Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Submittal-Virginia Key LLC-Exhibits and Presentation-Virginia key LLC response to Bid Protests
■� N— M M NM— NM — r — M E MI-- M— INN VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER Submitted into t e pu. IL record for item(s) on 16- 00513,41nNtu\ Vr \A\ \'SNEAAN\511 —vac ,�;,\\k\1ons-e\6 ;1 ll U�� te�t0��� � h U �� ce�� � c � �STS City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk INDEX I. SUNTEX BID PROTEST A. SUNTEX DOES NOT HAVE STANDING 1. Flood Zone Overlay - RCI's project is consistent with FEMA flood requirements (RCI Proposal, Section IV.); Suntex's and Tifon's plans violate FEMA flood regulations and their plans are below flood level (Suntex Proposal, Appendix, pg. A-8 - A-9; Tifon Proposal, Section 3). (RFP Requirement pg. 15). 2. Parking Garage Plans - All proposals have parking outside of the MPA garage footprint. (RFP Requirement Addendum 23). 3. 50' Charter Mandated Setback - RCI is the only proposer that respected the 50' setback and did not put revenue generated space within the setback (RCI Proposal, Section IV). 4. Suntex Phasing Plan - Suntex has an unrealistic phasing plan and intends to begin developing in the north basin in phase 2 which it would begin constructing within 2 years (Suntex Proposal, pgs. 14-15; pgs. 49-50). It clearly does not understand the permitting process. 5. Suntex Percentage Rent - Suntex proposes several differing amounts for its percentage rent, thus its proposed amounts are not reliable (Suntex Proposal, Attachment 4 pg.3; pg. 22). 6. Suntex Commercial Space - Suntex lists on page 22 that it will develop 84,000sf of commercial space, but on page A-19, its lists 17,500sf of commercial space (Suntex Proposal, Attachment 4 pg.3; Draft Lease pg. 18; pg. 32). 7. Suntex Parking Structure Height - Suntex would have to violate the 65' maximum in order to have the number of dry stack slips it claims it will provide given its proposed use of an outdated forklift system (Suntex Proposal, Appendix, Project Sheets). 8. Suntex improperly proposes private parking. (RFP Addendum 21, pg. 4; Addendum 26, pg. 3. 9. Suntex Insufficient Experience and Financing Capability - Suntex does not meet the RFP's minimum qualification requirements because it has not developed a marina of similar size and complexity (RFP, pg. 33). Suntex's proposal does not demonstrate that it has secured $20million in financing or 2 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk obtained financing for a project of similar size, complexity, uses and constraints, per the RFP's requirements on page 33 (Suntex Proposal, pg. 45). 10. Suntex Material Omissions - Suntex did not comply with the highlighted RFP requirements that when taken together demonstrate non -responsiveness (RFP, pgs. 27, 29, and 35-36). B. COUNTER TO SUNTEX BID PROTEST 11. Suntex (Suntex Protest, pg.7) and Tifon (Tifon Protest, pg. 13) Claim RCI Violates Parking Contribution Requirement • The RFP's parking contribution requirement (RFP, pg. 20). • Excerpts from RCI's proposal stating its commitment to make the required contribution (RCI Proposal, Section IV., pg. 9 and Section VII, pg. 17). • RCI's proposal provides the parking required for its development (RCI Proposal, Section IV., pg. 24). • RCI's budget accounts for the parking contribution (RCI Proposal, Section VII, pg. 17). 12. RCI's Sustainable Design Excerpt - Despite Suntex's claims (Suntex Protest pgs. 7-8), RCI's Proposal does include green initiatives and sustainable design elements (RCI Proposal, Section V. pgs. 11-12). 13. Suntex Claims RCI Made Improper Changes to the Lease (Suntex Protest pg. 8) - RCI's Lease Markup contains disclaimer stating that RCI withdraws any suggested change that would deem its proposal non -responsive (RCI Proposal, Attachment 9, pg. 1). 14. Suntex Claims RCI Violated Litigation Disclosure Form Requirements (Suntex Protest, pgs. 5 and 8) - RCI's Disclosure Form includes a footnote that references the audit that Suntex wrongfully claims is litigation that RCI did not disclose (RCI Proposal, Attachment 4, pg. 3). 15. Suntex Claims RCI's System Has Never Been Built Before (Suntex Protest, pg. 11) - The Rockwell Automation Proposal Reference and Letter demonstrates that RCI's dry stack technology is designed and backed by Rockwell Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk Automation, a billion dollar company with over 100 years of industry experience (RCI Proposal, Section IV., pg. 13). 16. Suntex Claims RCI and its Team Lack Experience (Suntex Protest, pg. 11) - RCI and its team have extensive experience with developing dry stacks and marinas, and operating/managing marinas, retail spaces, and restaurants (RCI Proposal, Section IV., pg. 24). 17. Suntex Claims RCI Lacks Financial Ability (Suntex Protest, pg. 11) - Excerpts from RCI's proposal demonstrate that RCI has the requisite experience with developments of the same scale and has secured more than $20million in financing, per the RFP's requirement (RCI Proposal, Attachment 5). 18. Suntex (Suntex Protest, pg. 12) and Tifon (Tifon Protest, pg. 20) Claim Selection Committee Scoring Was Proper - The RFP and the Code prohibit challenges to the weight of evaluation criteria or the formula for assigning points. Caselaw and the Code do not support throwing out the scores because there was no bias/prejudice, no use of unstated evaluation criteria, and no protest challenge regarding the evaluation process when the RFP was issued. 19. The Real Case Law on Evaluation Committee Scoring 20. Wrong Case Law on Evaluation Committee Scoring - The cases cited do not stand for the propositions that they proffer. II. TIFON BID PROTEST A. Tifon Does Not Have Standing 21. Flood Zone Overlay - RCI's project is consistent with FEMA flood requirements (RCI Proposal, Section IV.); Suntex's and Tifon's plans violate FEMA flood regulations and their plans are below flood level (Suntex Proposal, Appendix, pg. A-8 - A-9; Tifon Proposal, Section 3). (RFP Requirement pg. 15). 22. Parking Garage Plans - All proposals have parking outside of the MPA garage footprint. (RFP Requirement, Addendum 23). 23. 50' Charter Mandated Setback - RCI is the only proposer that respected the 50' setback and did not put revenue generated space within the setback (RCI Proposal, Section IV). 24. Tifon's Unrealistic Schedule - Tifon has a phasing plan that proposes it will complete the project in 24 months with development of the northern basin beginning at around 15 months (Tifon Proposal, pg. 45). This is unrealistic 4 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk and shows that Tifon does not understand permitting in environmentally sensitive areas and does not account for the MPA to procure and develop the parking garage. 25. Tifon's Parking Problem - Tifon's proposal provides several inconsistent numbers for its total parking count (Tifon Proposal, pgs. 17 and 32; Market Study pg. 2; Draft Lease pg. 11; and Section 3). 26. Tifon's Inconsistent Dry Stack Counts - - Tifon's proposal provides inconsistent numbers for its dry stack slip count (Tifon Proposal; pg. 35 and Section 3; and pg. 7). 27. Tifon's Inconsistent Square Footage Counts - Tifon's proposal provides varying numbers for the total square footage (Tifon Proposal, pg. 17 and 44; Market Study, pg. 2). 28. Tifon Excessive Retail- Tifon's plan has an unrealistic overreliance on retail which makes its financial projects dubious (Tifon Proposal, pgs. 16-17 and 38- 41). B. COUNTER TO TIFON'S BID PROTEST 29. Suntex (Suntex Protest, pg.7) and Tifon (Tifon Protest, pg. 13) Claim RCI Violates Parking Contribution Requirement • The RFP's parking contribution requirement (RFP, pg. 20). • Excerpts from RCI's proposal stating its commitment to make the required contribution (RCI Proposal, Section IV., pg. 9 and Section VII, pg. 17). RCI's proposal provides the parking required for its development (RCI Proposal, Section IV., pg. 24). • RCI's budget accounts for the parking contribution (RCI Proposal, Section VII, pg. 17). 30. Suntex (Suntex Protest, pg. 12) and Tifon (Tifon Protest, pg. 20) Claim Selection Committee Scoring Was Proper - The RFP and the Code prohibit challenges to the weight of evaluation criteria or the formula for assigning points. Caselaw and the Code do not support throwing out the scores because there was no bias/prejudice, no use of unstated evaluation criteria, and no protest challenge regarding the evaluation process when the RFP was issued. 31. The Real Case Law on Evaluation Committee Scoring 5 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 32. Tifon's Wrong Case Law on Evaluation Committee Scoring - The cases Tifon cites do not stand for the propositions that they proffer. III. RCI SUBMITTED THE BEST PROPOSAL 33. Why RCI? - Highest return to the City, more realistic plan and projections, least amount of slips in northern basin. IV. COPIES OF SLIDES 34. Copies of Board and PowerPoint Presentation V. LAWSUITS SUNTEX FAILED TO DISCLOSE 35. 2007 Ocean Bay Properties lawsuit; and 36. 2014 Independent Bank lawsuit against John D. Powers, Brian Redmond and Jeff Swope, and Michael Olszewsky MIAMI 5030180.2 74183/46889 6 VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk This information is intended to help the Proposer determine the applicable requirements and is not meant to be an exhaustive summary of all permits, licenses and approvals required. I. Zoning Pursuant to the City's Miami 21 Zoning Code, the overall Property is zoned CS, Civic Space, which is included as Exhibit B. Any details provided herein regarding the zoning process is for convenience only and Proposers should not rely upon them. Proposers are responsible for obtaining information directly from the appropriate City Planning and Zoning departments as it relates to their specific plans for redevelopment of the Property, as applicable. Any meetings with City staff regarding specific plans shall be considered outside the Cone of Silence. Proposers are responsible for pursuing any zoning changes and/or board or City Commission approvals necessary to implement the concept proposed in their response to this RFP so long as they are supported by the City as property owner and the Virginia Key Master Plan. Proposers should not consider zoning approvals as permit approvals, the latter which Proposer must obtain separately for each aspect of the Project. Whenever possible, the City agrees to assist the successful Proposer with its permitting process, providing that municipal permit fees will not be waived or reduced. J. Flood Zone A preliminary review of the Property shows that the entire Property is classified as falling within Coastal A Zone, under Flood Zone AE. A Flood Zone Map is included in Exhibit D. All structures constructed at the Property must conform to the appropriate Flood Zone requirements. K. Impact Fees The successful Proposer must pay for any Impact Fees related to its improvements to the Property. Impact fees by Code requirement must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. L. Design Review The design of the Project shall be subject to review and approval by appropriate City departments and/or agencies, including but not limited to certain County agencies such as Shoreline Review Committee and the Shoreline Review Manual as set forth in the Miami -Dade County Code. M. Background Check Proposers shall be required to perform, at the Proposer's sole cost, a complete background and credit check of the Proposer, the proposing entity, related entities or assigns, and its principals as well as reference checks on the principals of every member of the proposing entity, and or its assigns. This shall include any and all checks that would reveal any of the information requested in subsection N below, Disqualification. The background and credit check provided by the Proposers shall be in a sealed envelope from an independent and impartial third -party company, and directed to 15 1 VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXHIBIT D MIAMFDADE COUNTY Flood Zones Flood Zone for:3301 RICKENBACKER CSWY, 33149 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ZONE Elevation AE 10 Total Flood Zones 1 Designations: Flood Zones What does it mean?* 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD An area inundated by 2% annual chance flooding. No Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within this zone. Insurance purchase is not required in these zones. A Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-year floodplains that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by approximate methods. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply. AE Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-year floodplains that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by detailed methods. In most instances, Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurancepurchase requirements apply. AH Zone AH is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 100-year shallow flooding with a constant water -surface elevation (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. The Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply. Disclaimer: Note: The flood zone inforautlon provided is intended for use in the unincorporated areas of Miami -Dade County. Municipalities will have tneir n floodplain management regulations and flood zone sup Information, which may differ from the County's information. ml mi-wee County provides this webs ite es a public service to its residents. •• The County is continually editing and updating GI5 data to improve positional accuracy and information. No w rantics, expressed or implied, are provided for the positional or thematic accuracy of the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Although it Is periodically updated, this information may not reflect the data currently on file at Miami -Dade County and the County assumes o liability either for anyerrors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of the c of such or for any decision made, action taken, or action not token by theuser in reliance upon any Information provided herein. please direct all inquires, comments, and suggestions to gis:miamidade.gov printed: 6/4/2015 M1AMFLIADE Flood Zones Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D Areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards. No flood hazard analysis has been conducted. Flood insurance rates are commensurate with the uncertainty of the flood risk. Open water Open Water: large lakes, bay, ocean. VE Zone VE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds tothe 100-year coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves.Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance requirements apply. X Zone X is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 100-year floodplains, areas of 100-year sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 100-year stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the 100-year flood by levees. No Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone. * Definitions were provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA-->http://www.fema.gov ). Disclaimer: • Note: The flood zone information provided is intended for use in the unincorporated ereas of Mimi -Dade County. Municipalities will have their own floodpla In management regulations and flood zone map Information, which may differ from the County's information. Mlaml-Dade County provides this website es a public service to its residents. •• The County is continually editing and updating GIS data to improve positional eccuracy and information. No warrant/is, expressed or implied, are provided for the positional or thematic accuracy of the data herein, its use, r its interpretation. Although it 1s periodically updated, this information may not reflect the data currently on file at Miami -Dade County and the County assumes no liability either for any errors, omissions, r inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of the c of such or for any decision made, action taken, o action not taken by the user in reliance upon any information provided herein. please direct all inquires, comments, and suggestions to git2.iamidade.gov printed: 6/4/2015 111111 ON MINI r= N I MI— M UM MI Will lilll I-- E MI 1. Base flood "el'evafiori Boat launch 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 50' waterfont setback overhead boat transfer bay walk elevated walk +65' above ground boat transporter NM M MI NM — N IMO M MI r MI MI' MI MI — = N NM ALL AIR-CONDITIONED SPACES, BOAT -LIFTING EQUIPMENT, BOATS, AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS WILL BE 1' OR MORE ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. NO REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER. FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT THIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN "—""—'" ' e '^^ "AR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING INTERIORS AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOD. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MI r ! r - - - - NM M M MB NM UM i NB Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER A c90° VAMP. 7MP. BAS ASE FLOO Fto0 rukamm FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT THIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN YEAR, REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING INTERIORS AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOD. MN i M r NM NM N MN NE MO MN N N INN I an an N MI fines • .1111111""r1""Plir" tip VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS 2.0 'OAR R 4 PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7+ LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES. SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 11111 N-- M MB ■■E MI MI MS NMI INN OM 1 MN 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • ALTERNATIVE PARKING OPTION LOWEST REQUIREMENT FOOTP G3[ll 1-2112 EPP PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7+ LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES, SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE MPA FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk M NE EN N MN NE N i-- NM 1— I r M MN— M 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS R_i —LJ W <JLA - Lial *JLU IN 41111L ILILI IJ ILII PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7+ LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES, SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE MPA FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk EMI MI MINI MEI 1=1 N N En En ® MIN =II EMI En NEM MI r INN =I .50'' ►S.E�T�BAC K .arryrr.;rirr��,r s w MOM VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • WATERFRONT SETBACKS MITTED Off ffiir3,aCE ONLY MARINE RELATED USES EXTEND INTO SETBACKS (BOAT LIFTS) Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk N In M NM = N MI I MB = M IIIMI N OM N AIM! •aslrG — —� -'191/11 'r110i 4,000 sgft -rest 4, 990■sq•ft com rm err.ia l_ VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER GROUP • ACCURATE GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS rrParknr ing\ loll �1 11 1I �( Ii �l 1 1.111! :'- Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016, City Clerk I N I r MIN ® M— I• OM N M---— M N N 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • WATERFRONT SETBACKS PINK AREAS ARE PORTIONS``OF THE BUILDING GROUND FLOOR VIOLATING THE REQUIRED 50' SETBACK;�.s PULL K � & BAVWAr_K r1W DOCr:, AND BOAT LIFT AREA Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MINI NM IMO MIMI NEI 111M1 SRI =II 11E1 ME MIMI NM INN MIN MINI 11111 111E11 Mill 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • ESTIMATED GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS a.IIMILMILLIIIULAIIIIILLIIIIIIILIU.11111WILIU11111111.111J1111111L1 •,.1,900 SF A A 5 ND flCIAT LIFT AREA man MAArE Ill OUTSIDE 9ETBACIK 1240,460, YliATC) Q11 ARK1I© AR NEW PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on Sly2V291§, City Clerk MI M N N I S - - MI I MI 1 - -11111i PROJECT PHASING APPROACH Suntex will keep the marina and surroundings accessible and operational from the point of inception to completion through careful planning, scheduling and phasing of this project. Suntex and Edgewater Resources are very experienced in preserving revenue and customer satisfaction during complex renovations and expansion. Phase I One of the first structures on the site will be the iconic MarineMax showbuilding, featuring both enclosed and exterior showroom space with mezzanine office accommodations. The location of the municipal car park will be available to the city to commence building. Depending on city plans, this site could be used to absorb any displaced parking while this portion is in progress. We also plan to widen and enhance the existing entrance road, demolish and redevelop the interior roadways, install new utilities to meet the demand of the new and future structures, and construct the I I' boardwalk which will connect the Miami Marine Stadium to the Rusty Pelican. Before we begin construction of the new dry stack building we are prepared to buy three top of the line Wiggins forklifts to continue operations at the Miami Marine Stadium and Rickenbacker Marina. Phase 2 Phase 2 involves the addition of 364 main marina berths to the north of the existing marina site. Upon completion, the marina will have high speed fueling, a floating ship store, security gates, three access points, wave attenuation, boat pump out and will accommodate vessels up to I20' in length. The dock sections will come pre -assembled and ready to be floated in the water which will minimize the disruption on the property and ongoing upland development. We currently have docks of all types and sizes across our portfolio which has enabled us to form outstanding relationships with all major dock 14 PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT :3 OPERATIONS manufacturers such as Bellingham, Marinetek and Techno Marine. Our plan and costs also take into account possible environmental mitigation measures needed once complete. Phase 3 This phase will mark the start of a staggered build of the enclosed dry rack building, which when complete will provide secure covered storage for all the boats racked at Virginia Key Marina. To allow for continued use of the existing exterior dry stacks, the building will be erected incrementally, and as the new racks are installed, the boats will be moved to their new home and further site cleared for the next section. During this phase, we will ask the city's permission to use a portion of the Marine Stadium parking lot as a temporary storage location of the displaced boats. With the use of boat stands designed to sit on the ground, the boats displaced during construction could move to temporary racks located at the stadium to minimize the disruption and endure the retention of customers. Construction of both the dry stack and North Marina will overlap, but it will not interfere with one another due to the construction on the marina portion being done on the water. To stage material, we plan to ask the City for permission to use a portion of the Marine Stadium parking. Phase 4 Suntex North will commence construction. Access to the Pelican Restaurant and Parking will be maintained through the temporary use of the shoreside road and boardwalk until the shell and lower levels are constructed. The dry stack is completed during this phase and receives its green roof and solar panels. The northern marina will also be completed during the construction of the Suntex North Yacht Club building. Marina operations will move to this location once complete which will justify the demolition of the existing marina facilities and Whiskey Joe's restaurant. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk r— r= NM N NE M NM N MN MI S-- 1E111 MB M r The structure will house approximately 150 private parking spaces for marina and yacht club members, large ship store and retail space, private yacht club restaurant, a private rooftop pool, cabanas, marina operations, marina storage closet, valet service area, and additional leased office space. Phase 5 Upon completion of the Suntex North marina offices, demolition will commence on the Whiskey Joe's restaurant building and remaining inner harbor building. The demolition and clearance of the old buildings lining the inner marina will allow for Suntex West to be erected along with improvements to the shore edge to allow access to the future slips. Phase 6 The original inner harbor boat slips are removed along with the old pilings, and replaced with a modern, state-of-the-art floating dock system. ±'1 111'1 al *le 11iIN 111 '11 It 11H1 It111111 111111 i1111" 1 11.14 el 11 ' 1111 111 1 11 `�' 1111 I 1 i 1 ! r1#1110111nrea00 © Imola -'i<OPOSP,L I OR VIR(INIA K[:Y MARINA [ ) :VELOPMLN F & OPERATIONS I 5 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06 22 2016 City Clerk NM MI V V I M PROPOSED RENOVATION / REDEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Virginia Key Conceptual Project Schedule ., YEAR ONE �; J FMAMJ JASOND ,YEAR TWO ,_..; J FMAM J J A s o N D YEAR THREE J F M A M J) A S o N D YEAR FOUR J F M A M J J A S O N D YEAR FIVE J F M A M J J A S O N D Item/Action Project Award / Negotiations Referendum Lease Executed Operations Takeover Design Environmental Studies (if needed) Permitting / Public Outreach Financing Phase I: - Entry Drive / Utilities / MarineMax / Retail # I - Phased Dry Stack Building (4 Phases over 2 Years) Phase 2: Public Ramp and Dock: Permit, Design, C.S. Phase 3: Dockage Construction (North Slips) / Yacht Club / Retail #2 Phase 4: Existing Wet Slip Removal, Replacement and Expansion PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS 49 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1111111 NM S i 1111111 1111111 I En H MS S I 1 N I N 1 PROPOSED RENOVATION / REDEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Virginia Key Funding Schedule Phase Item 1-Permitting and upland construction Permitting and Fees (All Dockage and Upland Areas) Boat Launch and Docks: Demo, Design, Permitting, Bid Docs, Project CA. & Closeout Existing Entry Drive Demo 11' wide Baywalk Armored Stone Shoreline Ilf Applicable) Wiggins FLY Lift Truck (3.2) Underground Utility Modification/Additions (San., Water, Electric for Phase 1 Marine Max Bldg., Phase 2 Docks, Phase 4 Yacht Club, Phase 5 Docks if current ut1s. are inadequate) Paving Marine Max Office Building and Showroom Marine Max Office Building and Showroom Marine Max Outdoor Showroom Landscaping, Lighting, Signage 2 - NE Dockage Docks, Anchorage, Dock Utilities, Gangways Possible Mitigation Measures 3 -Phased Dry Rack Storage Facility Pavement Removal and Replace (If Needed) Underground Utility Modification/Additions (San., Water, Electric) Dry Rack Storage Bldg. w/Green Roof and Wall (817 Rack Slips) Landscaping, Lighting, Signage 4 - Yacht Club Building Remove Existing 1,4005F Boater Svcs. Bldg. Whiskey Joe Demo Yacht Club Building Parking Structure (Private) Landscaping, Lighting, Signage 5 -Retail Buildings Hardened Shoreline Fill Under Phase 6 Retail Bldgs. Retail Buildings (13,400sf & 9,320sf) Landscaping, Lighting, Signage 6 - Rickenbacker Dock Removal & New Dock Replacement Dock Removal Docks, Anchorage, Dock Utilities, Gangways 5 0 PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA x:EY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk V. PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE AND SIGN THE LEASE AGREEMENT: John D. Powers, Jr., Bryan Redmond, David Filler, Chris Petty VI. PROPOSED LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY New Marina: Floating Dock 554 Fully Enclosed Dry Stack 820 Racks Private Parking Garage 99,500 SF Yacht Club 20,000 SF Marina Operations Structures 5,500 SF New Restaurant 8,000 SF Commercial Space 17,500 SF MarineMax Showroom/Offices/Service 30,000 SF 2 Ship Store Upgrades, 1,000 SF, 5,000 SF Roadway Improvements, 11' Boardwalk 30,000 SF, 15,224 SF ATTACH 8 '/2" x 11" SKETCH SHOWING PROPOSED REMODELLING, RENOVATION BUILD -OUT IMPROVEMENTS OF PROPERTY. ALL COPIES MUST INCLUDE COPIES OF THIS SKETCH. VII. PROPOSED DOLLAR ($) AMOUNT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 85,342,590.00 VIII. PROPOSED RENT (BASE RENT AND PERCENTAGE RENT OF GROSS REVENUES). PROPOSED BASE RENT: $ 2,150,000 $ 829,OS6! PERCENTAGE RENT: Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 022 2016 City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Attachment 9 — Form Lease Agreement or an increase based on the amount indicated by the Consumer Price Index as of three any such annual adjustment to the Base Rent result in an increase that is less than three t (3%) than five Per, .ttthe Rafe Dent t nt lier�ea.. �.>>v�. �. ...�.�, u.u.i zr ra. �. immediately prior to the effective date of such adjustment. 4.1.3 Sales Tax The Lessee shall be liable for the prevailing State of Florida Sales, Use or similar tax imposed on the amount of Rent paid to Lessor under this Lease, in the absence of an exemption or other reduction by the State of Florida. This Sales and Use Tax shall be payable to the Lessor when Rent is due, and in turn, Lessor will remit the same, less any authorized handling deductions, if any, to the State. 4.1.4 Percentage Rent Fro the r v Date From the date that the Lessee completes the initial Leasehold Improvements on the Phase I Area and Phase II Area (so long as Lessee commences construction on or before the thirtieth (30'h) day after receipt of building permits and dilieently pursues the construction to completion) and continuing throughout the term of the Lease, Lessee shall pay to the City a percentage of Lessee's annual Gross Revenues made from or upon the Premises for that same time period. Percentage Rent shall be computed on an annual basis ("Percentage Rent Period") beginning with the Lease Date and continuing throughout the Term. The Percentage Rent shall be equal to percent ( %) of the combincdpercentages of Gross Revenues of the Lessee for any preceding Lease Year. PERCENTAGE RENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO NEITHER NATURAL NOR ARTIFICIAL BREAKPOINT.Years and shall not exceed the minimum limits set forth in the RFP and recited below: - Three percent (3%) of gross revenues for the restaurant if operated directly by the Lessee, or other negotiated percentage of the Lessee's income received from a Sub -lessee or assignee restaurant as set forth in the applicable sublease or assignment, if the restaurant is operated by a third party; Six percent (6%) for the marina operation (non -fuel): Five percent (5%) on gross fuel profits (gross fuel profits defined as gross fuel sale price per gallon minus cost of delivered fuel per gallon): Three percent (3%) for the ship's store or any other marine related sales other than those described above. 