being used by the City for whatever reason, this is that portion beyond minimum rent? monette Rent and the percentage is separate. What they are proposing to do is to take the profit, for tax profit, and pay a percentage to the City on profit sharing basis, but they are proposing to do it quarterly. My concern for that concept is the quarterly function because a profit can be wiped by a lost in a future quarter and it could be affected. Mr. Wright made question to Ms. Bru regarding the $218,000.00 and the caliber of this being a nonrefundable fee. Ms. Klein -O'Grady indicated that this fee should be a nonrefundable fee. Ms. Driscoll also agreed that this fee will be negotiated as nonrefundable. Monette What about the wholesale part of the business? The bakery portion, is that within the P&L? { Kim Our bakery would be a separate business. Monette When the City is going to be looking at the total income of the operation it would be inclusive of all wholesale, retail, every dollar generated and produced within that building? Kim Correct. Monette Even if it goes out the door and it's sold to a third party or second party entity? 2 97- 13 5' I. Kim Correct. Loretta May I elaborate on that particular question because you referred to national marketing. Does that apply? Monette Yes. You referenced that you tested the concept and I'm not sure what you meant by that, I would like clarification? Kim I went to five buildings on Brickell Avenue and everyone seems to be very happy about the ideas we are aiming to bring into that area. Monette The original concept of the rent abatement with the City to give the operator a running start on rent abatement was with the intent and desire that those dollars be dedicated to marketing. You have a set budget in your five year plan and even with your sales increasing, you have not adjusted your numbers up. What you are going to find as the norm is either you set forth a percentage of sales and in the early time you are going to have to just dedicate dollars. The consultant you've hired is quite aware of what the norms are in business. It is a concern to me that you are projecting a constant growth in your business with having a stagnant marketing budget set forth. How will you address these issues? Kim The first year we will be allocating over $200,000.00 in advertising, marketing and public relation. Monette The problem is that you are still showing very consistent dollars and it is something that needs to be addressed. If you don't have an answer today then this is something that I feel the committee and the final negotiation process with the City should dictate a more stringent dollar commitment towards marketing? Kim I can give you an answer today. We are still going to do the same amount of advertising every year we are operating, but we are allocating over $200,000.00 for the first year of advertising. Monette Your first year in projecting your 2-2 and then jumping from your 2-2 to a 5-1, is a extremely aggressive expectation. My recommendation to the City was to not be overly optimistic because that number could not be achieved. My concern when analyzing payroll, is your payroll expense in year one is two million to five million and you maintain consistency on your payroll. I am concerned with the cost of carrying payroll at 2-2 versus 5-1. There's a variable there that needs to be considered. Kim Our figures are very conservative especially in comparison to our other competitor. We are going to do twice the amount of that. The first year we are going to have more employees to work out all the problems and then get rid of employees. The second year we will have less staff. 3 97 13 Anna The capital you've proposed to use for the initial rent payment and the capital improvements, is that coming from Martin Kaplan? Kim Yes. Anna Can you tell me a little bit about the parking? How are you going to work out the parking? Kim There is over 275 metered parking spaces within a three block radius and they are free pass 6:00 p.m. at night. In addition to that, we have VIP security parking which is across the street. What I put in this plan is a provision with. the Allen Morris Company. They own two vacant lots directly behind the Firehouse Four Restaurant and I have a contract with them. I will be leasing 50 spaces with them at approximately $1200.00 a month. Clinton What process did you use to develop this P & L? Kim We took a national average of restaurant of this caliber and based it on that. We also based it on the competitors in the area and what they do in sales. Clinton What kind of risk do you expose for yourself by providing the City with so much up front money? Kim Loosing that money. Concept 3 - Firehouse Miami Bar Grill Carlos Alamilla We will generate revenue in the amount 2.5 million dollars in five years. We will provide a performance bond guaranteeing three years rent. The parking will be provided by Flamingo Parking at a parking lot by Allen Morris Company. Alamilla & Associates have over 20 years of experience. Mr. Fernandez has operated and founded two major restaurant. One called the Rodeo Restaurant in Chicago and the Malaga Restaurant. We will maintain the firehouse concept. We have contacted the City of Miami Fire Department to assist us and support us. The restaurant will be open seven, days a week. We have a international menu and we will also have live entertainment. There will be outside dinning on the first and second floor. The second floor terrace will be expanded. All Cite employees and South Florida firemen will have a 10% discount. We have our own beer and it is manufactured in Miami. We have two types of beer, the dark beer and the regular light beer. We will have a gift shop and a smoker's room in the back with cigars. We have plans to advertise in the newspapers and national magazines. Anna The performance bond that you say you have, can you explain? 