4.1.5 Manner of Payment The Percentage Rent shall be payable within sixty (60) days after the end of each Lease Year. Lessee shall deliver to the Lessor a statement setting forth the Gross Revenues during the applicable Percentage Rent Period ("Annual Percentage Rent Statement"), and Lessee shall pay to the City the amount of Percentage Rent due and payable, if any, to the Lessor pursuant to the terms of this Lease. Each Annual Percentage Rent Statement shall be signed and certified to be complete and correct by an officer of Lessee: qualified to the officer's current actual knowledge. Such statement shall show the annual Gross Revenues and an itemization of any exclusions or deductions for the current Lease Year. Lessee shall provide the Annual Percentage 18 M — MN M NM N NM all N N 1 11111 1 M i MINIMUM FINANCIAL RETURNS s»s��on� Financial Overview "Total Cost of Sales-Tatsl: Cprratinc Expenses Pert to Citr 2015 2010 2017 201.6 milli 2.9_01 2.021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Base Rent to City 6% Rent from Boat Storage 5% Rent from Leases 5% Rent from Fuel Sales 3% Rent from Merchandise Total % Rent to City 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2,150,000 2,214,500 2,280,935 2,349,363 2,419,844 2,492,439 2,567,212 2,644,229 2,723,556 2,818,880 609,102 909,990 1,074,042 1,185,384 1,277,004 1,362,722 1,443,974 1,494,513 49,479 53,895 56,590 59,419 61,796 63,650 65,559 67,854 26,325 27,005 27,680 28,348 28,724 28,789 29,653 30,691 13,245 13,907 14,603 15,333 15,946 16,424 16,917 17,509 698,151 1,004,797 1,172, 914 1,288,484 1,383,470 1,471,585 1,556,104 1,610,567 Total Rent to City 969,285 2,150,000 2,214,500 Total Projected Rent to City (45 Yrs.): 310,695,045 Total Projected Rent to City (60 Yrs.): 549,463,645 Total Projected Rent to City (75 Yrs.): 921,457,343 2,979,086 3,354,160 3,592,758 3,780,924 3,950,683 4,115,814 4,279,659 4,429,447 32 PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS *Rent payments to the City are included within the OpEx line item Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk = r E MI MI NM I- M E I N MNMI MI ■IMI M MI REQUIRED REDEVELOPMENT Our proposed project plan will include the following: Current Wet Marina 190 slips Rack Storage Capacity 646 slips Commercial/Mixed-Use N/A Expanded 554 slips 820 slips 84,000 sf Our team has the expertise to meet and exceed the required redevelopment guidelines. • Construct MarineMax showcasing a 30,000 sf state of the art Boat Showroom and Marine Service Center • Construct 150 space car parking structure (in addition to the city's structure) for additional parking needs • Construct Miami's Finest 20,000 sf luxury yacht club on top of parking structure • Constructs a ry''_ f commercial adding a Fresh Market, several Restaurants and • etail Space along the promenade Our total investment will exceed $85 Million. Our goal is to create a world class destination marina that is much more than simply a parking lot for boats. Our vision is to create a waterfront experience at the Rickenbacker location to create a waterfront destination containing multiple restaurants, retail areas, and related amenities for boaters and the general public alike. The redeveloped property will activate the public promenades and bay walks surrounding this site to make them more of a public feature. This activity will additionally complement the Rusty Pelican Restaurant as it will bring more customers to the site. 22 PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS When analyzed on a slip comparison basis our design exceeds the 300 additional slip requirement of 490 slips by 64 slips. However, the industry typically analyzes a marina based on linear footage of dockage. Currently the average slip at the existing marina is 45 feet, giving a total of 8550 linear feet. Taking these metrics into consideration, an additional the 300 slips would equal 22,050 total linear feet. Averaging 57 feet, our proposal's total of 31,578 linear feet gains an additional 9,528 linear feet of dockage, an increase of 43% compared to what is required, worth $3,544,416 in annual rent. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk V. PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE AND SIGN THE LEASE AGREEMENT: John D. Powers, Jr., Bryan Redmond, David Filler, Chris Petty VI. PROPOSED LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY New Marina: Floating Dock 554 Fully Enclosed Dry Stack 820 Racks Private Parking Garage 99,500 SF Yacht Club 20,000 SF Marina Operations Structures 5,500 SF New Restaurant 8,000 SF Commercial Space 17,500 SF MarineMax Showroom/Offices/Service 30,000 SF 2 Ship Store Upgrades, 1,000 SF, 5,000 SF Roadway Improvements, 11' Boardwalk 30,000 SF, 15,224 SF ATTACH 8 '/" x 11" SKETCH SHOWING PROPOSED REMODELLING, RENOVATION BUILD -OUT IMPROVEMENTS OF PROPERTY. ALL COPIES MUST INCLUDE COPIES OF THIS SKETCH. VII. PROPOSED DOLLAR ($) AMOUNT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 85,342,590.00 VIII. PROPOSED RENT (BASE RENT AND PERCENTAGE RENT OF GROSS REVENUES). PROPOSED BASE RENT: $ 2,150,000 PERCENTAGE RENT: $ 829,086 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ■ To develop a plan compatible with the Boat Show, which will not substantially or materially interfere with the licensed uses granted to NMMA for the Boat Show. C. Urban Design Principles and Guidelines ■ Public access shall be paramount. ■ Proposers must assure safe pedestrian connections and ease of access between the required facilities and the surrounding areas. • The architecture and landscape shall acknowledge the tropical climate of the region and contribute to the pedestrian and civic life of the project. • Proposers should use the Virginia Key Master Plan as a guideline for proposed improvements and the project's architectural/landscape features. • Proposers must design aesthetically attractive buffering features along the Rickenbacker Causeway access point. (1) Views • Provide optimum views of the bay from the marina facilities and restaurant facility. Emphasize views of the waterway. (2) Access • Maximize public access to the waterfront. • Minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflict points. • Interior and perimeter walkways shall be a minimum of 11 ft. width. • Provide required walkway width along waterfront per Miami 21 Zoning Code requirements. • Creative use of roadway lighting and distinctive exterior building lighting is encouraged. • Improve Marina access points with aesthetically attractive buffering features through hardscape or softscape elements. • Pedestrian -scale decorative lighting, low-level path and landscape accent lighting shall be incorporated into the development. • All utility infrastructures shall be placed underground or within chases below grade, where feasible. (3) Open Spaces • Provide continuous public open spaces where feasible. • Open spaces shall acknowledge the tropical climate of the region by providing significant landscape design, shade and coverage through the use of substantial shade trees and specimen palm varieties. D. Architecture • Buildings shall acknowledge the tropical climate of the region. • Buildings shall be no taller than the crown of the historic Miami Marine Stadium structure. • Building intensity, massing and articulation shall respond to human scale and the pedestrian realm. 23 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk i■■r w— IMO r M Ili — M M A= lM it = N III M N Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk { t Sr, 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • ESTIMATED BOAT COUNT PER DRAWINGS Y^ Y{ c� 17\ANI { { Y{ Y{ Y{ { ROWA I II Ij 11 II II II I S I i I I I 5717 SF. / f / Y `• I I I I I i I 1---1---1 I I L t- -- ---1- 1 j i I I I 1 I I I 1 1 j i i i i I i i j I i MOTE ALL BA15 PRE SL'-9' c/c <32'-O't c.> 5 LEWSS RIGH. REA SII6 TOTAL OF 512 BOOS -R• FOOT LAYOUT PLAN 12 I 12 SPACE ROOF SYSTEM WILL OCCU' �g000I�i) LM il I ' ,. 10,000/ x(3) i2. ly. 1,11 441 ..1,11,4 A, _ ' ^ 20,0001 x(2) 15,000 x(3)po_......„_h. x(2) 325,0,000000: vio_11 1,10.444I x(21 ) . '/ Oil' 441' Ai BO' 41' 165' HAULOVER MARINA 65' building height limit allows maximium 4 boat high stack 120 boats / level= 480 boats total WESTREC HAULOVER MARINA SHOWN FOR COMPARISON A 111111 1 I— r I MN E NMI -- i— N I NM NM Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 05/22/2016, City Clerk The structure will house approximately 150 private parking spaces for marina and yacht club members, large ship store and retail space, private yacht club restaurant, a private rooftop pool, cabanas, marina operations, marina storage closet, valet service area, and additional leased office space. Phase 5 Upon completion of the Suntex North marina offices, demolition will commence on the Whiskey Joe's restaurant building and remaining inner harbor building. The demolition and clearance of the old buildings lining the inner marina will allow for Suntex West to be erected along with improvements to the shore edge to allow access to the future slips. Phase 6 The original inner harbor boat slips are removed along with the old pilings, and replaced with a modern, state-of-the-art floating dock system. Isil 1 tit i 11111111 i11j 1�tli11i ill' I�i f 111, 1; 11 1 1 11,11 11 11 11 11 11 III el 11 111' 1 PROPOSAL FOR'JikGINl!s piN�F.i�aNFY�NN ►i!k/KifFOiNipN KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS ' 5 11111 I r 1-- s SIB -- a I r MR M— PROJECT PHASING APPROACH Suntex will keep the marina and surroundings accessible and operational from the point of inception to completion through careful planning, scheduling and phasing of this project. Suntex and Edgewater Resources are very experienced in preserving revenue and customer satisfaction during complex renovations and expansion. Phase I One of the first structures on the site will be the iconic MarineMax showbuilding, featuring both enclosed and exterior showroom space with mezzanine office accommodations. The location of the municipal car park will be available to the city to commence building. Depending on city plans, this site could be used to absorb any displaced parking while this portion is in progress. We also plan to widen and enhance the existing entrance road, demolish and redevelop the interior roadways, install new utilities to meet the demand of the new and future structures, and construct the 1 1' boardwalk which will connect the Miami Marine Stadium to the Rusty Pelican. Before we begin construction of the new dry stack building we are prepared to buy three top of the line Wiggins forklifts to continue operations at the Miami Marine Stadium and Rickenbacker Marina. Phase 2 Phase 2 involves the addition of 364 main marina berths to the north of the existing marina site. Upon completion, the marina will have high speed fueling, a floating ship store, security gates, three access points, wave attenuation, boat pump out and will accommodate vessels up to 120' in length. The dock sections will come pre -assembled and ready to be floated in the water which will minimize the disruption on the property and ongoing upland development. We currently have docks of all types and sizes across our portfolio which has enabled us to form outstanding relationships with all major dock 4 PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERKIIONS manufacturers such as Bellingham, Marinetek and Techno Marine. Our plan and costs also take into account possible environmental mitigation measures needed once complete. Phase 3 This phase will mark the start of a staggered build of the enclosed dry rack building, which when complete will provide secure covered storage for all the boats racked at Virginia Key Marina. To allow for continued use of the existing exterior dry stacks, the building will be erected incrementally, and as the new racks are installed, the boats will be moved to their new home and further site cleared for the next section. During this phase, we will ask the city's permission to use a portion of the Marine Stadium parking lot as a temporary storage location of the displaced boats. With the use of boat stands designed to sit on the ground, the boats displaced during construction could move to temporary racks located at the stadium to minimize the disruption and endure the retention of customers. Construction of both the dry stack and North Marina will overlap, but it will not interfere with one another due to the construction on the marina portion being done on the water. To stage material, we plan to ask the City for permission to use a portion of the Marine Stadium parking. Phase 4 Suntex North will commence construction. Access to the Pelican Restaurant and Parking will be maintained through the temporary use of the shoreside road and boardwalk until the shell and lower levels are constructed. The dry stack is completed during this phase and receives its green roof and solar panels. The northern marina will also be completed during the construction of the Suntex North Yacht Club building. Marina operations will move to this location once complete which will justify the demolition of the existing marina facilities and Whiskey Joe's restaurant. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MB O MN r r- N O MI N MI O MI I - WM i = SUNTEX MARINAS TRANSITION PLAN Collectively the Suntex principals have acquired and transitioned in excess of 40 marinas. We have a dedicated transition team of professionals with in excess of 100 years boating and marina management experience. The transition team is responsible for all aspects of onboarding new investments. Responsibilities include entity formation, banking, on boarding of team members, systems implementation, stakeholder notification, permit filing, guest reception, business plan execution, branding & marketing, capital and construction plan execution. Virginia Key Transition Specifics: • Upon reward of the referendum, Suntex would purchase three new Wiggins Forklifts to maintain the current dry stack operation at Rickenbacker and Marine Stadium marinas. We would also make an offer to purchase the existing forklift's from the city of Miami. • Retain existing tenants and work to relocate tenants upon completion of construction. • Retain existing employees at both marinas, to maximum degree possible. • Prepared to make an offer to buy existing personal equipment and assets of the property. We assume fixed real assets, i.e. rack buildings and others will remain. • Strategically phasing the Marine Max showroom building as the first phase will allow Marine Max to operate and cross promote the property at the earliest stage of development. This will drastically increase traffic, stimulate boat sales, and guarantee success of the development. • Suntex's robust accounting team will support the transition of systems. Our system implementation team comprised of both marina operations, accounting and information technology specialists have successfully transitioned several properties with outdated or no management 48 PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS systems in place. • Suntex in conjunction with Edgewater Resources will oversee construction to ensure our proposed plan meets deadlines and cost projections. • Phased construction would allow the existing marina and dry stack to operate while at the same time retain existing customers until completion of the north marina. • All construction would be phased to disrupt existing operations as little as possible. • Suntex's marketing team will provide continuous updates to the customers and city through various social media outlets. • Upon completion of the north marina, suntex will begin operation of Suntex Boat Club. • Suntex will relocate our most experienced general manager to the property and prepare him prior to the assignment of lease. • Suntex will assign a regional manager to the property upon a successful award of the referendum. • A commercial broker will prelease space before construction begins on the upland development. • Through our extensive relationships with restaurant tenants at our various existing and prior owned or managed properties, restaurant tenants will be designated prior to the beginning of construction on the Suntex West building. • Operations will remain in the existing marina office building until completion of the proposed yacht club, parking structure and marina operations building. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1111111 MN MA NM MINI MIN MN INN NM MN MI IMO FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (POST CONSTRUCTION) LF/SOFT RCN PYS. COND. AGE WET STORAGE 554 23,170 27,629,778 EXCELLENT (I 1 DRY STORAGE 820 28,600 I7,666,OU(i EXCEI.I.ONI (I) BUILDINGS 3 240,500 28,481,046 I:X(.1I'ITENT (1) PRIOR 5 YR NEXT 5 YR. TTM YEAR1 REVENUE 9,930,741 18,031,340 10,964,867 13,662,814 CAGR/YOY GROWTH 9% 16% 4% 25% GROSS PROFIT 7,898,455 16,081,451 8,871,806 11,942,227 CAGR/YOYGROWTH 8% 18% 11% 35% MARGIN 80% 89% 81% 87% NOI 1,542,993 4,599,436 2,233,935 2,695,410 CAGR/YOYGROWTH 1% 44% 31% 21% MARGIN 16% 26% 20% 20% OCCUPANCY 94% 62% 95% 95% RATE 27.16 34.02 28.79 29.66 REVPAS 7,228 13,123 7,980 9,944 REVENUE % OF W6T STORAG1 1 I.08 I, I I l 435 I)RY STORAGE 10,202 292 40% LEASES i)63.684 5$< SERVICE - 0%, IBOA'l' RENTAL 545.500 2% FUEL 2,167,074 C-.STORE/OTI IER 531,535 2%a GROSS 11,051,098 10,157,271 1,163,684 469 909 574,477 130,728 % OF 47 4 9< 0°f I TO' rA 1. 25,691,197 11109 23,547,168 10(19< MAJOR EQUIPMENT FORKLIFTS EXISTING OTHER RCN PYS. COND AGE 1 725.06)) I .V('1 1 1.EN I 500.000 FAIR 10 500,000 FAIR 15 TOTAL PER SLIP % OF TOTAL SOURCES EQUITY 33,952,220 24,710 40% BANKDEBT(1) 34,260,246 24,935 40% BANKDEBT(2) 17,130,123 12,467 20% TOTAL SOURCES 85,342,590 62,113 100% USES PURCHASE PRICE 73,776,824 53,695 86% CAPEX 7,450,000 5,422 9% CLOSING COSTS/FEES 1,418,434 1,032 2% OTHER 2,697,332 1,963 3% TOTAL USES 85,342,590 62,113 100% UNLEVERED IRR 4% UNLEV. CASH MULT. 1.2 HOLD PERIOD (YRS.) 5 ANNUAL YIELD (TOTAL COST) UNLEVERED YEAR 1 6.9% YEAR 2 2.0% YEAR 3 3.1 % YEAR 4 6.2% YEAR 5 7.1% 5-YRAVG. 5.1% PROPOSAL FOR VIRGIMA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS 29 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Titv of gitiami November 25, 2015 DANIEL J. ALFONSO City Manager RE: Addendum XXI, Request for Proposals ("RFP") No. 12-14-077 for Lease of Virginia Key Marina, City -owned Waterfront Property for Marinas/Restaurant/Ship's Store Uses. Attention Registered Proposers: This mailing is "Addendum XXI" and becomes an official addendum to the RFP document. questions must be provided prior to the deadline for questions on January 4, 2016 pursuant Section II A. of the RFP and shall be answered in this same manner and forwarded as Addenda. shall be due by 2:00 PM on February 1, 2016. Enclosed please find the following items: • RFP Questions & Answers • RFP Revisions All future to revised Proposals Any written questions received will be answered within fifteen (15) days of their receipt. When sending correspondence, please address the original to CBRE I Marina Services, the City's broker for this project, with a copy to the attention of the project designee at the City of Miami. Failure to follow these requirements will result in your question not being answered or replied to. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to write: Broker Jason Spalding CBRE I Marina Services 200 East Las Blvd, Suite 1620 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jason.spalding@cbre.com cbre.com cc: Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk Project Designee Jacqueline Lorenzo City of Miami Real Estate & Asset Management 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33130 j lorenzo@miamigov.com 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Titg Atiami DANIEL J. ALFONSO City Manager Answer 8: The development of the project may be conducted in phases. Please also see the various revisions to the RFP indicated in Addendum XV issued on October 9, 2015. Question 9: "Will there be one large parking component to include the Rusty Pelicans 220 spaces, to which they will contribute $4 million? Or, can a separate garage be built for 220 spaces for which Rusty Pelican will contribute $4 million and MPA will contribute the rest?" Answer 9: The City currently only contemplates that one parking facility shall be built on City -owned property, which will be open to the members of the public on a first -come first -served basis. Question 10: "To be clear, the rusty pelican lease calls for them to have the use of the garage closest to them, not on a first come first serve basis as previously stated on your addendums. So if two separate garages are built, what happens then?" Answer 10: Please see Answer 9 above. Additionally, pursuant to the state deed conveying the property to the City, all improvements on the lands conveyed must be for a public purpose. This would include municipal parking. Question 11: "Sections 29-B and 3(f)(iii) of the City Charter specifically says that the sale or lease of property cannot be favorably considered by the City Commission unless there is a return to the City of fair market value under such proposed sale or lease. The Charter also requires two independent appraisals on the contract (lease) that result in a fair return to the City. Thus, if, for example, the appraisal on the RFP is for 50,000 square feet of rental space, but the winning proposal is for 80,000 square feet, then the appraised value of the winning proposer's lease (contract) will be higher and will not be acceptable. As the appraisal provisions are written and referenced in Addenda XVIII and XIX, the Charter is being changed without a vote of the electorate. Please revise the RFP to reflect the prior language regarding the Charter so as to avoid any future delay or adverse actions." Answer 11: Neither the subject RFP, nor any competitive solicitation issued by the City, could amend the City Charter or Code. The Charter and Code shall continue to govern the RFP and the ultimate lease agreement, including the requirement that there must be a return to the City of fair market value as determined by two independent appraisers. The City is currently procuring appraisals based on the updated and maximum square footage of the site. In no event may the City accept a proposal that provides for the lease of land greater than that already contemplated by the RFP. In order to prevent further confusion or delay, please see the RFP revisions below. Question 12: "What is the base elevation height that will be used to measure the building height on the RFP site?" 4 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk CI±t tr# t�xntt January 13, 2016 DANIEL J. ALFONSO City Manager RE: Addendum XXVI, Request for Proposals ("RFP") No. 12-14-077 for Lease of Virginia Key Marina, City -owned Waterfront Property for Marinas/Restaurant/Ship's Store Uses. Attention Registered Proposers: This mailing is "Addendum XXVI" and becomes an official addendum to the RFP document. No future questions will be answered as the deadline for questions closed on January 4, 2016 pursuant to revised Section II A. of the RFP. Proposals shall be due by 2:00 PM on February 1, 2016. Enclosed please find the following items: • RFP Questions & Answers • RFP Revisions Broker Jason Spalding CBRE I Marina Services 200 East Las Blvd, Suite 1620 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jason.spalding@cbre.com cc: Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk Project Designee Jacqueline Lorenzo City of Miami Real Estate & Asset Management 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33130 jlorenzoa,miamiRov.com 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Chit- of AiTianti DANIEL J. ALFONSO City Manager Question 3: "There is a strip of land that is currently a ground level parking lot that has been specifically excluded from the RFP leasehold even though there have been several requests to include it. We are told that the excluded area is the location for an MPA garage. Can that garage include the parking to serve the RFP property even though it is excluded from the proposed RFP leasehold? If not, then why is the respondent being required to contribute to the construction of the MPA garage? If yes, then why is it being excluded from the RFP? Even if yes, will that also be the location of the required Rusty Pelican parking as it will certainly not be the closest parking to the Rusty Pelican? If that is the intended location for the Rusty Pelican parking, will that meet the full parking requirements in the rusty pelican lease?" Answer 3: The parking garage, which is currently anticipated to be built on the cut-out parcel outside of the RFP Lease Area shall serve the RFP property as well as the Rusty Pelican and the general public. It will be a municipal parking facility. A legal description and sketch of the area to be used is available at the Department of Real Estate and Asset Management for the City at the Miami Riverside Center, 444 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 325, Miami, Florida 33130. To make an appointment to review the referenced document or to request a PDF copy of said document, you may contact the City of Miami Project Designee specified above. The parking garage is currently anticipated to be built on the cut out parcel outside of the RFP Lease Area because it shall be built, operated, and maintained by the MPA. The Selected Proposer shall not construct, operate, or maintain the parking garage. Under the City Charter this is a task of the MPA. The parking garage will also be the location of the required Rusty Pelican parking as we believe (but do not represent) that it will be the closest parking facility to the Rusty Pelican. The parking garage will be large enough to meet the current parking requirements set forth in the Rusty Pelican Lease. Question 4: "Are proposers permitted to incorporate the excluded strip of land that runs along Rickenbacker Causeway to the current fueling facility in their plans? How may proposers use it or incorporate it? May it be used to access the fueling facility which is within the RFP leasehold? May it be used for parking?" Answer 4: No. Proposers may only use the land designated within the RFP for their proposal submission. Question 5: "Will public restrooms, laundry facilities, and boat transfer areas count as accessory spaces and uses that do not require parking, or instead as "commercial" space that requires parking per the RFP?" Answer 5: Generally, the principal use will determine the parking requirements for each structure. There are many factors involved in determining the parking requirements and that is dependent on the review of plans. However, it is not standard practice to include restrooms and other accessory spaces as part of the parking requirement calculations. This will be a determination made in due course by Building, Planning and Zoning authorities in accordance with applicable regulations 3 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ■■� ill — r I r En I I M— i, — I NM— r INII The structure will house approximately 150 private parking spaces for marina and yacht club members, large ship store and retail space, private yacht club restaurant, a private rooftop pool, cabanas, marina operations, marina storage closet, valet service area, and additional leased office space. Phase 5 Upon completion of the Suntex North marina offices, demolition will commence on the Whiskey Joe's restaurant building and remaining inner harbor building. The demolition and clearance of the old buildings lining the inner marina will allow for Suntex West to be erected along with improvements to the shore edge to allow access to the future slips. Phase 6 The original inner harbor boat slips are removed along with the old pilings, and replaced with a modern, state-of-the-art floating dock system. PROPOSAL_ VCR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS 15 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT (11) Proposer's Organizational Chart: The Proposer must provide an organizational chart and detailed information about the Proposer, related entities, and members of its operations and management team who will manage and operate the marina, restaurant and other business facilities ("Project Team") and the Proposer's team of architects, engineers and/or general contractors ("Development Team") who shall renovate or redevelop the Property. The organizational chart shall graphically depict the Proposer's relationship with any parent organization(s) and/or affiliate organizations or entities, if any, as well as the respective operations, management and construction roles (e.g. architect, engineer, general contractor) played by each team member or entity comprising the Project Team or Development Team. Proposers that include as part of their team foreign nationals or foreign entities must fully comply with all of the requirements of the Patriot Act. Those Proposers who do not comply shall be automatically disqualified from further consideration in this RFP process. (12) Threshold Qualification Standards: Each Proposer shall meet the following five (5) minimum requirements: (a) Either a member of the Project Team or staff must have a minimum of ten (10) years' experience with a marina of similar size and complexity; a minimum of ten (10) years active experience and responsibility for daily operations of the restaurant, as well as a minimum of five (5) years' experience for each additional business use proposed to be operated by the successful Proposer. (b) Either a member of the Project Team and the Proposer (the latter as applicable) or its staff must have played a leading role with principal responsibility for the design of a project(s) of similar size, complexity and constraints as the facilities and uses proposed. (c) Any of the principals or Project Team members must have successfully developed and obtained financing for at least one project of similar size, complexity with similar uses and constraints. For the purpose of this RFP "Project Team" is defined as the group of persons managing and operating the marina and restaurant facility, including the principal(s) submitting the proposal and with whom the City would enter into a Lease for the Property, if awarded. The Project Team or any of its principals must have secured or provided, at minimum, twenty million dollars $20 million or more in fmancing for at least one (1) single project. (d) The Minimum Level of Investment associated with the improvements (buildings, facilities, Parking facility, docks and equipment) shall be twenty five million dollars ($25,000,000), which 33 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MIS IMO E IM M ION Ma =I MN I MN =I MEI MIN MI MEI M M 1111111 SNOOK BIGHTYACHT CLUB & MARINA Fort Myers Beach, FL Snook Bight Marina is located on Estero Island in Fort Myers, Florida and has a ship store, service center, parts warehouse, waterfront restaurant facility, member club room, pool and spa. Snook Bight Marina is a new facility with all upland structures completed in 2008, and all wet slips improvements completed in January 2013. Property summary Location: Fort Myers, FL Total wet slips: 74 Total dry slips: 169 Year acquired 2014 Land parcel: 2.3 acres LIBERTY LANDING Jersey City, NJ Liberty Landing is located in Jersey City, New Jersey, on the Hudson River across from downtown Manhattan. Located on approximately 30 acres of land and 20 acres of adjacent water, the marina has 520 wet slips, a service department, a ship store, fueling docks, and two large restaurants. In May 2012, the operations of Pier 25 in New York, New York were merged with the operations of Liberty Landing. Liberty Landing and Pier 25 are owned and managed by SMI. PROJECT SUMMARY Location: Jersey City, NJ / NYC, NY Total wet slips: 520 / 40 Total dry storage: 300 / - Year acquired 2010 / 2012 Land parcel: 30.2 / - acres PROPOSAL FOR viRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk A-3 ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS For each member of your Project Team, please list the name and role of the individual (for example, Principal/CEO, Operations Manager, Restaurant Manager, Retail Manager, Marina Manager, Architect, General Contractor, etc.), License No. (if applicable), number of years of experience in their respective field and the LEED Certification Status of the individual (as applicable). (Attach additional sheets if necessary). Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects By Project Name & by Location Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Cost Johnny Powers 1. Liberty Landing Marina Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $53,000,000 Location New Jersey, NY Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $24,000,000 2. Canyon Lake Marinas Location Canyon Lake, TX Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $26,000,000 3. Lake Ray Hubbard/ President—Suntex President — Virginia Key SMI, LLC Eagle Mountain Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $20,000,000 Location Dallas, TX 4. Ocean Yacht & Tidewater Marinas Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $52,000,000 Location Tidewater, VA 5. Cabo Marina Location Cabo San Lucas, Mexico David Filler 1. Crosswater Yacht Club Business Development 3-6 Months $8,000,000 Location Austin, TX Business Development 3-6 Months $14,500,000 2. Pier 121 Marina Location Dallas, TX Business Development 3-6 Months $1,000,000 Principal - Suntex Vice President — Virginia Key SMI, LLC 3. Canyon Lake Marina Location Canyon Lake, TX Business Development 3-6 Months $2,000,000 4. Liberty Marina Location New Jersey, NY Business Development 3-6 Months $6,000,000 5. Red Rock Marina Location Pella, IA Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk En 11111 NEI MN MINI 11111 NMI IMO INN INN MIN NM NMI 11111 111111 INN NIB 111111 NMI FINANCIAL CAPACITY Existing Marinas Owned and Operated by Suntex I Property & Location Sector Inland Year Acquired 2013 Wet 610 Dry 90 Total 700 Brady Mountain•, Royal, AR 2 Amelia Island, Fernandina Beach, FL Coastal 2010 146 224 370 3 Snook Bight, Fort Myers, FL Coastal 2014 74 169 243 4 Glade Acworth, GA Inland 2012 327 201 528 5 Little River Canton, GA Inland 2014 151 318 469 6 Red Rock, Pella, IA Inland 2009 119 120 239 7 Saylorville, Polk City, IA Inland 2012 415 100 515 8 Bay Pointe, Quincy, MA Coastal 2012 258 250 508 9 Pleasure Cove, Pasadena, MD Costal 2014 36 380 416 10 Port de Plaisance, Sint Maarten, N.A. Costal 2011 90 0 90 I 1 Liberty Landing, Jersey City, NJ Costal 2010 520 300 820 12 Pier 25 Moorings, New York City, NY Coastal 2012 40 0 40 13 Crosswater, Austin, TX Inland 2012 243 0 243 14 Hurst Harbor, Austin, TX Inland 2012 272 216 488 15 Canyon Lake, Canyon Lake, TX Inland 2009 451 53 504 16 Cranes Mill, Canyon Lake, TX Inland 2009 250 0 250 17 Eagle Mountain, Fort Worth, TX Inland 2012 369 100 469 18 Harbor One, Fort Worth, TX Inland 2012 267 0 267 19 Lake Country, Fort Worth, TX Inland 2012 285 340 625 20 Captain's Cove, Garland, TX Inland 2011 589 151 740 21 Pier 121'^, Lewisville, TX Inland 2013 1,096 830 1,926 22 Chandlers Landing, Rockwall, TX Inland 2011 702 75 777 23 York River, Gloucester Point, VA Coastal 2013 307 65 372 24 Tidewater, Portsmouth, VA Coastal 2014 300 0 300 25 Ocean Yacht, Portsmouth, VA Coastal 2009 112 275 387 manag d/^no longer managed 8,029 4,257 12,286 Suntex As described elsewhere and shown in the news release attachment in the appendix to this proposal, Suntex has recently raised $500 Million in equity and debt to purchase and develop marinas throughout the United States. Therefore, Suntex has already raised the funds to develop the Virginia Key Marina including funding for any of the alternates that are proposed. The project also has been approved by the Suntex board of directors on January 26, 2016. See chart at left for history of existing marina assets owned and operated by Suntex. These assets exceed $200 Million in value today. Edgewater Resources Edgewater Resources will be a minority partner in the Virginia Key venture with Suntex. Edgewater also has significant experience in financing, designing and development of world class marinas including the following: • Dun Laoghaire Harbour, Ireland • Port Cottonera, Malta • Brooklyn Bridge Marina; $31 Million (under construction) • Harbor Village at Harbor Shores Marina, Hotel and Condominiums, St. Joseph, MI; $34 Million (completed 2015) • Harbor Village at Harbor Shores Marina and Condominiums, Manistee, MI; $120 Million • Edgewater is also able to raise funds utilizing private equity and the EB-5 immigration process and has done so in several of the projects listed above (although EB-5 is not currently contemplated for funding the Virginia Key Marina). PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS 45 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT ' Additionally, pursuant to Section 7.1.2.7 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code, any new development (or redevelopment) in a CS Transect Zone may be allowed to apply for a "Variance." However, the City as owner will not approve the request for a ' Variance for this Property. Depending on the scope of renovation or redevelopment, architectural components ' may be subject to approval by the City's Planning and Zoning Department, the PZAB and the City Commission. tIV. PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES This RFP seeks to identify the proposal deemed most advantageous to the City. The ' City's evaluation and review of proposals shall include, but not be limited to: the financial returns to the City, the Proposer's experience and management history, the Proposer's and consultant'(s) capability, the Proposer's financial ability & qualifications, the overall design of the proposed Project, and local participation. A. Economic Objectives '• ■ Increase the financial return to the City. Improve the revenue -producing capacity of the marina/boatyard, restaurant and ship's store facilities. ' ▪ Improve the marina, restaurant and any ancillary waterfront uses and enhance their destination market appeal to locals and tourists alike. ■ Ensure that any proposed (optional) ancillary or complementary uses further ' enhance the destination market appeal of the wider Miami and Virginia Key community. • Utilize the available Property to maximize its economic potential. ' B. Planning and Land Use Objectives ■ To convert the existing facility into a modern world -class facility using state- of-the-art technology and including ancillary uses that complement the Property's setting and geographical location, aimed to stimulate widespread interest in the waterfront Property. • To provide for the development of a mixed -use marina/restaurant and waterfront destination, portraying a unified and integrated marina that seamlessly interacts with adjacent restaurants and facilities. '• To allow for easy access to and throughout the Property, including the development of a full -width bay walk that matches the design east of Marine Stadium, and a clear walking passage from Marine Stadium to Rusty Pelican. '• To promote various active, public uses of the site that will enhance the overall public benefit derived from the property in terms of use, visibility and financial return. ■ To provide marina/restaurant facilities that represent flexible designs and iconic attention -grabbing buildings that function year-round for daily and nightly activities. • To develop an array of recreational waterfront uses operated by management experienced in waterfront programming in order to attract increasing and varied segments of the local, regional and visitor population. 1 22 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT ■ To develop a plan compatible with the Boat Show, which will not substantially or materially interfere with the licensed uses granted to NMMA for the Boat Show. C. Urban Design Principles and Guidelines • Public access shall be paramount. ■ Proposers must assure safe pedestrian connections and ease of access between the required facilities and the surrounding areas. ■ The architecture and landscape shall acknowledge the tropical climate of the region and contribute to the pedestrian and civic life of the project. ■ Proposers should use the Virginia Key Master Plan as a guideline for proposed improvements and the project's architectural/landscape features. • Proposers must design aesthetically attractive buffering features along the Rickenbacker Causeway access point. (1) Views • Provide optimum views of the bay from the marina facilities and restaurant facility. • Emphasize views of the waterway. (2) Access • Maximize public access to the waterfront. • Minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflict points. • Interior and perimeter walkways shall be a minimum of 11 ft. width. • Provide required walkway width along waterfront per Miami 21 Zoning Code requirements. • Creative use of roadway lighting and distinctive exterior building lighting is encouraged. Improve Marina access points with aesthetically attractive buffering features through hardscape or softscape elements. • Pedestrian -scale decorative lighting, low-level path and landscape accent lighting shall be incorporated into the development. • All utility infrastructures shall be placed underground or within chases below grade, where feasible. (3) Open Spaces • Provide continuous public open spaces where feasible. • Open spaces shall acknowledge the tropical climate of the region by providing significant landscape design, shade and coverage through the use of substantial shade trees and specimen palm varieties. D. Architecture ■ Buildings shall acknowledge the tropical climate of the region. • Buildings shall be no taller than the crown of the historic Miami Marine Stadium structure. • Building intensity, massing and articulation shall respond to human scale and the pedestrian realm. Submitted into the public 23 record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT F. Project Narrative — Required Proposal Content Proposers shall provide a Project Narrative no longer than fifty (50) pages, at 10 point font (not including the required attachments, documentation or drawings). Proposals must present a definitive project in their Project Narrative, addressing all the narrative topics and components requested in Section VI(F)(1) through (16) below. The Project narrative will be critically evaluated as to whether all the submission requirements have been presented by each Proposer. Proposals submitted in response to this RFP must include planning, design, financing and construction of proposed improvements appropriate to the character of the Property, the Virginia Key Master Plan and the CS Zoning category laid out in Miami 21 Zoning Code. The successful Proposer shall be required to plan, design, construct, lease, manage and operate the Property, at no cost to the City. (1) Description of Proposed Facilities and Amenities: Provide a description of the proposed facilities and amenities at the Property. (2) Marketing Plan & Market Analysis: Proposals shall include a: (a) Market Analysis sufficient to establish the market support for the marina, restaurant component, ship's store and other proposed uses based upon analysis of demand generators, competitive supply, market pricing, competitive position and anticipated market share/capture. The market analysis shall identify primary and secondary markets for the marina, restaurant, ship's store and other proposed amenities, as applicable. (3) (4) (b) Marketing Plan shall specifically provide the rationale for proposed marketing approaches for each targeted market segment and a description of the strategies utilized for attracting and strengthening those markets, such as how and where the marina and restaurant facility will be advertised, branding and themed restaurant concepts and potential co -marketing opportunities. Specific discussion shall be presented as to marketing strategies to attract international business, recreational and the leisure tourist markets. Financing Plan & Financial Capacity: Proposals shall include a financial plan, which shall provide evidence of financial capacity so that a determination can be made that the Proposer is capable of undertaking the Project. Recent Financing History: Proposer shall provide at least a three (3) year financial history detailing financial soundness, financial capability, background in obtaining complex financial commitments, specifically detailing the type of project, financing source, amounts committed, etc. Proposer shall detail the amount of capital, the size of the project and any other pertinent information that will assist the City in determining the capability, availability of equity and ability to fund the Project. 27 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT Proposer shall describe any themed aspects of the proposed decor for the restaurant component and ancillary services which are intended to enhance the market draw to prospective patrons. ' List the proposed improvements in Question VII of the Proposal Summary Form (Attachment 4). Provide detailed illustrative drawings that demonstrate plans to redesign, upgrade, renovate or improve the existing facility or redevelop the Property, as well renderings and a Site Plan as attachments to the proposal. The Site Plan must include the following elements: ' (a) Required Site Plan: Provide a site plan showing the proposed layout of all project components, including all additional ancillary facilities to be provided, including the size, dimensions and configuration of 111 buildings to be reconstructed and/or renovations. The scale for illustrative drawings and site plans shall be as follows: Scale for Site Plans: 1" = 40'-0" Scale for Building Plan Elevations: 1/8" = 1'-0" (Provide elevations for all sides of the buildings) ' Scale for Plans and Elevations for Building Hangars: 1/16" _ 1'-0" Scale for any Enlarged Plans of Area and Buildings: 1/8" = 1'- 0" The Site Plan shall include the following elements: Lighting: Proposers shall provide sufficient outdoor lighting for the Property. ' Signage: Proposers shall provide a comprehensive, unified signage plan for the entire site which must comply with all Zoning requirements. ' Buffering Features: Proposers shall improve the access points from Rickenbacker Causeway with aesthetically attractive buffering features through hardscape or softscape elements. (b) Required Renderings: Proposers shall provide renderings depicting ' overviews of the structures and Property, including perspectives from Rickenbacker Causeway, the waterfront, from within the Project. Renderings should also include the architectural ' 29 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT The Management/Operations Team as a whole must have the requisite expertise, financial and management capability to develop a marina/restaurant destination facility of similar scope and complexity as identified in the project objectives. ' (c) Project Team Experience Forms (Attachment 5): On Attachment 5, list the key personnel comprising the Project Team who will be utilized in each project component (e.g. marina, restaurant, ship's ' store, etc.). Provide their positions or titles on the Project Team Experience Forms attached and incorporated herein as Attachment 5. For each member of the Proposer, the Proposer shall complete and ' provide a list of completed representative projects according to the following criteria: current project function or role, i.e., restaurant operator, restaurant manager, restaurant owner; marina management, marina operation, etc.; ii. years of experience gained working on representative projects; dollar ($) sales volume of business operations for these representative projects (specifying which type of project ' component, e.g. marina, restaurant, ship's store, etc.). Unless the City Manager specifically authorizes it, Proposers ' may not make any additions or modifications to the proposal responses, nor the Project or Development Team, subsequent to the RFP submission deadline. ' (14) Development Team Composition: Proposers shall submit evidence ofthe qualifications of the professional team of architect(s), engineer(s), general ' contractor(s), landscape architect(s) and consultant(s) who will undertake and complete the renovation or development of the proposed project. The Proposer and/or its consultant(s) shall, at minimum demonstrate ' professional expertise in the disciplines outlined below. (a) Architect: The Proposer shall have at least one (1) architect licensed ' and registered in the State of Florida as required by Chapter 481, Part I, Florida Statutes, Architecture and shall have substantial experience in the design and renovation of the specified Required Uses. ' (b) Landscape Architect: The Proposer shall have at least one (1) landscape architect licensed and registered in the State of Florida as ' required by Chapter 481, Part II, Florida Statutes, Landscape Architecture and shall have substantial experience in the design and renovation of the specified required uses. ' (c) Engineer: The Proposer shall have at least one (1) engineer, licensed and registered in the State of Florida as required by Chapter 471, ' Florida Statutes. 35 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT (d) General Contracting and/or Construction Management: The Proposer shall have at a minimum one (1) General Contractor licensed in the State of Florida, as required by Chapter 489 Part I, Florida Statutes, who shall have substantial experience in managing and performing construction of facilities of similar type and scope as the Required Uses and ancillary facilities described in the proposal. (15) Local Firm Participation: Proposers are encouraged to include in the composition of the Proposer, businesses or firms that are located in the City. A local firm or office shall be defined as a firm having its primary business office established within the City's municipal limits. City occupational licenses, along with the appropriate office location affidavit, office lease, office utility payments and similar documents shall be provided as proof of location for businesses located in the City. Please see the definition of Local Office set forth in section 18-73 of the City Code for the specific requirements. For evaluation and scoring purposes, additional points shall be given to those proposals which include one or more of the following outreach components: (a) To enhance local participation within the Proposer's management or Development Team; (b) To make special outreach efforts to include and hire local, City residents as construction labor; (c) Use of training skills center to facilitate local participation and hiring in relation to leasing, management, operation and maintenance of the facilities. (16) Boat Show Compatibility: The proposal shall allow for and be compatible with the Boat Show. Successful Proposer shall enter into an access agreement with NMMA. In no way may the proposed project interfere with or affect the Boat Show, any exhibitor tents, or any of the footprint, in a manner that would diminish the amount of square footage provided to the Boat Show by two percent (2%) or more. Additionally, the structural foundations and other such improvements installed by the Boat Show prior to execution of the Lease, shall not be removed, and shall remain undisturbed and unaffected. Improvements will not interfere with Structures A5 and A6, as shown in Exhibit H. (17) Earnest Money Deposit: Proposers shall provide an irrevocable/unconditional Letter of Credit or cashier's check, drawn on a financial institution authorized to do business in Florida, providing one hundred thousand and 00/100 dollars ($100,000.00) to be submitted together with the proposal. This amount shall be refunded to Proposers that are not selected. Once a Proposer has been chosen, the Earnest Money 36 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT space. The garage will have retail space and will be operated and managed by the MPA. The City shall take into consideration the Proposer's proposed location for the parking garage. However, the ultimate location of the parking garage facility shall be in the sole and absolute discretion of the City. The garage footprint is currently estimated to be approximately forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet, excluding set -backs and other restrictions. The City will require the successful Proposer to pay into a project -specific parking trust fund ("Parking Trust Fund") an amount for construction of the parking garage at the time of the Lease execution. The MPA will use the funds contributed to the Parking Trust Fund to construct the parking facility to accommodate the users of the Project. The number of parking spaces will be based on four (4) spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail, one (1) parking space per every five (5) boats of dry or wet storage, and eight (8) spaces for every 1,000 square feet of restaurant gross area. The successful Proposer will be required to contribute to the Parking Trust Fund up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) (estimated to be approximately 50% of the cost of construction) per each space required for the overall site proposal, per the ratios provided above, including the retail space in the garage itself. However, a minimum of 230 parking spaces shall be required (for a total minimum parking garage contribution of $3,450,000.00 to be paid by cashier's check or money order and delivered to the Director of Real Estate & Asset Management, 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130 upon effective date of the Lease). This parking garage contribution will be deposited into an escrow account whose designated use shall be applied to the Parking Trust Fund. In the event that the referendum is not passed, this parking garage contribution will be returned to the successful Proposer. MPA may, in its sole discretion, elect to build additional parking spaces beyond what is required for the successful Proposer's Project and existing City and MPA parking obligations. Should the MPA choose to build additional parking spaces, the MPA will pay one hundred percent (100%) of the additional costs required for the additional spaces, as well as the cost for any ancillary uses incorporated in the parking facilities. The successful Proposer will have no vested or represented interest, rights, options, preferences, or security in the City's parking facility, other than the City's commitment that those parking spaces will be available for monthly leases for all of the commercial/retail uses incorporated within the Project, at a parking rate schedule that reflects fair market value, whose published rates will be provided to transient customers. The City will provide a structure for free parking validations at the garage for varying uses and time frames (retail, restaurant, marina, etc.) in line with existing waterfront venues in the area. The free validation structure will comply with the Miami 21 Zoning Code and will be established during lease negotiations and reflected therein. The schedule and milestones for construction of the parking garage and retail spaces by MPA will be developed in conjunction with, and will be compatible with, the successful Proposers development plan, to be reflected in the Lease. Submitted into the public 20 record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk IRCI PROPOSAL EXCERPTS Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk oceanfront. Likewise, as the cars will certainly have been evacuated in the event of a named storm there is little or no risk of damage to parked cars as people will not be tempted to leave cars in the at - grade garage as they might be with a multi -story garage. Further, utilizing this at -grade space for parking minimizes the visual impact of the proposed Miami Parking Authority (MPA) parking garage and effectively eliminates a multistory parking structure visually intruding on the view directly along the Rickenbacker Causeway, because it places a substantial majority of the required parking underneath the dry stack. The Preferred Plan therefore minimizes the imposition of the larger scale MPA garage and the Project onto the immediate area and neighborhood. As the RFP requires the Proposer to make a contribution to the MPA toward the construction of parking structure to provide the required parking for the Project, RCI has also submitted an Alternative Plan that does provide the required parking in the conventional MPA garage along the Rickenbacker in the location identified by the City in the RFP. RCi is prepared to make the required contribution of $ 15,000 per space to the MPA garage if it is to be built. As noted above and as shown in the plans the Alternative Plan then requires a much larger and more expensive parking structure, which will have a substantial impact on the Causeway. Based upon the City's estimates, the City's contribution to the garage would be $7.25 million. RCI believes the Preferred Plan is a much better plan that provides multiple pubtic benefits by, among other things, saving tax payers' money, reducing visual impacts, and providing more convenient parking for the RFP uses and users and the public. If the City determines that we must use the Alternative Plan because of the MPA required garage, we are prepared to do so as the balance of the plan remains virtually the same as the Preferred Plan. LAND USE AND ZONING APPROVALS The Property's current land use designation is Parks and Recreation and the zoning designation is Civic Space. With these designations, development of RCI's proposed Project will require collaboration with the City to determine the most timely and effective way ensure compliance with all applicable zoning regulations. We currently anticipate preparing and applying for some relatively VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR 8' MARINE CENTER minor comprehensive plan amendments in tandem with rezoning to a Special Area Plan ("SAP"). It appears to the Project Team that the SAP rezoning is likely the best and most comprehensive way to establish appropriate zoning regulations to control the implementation of the Project plan in a way that will recognize the unique character of this Property and permit the required and proposed facilities and services. The development of the Project remains subject to all zoning and development regulations and as the City stated in Addenda XIII, the "specific details of the applicable zoning regulations cannot be conclusively determined at this time and will be developed in consultation with the City after selection." Use of County and State -deeded property in the Proposed Project assumes that the City will work with RCI to obtain all necessary approvals and waivers needed from the County and the State. We have estimated that the comprehensive plan amendments and SAP rezoning will begin in January 2017 and conclude in June orJuly 2017. As noted in Addendum VIII there is a Declaration of Restrictions that requires Miami -Dade County Commission approval of the site plan. The City stated that it is inquiring about the possibility of having this requirement modified or released. As no further information was provided by the City, we are assuming that County approval will be required and have allocated three additional months in the development schedule for the City to gain this approval. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS The Project Team will upgrade and/or improve the existing site infrastructure to include stormwater management, water distribution, sanitary sewer, and electrical systems. An outline of the improvements are as follows: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will require the engineering design and construction of a stormwater management system. Currently the majority of runoff from the Project site sheet flows into the adjacent waters of Biscayne Bay. The site plan will be designed City of Miami Department of Real Estate & Asset Management Request for Proposals (RFP) No.12-14-077 Page 9 151 boats North Surface Lot 78 Parking I 62 boats -1,000 sqft commercial 9,980-sqft commercial -105 parking spaces proposed outside of lease lines are not included in totals. Proposed Facilities Parking Calculation Required Formula Parking 2,800 sqft Harbormaster 9,000 sqft restaurants H.C. Spaces i — — .,— 1 111111 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Boat Shelter Ground Level: 29,540 commercial 305 Parking LV 2-5: 973 boats NW surface 68 Parking jai Loading Bays Bicycle Parking Commercial 40,520 sqft (4/1000) 162.1 6 2.5 8.1 Restaurant 9,000 sqft (8/1000) 72.0 3 0.0 3.6 Civil Support 1,286 boats (1/5) 257.2 7 0.0 12.9 Total Required: 492 16 3 25 VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER Proposed Facilities Parking Provided Provided H.C. Loading Bicycle Parking Spaces Bays Parking a:run to South surface 46 Parking} (��� North Surface Lot 78 4 1 14 NW Surface lot 68 0 10 Shelter Parking 305 11 2 4 South surface parking 46 2 2 Total Provided: 497 17 3 30 Parking Tabulation I ©Arquitectonica International City of Miami Department of Real Estate 8 Asset Management Request for Proposals (REP) No.12.14-077 Page 24 VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - PHASED CAPITAL OUTLAY Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1 PROFESSIONAL FEES WET SLIPS MARINA MARINA -WET MARINA -LIFTS MARINA TOTAL BASIN BASIN -WET DRY RACK PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL $ 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 200,000 $ 3,000,000 BUILDING PH 1 W/DOCKMSTR $ 18,000,000 BUILDING PHASE 2 BUILDING PHASE 3 STAGING DOCK - PH1 STAGING DOCK - PH2 STAGING DOCK - PH3 DRY RACK TOTAL $ 700,000.00 $ 9,500,000 $ 250,000.00 $ 8,500,000 $ 2,350,000 $ 10,850,000 $ 8,250,000 $ 18,000,000 $ 9,500,000 $ 16,500,000 $ 16,500,000 $ 450,000 $ 700,000 $ 250,000 $ 450,000 45,400,000 DRY RACK FUEL - GAS $ 500,000 - - - $ 500,000 EXISTING FUEL DOCK - GAS & DSL $ 250,000 - - - $ 250,000 COMMERCIAL TENANTS - 1 $ 4,000,000 4,000,000 COMMERCIAL TENANTS 12 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 COMMERCIAL TENANTS - 3 $ 4,200,000 $ 4,200,000 11,200,000 RESTAURANT -CASUAL $ 5,000,000 - - - $ 5,000,000 RESTAURANT -TABLE CLOTH $ 2,000,000 - - - $ 2,000,000. 