4 97_ 13 59 W Carlos That will guarantee the City its' three years rent. Julie If he want to post a bond guaranteeing rent, he can do that. Monette That was not in the original proposal is that correct? Carlos It's not. Sharlene Can this information be considered if it's not part of the proposal? Julie I have heard things that were not originally presented which really should not be used in basing the review. Anna The cash required for the improvements, what source is that coming from? Carlos That comes from my company as well as a line of credit. Clinton You are showing a lost in the first of the month each year for four or five years. Is that because of the rent you are paying to the City? Carlos Exactly. Clinton Your line items on your P&L, is that based on historical data from other restaurants? Carlos Yes. Clanton Where did you come up with the figure of $7000.00 for the souvernirs that you going to sell? Carlos I've talked to Planet Hollywood and Hard Rock Cafe. They do much more than $7000.00 in souvenirs and I based my figure on that. Clinton If you had to convert the sale numbers into transaction, how many customers are coming to the restaurant? Carlos It is approximately $18.00 to $20.00 per person, per plate. We will provide a catering service and day and evening delivery to offices in the area. Monette The first year projection of three millions dollars, what restaurant in the area did you track that volume? Carlos I'm not sure. Committee Deliberation - Closing Remarks (Sharlene Adelman) 60 5 97- 13 The total ranking score for Firehouse Four LLC is "I I" and the final total score for Firehouse Miami Bar and Grill was "16". Firehouse Four, LLC is award the bid. A report will be prepared for the City Manager., Edward Marquez, summarizing the final outcome of this meeting. Meeting adjourned. r CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: City of Miami Selection Review Committee FROM: A(, Anne. M. Whittaker Minority/Women Business Affairs Office DATE: December 6, 1996 FILE: SUBJECT: Minority Participation in Proposals for Leasing the Restaurant at 1000 S. Miami Avenue REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: Please find below a summary of the Minority/Women Business Enterprise (M/WBE) participation as outlined in the proposals submitted by Firehouse Four, LLC, County Kerry Irish Pub Corporation, Alamilla & Associates, Ind: The City's M/WBE ordinances encourage Female, Black, and Hispanic firms/entities in the amount of 17% for each group, to increase equitable distribution of involvement by each affected group. Firehouse Four, LLC Ethnicity of the partners in this limited partnership is unknown. Proposal only states that Ms. Kim Driscoll is the executive manager. This office will need more time to receive information about the proposer. In addition, the proposal indicates that a minimum of 51 % of the company's shares will be owned by women and/or minorities, but provided no information to support this statement. Two (2) Minority Subcontractors were listed in the proposal, and anticipated to receive about 25% of the proposed scope of work; however none was certified as a minority business, and we were unable to. verify anything about the ownership of the subcontracting firms. In addition, proposal indicated that three (3) firms would be utilized as minority subcontractors to the general contractor, RMG. None of the firms were registered with the City's M/WBE program and we did not have sufficient time to seek more information from the firms. The firm also lists a proposed 66% of future employees as minorities. County Kerry Irish Pub Corporation Proposal only lists principals but no indication was given as to the percentage of ownership nor the minority status of all parties. Ms. Ingrid Lyall is a Female principal and it was assumed that Robert Quinones, Fernando Quinones and Fernando Quinones, Jr. and Hector Rivera are all Hispanic. No percentages could be assigned since no ownership percentages were given for the principals. In addition, the proposer did not complete forms showing Minority/Women Classification and Participation nor Affirmative Action. Messages were left requesting clarification but no response _. 