7,000,000 PARKING - ENTRY SURFACE PARKING - DRY1 PARKING - DRY2 PARKING - DRY3 PARKING - EAST SURFACE $ 1,750,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - WEST LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST $ 500,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 10,300,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 900,000 VIRGINIA KEY 1/26/2016 9:07 PM $ 39,250,000 $ 24,150,000 $25,800,000 $ 9,650,000 $ 98,850,000 I RCI PROPOSAL EXCERPT V. OPERATING PLAN Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk RCI will continuously review the operating and development plan of the Project in response to comments from the City and market conditions. RCI will immediately begin to upgrade the facility and begin marketing efforts about the rebranding of the Property. RCI and its team will continue to operate existing facilities in a first-class manner. Operations will be maintained in a manner that will lessen impact on the consumer experience, so as to minimize the negative effects of the change of management, while continuously providing upgrades to services and the facilities. Fueling will remain open throughout the entire construction process. RCI will initiate permitting applications in various stages so as to preserve as much of the revenue -generating business as possible. RCI's plan during permitting would be to take over the complete facility at Rickenbacker as well as the City dry stack immediately after selection. To maximize efficiencies, RCI will operate all facilities during the permitting and zoning process. Some key components for creating a better experience for the customers would be to align the outside dry racks so they all launch from the northern launch site currently utilized solely by the City. Abandoning the need for forklifts to cross the entrance road will allow patrons of the marina and Rusty Pelican to move more freely and help to raise the facility's standards to that of a high -end experience. The wet slips will be maintained in operation during the permitting process to ensure that the rent to the City is maximized from the beginning of the Lease. RCI would make the facility more attractive to its customers by cleaning the docks, removing clutter, and upgrading the service level of the piers. Improvements will include upgrading the power pedestals as well as hangars for the hoses and power cords to clean the piers. As permitting and zoning hurdles are navigated, we will move each Project phase forward. As each phase is designed, progresses, and is later fully absorbed, we will immediately move to the next phase with precision, RCI has completed many large-scale projects while keeping the existing operations open for business and phasing in new components of the projects. Logistics of parking and outside dry stack realignment will have to be continuously VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER adjusted during each phase. RCI is uniquely qualified to handle a project of this magnitude with so many components and changing phases. We have built a premier team to handle every aspect of the development and have a proven track record of success. MANAGEMENT RCI will appoint a general manager who will be placed at the Property and oversee the Project. This general manager will hire all necessary staff to maintain a smooth transition and uninterrupted operation of the dry stack and marinas. Also, RCI will have a restaurant management team in place to oversee the transition of the existing restaurant. RCI has owned and managed several very successful restaurants in Miami as well as Miami Beach. We have a team that can immediately step into Whiskey Joe's and operate the facility. RCI's restaurant management ability differentiates itself from the rest because of our vast and highly successful experiences. Taking over Whiskey Joe's immediately so as to not significantly diminish its revenue -generating capacity will be a huge benefit to the City. RCI has vast experience in operating and enhancing the retail experience at marine facilities. We plan to keep and add more shops, office, and retail to add to the overall experience of customers and visitors to the site. GREEN INITIATIVES The following green initiatives will be instituted upon RCI's assumption of management responsibilities: • Installation of solar powered and low wattage light sources to address the harbor's access and security needs. • Installation of solar powered, wireless security cameras at every pier and harbor entrance. • Electric car charging station installation throughout parking lots. • Trash dumpsters will be replaced with trash compactors. • In -slip sanitary pump out systems will be installed at every in water slip for customer convenience and environmental protection. City of Miami Department of Real Estate 8, Asset Management Request for Proposals (RFP) No.12-14-077 Poge 11 • Trash will be recycled by material type. • Security guards will ride/patrol their respective properties on foot or bicycle, not golf cart or auto. STAFF TRAINING In order to prepare for operations, RCI will institute rigorous training objectives to ensure that staff is well prepared to provide the highest and best quality of service to all customers and visitors. Staff training will be implemented and consist of the following: • All employees will sign an affidavit certifying they have read and understand all aspects covered in the Employee Manual. • The Onsite Manager or Shift Supervisor will instruct and train each employee pursuant to a "Dockhand Training Checklist" which will become a permanent part of their file and will be regularly reviewed for completeness. • The Manager will update with the Coast Guard all marina procedures, operations, and conditions relative to the facility's security readiness and post in a totally visual location the current "Mar Sec" readiness rating. • The Manager and the Shift Supervisors will meet with the local fire department officials, so that both entities and operations personnel understand what is expected of the other and the procedures to follow in the case of a fire occurrence. • All Fuel dock personnel will receive personal and video training on environmental protection protocols relative to fuel (oil) spill control from the "Designated First Responder" and the insurance carrier that provides insurance for environmental issues. • The International Marina Institute publishes a Marina Operators Training guide which provides the essentials (by subject matter) necessary for the operation of a proper, first class marina operation. This guide details by category, the subject matter covered during the onsite training of a new staff member as well as the refresher training of existing staffers and will be used by RCI. VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER CUSTOMER SERVICE The following customer service guidelines will be followed in the operations of the Project: • Every vessel that arrives at the marina (harbor) will receive a "Welcome" package which is intended to assist and familiarize the new arrival with the surrounding area. • Customer satisfaction referral cards will be provided to each vessel. The owner will be requested to complete and rate the vessel's experience during its stay at the facility. These cards will be preaddressed, so that this rating process can occur any time during or after the vessel's stay. • Emails will be sent regularly to our customer base, so that every customer is apprised of upcoming marina events and activities as well cis those occurring in Greater Miami. • Good communication coupled with customer respect and first-class service is the best formula that ensures customer satisfaction and reinforces any business relationship. When possible, office personnel will regularly review and receive training through hospitality training CDs. This training will be further reinforced by offering, receiving, and responding to customers' suggestions or comments made through comment cards, emails and/or by telephone (all summarized and logged in at the main office of each facility); all of which will be reviewed, commented on by each harbor master, and forwarded to the Manager's office. Management oversight and direction will be performed by the existing RCI Group staff which will be expanded to include additional staff as required for Virginia Key Harbour & Marine Center. Therefore, existing skilled supervisors will be used to enhance normal operating staff levels, as needed. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk City of Miami Department of Real Estate & Asset Management Request for Proposals (REP) No.12-14.077 Page 12 RCI PROPOSAL LEASE MARKUP Attachment 9 — Form Lease Agreement This form lease mayshall be amended to reflect the requirements set forth within Virginia Key Marina RFP 12-14-077 and the Proposal submitted by the Lessee/ respondent, as finally negotiated by the parties. LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND FOR THE LEASE OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT VIRGINIA KEY 3301, 3605, 3501, 3311, & 3511 RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY MIAMI, FL 33149 NOTE: TQthe extent any of Lessee's requ_stes4 c anges to tk Lease woul e_em the ILA g_ -responsive to the_RFP, Lessee automatically_withdraws_such requestedchange so_that the_ Lessee would beernsiye_ MIAMI 1882559.14882559.4 74183/46889 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT, ATTACHMENT 4 IX. DEFAULTS ON CITY CONTRACTS: Please state whether: Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk A. The Proposer or any principals comprising the Proposer was ever in arrears to the City for any debt or obligation within the past ten (10) years; ❑ Yes IN No* B. The Proposer or any principals comprising the Proposer have had uncured defaults or have failed to perform under the terms of any agreement or contract with the City within the past ten (10) years; ❑ Yes ® No C. The Proposer or any principals are in default under any agreement or contract with the City on the date and time the proposal is due; ❑ Yes El No D. The Proposer or any principals have caused fines to be levied against the City within the past ten (10) years; O Yes ® No E. The Proposer or any principals have initiated any current, pending or past litigation against the City within the past five (5) years; O Yes ® No F. The Proposer or any principals have any litigation or a legal dispute involving a real estate venture within the past ten (10) years; O Yes II No G. The Proposer or any principals have current, pending or past bankruptcies or foreclosures within the past seven (7) years on projects the Proposer or the Proposer's principals have owned or controlled; O Yes ® No H. The Proposer or any principals have caused any city -owned land or improvements to incur environmental damage, environmental contamination liability or any other liabilities. ❑ Yes ® No Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Proposer or principals of the Proposer who disputes the City's claim or demand for any debt or obligation, may, during the pendency of the dispute, deposit the amounts the City claims are due in an escrow account, subject to an escrow agreement negotiated with the City prior to responding to this RFP and seek a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. Any such escrowing of funds shall allow a Proposer to qualify to respond to this RFP `An after -the -fact audit concerning one of the Proposer's projects with the City raised issues that were ultimately settled by the parties, so there are no existing outstanding issues. MI INN INN INN 11•11 NMI nil MI MN IMO SIN INN MI Mil NIB INN NM RCI " -ROPOSAL EXCERPT 1. Boats arrive to 1 of 6 slips. 2. Automated systems center and lift boats to ground level for passengers to disembark. 3. A boat tug mounted on rails lifts the boat from and transports it inside. VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR de MARINE CENTER 4. Boats pass through a wash on the way into the building. 5. Tug moves the boat onto the transporter -elevator which simultaneously moves the boat laterally and vertically to its appointed storage position. 6. Tug deposits the boat in its slip and returns to the transporter -elevator. 7. Boats are reshuffled to access thows that are stowed behind other boats. • Boats up to 60ft. and 175,000 pounds (or more) can be stored on any level • Boats can be stored 3 to 5 deep if required • Total Security • High throughput of boats • Reduced Insurance Premiums • Quiet and Green Electrical Operation • Redundancy in motor/drives assures 99.9% operation and simple maintenance • Automation equipment designed and backed by Rockwell Automation (a $6.7 Billion/year 101 year old Company) • Hurricane rated building • Higher Service Level for customers Aero-Dock boat storage system I ©Arquitectonica International City of Miami Department of Real Estate & Asset Management Request for Proposals (REP) No.12.14-077 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Page 13 Rockwell Automation Rockwell Automation 5820 West Cypress St, Suite E Tampa, Florida 33607 Phone 813.289.5320 Fax 813.289.4716 May 23, 2016 Re: Support of Aero-Docks Automated Boat Retrieval System for Virginia Key Project, Virginia Key LLC/RCI Marine. To: City of Miami City Manager, Mayor and City Commissioners, Miami, Florida USA I'd like to briefly introduce my company to you, as you consider Aero-Docks' Automated Boat Storage System for the Virginia Key Marina project. Rockwell Automation is a $ 6 Billion US company with global operations and sales in 80 countries. We are an over 110 year old company that is the leading supplier of industrial automation control, information solutions and industrial automation services. As a point of reference for our experience in this area, in 1904, Allen-Bradley Co. shipped one of the first commercially manufactured crane controllers for exhibition at the St. Louis World's Fair. Rockwell Automation has a wide portfolio of successful systems installation for both crane controls and automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS). Rockwell Automation control systems are installed in tens of thousands of applications around the world - see specific sample of companies listed below. • The Ford Motor Company, US Navy -Aircraft Carrier Fleet, Titan Cement, General Motors, Georgia-Pacific, Universal Studios (Harry Potter Ride), Disney World-Epcot, Miami -Dade Water and Sewer and South Florida Water Management District. These companies have used Rockwell products from 15 to 70 years successfully. • Aero-Docks Worldwide's application of Rockwell Automation technology is based on sound engineering. Aero- Docks has applied the technology and engineering principles to adapt a heavy lift system to adapt to different boat bottom shapes which they have patents for. • The Technology Aero-Docks is applying to the Automated Boat Storage System is well -tried and proven in the 1,000's of warehouses and heavy lift industries. Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley will supply the automation controls hardware, operator interface stations, software, and motor controllers and actuators for the Aero-Docks' Automated Boat Storage System. A support contract that provides remote phone support with system surveillance, on -site engineering support and spare parts that will help maintain the system operating at maximum effectiveness is also proposed for Aero-Docks projects. Rockwell Automation has agreed to be the single point of contact for warranty and service work. We will deliver our services through a combination of local resources and use of our Remote Technical Support call center. Our world -class call center offers 24 hour x 7 day support for our customers. Any necessary on -site work will be dispatched through Remote Technical Support team. This support contract is renewable and designed to adapt through the lifecycle of a system. Rockwell is committed to support the successful start-up and continuing service for the automation system designed for Aero-Docks. This support extends well beyond the initial warranty period for the system. Rockwell Automation is proud to offer support on systems and hardware that have been in operation for decades. We believe that Aero-Docks choice of Rockwell Automation gives our customers the following advantages: • Faster time to market - through the speed, responsiveness and flexibility of our automation solutions • Lower total cost of ownership - through scalable, energy -efficient and open automation control and information systems • Better asset management/optimization - through diagnostics, failure analysis and storage management Sincerely, Lp‹, Ruly Lopez Area Manager, Customer Support and Maintenance Rockwell Automation — Tampa Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT 1 (11) Proposer's Organizational Chart: The Proposer must provide an organizational chart and detailed information about the Proposer, related entities, and members of its operations and management team who will manage and operate the marina, restaurant and other business facilities ("Project Team") and the Proposer's team of architects, engineers and/or general contractors ("Development Team") who shall renovate or redevelop the Property. The organizational chart shall graphically depict the Proposer's relationship with any parent organization(s) and/or affiliate organizations or entities, if any, as well as the respective operations, management and construction roles (e.g. architect, engineer, general contractor) played by each team member or entity comprising the Project Team or Development Team. Proposers that include as part of their team foreign nationals or foreign entities must fully comply with all of the requirements of the Patriot Act. Those Proposers who do not comply shall be automatically disqualified from further consideration in this RFP process. (12) Threshold Qualification Standards: Each Proposer shall meet the following five (5) minimum requirements: (a) (b) Either a member of the Project Team or staff must have a minimum of ten (10) years' experience with a marina of similar size and complexity; a minimum of ten (10) years active experience and responsibility for daily operations of the restaurant, as well as a minimum of five (5) years' experience for each additional business use proposed to be operated by the successful Proposer. Either a member of the Project Team and the Proposer (the latter as applicable) or its staff must have played a leading role with principal responsibility for the design of a project(s) of similar size, complexity and constraints as the facilities and uses proposed. (c) Any of the principals or Project Team members must have successfully developed and obtained financing for at least one project of similar size, complexity with similar uses and constraints. For the purpose of this RFP "Project Team" is defined as the group of persons managing and operating the marina and restaurant facility, including the principal(s) submitting the proposal and with whom the City would enter into a Lease for the Property, if awarded. The Project Team or any of its principals must have secured or provided, at minimum, twenty million dollars $20 million or more in financing for at least one (1) single project. (d) The Minimum Level of Investment associated with the improvements (buildings, facilities, Parking facility, docks and equipment) shall be twenty five million dollars ($25,000,000), which 33 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 'RCI PROPOSAL EXCERPT ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS 1 For each member of your Project Team, please list the name and role of the individual (for example, Principal/CEO, Operations Manager, Restaurant Manager, Retail Manager, Marina Manager, Architect, General Contractor, etc.), License No. (if applicable), number of years of experience in their respective field and the LEED Certification Status of the individual (as applicable). (Attach additional sheets if necessary). Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects By Project Name & by Location Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Cost :-.1.- h -:� LRCI GROUP,:," 1. Miami Beach Marina Marina/Retail/ 5 Years $15 million Location Miami Beach, FL Restaurant. Marina/Hotel/ 8 Years $400 million 2. Bahia Mar - Hotel + Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Retail/Restaurant Marina/Residential/ 10 Years $1.1 billion 3. Bridgeport Landing Dev. RCI Location Bridgeport, CT Retail/Restaurant Marina/Drystack/ 2 Years $15 million Developer and Project Lead 4. Marker One Marina Location Dunedin, FL Retail Marina/Drystack/ 2 Years $14 million 5. Little Harbor Marina Location Ruskin, FL Retail/Restaurant Texas de Brazil 1. Miami Beach Marina Marina/Restaurant/ 2 Years $7 million ji.i.-1 'MC r GROUP Location Miami Beach, FL Retail Marina/Restaurant/ 1.5 Years $15 million 2.Bayshore Landing (Monty's,' Location Coconut Grove, FL Retail Marina/Restaurant/ 1 Year $4 million 3, Conch Harbor (Dante's) RCI Restaurant Manager Location Key West, FL Retail Retail/Restaurant 1 Year $6 million Bridgeport Landing 4.(Uncle Buck's Fish Bowl) Location Bridgeport, CT Retail/Restaurant 1 Year $3.5 million Miami Beach Marina 5.(Monty's) Location Miami Beach, FL Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects by Project Name & by Location Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Cost ��--T AI '\ nC! GROUP RCI 1 Miami Beach Marina Marina/Retail/Restaurant 5 Years $15 million Location Miami Beach, FL Marina/Hotel/Restaurant/ 8 Years $400 million 2 Bahia Mar Hotel + Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Retail Marina/Hotel 4 Years $10 million 3 Boston Yacht Haven Operations Manager Location Boston, MA Marina/Drystack/Retail 2 Years $15 million 4. Marker One Marina Location Dunedin, FL Marina/Drystack/Retail? 2 Years $14 million 5. Little Harbor Marina Location Ruskin, FL Restaurant O 1.Miami Beach Marina 60,000 sqft. Retail 5 Years $15 million Location Miami Beach, FL Approx. 40,000 sqft. 8 Years $400 million 2,Bahia Mar Hotel + Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Retail + Restaurant Approx. 150,000 sqft. 10 Years $1 billion 3 Bridgeport Landing Dev. RCI Retail Manager Location Bridgeport, CT Retail + Restaurant Approx. 42,000 sqft. 4 Years $13 million 4 Bayshore Landing Location Coconut Grove, FL Retail + Restaurant 5. Location .{ ' 1. Miami Beach Marina Marina/Retail/Restaurant 5 Years $15 million Location Miami Beach, FL Marina/Retail/Office/ 8 Years $400 million ris NMI 1 }GROUP_ 2. Bahia Mar Hotel + Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Restaurant Marina/Hotel 4 Years $10 million 3. Boston Yacht Haven RCI Marina Manager Location Boston, MA Marina/Drystack/Retail 2 Years $15 million 4 Marker One Marina Location Dunedin, FL Marina/Drystack/ 2 Years $14 million 5. Little Harbor Marina Location Ruskin, FL Restaurant Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.i on 22 2016, City Clerk 1 1 ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS For each member of your Project Team, please list the name and role of the individual (for example, PrincipaUCEO, Operations Manager, Restaurant Manager, Retail Manager, Marina Manager, Architect, General Contractor, etc.), License No. (if applicable), number of years of experience in their respective field and the LEED Certification Status of the individual (as applicable). (Attach additional sheets if necessary). Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects By Project Name & by Location Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Cost AROUITECTON/CA The Harbour Coconut Grove 1. Waterfront Redevelopment Marina/Boat Storage, Retail 2017 Phase I $17.9 million Location Miami, FL Marina/Boat Storage, Residential,Retail,Office 2017 Phase I Confidential Rybovich Waterfront Village 2. Mixed Use Development Location West Palm Beach, FL Marina/Boat Storage, Residential, Hotel, Retail, Office 2010 Master Plan $450 million Jacksonville Shipyards 3. Waterfront Redevelopment Location Jacksonville, FL Residential,Retail, Transportation 2017 Phase I 2018 Phase II $225 million Architect Waterfront Toronto 4.Aqualina, Aquavista Location Toronto, Canada Marina/Boat Storage, Residential, Hotel, Retail. Office 2010 Master Plan $12.7 million Lulu Island Waterfront 5. Development Location Abu Dhabi, UAE AROUITECTONICA The Harbour Coconut Grove 1. Waterfront Redevelopment Marina/Boat Storage, Retail 2017 Phase I $17.9 million Location Miami, FL Marina/Boat Storage, Residential,Retail,Office 2017 Phase I Confidential Rybovich Waterfront Village 2. Mixed Use Development Location West Palm Beach, FL Museum, Office, Public Space 2013, 2016 $220 million $275 million Perez Art Museum Miami & 3. Frost Science Museum Landscape Architect Location Miami, FL Waterfront Public Space TBD Phase I TBD 4. Biscayne Line Baywalk Location Miami, FL Infrastructure/ ransportation, Tunnel entrance & Signage 2014 $663 million (entire tunnel project) 5 Port Tunnel Location Miami, FL Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS For each member of your Project Team, please list the name and role of the individual (for example, Principal/CEO, Operations Manager, Restaurant Manager, Retail Manager, Marina Manager, Architect, General Contractor, etc.), License No. (if applicable), number of years of experience in their respective field and the LEED Certification Status of the individual (as applicable). (Attach additional sheets if necessary). Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects By Project Name & by Location Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Cost e .z .-z 4. .7 , 1. Vitra Residential 2013 - in progress Approx. $50 million Location Santa Catarina, Brazil Residential 2013 - 2014 Approx. $150 million 2 Yachthouse Location Santa Catarina, Brazil Residential 2013 - in progress Approx. $40 million 3 Cyrela 7 Pininfarina Location Sao Paulo, Brazil Historical Requal./ 2013 - in progress N/A Conception Design 4. Lagrange 12 Location Turin, Italy Interiors/Residential Global Architecture, 2014 - 2015 N/A 5 Private Villa Location Ukraine Interiors, Landscaping :1.iz i, 0 %.z 1 Millecento Residences Residential 2015 Approx. $80 million Location Miami, FL Airport TBD N/A 2. Istanbul New Airport Location Istanbul Marina/Boat Storage 2012 - in progress N/A Pininfarina (cont.) 3. Tifon Conception Design Location Rosario, Argentina Marina/Boat Storage 2014 - in progress N/A 4. Tifon Location Buenos Aires, Argentina Retail/Restaurants Interiors Design 2011 Approx. $150 million 5 Juventus Stadium Location Turin, Italy Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS For each member of your Project Team, please list the name and role of the individual (for example, Principal/CEO, Operations Manager, Restaurant Manager, Retail Manager, Marina Manager, Architect, General Contractor, etc.), License No. (if applicable), number of years of experience in their respective field and the LEED Certification Status of the individual (as applicable). (Attach additional sheets if necessary). Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects By Project Name & by Location Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Cost li/h4 moffatt & nichol Moffatt & Nichol 1. Bluepoints Marina Drystack Marina 5 years $18M Location Port Canaveral, FL Drystack Marina 5 years $22M 2. Haulover Marine Center Location Miami -Dade Co, FL Mega -Yacht Marina 13 years $28M 3. Flagstone Island Gardens Location Miami, FL Timothy K. Blankenship Project Engineer 4. Marina Palms Marina 3 years $4.5M Location N Miami Beach, FL Redevelopment Drystack Marina 2 years $1M 5. Marine Stadium Marina and Bulkhead Location Miami, FL li/h4 moffatt & n i c h o l Moffatt & Nichol 1. Rybovich Marina Marina ReriPvalnpmant 5 years $20M Location W. Palm Beach, FL Drystack Marina 5 years $18M 2. Bluepoints Marina Location Port Canaveral, FL 3. Flagstone Island Gardens Mega -Yacht Marina 13 years $28M Christy J. Brush Environmental Permitting Project Manager Location Miami, FL 4. Marina Palms Marina Redevelopment 3 years $4.5M Location N Miami Beach, FL 5. Marine Stadium Marina Drystack Marina 2 years $1M and Bulkhead Location Miami, FL Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1 1 1 i 1 ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS For each member of your Project Team, please list the name and role of the individual (for example, Principal/CEO, Operations Manager, Restaurant Manager, Retail Manager, Marina Manager, Architect, General Contractor, etc.), License No. (if applicable), number of years of experience in their respective field and the LEED Certification Status of the individual (as applicable). (Attach additional sheets if necessary). Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects By Project Name & by Location Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Cost ) I 11111111111 G H D Alex Chatham, PE Z.Siegel Gas Petroleum assessment and remediation 3 years $350K Location Miami, FL Petroleum assessment and remediation 2 years $40K 2.Riviera Beach Marina Location Riviera Beach, FL Arsenic and PAH assessment 2 years $30K 3,Sky Chefs Location Miami, FL Arsenic and chlorinated pesticides assessment remediation 2 years $150K Project Manager 4.Triple H Ranch Location Parkland, FL Arsenic and chlorinated pesticides assessment and remediation 2.5 years $200K Former Deerfield Beach 5.Golf Course Location Deerfield Beach, FL 1111111111 i ' I IIIIIIIIIII GHD Michael Fisher, PG 1.Garrison Bight Marina Failed petroleum AST remediation 5 years $350K Location Key West, FL Marina development Environmental Permitting (ERP) 1.5 years $8K Safe Harbor 2.Commercial Marina Location Key West, FL Commercial plaza development impacted soil management g 2.5 years $80K Fountainbleau Lakes GC 3,Commercial Redevelopment p Senior Geologist Location Miami -Dade County, FL Municipal sewage station petroleum and hazardous waste remediation 6 years $220K 4.A-39 Pump Station Location Palm Beach, FL Remediation of multiple releases at bulk storage terminals 4 years $400K NuStar Bulk Terminals 5.JAXPORT Location Jacksonville, FL Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects by Project Name & by Location Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Cost - - t %. I GHD Brian Moore, PE FDEP Hazardous Waste 1.Program Assessment and remediation of dry cleaning and hazardous waste facilities Ongoing contract since 1997 $10M+ Location Florida Operations and maintenance of air sparge/SVE system ongoing contract since 2011 $60K+ Former Atherton Oil 2. (Brownfields) Location Pinellas County, FL Assessment and remediation 6 years $250K 3 BMS Fort Lauderdale LLC Technical Advisor Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Industrial Wastewater permitting Ongoing contract since 2015 $100K+ Gulf Coast Bulk Equipment 4.at Port Redwing Location Gibsonton, FL Comprehensive assessment / actions Ongoing contract since 2004 $1.5M+ Countryside Golf Course 5.Countryside Location Clearwater, FL MORIARTY 1.. Port Boathouse Boat Dry Storage 1 Year $10.3 million Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Condo with Seawall & Baywalk 2 Years $73 million 2. Icon South Beach Moriarty Location Miami Beach, FL Condo with Seawall & Baywalk 2 Years $78 million 3 Murano Grande John Leete General Contractor Location Miami Beach, FL Condo with Seawall & Baywalk 2 Years $70 million 4. Murano Portfolio Location Miami Beach, FL 58 story condo with large 3 Years $300 million 5 Icon Brickell Location Miami, FL bayfront walkways & seawalls RO Patent Holder 1.Aero-Docks System Patent Engineering & Application 5 Years $1.4 million '' +C '' A7- NE' �,::3 c._- _o.:khc7 soaLtwn;9 Aero-Docks Worldwide, LLC (Joint Venture of Aero-Docks & Technomarine Group) Location Patent # 8596946 9 Construction 14 Months $4.3 million 2. Industrial Manufacturing Bldg.Design/Build Location Akron, OH (Thermo -Rita) Crane Buildings g 11 Months $2.7 million Industrial Machine FacilityDesign/Build 3. Richard C. Lydle Technical Consultants/ Vendors Location Akron, OH Warehouse Mfg. Buildings 14 Months $2.85 million 4. Addition 1 Industrial Mfg. Location Akron, OH Design/Build Warehouse 11 Months $1.84 million 5 Addition 2 Industrial Mfg. Location Akron, OH Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1 1 ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS For each member of your Project Team, please list the name and role of the individual (for example, Principal/CEO, Operations Manager, Restaurant Manager, Retail Manager, Marina Manager, Architect, General Contractor, etc.), License No. (if applicable), number of years of experience in their respective field and the LEED Certification Status of the individual (as applicable). (Attach additional sheets if necessary). Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects By Project Name & by Location Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Cost C� Bilzin Sumberg Bilzin Sumberg 1, Miami Beach Marina/Monty's Marina/Retail/Rest. 5 years $15 million Location Miami Beach, FT, Marina/Hotel/ 8 years $400 million 2. Bahia Mar -Hotel & Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Retail/Restaurant Marina/Residential 10 years $1.1 billion 3, Bridgeport Landing Dev. Location Bridgeport, CT Retail/Restaurant Vlarina/Restaurant/Retail 4 years $13 million Attorneys 4. Bayshore Landing/Monty's Location Coconut Grove, FL Marina/Restaurant/ 1 year $4 million 5. Conch Harbor (Dante's) Location Key West, FL Retail 1. Location 2. Location 3. Location 4. Location 5. Location Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT (11) Proposer's Organizational Chart: The Proposer must provide an organizational chart and detailed information about the Proposer, related entities, and members of its operations and management team who will manage and operate the marina, restaurant and other business facilities ("Project Team") and the Proposer's team of architects, engineers and/or general contractors ("Development Team") who shall renovate or redevelop the Property. The organizational chart shall graphically depict the Proposer's relationship with any parent organization(s) and/or affiliate organizations or entities, if any, as well as the respective operations, management and construction roles (e.g. architect, engineer, general contractor) played by each team member or entity comprising the Project Team or Development Team. Proposers that include as part of their team foreign nationals or foreign entities must fully comply with all of the requirements of the Patriot Act. Those Proposers who do not comply shall be automatically disqualified from further consideration in this RFP process. (12) Threshold Qualification Standards: Each Proposer shall meet the following five (5) minimum requirements: (a) Either a member of the Project Team or staff must have a minimum of ten (10) years' experience with a marina of similar size and complexity; a minimum of ten (10) years active experience and responsibility for daily operations of the restaurant, as well as a minimum of five (5) years' experience for each additional business use proposed to be operated by the successful Proposer. (b) Either a member of the Project Team and the Proposer (the latter as applicable) or its staff must have played a leading role with principal responsibility for the design of a project(s) of similar size, complexity and constraints as the facilities and uses proposed. (c) Any of the principals or Project Team members must have successfully developed and obtained financing for at least one project of similar size, complexity with similar uses and constraints. For the purpose of this RFP "Project Team" is defined as the group of persons managing and operating the marina and restaurant facility, including the principal(s) submitting the proposal and with whom the City would enter into a Lease for the Property, if awarded. The Project Team or any of its principals must have secured or provided, at minimum, twenty million dollars $20 million or more in financing for at least one (1) single project. (d) The Minimum Level of Investment associated with the improvements (buildings, facilities, Parking facility, docks and equipment) shall be twenty five million dollars ($25,000,000), which 33 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk !RCI PROPOSAL EXCERPT Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Xl. FINANCIAL CAPACITY RCI's financial capabilities are extraordinary, vast, relevant, and proven. The strength of the financial references of RCI's principals is a testament to the success of the complex redevelopment projects handled by its team members. Robert W. Christoph, has been actively engaged in the development, ownership and operations of mixed -use marine properties in Michigan, Indiana and Florida and in the development, ownership and operations of multi -family residential and commercial properties in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, and Florida. His real estate activities and syndications have raised hundreds of millions of dollars through debt and equity sources. In the past three years, the principals of RCI have received complex financial commitments from major financial institutions. This demonstrates that the principals have the financial soundness, financial capability, and the background to fund the Project The Proposer's principals and Project Team members have successfully developed and obtained financing for multiple projects of a similar size, complexity, and with similar uses and constraints as what is being proposed for this RFP. Reference letters from financial institutions are attached. The Christophs have secured or provided, at minimum, $20 million or more in financing for more than one single project. Examples of the principals' financing history over the past three years include: VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR &° MARINE CENTER • Bayshore Landing Marina, Coconut Grove, FL - $14.5 million from Capital Bank This project consists of marina and approximately 42,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and retail uses. The total cost of the project is $13 million. • The Boston Yacht Haven, Boston, MA - $10 million from City National Bank This project consists of marina and hotel uses. The total cost of the project is $10 million. • Bridgeport Landing Development, Bridgeport, CT - $24 million from Florida Community Bank This project consists of marina, residential, and approximately 153,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and retail uses. The total cost of the project is $1.1 billion. • Miami Beach Marina, Miami Beach, FL - $50 million from Great American Insurance This project consists of marina, restaurant, and approximately 60,000 sq. ft. of retail uses. The total cost of the project is $15 million. • Bahia Mar, Fort Lauderdale, FL - $125 million from JP Morgan This project consists of marina, office, and approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and retail uses. The total cost of the project is $400 million. City of Miami Department of Real Estate & Asset Management Request for Proposals (RFP) No.12-14-077 Page 36 J.P. Morgan January 25, 2016 c/o Robert Christoph, Jr. RCI Marine 300 Alton Road, Suite 303 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Re: Reference - City of Miami Dear Sir/Madam: JP Morgan Chase established a credit relationship with RCI Marine ("RCI") in 2014 and we are seeking to expand the relationship with RCI going forward. JP Morgan Chase continues to pursue financing opportunities with RCI for waterfront development sites located in Miami and along the east coast of the United States. The relationship with RCI remains strong today and is in good standing. If you should have any questions regarding the foregoing please call me at 407-236-5408. Sincerely, Matthew Juall Executive Director Matthew.K.Juall@jpmorgan.com Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 450 5. Orange Avenue, FL 10 Orlando, FL 32801 407-236-5408 (T) 407-279-3288 (F) 4 City National Bank P.O. Box 025620, Miami, FL 33102-5620 January 25, 2016 City of Miami Re: RCI Marine Inc City National Bank is pleased to inform that RCI has been a longstanding client of the bank. RCI has shown us the project located on Virginia Key and we look forward to help RCI finance the project. During the last 10 years, RCI has bor- rowed tens of millions of dollars and remains a valued customer today. City National Bank is excited for the opportunity and if there are any questions, please contact me at 305-577-7388 or 305-607-7175 Your favorable consideration will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, John Costa Senior Vice President Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk IcitynationaLcom • FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK City of Miami Re: RCI Group Gentlemen: Florida Community Bank (FCB) has lent the RCI Group funds totaling the low eight figures the past two years to develop waterfront projects on the eastern seaboard. The partnership has included development funds needed to enable a new 150,000 sq. ft. Bass Pro Shops Outdoor World to open towards the end of last year along with construction funds to build a retail center consisting of a Starbucks, Chipotle and T-Mobile. Waterfront infrastructure is being funded by FCB where 1,650 linear feet of vertical bulkhead is being constructed along with a landscaped Baywalk. RCI Group continues to deliver developments that are public serving and offering the highest level of products and services. FCB looks forward to doing more business with RCI Group on their future projects. For any further information, please call. Sin er David Albright Senior Vice President Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Ste. 110 • west Palm Beach, FL 33401 • Tel (561)681-5563• Fax (561) 684-0885 There Was No Bias or Prejudice in the Scoring Process. 1. "To be legally sufficient, a protest argument must allege facts that, if shown to be true, would demonstrate an impropriety." L-3 Straits, B-404865, 2011 CPD ¶119 (Comp. Gen. Dec. June 8, 2011). Without proof that the Selection Committee's scoring was outside of the published criteria or animated by bias, Suntex's argument fails and the City is required to retain the Selection Committee's scores. Suntex does not even attempt to allege bias or prejudice and makes no reference to proof in the record that the Selection Committee's scores were improperly derived, arbitrary, or capricious. Instead, it simply states its opinion and belief that its proposal was the best. That is not sufficient proof upon which a protest can be sustained. 2. A selection committee member's scoring may only be challenged if prejudice or bias can be proven based upon the record of the Selection Committee meetings and deliberations. Juvenile Services Program, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 87-2800BID (DOAH Oct. 14, 1987). Caselaw and the City Code Do Not Permit or Require Re -Scoring. 3. Property Management Specialist for the RFP, Jacqueline Lorenzo clearly and sufficiently instructed the Selection Committee with regard to their duties and the evaluation criteria. Tifon never once complained about the RFP's evaluation criteria or the instructions and guidelines that were or were not given to the Selection Committee until it did not like the outcome. Tifon had ample opportunity to protest the RFP itself as permitted by the RFP; [RFP, Section XI, page 38, Protest of Solicitation.] It never did. As such, Tifon waived such a protest at this stage of the procurement process. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk 4. The RFP and the City Code prohibit challenges to the relative weight of evaluation criteria or the formula for assigning points. [RFP, Section XI, page 38; MIAMI, FLA., CODE §18-104(a)(2) (2002)]. Tifon cannot select whatever scoring procedures it decides best suit it regardless of whether the City establishes and publishes different procedures. Such an approach to government contracting would completely undermine all public procurements and diminish the City's ability to do business with private parties. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Cases to Support Legal Arguments in Response Arguments Raised in Tifon and Suntex Bid Protest Argument One: The divergent or aberrant scores of one Evaluation Committee member evidences clear mistakes in evaluating the proposals that warrants rejection of the scores. Optimum Technology, Inc. v. Dep't of Health, Case No. 11-0257BID (DOAH March 8, 2011) "Second, even without regard to this error, Petitioner's scoring argument is difficult to follow due to the fact that it needs more points than are available in its challenge of Ms. Poston's scoring of Items 15-19. To achieve this result, Petitioner's scoring challenge apparently relies on a cascading effect --if one or more items in an evaluator's score must be discarded, then all of her scores must be discarded --but cites little evidence and offers little argument in support of this ambitious claim." • Have to show why the divergent score is illogical, irrational, etc. in order to reject all scores. Need to meet the clearly erroneous standard. - "If the proof suggests that the evaluator lacked the ability or will to score portions of bids and some of his scores were thus truly illogical or irrational, it may prove necessary to toss out the rest of his scores." • "In this case, analysis of Ms. Poston's scoring of Items 15-19 has revealed only a single departure from the range of the reasonable --and then only by five points. This small anomaly in Ms. Poston's scoring does not call into question her other scores. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to prove that Ms. Poston's overall evaluation of the proposals violates the Clearly Erroneous Standard." • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/2011/11000257.pdf Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Inc. v. Dep't of Children and Family Services, Case No. 05-2800BID (DOAH Feb. 21, 2006), Must show that divergent scores are a result of "error, arbitrariness, capriciousness, or actions causing unfair competition." Cannot simply say that because a score seems divergent, all scores must be thrown out. • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/2005/05002800.PDF L-3 Straits, B-404865, June 8, 2011 FN 1: "L-3 also objected to the agency's evaluation of Perot's proposal under one factor, arguing that the proposal did not merit a perfect score for corporate experience/past performance because Perot lacked experience in implementing ITIL v.3 with a government customer. We dismiss this argument as legally insufficient. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(f) (2011). To be legally sufficient, a protest argument must allege facts that, if shown to be true, would demonstrate an impropriety. The facts alleged by the protester in support of its argument here, even if shown to be true, would not support a finding that the rating of Perot's proposal Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 2 under the experience/past performance factor was unreasonable because the solicitation did not require that an offeror have experience in implementing ITIL v.3 for government customers to receive the highest rating." • In order to make a protest argument, the protestor must be legally sufficient and allege facts that, if shown to be true, would demonstrate an impropriety. • http://www.gao.gov/products/A96838#mt=e-report Argument Two: An Evaluation Committee member used criteria not set forth in the RFP when scoring the proposals. Cases where it is acceptable for an evaluator to use information related to information in the RFP during evaluation: People, Technology and Processes, LLC, B-410898.7, March 3, 2016 As a general matter, when evaluating proposals, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by, or related to, the stated evaluation criteria. Open Sys. Science of Virginia, Inc., B-410572, B-410572.2, Jan. 14, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 37 at 11. • http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675753.pdf Open Sys. Science of Virginia, Inc., B-410572, B-410572.2, Jan. 14, 2015, 2015 CPD If 37 at 11 "Moreover, the record demonstrates that the ability to prioritize cyber security initiatives directly related to all three subfactors under the strategic methodology and corporate capability evaluation factor. For example, the third subfactor required vendors to demonstrate their "understanding of likely future trends observed in Cyber-Security and approaches or methodology to address those trends, including the ability to prioritize areas which show the most and least added value and why." RFQ at 8. Thus, we find that the agency acted reasonably and in a manner that was consistent with the RFQ's scope and evaluation criteria when it assessed a weakness in OSS's quote for failing to demonstrate its ability to prioritize cyber security initiatives for the agency. In evaluating quotes an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by, or related to, the stated evaluation criteria." • http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668078.pdf Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 3 Independence Constr., Inc., B-292052, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 105 at 4 "Where an agency's evaluation is challenged, we will consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. Preferred Sys. Solutions, B-291750, Feb. 24, 2003, 2003 CPD 56 at 2. In evaluating a proposal, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation criteria. North Am. Military Housing, LLC, B-291750, Mar. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD 69 at 5." "Independence specifically contends that it was improperly downgraded for failing to provide items not required by the RFP, such as documentation of project management, project timelines or flowcharts, organizational charts, key personnel resumes, quality control plan, safety plan, and the identity of subcontractors. However, offerors were specifically instructed by the RFP to provide a detailed technical proposal that contained sufficient information to reflect a thorough understanding of the requirements and a detailed, description of the techniques, procedures and program for achieving the objective of the specifications/statement of work. RFP at 82. Offerors were also specifically instructed to at a minimum provide information concerning the name and qualifications of key personnel and to address[] supervision and communication, crew size and experience, quality control plan, proposed schedule of operations, and safety. RFP at 84. Given these requirements, we think that the items noted as missing or deficient in Independence's proposal were reasonably encompassed under the four listed subfactors of the technical approach/organization structure factor..." • http://www.gao.gov/products/A06953#mt=e-report Preferred Sys. Solutions, B-291750, Feb. 24, 2003, 2003 CPD 56 at 2 This case, unlike the above cases, finds that when an evaluator used information not specifically set forth in the RFP (but related to information in the RFP) to increase the score of a proposer, the evaluators actions were justified. "PSS asserts that the agency improperly awarded Access's proposal credit for submitting a transition plan and resumes of incumbent personnel. In the protester's view, because neither of these items was required by the RFP, the agency's reliance on them constituted the application of significant unstated evaluation criteria." "In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, we will consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. CWIS, LLC, 6'287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD 119 at 2. In evaluating a proposal, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation criteria. North Am. Military Hous., LLC, B-289604, Mar. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD 69 at 5; TESCO, B-271756, June 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD 284 at 2." Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 4 "In finding that Access's proposal exceeded the RFP requirements, the evaluators noted that the proposal demonstrated a superior understanding of the RFP requirements and represented a substantially lower performance risk than expected. Technical Evaluation Report (TER) at 4. Specifically, the evaluators praised Access's recognition of the value of the incumbent employees and its significant effort in obtaining their resumes and letters of intent. Id. The evaluators concluded that Access's significant steps ... to ensure that qualified individuals will be readily available to perform ... provided added assurance of the successful performance of the solicitation's requirements and minimize[d] the risk of any problems during transition. Final TER at 5." "These aspects of Access's detailed management plan and their impact on minimizing transition risk were matters clearly encompassed by the management plan factor. This is a contract for personnel to provide various support services on an ID/IQ basis, and the degree to which an offeror demonstrated the availability of qualified personnel was directly related to its ability to quickly provide qualified, cleared personnel, as needed, and, correspondingly, to the risk attending implementation of its management plan. The agency therefore reasonably considered Access's transition plan and resumes in evaluating its proposal." • http://www.gao.gov/products/A06368#mt=e-report Cases where it is acceptable for an evaluator to use personal knowledge related to information in the RFP during evaluation: Matter of: Miami Dade County Community Service, Inc.; Solicitation: RFP 851 Date: December 31, 2013 • Members of a selection committee who have had experience with an incumbent provider, who is also an applicant, are not required to completely overlook or ignore these experiences. • Expressing concerns about having a certain type of vendor perform the work is very different from championing the cause of a specific vendor. Every selection committee member either has a personal preference or is inclined to think a certain way about the evaluation criteria. One of the reasons the members of selection committees are chosen is because of their knowledge and experience of the issue covered by the RFP. A member of the selection committee making clear that he prefers a single provider for an entire program and that he prefers that the provider to be a non-profit corporation does not constitute bias towards a particular vendor. Juvenile Services Program, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 87- 2800BID (DOAH Oct. 14, 1987). • Involves potential error by selection committee member and whether a decision to award was arbitrary and capricious Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 5 • Several procedural issues with how selection committee members' packets displayed bids and how one evaluator scored. No appearance of prejudice, though, because it prejudiced all proposals equally. Agency's action was not contrary to competition or arbitrary and capricious. • https://www.doah.state.fl. us/ROS/1987/87002800. PDF Argument Three: The City acted arbitrary and capriciously when it allowed Virginia Key, LLC (RCI) to clarify/supplement its proposal at the oral presentation. Florida Statute 120.57(3)(f) "In a competitive -procurement protest, other than a rejection of all bids, proposals, or replies, the administrative law judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to determine whether the agency's proposed action is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications. The standard of proof for such proceedings shall be whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious." • No submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered. Burden on the protesting party. 7925 West 2nd Corp. v. Dep't of Corrections, Case No. 99-3497BID (DOAH Feb. 29, 2000). "An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic, or despotic." Agrico Chemical Co. v. State, Dept. of Environmental Regulations, 365 So. 2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). • Evaluation Committee clarified/supplemented proposal on their own on site visit to determine parking requirement was not met • Judge had no problem with evaluation committee doing this. Result of finding that parking spaces were not allotted was rejection of the bid as nonresponsive. This was not arbitrary and capricious. • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1999/99003497.pdf Scheidt & Bachmann USA, Inc. v. Miami -Dade County and Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc.; Solicitation: RFP 8481-2-22 Hearing Examiner: Leonard Rivkind; Date: March 31, 2008 • County may negotiate terms with proposer where alternatives offered by proposer are comparable to what the County set forth in the RFP, are advantageous to the County and do not confer a competitive advantage to proposer. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum ' Page 6 System Development Corp. v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 82- 19668ID, Recommended Order (DOAH Sept. 24, 1982), Final Order (DOAH Oct. 1, 1982). ' "The RFP requires that an offerer establish a system for training DHRS employees as to operation of the FMIS. This requirement is set out at Paragraph 30.220 of the RFP. The EDS response basically offered to comply with the requirement. At the offerers' oral conference, ' DHRS asked for clarification from EDS as to its precise intentions regarding training of DHRS personnel. EDS at that time outlined the nature of its existing training program and indicates that ten slots in that program would be made available to DHRS employees. In evaluating the EDS proposal, members of the evaluation committee considered the specific offer made by EDS at the oral presentation. There is nothing improper about this sort of evaluation. The purpose of the oral conferences is to provide offerers with an opportunity to explain provisions of their ' proposals to DHRS. See: Paragraph 60.000 of the RFP. The offer to provide ten positions to DHRS employees in the EDS training program serves to clarify the EDS response in its proposal is not so inadequate as to render it unresponsive to the RFP, and it is proper that ' DHRS evaluated it based upon the clarification. Such an opportunity for clarification of proposals was given to all offerers." • Applying information learned from a clarification at a proposer's oral conference to an ' evaluation form is an acceptable practice. • However, in this case, the RFP expressly provided for clarifications at the oral ' presentation. • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1982/82001966.PDF ' AT and T Corp. v. Brevard County School Board, Case No. 14-1024BID (DOAH Oct. 1, 2014). "In this case, the Board announced its decision to change its award mid -protest. After learning that Bright House changed its presentation and pricing in response to the AT and T oral presentation, the Board determined that unfair advantage had resulted. The Board has not, however, addressed the fundamental issue related to the procurement process of this case: that the RFP cannot be read to allow submittals that would amend or supplement the proposals already opened. See § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. Although information clarifying a submittal or answering questions posed by staff may be permitted after the proposals were opened, an RFP cannot allow proposers to amend their proposals after they have been opened." ' • Clarifications after submission may be permitted after proposals were opened, but "an RFP cannot allow proposers to amend their proposals after they have been opened." ' • Vendors were not permitted to change the pricing schedules at the oral presentation. • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/2014/14001024.pdf Submitted into the public record for items) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 7 ' Argument Four (offshoot of other arguments, not in response to specific argument): Is there a concept of harmless error when supplementing a response if there is no tangible evidence that the Evaluation Committee member used the supplemented materials in his ' evaluation? Review "harmless error" as it relates to selection committee review of a proposal. Florida Statute 120.57(3)(f) - no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered. Burden on the protesting party. Financial Clearing House, Inc. v. Office of the Comptroller, Case No. 97-3150BID (DOAH Nov. ' 25, 1997). "The "harmless error" rule has been applied numerous times in administrative cases not dissimilar to the instant one. The analysis is first, whether a material error in procedure occurred ' and, if so, was there any unfairness or harm to the party challenging the error? Injured Workers Association of Florida v. Department of Labor and Unemployment Security, 630 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). An error is harmful where there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have been reached but for the error committed. Chrysler v. Department of ' Professional Regulation, 627 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)." • The case continues with more good quotes and information on harmless error ' • Case finds there was no harmless error in a 2-person panel because petitioner didn't allege anything that showed harmless error. • Case also discusses how proposers cannot supplementing their bid • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1997/97003150.PDF ' U.S. Foodservice, Inc. v. School Board of Hillsborough County, Case No. 98-3415BID (DOAH Nov. 17, 1998) ' "The 1996 statutory revisions categorically prohibit bid submissions after bid opening. Although this statutory provision is not expressly limited to material variances, it is unlikely that courts will apply it to minor irregularities, which are, by definition, immaterial and resemble a harmless ' error rule in bid law." • Case says that it will apply statute against "submissions after bid opening to submissions ' that constitute material variances" • Applies Fla. Stat. 120.57(3)(f) and uses harmless error standard for minor irregularities ' or immaterial additions • https://www.doah.state.fl. us/ROS/1998/98003415. PDF Submitted into the public ' record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 8 Juvenile Services Program, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 87- 2800BID (DOAH Oct. 14, 1987) "Petitioner has not shown that Intervenor is financially unable to perform under this contract, and that therefore any award to Intervenor would be unreasonable. Acceptance of Intervenor's proposal despite the technical defect of failure to attach the Civil Rights Certificate (Attachment IV) is harmless error at most since Intervenor would still have received an overall higher rating than Petitioner if the five points for this item had been deducted. However, it was also reasonable for Respondent to accept Intervenor's answer to question 6 on the Civil Rights Compliance Checklist as compliance with the requirement of a Civil Rights Assurance Certificate since said answer pointed out that the required Assurance was already on file with Respondent." • Bid protest was dismissed • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1987/87002800.PDF MIAMI 4966934.4 74183/46889 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Tifon Cites Wrong Case Law On March 17, 2016, Richard Perez sent a letter to the City of Miami on behalf of New Rickenbacker Marina, LLC, urging the City to disregard an "anomalous score" or to convene a new evaluation committee. In support of his argument, Mr. Perez cites the following cases: Hadi v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp., 927 So. 2d 34, 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) • Cited for proposition that: "Courts routinely overturn agency decisions that arise from arbitrary and capricious actions." (quote from Letter, not from case). • Quoted language from case: "An action is 'arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts,' and 'capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational.' Hadi has nothing to do with arbitrary or capricious scoring. This case involves a proposer that challenged two specifications listed in an RFP. The protest was brought against the government entity issuing the RFP. A proposer argued that the specifications in an RFP were arbitrary and capricious, but did not "allege any disputed material facts upon which its allegations are based, nor does it allege the specifications are so vague it cannot formulate a bid, or so unreasonable as to be impossible with which to comply." Moreover, the Court did not find that the subject specifications in the RFP were arbitrary and capricious. Centurylink Public Communications, Inc. v. Dep't of Corrections, ¶¶146, 149, Case No. 14-002828BID) (DOAH: Sept. 4, 2014; P.O. Oct. 6, 2014) • Cited for proposition that "when scores issued by a evaluation committee member are not rational, supported by logic, or clearly erroneous, the agency is required to reject such scores." (quote from Letter, not from case). The RFP in Centurylink included clear scoring instructions. The proposals were graded on a scale, ranking from "omitted" (0 points) to "exceptional" (5 points). The RFP associates a point value for each description for each particular scoring component. A score of 0 always meant that the vendor completely omitted any information from which a qualitative assessment could be made. The evaluators were trained on how to review the proposals in their entirety to properly evaluate and score them. The evaluators awarded a proposer 0 points for a certain requirement in the RFP. "A score of 0 is a factual finding by the Department that [the proposer's] 600-plus-page proposal had no information from which evaluators could qualitatively assess the proposal by that criterion" and "a score of 0 is not a qualitative assessment, like a score of 'poor' or 'exceptional."' However, the Administrative Judge found that the proposer had addressed the question throughout the proposal; it simply organized the answer in a different way than the other proposers. Thus, the response complied with the RFP requirements and could not rationally be deemed omitted: "The conclusion that [the proposer] entirely omitted a plan to address [the section of the RFP that was presumably omitted] is irrational and completely erroneous. Something was there. A score of omitted is not supported." Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk This case addresses the omission of a certain requirement and the associated point value. The same cannot be said for the opposite —that a perfect score necessarily means that a submission requirement was perfect. The case does not discuss this distinction but instead indicates that any score value given in an RFP evaluation is qualitative, so long as objectively the score reflects whether the proposer's response did, in fact, address the questions asked. Aurora Pump v. Gould Pumps, Inc., 424 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) • Cited for proposition that: "It is, in fact, axiomatic that evaluators may not look outside the RFP criteria when conducting their reviews of the submitted proposals." (quote from Letter, not from case). In Aurora, a losing bidder initiated a protest alleging that the ITB's bidding documents were not specific enough to assure fair competition to all bidders. The court agreed, as both "the invitation and the instructions were silent as to a specific procedure for conduct of the negotiations and as to a deadline by which cost proposal modifcations resulting from the negotiations could be submitted." There, the government entity allowed proposers to alter certain cost proposal documents after they were submitted but before they were opened. Those proposers, due to prior knowledge of the way that the government entity handled procurement procedures, knew the government entity would allow the change in the submitted documents. The protestor, however, was unfamiliar with this procedure and failed to submit the updated documents on time. At evaluation, a bidder with the lowest cost proposal was awarded the contract. Had the protestor been able to submit its updated cost proposal, it would have been the lowest bidder. The court concluded that the government entity's action in permitting the cost proposal documents to be submitted during a certain time, when the procedure for submitting the documents was not addressed in the ITB, was arbitrary and capricious. This case is not based off arbitrary and capricious scoring by a selection committee member. The issues in this case deal with whether the government entity acted arbitrarily when it allowed certain bidders to submit updated cost proposals when the procedure for doing so was not expressed in the ITB. MIAMI 4944958.2 74183/46889 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Page 2 VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT This information is intended to help the Proposer determine the applicable requirements and is not meant to be an exhaustive summary of all permits, licenses and approvals required. I. Zoning Pursuant to the City's Miami 21 Zoning Code, the overall Property is zoned CS, Civic Space, which is included as Exhibit B. Any details provided herein regarding the zoning process is for convenience only and Proposers should not rely upon them. Proposers are responsible for obtaining information directly from the appropriate City Planning and Zoning departments as it relates to their specific plans for redevelopment of the Property, as applicable. Any meetings with City staff regarding specific plans shall be considered outside the Cone of Silence. Proposers are responsible for pursuing any zoning changes and/or board or City Commission approvals necessary to implement the concept proposed in their response to this RFP so long as they are supported by the City as property owner and the Virginia Key Master Plan. Proposers should not consider zoning approvals as permit approvals, the latter which Proposer must obtain separately for each aspect of the Project. Whenever possible, the City agrees to assist the successful Proposer with its permitting process, providing that municipal permit fees will not be waived or reduced. J. Flood Zone A preliminary review of the Property shows that the entire Property is classified as falling within Coastal A Zone, under Flood Zone AE. A Flood Zone Map is included in Exhibit D. All structures constructed at the Property must conform to the appropriate Flood Zone requirements. K. Impact Fees The successful Proposer must pay for any Impact Fees related to its improvements to the Property. Impact fees by Code requirement must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. L. Design Review The design of the Project shall be subject to review and approval by appropriate City departments and/or agencies, including but not limited to certain County agencies such as Shoreline Review Committee and the Shoreline Review Manual as set forth in the Miami -Dade County Code. M. Background Check Proposers shall be required to perform, at the Proposer's sole cost, a complete background and credit check of the Proposer, the proposing entity, related entities or assigns, and its principals as well as reference checks on the principals of every member of the proposing entity, and or its assigns. This shall include any and all checks that would reveal any of the information requested in subsection N below, D isqualification. The background and credit check provided by the Proposers shall be in a sealed envelope from an independent and impartial third -party company, and directed to 15 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXHIBIT D MIAMIDAGE Flood Zones COUNTY Flood Zone for:3301 RICKENBACKER CSWY, 33149 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ZONE Elevation AE 10 Total Flood Zones 1 Designations: Flood Zones What does it mean?* 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD An area inundated by 2% annual chance flooding. No Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within this zone. Insurance purchase is not required in these zones. A Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-year floodplains that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by approximate methods. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply. AE Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-year floodplains that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by detailed methods. In most instances, Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurancepurchase requirements apply. AH Zone AH is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 100-year shallow flooding with a constant water -surface elevation (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. The Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply. Disclaimer: • Note: The flood Tone information provided is intended for use in the unincorporated areas of M1ami-Dade County. Municipalities will have their own floodplain management regulations and flood tone Map information, which may differ from the County's information. Miami -Dade County provides this website .s a public service to its residents. •• The County is continually editing and updating GIS data to improve positional accuracy r acy and information. No w anties, eapressed or implied, are provided for the positional or thematic accuracy of the data herein, Its u or its interpretation. although ltis periodically updated, this information may not reflect the data Currently on file at Miami -Dade County and the County assumes no liability tither for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of the cause of such or for any decision made, action taken, a action not taken by the user in reliance upon any information provided herein. please direct all inquires, comments, and suggestions to giseviamidade. gov printed: 6/4/2015 MIAMI DE BOUNTY Flood Zones D Areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards. No flood hazard analysis has been conducted. Flood insurance rates are commensurate with the uncertainty of the flood risk. Open water Open Water: large lakes, bay, ocean. VE Zone VE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds tothe 100-year coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves.Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance requirements apply. X Zone X is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 100-year floodplains, areas of 100-year sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 100-year stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the 100-year flood by levees. No Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone. * Definitions were provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA-->http://www.fema,gov ), Disclaimer: • Note: The flood zone information provided is intended for use in the unincorporated areas of Miami -Dade County. Municipalities will have their own floodplain management regulations and flood zone gap information, which may differ from the County's information. Miami -Dada County provides this website es • public service to its residents. •• The County 1s continually editing and updating 6I5 data to improve positional accuracy r acy and Information. No warranties, expressed or Implied, ere provided for the positional or thematic ac racy of the data herein, its use, or its interpretat ion. although it is periodically updated, this information may not reflect the data currently on file at Miami -Dada County and the County assumes no liability either for any aromissions, r inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of the ca of such or for any decision made. action taken, oraction not taken by the user in reliance upon any information provided herein, pleas. direct all inquires, comments, and suggestions to gisimia.idade.gov Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk printed: 6/4/2015 NM =III MIMI MI MI MINI EMI MI MINI I= 11= 11111M Mlle NMI Base flood 'ole'vafion POI Boat launch 50' waterfont setback b overhead boat transfer bay walk elevated walk +65' above ground boat transporter Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk EMI 11111 NIB 11111 NM NM En NM ALL AIR-CONDITIONED SPACES, BOAT -LIFTING EQUIPMENT, BOATS, AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS WILL BE 1' OR MORE ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. NO REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER. FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT THIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN YEAR, REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING INTERIORS AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOC Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk In MN INN MN I I IMO N MI NMI 111111 111111 N 11M111 MN NM INN NM ALL AIR-CONDITIONED SPACES, BOAT -LIFTING EQUIPMENT, BOATS, AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS WILL BE 1 ` OR MORE ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. NO REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER. FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT THIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN YEAR, REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING INTERIORS AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOC Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk OM INN SIMI NM M 1E11 Mil MI MN MI M 3RD PLACE • TIFON • DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT THIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN YEAR, REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOD. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk IMO NMI MEI MI NE MIN MI NMI I= MI NM INN MN Mill NMI MIN MI 3RD PLACE • TIFON • DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION lit 11* irnmoidta. 1* Imprmomuwe - LOO SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER 10 FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT THIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN YEAR, REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING INTERIORS AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOD. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk INIIN MN NMI all INN 1•11 MIN 3RD PLACE • TIFON • DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT THIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN YEAR, REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING INTERIORS AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOD. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk INN NEI INN NEI MN NM IIIII NMI NM NM INN INN 111111 EN 111111 INN INN MIN MN VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS COVERED' PARKIN' DASIWD-AREA IS MPA GARAGE FOOTPRINT PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7 4- LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 11111 INN EN MIN NM NM II1M1 111111 MN MN NM EN MIN NM NE En .1i 411010 IMP .i = AMID AMIlik ..� - 411111- i 41i 4111//0 RCN VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • ALTERNATIVE PARKING OPTION FOOTP PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7+ LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES, SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE MPA FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 22 2016, City Clerk EN � — 3RD PLACE • TIFON • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS GARAG PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7+ LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES, SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE MPA FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk EMI OM 1 qtallt Ash 11 i iT1 t .11 I fill ;Tr ITV 111 Citl i11`i _. 1111 1111_41&11,,Uli till lLl! a 111.1 'UJJ , 11 VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • WATERFRONT SETBACKS ONLY MARINE RELATED USES EXTEND INTO SETBACKS (BOAT LIFTS) A R E `u 1Q OadN DUMB AR PC RMITTED ' EMAIN Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NM MINI INN MINI NMI MI INIM =II NMI NM 11=1 INII 1E111 MI =I 1,01:10 sqft 4,990asqft commeTrol VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR &MARINE CENTER GROUP • ACCURATE GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS 11-11-.1 1 1 s I I t .171=f1111 Mural -minim rni, 11.1111T /` - b ,540 COMME 305. Parkin o;\ 1.v,m‘aavax\Akv, It ITU Til 1 rm. IT Tr 11 111 ti II 1 I 111 uRad111_,WJJLULUJUJLWt s WM—MTh DITTO Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1111111 MIMI MINI Mil I= 11•11 IIME MIMI INN INN MI 01 Dockmoster's Office • 1065 GSF 02 New Marina • 310 U. 03 Horizontal parking • plaza • 90U 04 Existing Marino • 190 U 05 Retail Spoce • 24030 GSF * • SETBA 06 Restooronto • Bertonl • 3300 GSF 07 Promenade OB Rickenbacker cousewoy Access 09 Parking Garage • 7662 U. 10 Boot Launch Boy • Dry 3RD PLACE • TIFON • WATERFRONT SETBACKS 11 Restrooms • Lockers • Services • 7600 GSF 12 Dry stack building • 940 U.• 13 Gas station 14 Jet skis silo • 150 U. • 15 Serlces & Repair . • . 16 Public Boat Romp Flooring docks 17 Parking alternative access 18 Pickenbacker Causeway tarchina Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk IN16 17 -V` Bel6ng7romn 003000 MI NM 11•11 NMI INII 91 Dockmoster's Office • 1065 GSF 32 New Marino • 310 u 03 Horizontal parking . plaza • e0u. 74 Existing Marina • 790 Il. 35 Retail Space • 24030 GSF 3RD PLACE • TIFON • ESTIMATED GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS 06 Restaurnnte • Bertonl • 3300 GSF 07 Promenade 08 Rlckenbocker causeway Access 09 Porking Garage • 1662 u• 10 Boat Launch Bay • Dry 41111111 401431. 43111111. 4ils -3;030 COMMERCIAL OUTSIDE SETBA 11 Restrooms • Lockers • Services • 7600 GSF 12 Dry stack bulliding • 640 U. 13 Gas station 14 Jet skis silo • 150 u • 15 5erlces & Repair COMMERCIAL' 16 Public Boot Ramp • Floating docks 17 Parking alternative access 15 RickenhnckerCauseway OUT S,I'D: MMERCIAL 1, taccnina Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk XIII. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE A - PROPOSED RENOVATION - REDEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE MONTH Ol 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dry stack B u i ld i n g ...............� Restaurantes & Retail spaces .��................. Marina renovation ...................... Marinas 300 additional wet slips 1111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Dockmaster's office Roads & Sidewalks ROMN111a•n11n11111■1■ Final Demo 1111111111111111111111111111111111 Marine pavilion Public boat ramp Common Areas ..................■..... Parking garage By MPA IIPlans/Permits II Construction Punch List/Equipment Pre -Opening .Open/Available The proposed restaurants and commercial uses require the approval of a warrant and an exception. In addition, to gain additional flexibility related to some of the required uses set forth in the RFP, Tifon Miami may contemplate requesting the approval of a Special Area Plan. Tifon Miami will proceed with obtaining such approvals as soon as reasonably practical after approval of the Lease. We anticipate the process will take approximately 3 to 6 months and require the payment of all relevant filing and notice fees. NEW R/CKENEACKER 41AR/NA L 1 C Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk _.. - 45 ITIFON PROPOSAL EXCERPT, DRAFT LEASE (30) days of receipt of the Plans, the Lessor shall give Lessee written notice of either Lessor's approval or disapproval setting forth the reasons therefore. 1ln the event that Lessor disapproves the Plans, Lessee shall within ten (10) business days of receipt of the notice modify the Plans in accordance with the reasons set forth in Lessor's disapproval notice, if applicable. The modified Plans shall be resubmitted to Lessor for Lessor's final review and approval.' 5.2 Possession Date 'Lessor shall deliver possession of the portion of the Premises currently known as Marine Stadium Marina ("Phase I Area") to Lessee and Lessee shall take possession thereof on the Lease Date, as defined in Section 1.3.20 above ("Phase I Possession"). Lessor shall deliver possession of the remaining portion of the Premises, currently known as Rickenbacker Marina, as shown in the attached Exhibit K, ("Phase Area II") on ("Phase II Possession"). Delivery of possession shall be subject to Force Majeure delays. By the Lease Date, the Lessee shall have provided the City Manager or his/her designee Comment [17]: This provision should be revised to reflect the phasing plan set forth in the Proposal. evidence, as may be reasonablysatisfactory to the Lessor, that Lessee has sufficient funding or In addition, the delivery to Lessee of the leasehold Iinding funding commitments to complete the Leasehold Improvements to be constructed at the improvements to which the City has title should be .,described Subject Premises. • Perez, Richard A (MIA_... 19/1/2016 22:36 Perez, Richard A (MIA..., 19/1/2016 22:27 Comment [16]: This provision should include concrete and reasonable standards for Lessor's review and comment of proposed Plans. 5.3 Payment and Performance Bond Within ten (10) days after the Lessor approves the plans in writing and Lessee obtains building permits consistent with the Plans, but in any event prior to the commencement of any construction, the Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, furnish the Lessor with a Payment and Performance Bond in substantially the form prescribed by Section 255.05, Florida Statutes. Plans, design and construction documents will comply with all applicable contract, legal, and regulatory requirements including, without limitation, the Florida Building Code. The Payment and Performance Bond shall be issued by a bonding company which shall be approved by Lessor, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the costs to construct the Leasehold Improvements described in Exhibit E naming the Lessor as the owner/obligee, and the Lessee or Lessee's general contractor, as the principal guaranteeing the payment and performance of Lessee's obligations with respect to any and all construction work pertaining to the Leasehold Improvements, free of construction or other liens. The conditions of the Payment and Performance Bond shall be to insure that the Lessee or Lessee's general contractor will: (i) Promptly make payment to all claimants, as defined in Section 255.05 Florida Statutes, as amended, supplying the Lessee with labor, materials, or supplies, used directly or indirectly by the Lessee in the prosecution of the work related to the Leasehold Improvements under this Lease; (ii) Pay Lessor all losses, damages, expenses, costs, and attorney's fees, including appellate proceedings, that Lessor sustains because of a default 16 #38353925_v2 Comment [18): This provisions should be amended to reflect the possible phasing of the development and contemplate that the funding may not be binding until such time as leasehold mortgage is perfected. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NEV, R/CXENBACHER MAR/NA L L C M -- !T .,ern 1R As such, we intend to construct more than 98,000 sq. ft. of retail space within the main structure encompassing portions of the western, eastern and southern facades and abutting the proposed parking garage. WD Marine LLC, the entity founded by Walter Defortuna (see Section II. Vision, Goals and Objectives/Who we are), will be charged with managing the retail areas of the project. B4 - RESTAURANT Miami —a city surrounded by water— has surprisingly few accessible, waterfront dining options. Blessed with this unique location, Tifon Miami aims at providing quality and accessible waterfront dining options to the residents of the City of Miami. We have selectedsome of the most prominentrestau- rant operators to join our team: operators with extensive and proven experience. Tifon Miami plans to build three dining areas: two on the second floor, and one on the ground floor. Whiskey Joe's will be demolished and replaced by a new building, incorporating a casual concept. The restaurant will feature a covered terrace on the waterfront promenade with great views of the marina and Downtown Miami. The renowned Bertoni Caffe Gelato is the prospective operator for this space. The other two dining spaces will capitalize on the best views of the fantastic natural sur- roundings, the marina and Downtown Miami. Prospective operators for these two spaces (covering over 7,500 sq. ft. each) will be the world -renown Italian coffee baristas, Segafredo Zanetti Espresso, and the prestigious Novecento restaurant group. B5 - MPA PARKING GARAGE Understanding that the RFP provides that the MPA will construct and design the parking garage to its specifications, as set forth in the RFP, Tifon Miami proposes a parking garage located within the areas designated by the RFP. The proposed parking garage consists of approximately 225,000 sq. ft., distributed amongst four levels, providing for 841 parking spaces. As designed, the building looks integrated into the overall design, but is specifically designed to be built independently from the other structures on site. Consisting largely of the south facade of the project, toward Rickenbacker Causeway, the proposed design takes special care to reduce the visual impact of the structure on its surroundings. Taking a unique organic form, the facility blends in naturally with the environment. One of the fundamental characteristics of the parking garage is the ability to access it from both ends of the ground floor. This feature helps avoid traffic circulation conflicts, ensuring increased flow during peak usage periods, including the Boat Show and other events held at the Marina Stadium site. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 17 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VII. FINANCIAL PLAN A - INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE Tifon Miami has assembled an impressive team of professionals who are proficient in development, con- struction and design, in addition to a development team consisting of experienced engineers and consul- tants. The infrastructure cost estimate is as follows:3 SITE DEVELOPMENT Demolition and Site Preparation Earthwork and Utility Infrastructure Roads &Sidewalks Landscaping Decorative Hardscapes and Amenities Signage and Traffic SignaUzation CATEGORY TOTAL 53,020,000 DRY SLIP STORAGE + REPAIR Dry 5Up Storage + SILO Boat Repair Shop —Included In Site Development CATEGORY TOTAL $24,030,000 WET SLIPS Docks + 310 New Wet Slips Existing Marina Improvements Boat Lifts CATEGORY TOTAL $15,010,000 PARKING Horizontal Parking Parking Garage CATEGORY TOTAL G11,130,000 RETAIL, GROCERY & RESTAURANT Retail Market Restaurants Pavilion — Bar CATEGORY TOTAL 512,640,000 OTHER Administrative office Space Dock Master's Office Back of House (Storage. Restrooms) CATEGORY TOTAL 51,640,000 TOTAL COSTSS67,470,000 3. The figures are expressed in present values as of 01/2016 4. The amounts set forth above are not inclusive of the Security Deposit required by the RFP The total amount of the investment to be made by the Proposer inclusive of the Security Deposit will equal S69,620,000 o. ,r,,.-► o orµ 32 m/Aini NEW R/CKENBACKER h1ARMN4 LLC rn/A/77/ In addition to the payment of Base Rent and Percentage Rent, Tiffin Miami's project will bring significant returns to the City through the payment of property taxes. Our financial model anticipates that, for the first 12 years, our facility will pay the City an estimated S29 million in property taxes. Moreover, prior to the execution of the lease and based on preliminary estimates of the number of available parking spaces, Tifon Miami will provide a parking contribution of 511,130,000 to con- struct the parking garage. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk 41 TIFON PROPOSAL EXCERPT, MARKET STUDY Neighborhood Analysis 2 The proposal conforms to and/or exceeds each element of the RFP according to the table below: DemektpunerlitComprisonwith RIP RIP Requirements Plan Wet Storage Capacity 500 Wet Slips+ Dry Storage Capacity 840 slips + 150 jet sari spaces Fueling Station 2 Fueling nations Boatyard 1 BoatYard Dad:master Office Two stories Public Ramp 1 Public Rump In addition, the proposal will include three (3) restaurants as well as retail and amenity spaces. The table below shows the square footage allocated to each use by floor. Development Plan Use Type First Floor Second Floor Mezzanine Third Floor Total Retail 38,530 21,350 9,900 69,780 Restaurants 3,300 15,750 19,050 Admin Office 6,000 6,000 Dockmaster Offices 1,065 1,065 Parking 72,700 72,900 82,300 227,900 Rack storage 115,000 115,000 Bathrooms/storage/other 7,600 7,600 Total 238,195 94,250 82,300 31,650 446,395 (")The described areas are only estimations and can vary depending on obtaining the necessary permits. Tifon Miami Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk irr. TIFON PROPOSAL EXCERPT, DRAFT LEASE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 complete and correct by an officer of Lessee. Such statement shall show the annual Gross Revenues and an itemization of any exclusions or deductions for the current Lease Year. Lessee shall provide the Annual Percentage Rent Statement with an Annual Gross Revenue Report in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit B and Exhibit C. Lessee shall: (i) (ii) pay the Lessor (x) the monthly Base Rent and (y) the deliver the corresponding Annual Percentage Rent Revenue Report for the preceding Lease Year to Department of Real Estate and Asset Management below: City of Miami Department of Real Estate and Asset Management Attention: Lease Manager 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33130 4.1.6 Fair Market Value Percentage Rent, and Statement and Gross the City of Miami, at the address noted As required by applicable laws, the Lessor has determined that the Base Rent and the Percentage Rent constitutes Fair Market Value. The Lessor has made such determination based on an appraisal of the proposed project as performed by two (2) State -certified general appraisers hired by the Lessor. 