64 97- 13 a Selection Review Committe Proposals for 10o0 S. Miami t+venue Page 2 - was received. The Law Department should be consulted to determine if we can request any additional information from this proposer. Alainilla & Associates, Inc. The proposer is a firm registered with City of Miami's M/WBE Program as a Hispanic business. However, it is not a certified minority entity and time did not allow for a more in depth investigation. Six (6) subcontractors and suppliers were listed in the proposal and although three (3) of these were listed as 100% minority owned, none of them were registered nor certified as minority businesses. i i M CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: City of Miami Selection Review Committee FROM: Anne M. Whittaker Minority/Women Business Affairs Office DATE : December 19, 1996 FILE: SUBJECT: Minority Participation in Proposals for Leasing of the Restaurant at 1000 S. Miami Avenue REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: Further to the memorandum issued December 6, 1996, below is a summary of our findings in the ongoing search for clarification of the minority/women business enterprise (M/WBE) participation in the proposals for Firehouse Four, LLC and Alamilla & Associates, Inc. FIREHOUSE FOUR, LLC Principals: The proposal states that Ms. Kim Driscoll, owns 100% of the shares in this entity. However, this Office has neither a vendor nor a certification application on file to verify this information. f! Subconsultants/contractors: None of the subconsultants nor subcontractors listed in the proposal are certified with any of the local Minority/ Women Business Enterprise agencies we contacted and this was verified by the firms themselves. Susan Brustman & Associates We contacted this firm since it has no documents on file with our office. Ms. Liz Hanes states that the firm is not certified as an M/WBE. The proposal indicates that the firm is female owned. The proposal also indicated that the following three (3) Hispanic firms would be utilized as minority subcontractors to RMG, the general contractor, Airtroi ; Sanson Electric Plus, Inc. AKO Plumbing Corp. None of the above are registered or certified as minority businesses. This office mailed vendor applications on December 9, 1996 and follow-up calls were made on December 16, 1996. To date we have received no additional information. A proposed Affirmative Action Plan was submitted indicating that 66% of future employees would be minorities but no employees are in place yet. 66 97- 13 It r Selection Review Committee Proposals for 1000 S. Miami A. _.,ue Page 2 ALAMILLA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Princ+pal: To correct information in our memo of December 6, 1996, the proposing firm is not registered with City of Miami's M/WBE Program. The M/WBE affidavit submitted in the proposal indicated that the firm is Hispanic owned. A vendor application was mailed to the firm on October 11, 1996 but has not yet been returned to our office. Subconsultants/contractors: The proposal indicated that the following three (3) Hispanic firms would be utilized as minority subcontractors and vendor applications were mailed to: Felipe de Leon, Architect Flamingo Parking Verdeja Marketing Group On December 13, 1996 we verified through a telephone conversation with Mr. Alamilla that the firms had received the applications and would be returning them in a•few days. Therefore, the City has no documents on hand at this time. This firm did not submit an affirmative action plan but the proposal indicated that the firm's employees are all Hispanic. Based on the lack of information in the proposals and our inability to obtain and verify the necessary information timely, no points could be assigned to any of the proposals. i 2 67 97- 13 ON INCORPORATED The Site Specialists RFP REVIEW OF 3 APPLICANT'S FIREHOUSE 4 - MIAMI Presented by Prime Sites Inc. Monette Klein O'Grady November 25, 1996 *ZY. eRestaurantConnectionM6ER An Intern wn.1 RcVuw t &.kn Network Monette Klein -O'Grady Direct Line: (305) 538-3971 Direct Fax: (305) 538-2950 The attached charts review the key issues based on the proposed operation of a restaurant at the Firehouse 4 property, I have compared each of the applicants and have placed an opinion on each of the following categories that I feel are the pertinent issues of the potential success of the applicant. Concept I - The County Kerry Irish Pub Corporation Concept 2 - The Firehouse Four LLC Concept 3 - Firehouse Miami Bar and Grill OVERALL CONCEPT PERCEPTION/OPERATIONAL PLAN Concept I is primarily a bar driven concept with ancillary food . I feel to best achieve the results the City is seeking long term, a restaurant driven concept with bar would be more in keeping with the goals of the RFP. Limited menu appeal could potentially limit the sales long term. The applicant did offer additional rent dollars and this could be an inducement up front, but we should consider the risk in this scenario. Here today - gone tomorrow. This would be my second recommendation to the City. Concept 2 has provided the most in-depth plan to the City. Clearly this group has given us a clear view of their intentions and goals. The concept is well thought through and addresses each day part of business potential and capitalizes on the sales potential of the market. The up front risks to the City have been diminished by the proposed advance rent payment. In the restaurant business, the first 3 years are the most difficult and typically will determine the success or failure period. The additional percentage rent starting in Year 2 and stabilizing at 7.5% for the term is an excellent MAILING ADDRESS: 69ost Office Box 4637 Deerfield Beach, FL 33442-4637 Registered Real Estate Broker 97- 13 VOICE MAIL: (954) 426-6006 OFFICE FAX: (954) 341-1946 addition for the City. The revenue sharing kicker can only be a plus to the City if they are successful. This must be defined in the lease very clearly. I do feel they will opt to pay this annually as I feel the quarterly format is not manageable. Concerns I do have in the proposal are volume potential in Year 2, the lack of labor/payroll increase that addresses the sales volume more than doubling and a lack of marketing dollars being increased in Years 2-5. Marketing should be a function of a percentage of sales . I do not feel the restaurant will more than double its sales in Year 2,'so the City must be realistic in its expectations on additional income. This group is making the largest investment in the property and this should be considered as an asset improvement for the City. This, coupled with the advanced. rents, immediately puts the City in a WIN WIN position. This is my first recommendation to the City. Concept 3 is certainly aggressive in offering more upside to the City through percentage rent, but this cannot be an inducement as one cannot bank on percentage rent. The concept felt bland and this group is making the least of actual improvements to the property. The proposed second floor terrace is a nice idea, but I am concerned with a modification that could affect the historical issues. Their expectations of the development schedule is not realistic and I do not feel the schedule can be met. This is the last choice of the 3 submitted. All three applicants provided enough data to understand the intended use of the building and define the concept they wanted to develop. While one was the leader in the amount of data provided, there was sufficient information from each applicant to glean out a comfort level for making this recommendation to the City. Of course, there are no guarantees of success for any concept , but I do feel the group recommended has compiled a very strong team that can deliver results. O MENU DIVERSITY Based on the many restaurant concepts I review, I feel Concept 2 best defines the broad menu appeal and also targets the many day part meal segments of the market. Y PRINCIPLES' EXPERIENCE All three applicants have what appears to be outstanding restaurant backgrounds. A complete check should be done on all applicants and the partners associated with the operation. A D&B and credit report should be pulled on all parties. 69 i 97= 13 e CAPITAL ABILITIES It appears to me that each have the necessary capital. I feel Concept 2 is well funded with the investment partner. Further consideration must be given to actual projections. • FINANCIAL PLAN I am concerned at the aggressive projections of sales by Concept 2 for Year 2 of its plan. With rent prepaid through Year 3 I feel that the City is protected but should not become overly optimistic in receiving the overage rent based on the sales projected. Concept 1 is also fairly aggressive in their sales expectation. • SPACE IMPROVEMENTS I am most comfortable with Concept 2's commitment to improve the property. I feel the City is most protected with this group's investment in the project. This should be a strong factor of consideration in choosing the applicant as this property is in need of much improvement. It will only increase the asset's value in the event a failure occurs. o DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Concept 2 was the only realistic applicant in the projected schedule. Concept 1 did not define as required and Concept 3 had expectations that I do not feel can be accomplished. I do feel the City will need to expedite the permitting process in any case to expedite the timeline. Consultant did contact Firehouse Four LLC to have them define the proposed rent structure and percentage rent defined in addition to the shared profits plan. Their response explained they would be paying the City the rent defined in the RFP plus percentage rent from dollar one with no break point . We used the example of the restaurant doing $3 million in Year 4. This would mean the City received the rent of $83,385 as base and an overage of $141,615. This is calculated by taking 7.5 % of $3,000,000 = $225,000 as the gross rent for this year. The base rent that has been paid is then deducted from the gross percentage due. An annual percentage rent is typical in the business, but I do feel you could attempt to be paid semi annually. Then .,. we discussed the shared profits, and this is clear as outlined in the proposal. On actual pre-tax earnings - a bonus will be paid as defined in this section of the presentation. As I suggested, this will probably need to be paid annually as a quarterly payment would be difficult since a quarter's profit could be wiped out by a quarter's loss. This recap of the conversation is noted herein so it is disclosed in its entirety. 70 - 97- 13 FIREHOUSE 4 APPLICANT COMPARISONS Page I RENT SECURITY CAPITAL HISTORICAL TENANT EXPERIENCE SCENARIO (YRS) DEPOSIT IMPROVEMENTS INTEGRITY CONCEPT 1 Mostly fast $84,375 vs 6.5% (1) None $505,000 w/o Yes - See Atlanta The County food $150,000 vs 6.5% (2-5) working capital + location Kerry Pub $165,000 vs 6.5% (6-10) 50 car parking lease CONCEPT 2 Full service team $207,669 (1-3) prepaid $6,375 $693,450 renovation Yes - throughout Firehouse of professionals rent as RFP + 7.5% sales the theme Four LLC after Year 3 Year 1 - 6.0% Year 2 - 6.5% Year 3 - 7.0% plus revenue sharing CONCEPT 3 Latin influence 1/2 rent (1-6 months) Corporation $302,000 w/o liquor Yes/? 2nd floor Firehouse long term 20 yrs' Base rent in RFP $1 Million license, permits, terrace Miami % rent driven net worth inventory and salaries 11% over 2,2 (yrs 1-3) 11% over 2.4 (yrs 4-6) 11% over 2.6 (yrs 7-9) 11% over 2.85 (yrs 10-12) 11% over 3.10 (yrs 13-15) FIRE, HOUSE 4 APPLICANT COMPARISONS Page 2 DEVELOPMENT PROFORMA MENU TENANT SCHEDULE CONCERNS DIVERSITY MARKETING MINORITY GRADE CONCEPT 1 Not defined as Very aggressive Very ethnic; Aggressive -based Yes B The County required Year I Sales; could have on sales - opening Kerry Pub mostly a bar limited appeal; limited dollars 70/30 sales bar driven Bar to food CONCEPT 2 Realistic expecta- Year 2 vyM high Broad appeal multi Should be based Yes A Firehouse tions if City assists expectations; same day part menu - on % of sales; limited Four LI.0 with permits labor for sales Yr I food driven menu at $50,000 per year vs 2; marketing limited $$ during term. CONCEPT 3 Not realistic in Year 1 aggressive gg Very ry generic Aggressive Yes C Firehouse time expectation sales volume menu - Latin based on sales Miami flair December 19, 1996 City of Miami i 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE (F�reiiouse Four Restaurant) i RANKING SUMMARY REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 Project: Leasing of City owned property located at 1000 South Miami Avenue PROPOSERS COMMITTEE MEMBER Firehouse Four, LLC Firehouse Miami Bar & Grill (Alamilia & Associates, Inc.) INDIVIDUAL RANK Alonso-Poch, M. Calderin, D. Cockrum, L. Eaton, S. Gulley, C. Harrington, N. Proenza, A. Weintraub, A. Wright. G. TOTAL FINAL RANK L/AL 002 REV. 06/89 '.W V City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rom; 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS Firehouse Miami Bar & Grill (Alamilla & .Associates, Inca POINTS CALCULATED SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ASSIGNED VALUE (SE) (PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer 15 General & Specific Management and Operational Plan ` x 30 Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum X 15 Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 4 x 30 O Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation X 10 O TOTAL 100 .� To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + 4- Purpose Only Committee Member: iV14A. L 4Z-I/IJ-S - I Dc� � —' �� / � / 1996 Name Printed Signature Date 75 97- 13 City of Miami LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH M AMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rank: r7-.— 2. Points assigned colwnn to be completed by Development staff. Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS POINTS CALCULATED Firehouse Four, LLC SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ASSIGNED VALUE (SE) (PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer ^ 15 !i General & Specific Management and Operational 30 Plan 15 Return to the City ui Excess of the Required is/ o Minimum Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the ` / x 30 q0 Financial Plan Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10, Q TOTAL 100 To Be Used For Tie Breaking + + + + + + TOTAL _ Purpose Only Committee Member: 91441UEG .��o v Sy-,00cf/ /-'� /y / I996 Name Printed Signature Date 76 97— 1� City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rank: 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miatni, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS Firehouse Miami Bar & Grill (Alamilla & Associates, Inc.) SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE (SE) (PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer 15 /J General & Specific Management and Operational Plan 30 Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum y 15 Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 - 'e U Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 (� 0 TOTAL 100 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL Purpose Only + + + + + + Committee Member: 6,�� 4 7 c,/Z/w C� �--- ia-1 J� 1199.6 Name Printed Signature Date 77 97-- 13 City of Miami LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Rank: Project: The Leasing of the City o,"•ned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South A iami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS POINTS CALCULATED Firehouse Four, LLC SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ASSIGNED VALUE (SE) (PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer ?j 15 5C' General & Specific Management and Operational Plan 30 9 Return to the City in Excess of the Required / y 15 0 qo Minimum Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 3 30 v Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 C l� TOTAL 100 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + Purpose Only _ Committee Member: am' P/ G; o C� L c: lilr �. c1996 Name Printed Signature Date FVA 07— 1S r, ;jirdt�r City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MJAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rank: 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS POINTS CALCULATED Firehouse Four, LLC SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ASSIGNED VALUE (SE) (PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Quafifications & Experience of the Proposer %,i 15 9 G� General & Specific Management and Operational Plan 30 r� C Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum / r !aI 15 C) Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 TOTAL 100 (f + + + + + + _ To Be Used For Tie Breaking Purpose Only TOTAL Committee Member: % 1996 i Name Printed Signature Date 73 97- 13 City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMII AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rank: 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Project: The Leasing of the City o-amed Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS Firehouse Miami Bar & Grill (Alamilla & Associates, Inc.) POINTS CALCULATED SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ASSIGNED VALUE (SE). •(PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer 15 U� General & Specific Management and Operational Plan 30 Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum 15 Q Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the / 30 Financial Plan /So Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 661 TOTAL 100 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + _ Purpose Only Committee Member: ;z,, c c �rr.':/t✓/ 1996 Name Printed Signature Date 97-- 13 V City of Miami - ]LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Rank: Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: Firehouse Four, LLC SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS POINTS ASSIGNED (PA) CALCULATED VALUE (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer c/ 15 General & Specific Management and Operational Plan 30 Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum 15 "I s Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan S 30 S 0 Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 �- TOTAL 100 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + _ Purpose Only Committee Member: Iv.f.��i < T �Z I /G I. 1996 ' Name Printed Signature Date 9 97- 13 P/ City of Miami LEASING OF ]PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Rank: Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE Firehouse Miami Bar & Grill (Alamilla & Associates, Inc.) SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) (PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer U 15 General & Specific Management and Operational 30 Plan 3 6 Return to the City in Excess of the Required 15 Minimum y G% Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the 30 Financial Plan S` ASS Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation .S 10 r TOTAL 100 + + + + + + _ Ll To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL Purpose Only Committee Member: /./,IC7 A2. / A,G / 1996 i Name Printed Signa e Date 97- 13 City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Rank: Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: Firehouse Four, LLC SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS POINTS ASSIGNED (PA) CALCULATED VALUE (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer (P 15 q0 General & Specific Management and Operational Plan (a 30 l 80 Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum is 75 Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 150 Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 s0 TOTAL 100 JC r + + + + + + To Be Used For Tie Breaking Purpose Only TOTAL Committee Member: 5 a k eo-1.0 V/ +J � 1 � / l q / 1996 Name Printed Signature Date 50 3 ! " 1.3 J city of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAIV11 AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Rank: 7j Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: Firehouse Miami Bar & Grill (�.lamilla &Associates, Inc.) SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS POINTS ASSIGNED (PA) CALCULATED VALUE (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the ProposerJt-- General & Specific Management and Operational Plan 14 30 ( 2 Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum 4 15 6 Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan S 30 r 1 5 0 Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation cJr 10 6'0 I TOTAL 100 -s + + + + + + — To Be Used For Tie Breaking Purpose Only TOTAL Committee Member: J Q Y6-k �Gl 1/` C.�C D/ 1996 Name Printed Signature Date M 9 IN) - 13 W City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Rank: Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: Firehouse Four, LLC SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS POINTS ASSIGNED (PA) CALCULATED VALUE (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer 15 60 General & Specific Management and Operational Plan �` �'j 30 1 � (i Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum / 6 15 � o Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 _ Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation L 10 TOTAL 100 + + + + + To Be Used For Tie Breaking Purpose Only TOTAL Committee Member: /5 /m 1996 Name Printed Signature Date 97_ 13 85 City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Conunittee Members. Rank. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS Firehouse Miami Bar & Grill (Alamilla & Associates, Inc.) POINTS CALCULATED SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ASSIGNED VALUE (SE) (PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer 15 G General & Specific Management and Operational 30 Plan 60 Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum 15 Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the 30 Financial Plan Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 C� TOTAL 100 I To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + — Purpose Only Committee Member: cG" //ell 2,1 As 1996 Name Printed Signature Date 6 7A City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH le'IIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rank: 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS Firehouse Four, LLC POINTS CALCULATED SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ASSIGNED VALUE (SE) (PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer 15 r 7 J General & Specific Management and Operational Plan �p 30 r, 0 Q Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum 15 7 0 Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 15-0 Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 Q TOTAL 100 5 5 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + _ Purpose Only Committee Member: 1996 Name Printed Signature Date 9 7 — 13 87 City of Miami LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTII MIAMI AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Rank: Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: Firehouse Miami Bar & Grill (Alamiila &Associates, Inc.) SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS POINTS ASSIGNED (PA) CALCULATED VALUE (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer ] 15 70 General &. Specific Management and Operational Plan 30 e 5© Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum / (� 15 Q i Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 l Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 Ll TOTAL To Be Used For Tie Breaking + + + + + + Purpose Only TOTAL 100 _ Committee Member: Name Printed Signature ( / 1996 Date 07- 13 It> City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH MIAMI AVE' NTJE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Rank: / Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South 11'Iiami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: Firehouse Four, LLC SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS POINTS ASSIGNED (PA) CALCULATED VALUE (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer 15 General & Specific Management and Operational Plan 30 / Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum 15 Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 %Sv Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 TOTAL 100 �C- + + + + + + _ To Be Used For Tie Breaking Purpose Only TOTAL Committee Member: Ag 'q- pwj. C-A) 0,4 /G/ / 1996 Name Printed Signature Date 97- 13 s City of Miami LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1.000 SOUTH MIAIVVII AVENUE EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Rank: Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Mianii Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: Firehouse Miami Bar & Grill (Alamilla &Associates, Inc-) SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS POINTS ASSIGNED (PA) CALCULATED VALUE (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer 5- 15 �7!5� General & Specific Management and Operational Plan .> 30 Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum 15 �Q Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 TOTAL 100 + + + + + + To Be Used For Tie Breaking Purpose Only TOTAL I Committee Member: &60) 1996 Name Printed Signature Date 30 A !l ij,. 1a City of Miami - LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH M AM[I AVE' NUE EVALUATION FORIVI REFERENCE: City of. Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS POINTS CALCULATED Firehouse Four, LLC SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ASSIGNED VALUE (SE) (PA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer ✓� 15 General & Specific Management and Operational Plan Is— 30 l S Return to the City in Excess of the Required Minimum 15 G Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the Financial Plan 30 Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 TOTAL 100 To Be Used For Tie Breaking + + + + + ...,.. TOTAL Purpose Only + _ s� Committee Member: t /�L �7✓c��/ear �)�� - !� dal / 1996 -- Name Printed Si nature ............ i Date 91 �7- 13 City of Miami _ LEASING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SOUTH M[IAM[I AVENUE E`6,rALUATION FORM REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rank 2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. Project: The Leasing of the City owned Property, for Restaurant Use, Located at 1000 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida Proposer: CALCULATIONS Firehouse Miami Isar & Grill (Alamilla & Associates, Inc.) POINTS CALCULATED SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ASSIGNED VALUE (SE) CPA) (SE x PA) EXCELLENT POOR EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Qualifications & Experience of the Proposer 15D General & Specific Management and Operational 30 Plan Return to the City in Excess of the Required 15 Minimum Financial Qualifications of the Proposer and the �/ 30 Financial Plan Extent of Minority Ownership/Participation 10 r TOTAL 100 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + +..- --+ +_._ Purpose Only C� i" Committee Member: \ �2�2��✓'��t/ r� %� / / 1996 Name Printed Signature Date 92 97_ 13 0