4.2 Parking Trust Fund Contribution Upon execution of the Lease, the Lessee shall be required to contribute an amount equal to fifteen thousand and 00/100 dollars ($15,000.00) per parking space required to meet the Lessee's parking requirement pursuant to the RFP. Based on the development contemplated by the Proposal, the Lessee's total contribution to the Parking Facilities shall be Eleven Million One Hundred Thirty Thousand dollars ($11,130,000.00) for the non-exclusive use of a total of 742parking spaces, which amount may be adjusted as set forth below ("Parking Trust Fund Contribution"). frite Parking Facilities shall be a public municipal garage, which shall be built / and operated by the Department of Off Street Parking of the City of Miami d/b/a Miami Parking Authority ("MPA").1 The Lessee shall pay the balance of the Parking Trust Fund Contribution by cashier's check or money order delivered to the Director of Real Estate and Asset Management, 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130. If the MPA has not obtained building permits for, IJ and commenced construction of, the Parking Facilities within eighteen (18) months of the Effective Date, then the Lessor shall return the Parking Trust Fund Contribution to the Lessee. L! The Parties acknowledge that the final calculation of the Parking Trust Fund Contribution may / fluctuate based on the actual gross leasable ketail square footage constructed by the MPA as retail area within the Parking Facilitiest therefore, the actual amount of the contribution will be #38353925_v2 11 Perez, Richard A (MIA..., 20/1/2016 10:42 Comment [11]: The Lease should specifically provide that the parking spaces to be partially funded by the Lessee will be made available to the Lessee to satisfy its parking requirements under Miami21. Perez, Richard A (MIA..., 19/1/2016 22:11 Comment [12]: The Lease should contemplate the consequences of the MPA not constructing the parking garage on time or the complete failure of the MPA to construct the parking garage, as each would impact the required zoning approvals for the development. Perez, Richard A (MIA..., 19/1/2016 22:13 Comment [13]: Considering that the size of the Parking Facilities will not be tied to the size of the retail arca to be operated by the MPA. this provision should be modified to provide for an adjustment based on the amount of development constmcted on the Premises. Furthermore, the Lease should include the MPA as a party and include provisions related to parking validation. as contemplated by the RFP, and the obligations and responsibilities of the MPA related to the operation of the parking garage and the retail area to be managed by the MPA. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NMI I NMI MI 1E111 MINI 1111111 MI i Mil =I IMO N — 01 Dockmoster's Office • 1065 GSF 02 New Marino • 310 u 03 Horizontal parking • plaza • 8011. 04 Existing Marino • 190 U. 05 Retail Space • 24030 GSF 06 Restourante • Berton! • 3300 GSF 07 Promenade 0B Rickenbocker causeway Access 09 Parking Garage • 1662 U. 10 Boot Launch Bay • Dry 11 Restrooms • Lockers • Services • 7600 GSF 12 Dry stack buillding • 1740 u.• 13 Gas station 14 Jet skis silo • 150 u • 15 Serices & Repair 16 Public Boot Romp • Floating docks 17 Parking alternative access 18 Rickenhacker Causeway I0 1 05 ground floor B E H A R:19,,t T FORTUNE Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk JUGES Bellingham NM M I r I— rim M i MR M--— r s M 111111 .suc►P '1414411*111._. i�Alll�f�� 4 .... $111 north elevation l south elevation �,�� BEHAR FONT FORTUNE ���(� Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk MIES Belfingliam OMICEI N UM I=— —— MO S N s M M NM r= E M ill east elevation 1 west elevation Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NE W ROC KENBA CA' ER VAR/NA L LC /77, ,77/ sa+ Marina and the Marine Stadium have 100% and 95% occupancy, respectively). During the Construction Period, Tifon Miami plans on operating with said permits and extending Rickenbacker Marina's current price range (monthly 530/ft.). The uniform pricing might initially lead to a lower occupancy rate of 90% in Year 1 and 95% in Year2. On the other hand, the size of stored vessels throughout the Construction Period will be approximately 27 feet on average. These figures are arrived at upon considering the average size of vessels currently being dry stored on the property. As of Year 3, Tifon Miami will be operating in the new building, with a storage capacity of up to 840 vessels with an average length of 32 feet. Conservative estimates dictate a start with an oc- cupancy rate of 75% (equal to 630 vessels), which will increase gradually year after year. The increase in occupancy rates is supported by diverse factors: 1) the new concept of service offered by Tifon Miami has clear advantages over other marinas,and enclosed rack storage for all vessels; 2) an undersupplied market with increasing demand (as concluded by IRR's market analysis) that is supported by the full occupancy of current marinas in the market (Rickenbacker Marina is currently at capacity and has a waiting list); and 3) the aforementioned strong marketing campaign that will be made by Tifon Miami. Similarly, the market analysis does not only estimate that the number of registered ves- sels will increase, but also points to evidence that these registrations will be for larger vessels (gaining the participation of Class 2 vessels between 26'-39' 11"). As such, the financial model conservatively estimates an increase of three feet in the average size of registered vessels over the next 12 years. As described above, the prices will originally be maintained at the rates currently applied by Rickenbacker Marina. However, as of Year 3 the dry storage building will be operating and rates are ex- pected to increase as a result. This increase is supported in part by the superior nature of service offered by Tifon in relation to existing marinas in Miami, and in part by the fact that customers will pay a premium for enclosed racks, as illustrated in the market analysis. In any event, for the purpose of maintaining a con- servative approach in the analysis, it is estimated that the price will only increase 52 in present value from the current Rickenbacker Marina rates (which equates to $33.9/ft. per month for Year 3 when adjusting for inflation). Dry Storage: Jet Skis Today, Rickenbacker Marina has storage capacity for 80 jet skis and offers three different rates (5365 a month for Open Rack Storage, 5395 a month for Covered Rack Storage, and 5425 a mon- th for Indoor Rack Storage). These rates are equivalent to applying a uniform price of $395 a month. As such, during the construction period (Years 1 and 2) Tifon Miami plans on maintaining the current capacity and monthly rates applied by Rickenbacker Marina. Once Tifon Miami's new building is complete, it will have storage capacity for 150 jet skis. As of Year 3, the model indicates a gradual increase in occupancy. Additionally, given quality of service and that all jet skis will be stored in an enclosed facility, all jet skis will be subject to the uniform Indoor Rack Storage rate of 5425 at present value (which equates to 5450 per month for Year 3 when adjusting for inflation). As demonstrated in Tab 4, the aforementioned variations in occupancy are conservative estimates. Wet Slips During the construction period, Tifon Miami is expected to operate only with the 190 wet slips that are now managed by Rickenbacker Marina, as the Marine Stadium Marina has no wet slips. These 190 wet slips are currently at full capacity with a waiting list. In terms of pricing, Rickenbacker Marina has the following rate structure: $5 to 59 per day for transient slips, S65/ft. per month for monthly slips, 556/ ft. per month for seasonal slips and 531/ft. per month for annual slips. in the interest of simplicity, the analysis initially counts on a single weighted average rate of 531/ft. per month. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 35 I NM N V M UM M M MI i M M N i— N I— M 01 Dockmaster's Office • 1065 GSF 02 New Morino • 310 U. 03 Horizontal parking • plaza • s0u. 04 Existing Marino 190 U. 05 Retail Space • 24030 OF 06 Restaurante • Bertonl • 3300 GSF 07 Promenade oB Rlckenbacker causeway Access 09 Parking Garage • 1662 U• 10 Boot Launch Bay • Dry 11 Restrooms • Lockers • Services • 7600 GSF 12 Dry stack builiding • 840 U. • 13 Gas stotion 14 Jet skis silo • 150 U. • 15 Serces & Repair 16 Public Boat Romp • Floating docks 17 Parking alternative access 18 Rickenbacker Causeway • Mal ground floor mo T ORTUNE r.ec;ui BENAR•F, N,,, F�,,,,,,�,�,�„ Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk u11c11s rtnazu Bellingham Is =— M i—— MO MN E— s M E a— 11■■11 M ME 01 Terraces 02 Retail Space • 21350 u. 03 Parking Garage 04 Boat Lauch Platform as Dry Stack Building 06 let Skis Silo second floor rilp� BEHAR FONT FORTUNE Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk INS En MN MI MO I MI MO MN Mil WM 1 I MI II MI 01 Terraces 02 Restaumntes • Sega fredo • Novecento • 157S0 GSF 03 Retail Space • 9900 GSF 04 Dry Stack Building third floor may B E H A R cwi, FORTUNE racmir. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Bellingham cssam NEW R/CKENBACKER MAR/NA L L C As such, we intend to construct more than 98,000 sq. ft. of retail space within the main structure encompassing portions of the western, eastern and southern facades and abutting the proposed parking garage. WD Marine LLC, the entity founded by Walter Defortuna (see Section II. Vision, Goals and Objectives/Who we are), will be charged with managing the retail areas of the project. B4 - RESTAURANT Miami —a city surrounded by water— has surprisingly few accessible, waterfront dining options. Blessed with this unique location, Tifon Miami aims at providing quality and accessible waterfront dining options to the residents of the City of Miami. We have selectedsome of the most prominentrestau- rant operators to join our team: operators with extensive and proven experience. Tifon Miami plans to build three dining areas: two on the second floor, and one on the ground floor. Whiskey Joe's will be demolished and replaced by a new building, incorporating a casual concept. The restaurant will feature a covered terrace on the waterfront promenade with great views of the marina and Downtown Miami. The renowned Bertoni Caffe Gelato is the prospective operator for this space. The other two dining spaces will capitalize on the best views of the fantastic natural sur- roundings, the marina and Downtown Miami. Prospective operators for these two spaces (covering over 7,500 sq. ft. each) will be the world -renown Italian coffee baristas, Segafredo Zanetti Espresso, and the prestigious Novecento restaurant group. B5 - MPA PARKING GARAGE Understanding that the RFP provides that the MPA will construct and design the parking garage to its specifications, as set forth in the RFP, Tifon Miami proposes a parking garage located within the areas designated by the RFP. The proposed parking garage consists of approximately 225,000 sq. ft., distributed amongst four levels, providing for 841 parking spaces. As designed, the building looks integrated into the overall design, but is specifically designed to be built independently from the other structures on site. Consisting largely of the south facade of the project, toward Rickenbacker Causeway, the proposed design takes special care to reduce the visual impact of the structure on its surroundings. Taking a unique organic form, the facility blends in naturally with the environment. One of the fundamental characteristics of the parking garage is the ability to access it from both ends of the ground floor. This feature helps avoid traffic circulation conflicts, ensuring increased flow during peak usage periods, including the Boat Show and other events held at the Marina Stadium site. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 17 XII. MANAGEMENT TRANSITION SCHEDULE Tifon Miami is fortunate to have the current operator of Rickenbacker Marina in its team, which makes the management transition a seamless exercise. In that sense, after Lease execution, during the construction period (as described in Section VIII. Financial. Feasibility), Tifon Miami plans to continue to operate the two existing marinas (Rickenbacker Marina and Marine Stadium Marina). During that period, a uniform rate will be established, quality of service will improve, and a total capacity of 648 dry rack slips and 190 wet slips will be provided. Once the construction period is over and operations commence, Tifon Miami will have a capacity of dry rack sUps for 840 boats and 150 jet skis, and 500 wet slips. Additionally, during the first year after Lease execution, Tifon Miami plans to sublease the areas currently occupied by Whiskey Joe's and the ship's store. After the first year, as detailed in XIII. Project Development Schedule, both units will be demolished to continue with the construction of the building. Once the new Tifon Miami building is finished, it will have 3 restaurants (for a total of 19,050 sq. ft.) and multiple retail areas (for a total of 69,780 sq. ft.) to sublease. As mentioned before, Novecento, Bertoni, and Segafredo are pro- spective operators for the restaurants in Tifon Miami. As for the execution of sub -leases for the operation of restaurant and retail spaces, it should be substantially completed within six (6) months of site approvals, floor plan definition, and a reliable definition of construction timeframes. NEW R/CKENBA CKER MAR/NA L L C Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 44 TIFON PROPOSAL EXCERPT, MARKET STUDY Neighborhood Analysis 2 The proposal conforms to and/or exceeds each element of the RFP according to the table below: Development Comparison vailb RIFF REP Requirements Plan Wet StorageCapacittr 500 WttSlips+ Orr Storage Capacity 840 slips + 150 jet ski spas FuelingStatico 2Fuel inc Stations Boatyard 1 tioaitYard Dockmaster Office Two stories Public Ramp 1 Public Ramp In addition, the proposal will include three (3) restaurants as well as retail and amenity spaces. The table below shows the square footage allocated to each use by floor. Development Plan Use Type First Floor Second Floor Mezzanine Third Floor Total Retail 38,530 21,350 9,900 69,780 Restaurants 3,300 15,750 19,050 Admin Office 6,000 6,000 Dockmaster Offices 1,065 1,065 Parking 72,700 72,900 82,300 227,900 Rack storage 115,000 115,000 Bathrooms/storage/other 7,600 7,600 Total 238,195 94,250 82,300 31,650 (*)The described areas are only estimations and can vary depending on obtaining the necessary permits. Tifon Miami Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 446,395 irr. NEW R/CKENaACA'ER idfAR/NA L L C OPERATING AREA AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY. RESTRICTED TO PUBLIC rflNWs•i r.•_w_ The gantry crane extracts the vessel form its rack The gantry crane moves the vessel to the elevator 19 H H H PUBLIC AREA DOCKS AND PEDESTRIAN PATH The gantry crane pt,ts the vessel on the elevator The elevator hauls the vessel into water. where the owner awaits on the dock B3 - RETAIL The project's retail plan focuses on generating a tenant mix that complements the core uses of the property, while promoting public use of the entire facility. Our intention is to develop a new landmark that appeals to boating enthusiasts, local residents and tourists alike. The retail areas — consisting of a full range of shops associated with marine activities, leisure, services and recreation -- are designed to invite everyone in by taking full advantage of the unique waterfront promenade and its breathtaking views. This plan demands special attention to the selection of tenants, products, services and activities, focusing only on those that have wide appeal. The idea is to position the development in such a manner that it increases the opportunities for the wider community to take in the beauty of the location. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 16 NEW R/C/(ENSA C/CE 4' MAR/NA L L C /77/,4/T7/ As such, we intend to construct more than 98,000 sq. ft. of retail space within the main structure encompassing portions of the western, eastern and southern facades and abutting the proposed parking garage. WD Marine LLC, the entity founded by Walter Defortuna (see Section II. Vision, Goals and Objectives/Who we are), will be charged with managing the retail areas of the project. B4 - RESTAURANT Miami —a city surrounded by water— has surprisingly few accessible, waterfront dining options. Blessed with this unique location, Tifon Miami aims at providing quality and accessible waterfront dining options to the residents of the City of Miami. We have selectedsome of the most prominentrestau- rant operators to join our team: operators with extensive and proven experience. Tifon Miami plans to build three dining areas: two on the second floor, and one on the ground floor. Whiskey Joe's will be demolished and replaced by a new building, incorporating a casual concept. The restaurant will feature a covered terrace on the waterfront promenade with great views of the marina and Downtown Miami. The renowned Bertoni Caffe Gelato is the prospective operator for this space. The other two dining spaces will capitalize on the best views of the fantastic natural sur- roundings, the marina and Downtown Miami. Prospective operators for these two spaces (covering over 7,500 sq. ft. each) will be the world -renown Italian coffee baristas, Segafredo Zanetti Espresso, and the prestigious Novecento restaurant group. B5 - MPA PARKING GARAGE Understanding that the RFP provides that the MPA will construct and design the parking garage to its specifications, as set forth in the RFP, Tifon Miami proposes a parking garage located within the areas designated by the RFP The proposed parking garage consists of approximately 225,000 sq. ft., distributed amongst four levels, providing for 841 parking spaces. As designed, the building looks integrated into the overall design, but is specifically designed to be built independently from the other structures on site. Consisting largely of the south facade of the project, toward Rickenbacker Causeway, the proposed design takes special care to reduce the visual impact of the structure on its surroundings. Taking a unique organic form, the facility blends in naturally with the environment. One of the fundamental characteristics of the parking garage is the ability to access it from both ends of the ground floor. This feature helps avoid traffic circulation conflicts, ensuring increased flow during peak usage periods, including the Boat Show and other events held at the Marina Stadium site. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 17 NEW R/CKENBACKER MAR/NA L L C Jir miami it is estimated that during the Construction Period (Years 1&2) total payroll will be around 10% (52,400,000) less than in Years 3&4. Property Tax The analysis conducted by Integra Realty Resources estimates that the development of the marina alone will result in a payment of 5 13,295,679 in real property taxes during the first 12 years of the lease. D - RETAIL & RESTAURANT ASSUMPTIONS Both retail and restaurant spaces will be operated by subtenants. As such, Tiffin Miami's revenues from this aspect will come from the subleasing of each retail and restaurant space. Retail During Year 1, prior to construction of the new building, the space where the ship's store currently operates will be subleased for an estimated S60,000 (NNN). During Year 2, as dictated by the construction schedule, the ship's store will be demolished for construction of the new building. Once the new building is entirely complete as of the third year, it is foreseen, based on the market analysis conducted by IRR, that the following rent prices will be charged depending on the level of the retail space: RETAIL NNN SUBLEASE RENT (sq. ft.)* Retail Level 1 $56 Retail Level 2 $48 Retalt Level 3 $40 ' All sublease rents are expressed In present values. Additionally, in keeping with a conservative view of the analysis, it is estimated that retail occupancy during Year 3 will be at 50% and will increase as the project consolidates so that after Year 5 only a 5% vacancy would remain, which is consistent with vacancies in the commercial real estate leasing market (Tab 5.1-Market and Marketability Study by IRR). Restaurant In regards to restaurants, as a provisionary measure during construction of the new buil- ding, it is anticipated that the space where Whiskey Joe's currently operates will be sublet during Year 1. Tiffin Miami anticipates obtaining S120,000 (NNN) from this lease. Upon the commencement of Year 2, as dictated by the construction schedule, it is anticipated that the current venue will be demolished to move forward with the construction of the new building. As of Year 3, the new building will be complete with the three previously described restau- rants in operation (Bertoni, Segafredo, and Novecento). Based on the market study conducted by IRR and the characteristics of the project, there is an anticipated rent of S56 per sq. ft. for restaurant spaces once at a mature stage of the project. However, the nature of the restaurant industry requires the installation Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 38 NE W R/C/{ENBAC/(ER MAR/N.I L L C rn/ /77/ of equipment and furnishings, which results inadditional time and a larger amount of investment. For this reason, as is usual. in the real estate market, Tiffin Miami will set a lower rent for the first two years. Operating Expenses and Reimbursement of Expenses IRR estimated the following operating costs for the subleasing of restaurant and retail spaces: • Insurance: $2/sq. ft. • Common Area Maintenance (CAM): S8/sq. ft.during Years 1-4 and S10/sq. ft. during Years 5-12 • Property Tax: $15/sq. ft. The described operating costs will be assumed by the tenant, who will later be repaid by the subtenant. Given the lower occupancy rates during Years 3 and 4, the tenant will likely absorb part of these costs. E - ON -GOING CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE COST Tiffin Miami recognizes that the project will be constructed, maintained, and operated at its sole risk, with- out the benefit of any government funds, subsidies, governmental credit enhancements, loans, loans guar- antees, or other governmentally sponsored financings from the City of Miami. As such, Tiffin Miami will provide 1% of its Total Revenues annually towards the on -going capital infrastructure cost fund (Tab 4). Consistent with the requirements of the RFP, these funds will be used for maintenance, repair and/or replacement of capital improvements so as to maintain the Property in a first-class operating condition throughout the economic life of the Lease. F - FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY CONCLUSIONS Feasibility is a term used to signify that the value upon stabilization exceeds the costs to complete plus a reasonable profit expectation, which provides an adequate return to both incentivize the financial invest- ment and compensate for risk and managerial/development expertise.(See Tab 5.1 - Market and Market- ability Study by IRR.) The Key Findings indicate that the project is feasible, and provides a 23% unleveraged IRR to the leaseholder to support the 568 million equity investment and performance under the proposed ter- ms as outlined within the response. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 39 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk IX. FINANCIAL RETURN TO THE CITY Tiffin Miami's project plan was developed to provide the most efficient use of the leased property, not only in terms of generating considerable financial return to the City, but also in terms of providing important benefits to the community, including: • Cultural and educational events for the boating community, tourists, and all members of the public. • A new landmark in the City of Miami that will become a tourist attraction with excellent services and design. • Large quality public spaces. • A significant increase in vessel storage space with the highest safety standards. • A donation of a public landscape project that is respectful of the environment. • New parking spaces. Tifon Miami is committed to a Base Rent of 52,150,000 per year with a minimum annual increase of 3%. As such, during the proposed 75-year lease (including the two 15-year renewal terms), the Base Rent will amount to a total minimum amount of 5586,156340 (equivalent to S161,250,000 in present values). As permitted by Addendum XV, Tifon Miami proposes deferring 50% of the Base Rent during the first two years (construction period): the remaining 50% will be paid in years three, four, and five as illustrated in the table below. Addition- ally, Tifon Miami agrees to pay a percentage of rent derived from the different uses as listed below: • 5% of gross revenues from non -fuel marina operations. • 5% of gross fuel sale profits (fuel gross profits = fuel gross sale price - cost per gallon of fuel delivered). • 5% of gross revenues from repair and maintenance services. • 15% of the sublease rent from retail and restaurants (net of property tax, net of maintenance, and net of insurance). Based on our financial model, the following is an estimate of the financial returns to the City, based on rent payment alone, throughout the first 12 years of the lease. BASE RENT PERCENTAGE RENT YEAR MARINA BASE RENT CONSTRUCTION RENT OPERATION FUEL SALES R&M SERVICES RETAIL RESTAURANT TOTAL Year1 1.075.000 420,726 43.470 97.447 9.000 18.000 1,663.643 Year2 1107,250 446,719 46,102 103,527 1,703,598 Year3 2.280.935 727.417 655.019 60,945 128381 284.731 84.883 4,222.310 Year4 2349.363 727.417 747.199 69.048 142428 410.582 122,401 4,568,437 Years 2.419,844 727.417 648.130 77.474 157.075 573.935 180,104 4,983,978 Year6 2.492,439 Year7 2,567212 Year8 2,644,229 Year9 2,723.556 948,566 86,422 172,524 591.153 185,507 4,476,611 Year10 2,805,262 Year11 2,889.420 Year12 2,976,103 1.043,267 94205 185,019 608,887 191.072 4,689,663 1,126277 101.437 197.550 627.154 196.804 4,893,451 1.200.557 107506 207,071 645,968 202.709 5,087,366 1,237,042 110.731 213283 665.347 208,790 5,240,456 1,283,817 114.053 219.682 685308 215.053 5,407,333 1.322,112 117,474 226,272 705.867 221.505 5,569333 Total 30,512,864 21.993,314 52,506,178 40 NEW R/CKEN8A C/OE"R 4L1AR/NA L L C m/ / 7, low In addition to the payment of Base Rent and Percentage Rent, Tifon Miami's project will bring significant returns to the City through the payment of property taxes. Our financial model anticipates that, for the first 12 years, our facility will pay the City an estimated $29 million in property taxes. Moreover, prior to the execution of the lease and based on preliminary estimates of the number of available parking spaces, Tifon Miami will provide a parking contribution of $11,130,000 to con- struct the parking garage. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 41 VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT space. The garage will have retail space and will be operated and managed by the MPA. ' The City shall take into consideration the Proposer's proposed location for the parking garage. However, the ultimate location of the parking garage facility shall be in the sole and absolute discretion of the City. The garage footprint is currently ' estimated to be approximately forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet, excluding set -backs and other restrictions. The City will require the successful Proposer to pay into a project -specific parking trust fund ("Parking Trust Fund") an amount for construction of the parking garage at the time of the Lease execution. The MPA will use the funds contributed to the Parking Trust Fund to construct the parking facility to accommodate the users of the Project. The number of parking spaces will be based on four (4) spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail, one (1) parking space per every five (5) boats of dry or wet storage, and eight (8) spaces for every 1,000 square feet of restaurant gross area. The successful Proposer will be required to contribute to the Parking Trust Fund up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) (estimated to be approximately 50% of the cost of construction) per each space required for the overall site proposal, per the ratios provided above, including the retail space in the garage itself. However, a minimum of 230 parking spaces shall be required (for a total minimum parking garage contribution of $3,450,000.00 to be paid by cashier's check or money order and delivered to the Director of Real Estate & Asset Management, 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3`d Floor, Miami, Florida 33130 upon effective date of the Lease). This parking garage contribution will be deposited into an escrow account whose designated use shall be applied to the Parking Trust Fund. In the event that the referendum is not passed, this parking garage contribution will be returned to the successful Proposer. MPA may, in its sole discretion, elect to build additional parking spaces beyond what is required for the successful Proposer's Project and existing City and MPA parking obligations. Should the MPA choose to build additional parking spaces, the MPA will pay one hundred percent (100%) of the additional costs required for the additional spaces, as well as the cost for any ancillary uses incorporated in the parking facilities. The successful Proposer will have no vested or represented interest, rights, options, preferences, or security in the City's parking facility, other than the City's commitment that those parking spaces will be available for monthly leases for all of the commercial/retail uses incorporated within the Project, at a parking rate schedule that reflects fair market value, whose published rates will be provided to transient customers. The City will provide a structure for free parking validations at the garage for varying uses and time frames (retail, restaurant, marina, etc.) in line with existing waterfront venues in the area. The free validation structure will comply with the Miami 21 Zoning Code and will be established during lease negotiations and reflected therein. The schedule and milestones for construction of the parking garage and retail spaces by MPA will be developed in conjunction with, and will be compatible with, the successful Proposers development plan, to be reflected in the Lease. Submitted into the public 20 record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk RCI PROPOSAL EXCERPTS PROJECT "':AN Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk oceanfront. Likewise, as the cars will certainly have been evacuated in the event of a named storm there is little or no risk of damage to parked cars as people will not be tempted to leave cars in the at - grade garage as they might be with a multi -story garage. Further, utilizing this at -grade space for parking minimizes the visual impact of the proposed Miami Parking Authority (MPA) parking garage and effectively eliminates a multistory parking structure visually intruding on the view directly along the Rickenbacker Causeway, because it places a substantial majority of the required parking underneath the dry stack. The Preferred Plan therefore minimizes the imposition of the larger scale MPA garage and the Project onto the immediate area and neighborhood. As the RFP requires the Proposer to make a contribution to the MPA toward the construction of a parking structure to provide the required parking for the Project, RCI has also submitted an Alternative Plan that does provide the required parking in the conventional MPA garage along the Rickenbacker in the location identified by the City in the RFP. RCI is prepared to make the required contribution of $15,000 per space to the MPA garage if it is to be built. As noted above and as shown in the plans the Alternative Plan then requires a much larger and more expensive parking structure, which will have a substantial impact on the Causeway. Based upon the City's estimates, the City's contribution to the garage would be $7.25 million. RCI believes the Preferred Plan is a much better plan that provides multiple public benefits by, among other things, saving tax payers' money, reducing visual impacts, and providing more convenient parking for the RFP uses and users and the public. If the City determines that we must use the Alternative Plan because of the MPA required garage, we are prepared to do so as the balance of the plan remains virtually the same as the Preferred Plan. LAND USE AND ZONING APPROVALS The Property's current land use designation is Parks and Recreation and the zoning designation is Civic Space. With these designations, development of RCI's proposed Project will require collaboration with the City to determine the most timely and effective way ensure compliance with all applicable zoning regulations. We currently anticipate preparing and applying for some relatively VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR MARINE CENTER minor comprehensive plan amendments in tandem with rezoning to a Special Area Plan ("SAP"). It appears to the Project Team that the SAP rezoning is likely the best and most comprehensive way to establish appropriate zoning regulations to control the implementation of the Project plan in a way that will recognize the unique character of this Property and permit the required and proposed facilities and services. The development of the Project remains subject to all zoning and development regulations and as the City stated in Addenda XIII, the "specific details of the applicable zoning regulations cannot be conclusively determined at this time and will be developed in consultation with the City after selection." Use of County and State -deeded property in the Proposed Project assumes that the City will work with RCI to obtain all necessary approvals and waivers needed from the County and the State. We have estimated that the comprehensive plan amendments and SAP rezoning will begin in January 2017 and conclude in June orJuly 2017. As noted in Addendum VIII there is a Declaration of Restrictions that requires Miami -Dade County Commission approval of the site plan. The City stated that it is inquiring about the possibility of having this requirement modified or released. As no further information was provided by the City, we are assuming that County approval will be required and have allocated three additional months in the development schedule for the City to gain this approval. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS The Project Team will upgrade and/or improve the existing site infrastructure to include stormwater management, water distribution, sanitary sewer, and electrical systems. An outline of the improvements are as follows: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will require the engineering design and construction of a stormwater management system. Currently the majority of runoff from the Project site sheet flows into the adjacent waters of Biscayne Bay. The site plan will be designed City of Miemi Department of Real Estate & Asset Management Request for Proposals (RFP) No.12-14-077 i i i i i li i i i i i i i 151 boats North Surface Lot 78 Parking 162 boats 1,000 sqft commercial 9,980 sqft commercial - 105 parking spaces �._.. proposed outside of lease lines are not included in totals. Proposed Facilities Parking Calculation Required Formula Parking 2,800 sqft Harbormaster 9,000 sqft restaurants Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Boat Shelter - -"- Ground Level: 29,540 commercial 305 Parking LV 2-5: 973 boats H.C. Loading Bicycle Spaces Bays Parking Commercial 40,520 sqft (4/1000) 162.1 6 2.5 8.1 Restaurant 9,000 sgft (8/1000) 72.0 3 0.0 3.6 Civil Support 1,286 boats (1/5) 257.2 7 0.0 12.9 Total Required: 492 16 3 25 VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR MARINE CENTER Proposed Facilities Parking Provided �,it11111YiL , - ow -4- South surface 46 Parking ,;tom �.. .•: Provided H.C. Loading Bicycle Parking Spaces Bays Parking North Surface Lot 78 4 1 14 NW Surface lot 68 0 10 Shelter Parking 305 1 1 2 4 South surface parking 46 2 2 Total Provided: 497 17 3 30 Parking Tabulation I ©Arquitectonica International City of Miami Department of Real Estate & Asset Management Request for Proposals (RFP) No.12-14-077 Page 24 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - PHASED CAPITAL OUTLAY Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL PROFESSIONAL FEES WET SLIPS MARINA MARINA -WET MARINA -LIFTS MARINA TOTAL BASIN -WET BASIN BASIN -LIFTS BASIN TOTAL DRY RACK BUILDING PH 1 W/DOCKMSTR BUILDING PHASE 2 BUILDING PHASE 3 STAGING DOCK - PH1 STAGING DOCK - PH2 STAGING DOCK - PH3 DRY RACK TOTAL 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 600,000 2,350,000 18,000,000 700, 000.00 $ 8,500,000 9,500,000 250,000.00 200,000 $ 8,250,000 $ 1,200,000 3,000,000 8,500,000 $ 2,350,000 $ 10,850,000 8,250,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 7,400,000 18,000,000 $ 9,500,000 $ 16,500,000 $ 16,500,000 450,000 $ 700,000 $ 250,000 $ 450,000 45, 400,000 DRY RACK FUEL - GAS $ 500,000 - e- - - $ 500,000 EXISTING FUEL DOCK - GAS & DSL - $ 250,000 - - 6 $ Z50,000 COMMERCIAL TENANTS - 1 $ 4,000,000 COMMERCIAL TENANTS - 2 COMMERCIAL TENANTS - 3 $ 3,000,000 $ 4,200,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 4,200,000 11,200,000 RESTAURANT -CASUAL $ 5,000,000 - - - $ 5,000,000 RESTAURANT -TABLE CLOTH $ 2,000,000 - - - $ 2,000,000 PARKING - ENTRY SURFACE PARKING - DRY1 PARKING - DRY2 $ 1,750,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,800,000 PARKING - DRY3 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 3,000,000 PARKING - EAST SURFACE LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - WEST $ 500,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 10,300,000 $ 500,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST $ 100,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST VIRGINIA KEY 1/26/2016 9:07 PM $ 39,250,000 $ 24,150,000 $ 300,000 $ 25,800,000 $ 9,650,000 $ 100,000 $ 300,000- $ 900,000 $ 98,850,000 There Was No Bias or Prejudice in the Scoring Process. 1. "To be legally sufficient, a protest argument must allege facts that, if shown to be true, would demonstrate an impropriety." L-3 Straits, B-404865, 2011 CPD ¶119 (Comp. Gen. Dec. June 8, 2011). Without proof that the Selection Committee's scoring was outside of the published criteria or animated by bias, Suntex's argument fails and the City is required to retain the Selection Committee's scores. Suntex does not even attempt to allege bias or prejudice and makes no reference to proof in the record that the Selection Committee's scores were improperly derived, arbitrary, or capricious. Instead, it simply states its opinion and belief that its proposal was the best. That is not sufficient proof upon which a protest can be sustained. 2. A selection committee member's scoring may only be challenged if prejudice or bias can be proven based upon the record of the Selection Committee meetings and deliberations. Juvenile Services Program, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 87- 2800BID (DOAH Oct. 14, 1987). 3. Tifon's argument is simply that it does not like the scores of Ms. Weller. Tifon cannot simply state that because a score is divergent it must be discarded. Tifon must show that Ms. Weller's allegedly divergent scores are a result of "error, arbitrariness, capriciousness, or actions causing unfair competition." Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Inc. v. Dep't of Children and Family Services, Case No. 05-2800BID (DOAH Feb. 21, 2006). 4. In a pathetic attempt to allege prejudice, Tifon for the first time claims that Ms. Weller was biased and downgraded Tifon's scores because Tifon's proposed retail will compete with the City -owned Bayside Market place which Ms. Weller manages. Tifon concludes that Ms. Weller, therefore, has a conflict of interest. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 5. Again, we have set forth above all of the many clearly justifiable reasons for Tifon's third place finish and Tifon has only itself to blame. Not Ms. Weller. Further, we have explained above that a layperson, and for sure a retail professional, could assess the viability of three (3) floors of retail establishments as Tifon proposes. Ms. Weller is not to blame for Tifon's retail plan; Tifon is. And, Tifon offers NO Florida law authorizing the City to substitute the judgment of a Selection Committee member with that of those assessing Tifon's bid protest. Florida law actually prohibits such a substitution. See State Contracting & Eng'g Corp. v. Dep't of Transp., 709 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Cubic Transp. Sys. v. Dep't of Trans., Case No. 14-2322BID, 116 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 4, 2014). 6. Most importantly, it could not be clearer that if Tifon thought Ms. Weller had a conflict of interest such a claim should have been raised when the City announced the Selection Committee members. Ms. Weller's retail experience was the same when she was appointed as it was when she rendered her scores. One must assume that Ms. Weller's professional retail experience would not have been called into question if she had ranked Tifon number one. Did Tifon not realize who Ms. Weller was when the City informed the proposers who the Selection Committee members were? Did Tifon not realize where Bayside Marketplace was before the oral presentations and scoring took place? The answers are obvious. 7. After knowing the Selection Committee members and knowing what it had proposed Tifon simply sat back raising no such conflict issues. Rather, Tifon lost and decided to invent whatever it could to explain its third place finish instead of realizing only Tifon was to blame. Submitted into the public MIAMI 5018212.1 74183/46889 2 record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Ms. Weller Did Not Use Unstated Evaluation Criteria. 8. Tifon attempts to misdirect the City claiming that the basis for Ms. Weller's evaluation was contrary to the stated evaluation criteria of the RFP. This is yet another misrepresentation. As an initial matter, Tifon's claim that Ms. Weller impermissibly considered community outreach in her scoring is wholly irrelevant to the scoring of Tifon's and RCI's proposals. Ms. Weller mentioned community outreach only with respect to Suntex, the second ranked proposer. 9. The law is clear that Ms. Weller's consideration of community outreach as it relates to Suntex was proper, permissible and quite frankly required. In People, Technology and Process, LLC, B-410898.7, March 3, 2016, the court explained that it is proper to take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by, or related to the stated evaluation criteria. See Open Sys. Science of Virginia, Inc., B-410572, B- 410572.2, January 14, 2015, 2015 CPD §37 at 11; Independence Construction Inc., B-292052, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD §105 at 4. 10. Further, a Selection Committee member may even use personal knowledge related to information in the RFP or the response. In re: Miami Dade Community Services, Inc., Request for Proposals 851, December 31, 2013. 11. With the law in mind, what did Ms. Weller do? Ms. Weller noted the community outreach aspect of Suntex's proposal in her comments concerning the Overall Project Design criteria because Suntex stated in its proposal that it will modify its site plan in accordance with input that it receives from community stakeholders. [Suntex Proposal, Page 6]. Suntex stated on page 7 of its proposal, The conceptual designs presented in this proposal give physical form to the program elements requested in the RFP, existing City Master Plans, and key Submitted into the public MIAMI 5018212.1 74183/46889 3 record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk elements essential to the efficient operation of the marina. While we are confident in the design, vision and approach; we are also interested in engaging the community in the final design process to identify opportunities to make the integration of the marina into the surrounding environment as seamless as possible. In other words, the final plan must be more than a functional expression of program. It must also be a beautiful public space with architectural elements that are complementary to the neighboring waterfront. 12. Suntex also has a team member who is a Certified Charrette Planner with the National Charrette Institute. As the City knows, charrettes are collaborative sessions in which designers engage the community to create solutions to a design problem. Thus, contrary to what Tifon would have the City believe, community outreach is in fact related to the Overall Project Design/Proposed Renovation and Activities & Projects criteria and was properly considered by Ms. Weller. Without proof that Ms. Weller's scoring was outside of the published criteria or otherwise permissible Tifon's argument fails and the City is required to retain Ms. Weller's scores. Caselaw and the City Code Do Not Permit or Require Re -Scoring. 13. Property Management Specialist for the RFP, Jacqueline Lorenzo clearly and sufficiently instructed the Selection Committee with regard to their duties and the evaluation criteria. Tifon never once complained about the RFP's evaluation criteria or the instructions and guidelines that were or were not given to the Selection Committee until it did not like the outcome. Tifon had ample opportunity to protest the RFP itself as permitted by the RFP; [RFP, Section XI, page 38, Protest of Solicitation.] It never did. As such, Tifon waived such a protest at this stage of the procurement process. MIAMI 5018212.1 74183/46889 4 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 14. Tifon also had ample opportunity to raise questions regarding instructions and scoresheets that were given to the Selection Committee; it never did. Again, as such, Tifon has waived such a protest at this stage of the procurement process. 15. But now that Tifon is not ranked number one, or even number two, it claims that the City needs to provide clear guidelines about how to apply the evaluation criteria and "directions regarding the relative weight to be provided." Tifon's March 17th Letter, page 4. No doubt the directions would have been considered sufficient by Tifon if Tifon was the recommended proposer. 16. The RFP and the City Code prohibit challenges to the relative weight of evaluation criteria or the formula for assigning points. [RFP, Section XI, page 38; MIAMI, FLA., CODE §18-104(a)(2) (2002)]. Tifon cannot select whatever scoring procedures it decides best suit it regardless of whether the City establishes and publishes different procedures. Such an approach to government contracting would completely undermine all public procurements and diminish the City's ability to do business with private parties. Submitted into the public MIAMI 5018212.1 74183/46889 5 record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk The Real Law on Evaluation Committee Scoring Argument One: The divergent or aberrant scores of one Evaluation Committee member evidences clear mistakes in evaluating the proposals that warrants rejection of the scores. Optimum Technology, Inc. v. Dep't of Health, Case No. 11-0257BID (DOAH March 8, 2011) "Second, even without regard to this error, Petitioner's scoring argument is difficult to follow due to the fact that it needs more points than are available in its challenge of Ms. Poston's scoring of Items 15-19. To achieve this result, Petitioner's scoring challenge apparently relies on a cascading effect --if one or more items in an evaluator's score must be discarded, then all of her scores must be discarded --but cites little evidence and offers little argument in support of this ambitious claim." • Have to show why the divergent score is illogical, irrational, etc. in order to reject all scores. Need to meet the clearly erroneous standard. - "If the proof suggests that the evaluator lacked the ability or will to score portions of bids and some of his scores were thus truly illogical or irrational, it may prove necessary to toss out the rest of his scores." • "In this case, analysis of Ms. Poston's scoring of Items 15-19 has revealed only a single departure from the range of the reasonable --and then only by five points. This small anomaly in Ms. Poston's scoring does not call into question her other scores. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to prove that Ms. Poston's overall evaluation of the proposals violates the Clearly Erroneous Standard." • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/2011/11000257.pdf Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Inc. v. Dep't of Children and Family Services, Case No. 05-2800BID (DOAH Feb. 21, 2006). Must show that divergent scores are a result of "error, arbitrariness, capriciousness, or actions causing unfair competition." Cannot simply say that because a score seems divergent, all scores must be thrown out. • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/2005/05002800.PDF L-3 Straits, B-404865, June 8, 2011 FN 1: "L-3 also objected to the agency's evaluation of Perot's proposal under one factor, arguing that the proposal did not merit a perfect score for corporate experience/past performance because Perot lacked experience in implementing ITIL v.3 with a government customer. We dismiss this argument as legally insufficient. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect, 21.5(f) (2011). To be legally sufficient, a protest argument must allege facts that, if shown to be true, would demonstrate an impropriety. The facts alleged by the protester in support of its argument here, even if shown to be true, would not support a finding that the rating of Perot's proposal under the experience/past performance factor was unreasonable because the solicitation did Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 2 not require that an offeror have experience in implementing ITIL v.3 for government customers to receive the highest rating." • In order to make a protest argument, the protestor must be legally sufficient and allege facts that, if shown to be true, would demonstrate an impropriety. • http://www.gao.gov/products/A96838#mt=e-report Argument Two: An Evaluation Committee member used criteria not set forth in the RFP when scoring the proposals. Cases where it is acceptable for an evaluator to use information related to information in the RFP during evaluation: People, Technology and Processes, LLC, B-410898.7, March 3, 2016 As a general matter, when evaluating proposals, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by, or related to, the stated evaluation criteria. Open Sys. Science of Virginia, Inc., B-410572, B-410572.2, Jan. 14, 2015, 2015 CPD 11.37 at 11. • http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675753.pdf Open Sys. Science of Virginia, Inc., B-410572, B-410572.2, Jan. 14, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 37 at 11 "Moreover, the record demonstrates that the ability to prioritize cyber security initiatives directly related to all three subfactors under the strategic methodology and corporate capability evaluation factor. For example, the third subfactor required vendors to demonstrate their "understanding of likely future trends observed in Cyber-Security and approaches or methodology to address those trends, including the ability to prioritize areas which show the most and least added value and why." RFQ at 8. Thus, we find that the agency acted reasonably and in a manner that was consistent with the RFQ's scope and evaluation criteria when it assessed a weakness in OSS's quote for failing to demonstrate its ability to prioritize cyber security initiatives for the agency. In evaluating quotes an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to, the stated evaluation criteria." • http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668078.pdf Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 3 Independence Constr., Inc., B-292052, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 105 at 4 "Where an agency's evaluation is challenged, we will consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. Preferred Sys. Solutions, B-291750, Feb. 24, 2003, 2003 CPD 56 at 2. In evaluating a proposal, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation criteria. North Am. Military Housing, LLC, B-291750, Mar. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD 69 at 5." "Independence specifically contends that it was improperly downgraded for failing to provide items not required by the RFP, such as documentation of project management, project timelines or flowcharts, organizational charts, key personnel resumes, quality control plan, safety plan, and the identity of subcontractors. However, offerors were specifically instructed by the RFP to provide a detailed technical proposal that contained sufficient information to reflect a thorough understanding of the requirements and a detailed, description of the techniques, procedures and program for achieving the objective of the specifications/statement of work. RFP at 82. Offerors were also specifically instructed to at a minimum provide information concerning the name and qualifications of key personnel and to address[] supervision and communication, crew size and experience, quality control plan, proposed schedule of operations, and safety. RFP at 84. Given these requirements, we think that the items noted as missing or deficient in Independence's proposal were reasonably encompassed under the four listed subfactors of the technical approach/organization structure factor..." • http://www.gao.gov/products/A06953#mt=e-report Preferred Sys. Solutions, B-291750, Feb. 24, 2003, 2003 CPD 56 at 2 This case, unlike the above cases, finds that when an evaluator used information not specifically set forth in the RFP (but related to information in the RFP) to increase the score of a proposer, the evaluators actions were justified. "PSS asserts that the agency improperly awarded Access's proposal credit for submitting a transition plan and resumes of incumbent personnel. In the protester's view, because neither of these items was required by the RFP, the agency's reliance on them constituted the application of significant unstated evaluation criteria." "In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, we will consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. CWIS, LLC, B'287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD 119 at 2. In evaluating a proposal, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation criteria. North Am. Military Hous., LLC, B-289604, Mar. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD 69 at 5; TESCO, B-271756, June 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD 284 at 2." Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 4 "In finding that Access's proposal exceeded the RFP requirements, the evaluators noted that the proposal demonstrated a superior understanding of the RFP requirements and represented a substantially lower performance risk than expected. Technical Evaluation Report (TER) at 4. Specifically, the evaluators praised Access's recognition of the value of the incumbent employees and its significant effort in obtaining their resumes and letters of intent. Id. The evaluators concluded that Access's significant steps ... to ensure that qualified individuals will be readily available to perform ... provided added assurance of the successful performance of the solicitation's requirements and minimize[d] the risk of any problems during transition. Final TER at 5." "These aspects of Access's detailed management plan and their impact on minimizing transition risk were matters clearly encompassed by the management plan factor. This is a contract for personnel to provide various support services on an ID/IQ basis, and the degree to which an offeror demonstrated the availability of qualified personnel was directly related to its ability to quickly provide qualified, cleared personnel, as needed, and, correspondingly, to the risk attending implementation of its management plan. The agency therefore reasonably considered Access's transition plan and resumes in evaluating its proposal." • http://www.gao.gov/products/A06368#mt=e-report Cases where it is acceptable for an evaluator to use personal knowledge related to information in the RFP during evaluation: Matter of: Miami Dade County Community Service, Inc.; Solicitation: RFP 851 Date: December 31, 2013 • Members of a selection committee who have had experience with an incumbent provider, who is also an applicant, are not required to completely overlook or ignore these experiences. • Expressing concerns about having a certain type of vendor perform the work is very different from championing the cause of a specific vendor. Every selection committee member either has a personal preference or is inclined to think a certain way about the evaluation criteria. One of the reasons the members of selection committees are chosen is because of their knowledge and experience of the issue covered by the RFP. A member of the selection committee making clear that he prefers a single provider for an entire program and that he prefers that the provider to be a non-profit corporation does not constitute bias towards a particular vendor. Juvenile Services Program, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 87- 2800BID (DOAH Oct. 14, 1987). • involves potential error by selection committee member and whether a decision to award was arbitrary and capricious Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 5 • Several procedural issues with how selection committee members' packets displayed bids and how one evaluator scored. No appearance of prejudice, though, because it prejudiced all proposals equally. Agency's action was not contrary to competition or arbitrary and capricious. • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1987/87002800.PDF Argument Three: The City acted arbitrary and capriciously when it allowed Virginia Key, LLC (RCI) to clarify/supplement its proposal at the oral presentation. Florida Statute 120.57(3)(f) "In a competitive -procurement protest, other than a rejection of all bids, proposals, or replies, the administrative law judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to determine whether the agency's proposed action is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications. The standard of proof for such proceedings shall be whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious." • No submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered. Burden on the protesting party. 7925 West 2nd Corp. v. Dep't of Corrections, Case No. 99-3497BID (DOAH Feb. 29, 2000). "An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic, or despotic." Agrico Chemical Co. v. State, Dept. of Environmental Regulations, 365 So. 2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). • Evaluation Committee clarified/supplemented proposal on their own on site visit to determine parking requirement was not met • Judge had no problem with evaluation committee doing this. Result of finding that parking spaces were not allotted was rejection of the bid as nonresponsive. This was not arbitrary and capricious. • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1999/99003497.pdf Scheidt & Bachmann USA, Inc. v. Miami -Dade County and Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc.; Solicitation: RFP 8481-2-22 Hearing Examiner: Leonard Rivkind; Date: March 31, 2008 • County may negotiate terms with proposer where alternatives offered by proposer are comparable to what the County set forth in the RFP, are advantageous to the County and do not confer a competitive advantage to proposer. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 6 System Development Corp. v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 82- 1966BID, Recommended Order (DOAH Sept. 24, 1982), Final Order (DOAH Oct. 1, 1982). "The RFP requires that an offerer establish a system for training DHRS employees as to operation of the FMIS. This requirement is set out at Paragraph 30.220 of the RFP. The EDS response basically offered to comply with the requirement. At the offerers' oral conference, DHRS asked for clarification from EDS as to its precise intentions regarding training of DHRS personnel. EDS at that time outlined the nature of its existing training program and indicates that ten slots in that program would be made available to DHRS employees. In evaluating the EDS proposal, members of the evaluation committee considered the specific offer made by EDS at the oral presentation. There is nothing improper about this sort of evaluation. The purpose of the oral conferences is to provide offerers with an opportunity to explain provisions of their proposals to DHRS. See: Paragraph 60.000 of the RFP. The offer to provide ten positions to DHRS employees in the EDS training program serves to clarify the EDS response in its proposal is not so inadequate as to render it unresponsive to the RFP, and it is proper that DHRS evaluated it based upon the clarification. Such an opportunity for clarification of proposals was given to all offerers." • Applying information learned from a clarification at a proposer's oral conference to an evaluation form is an acceptable practice. • However, in this case, the RFP expressly provided for clarifications at the oral presentation. • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1982/82001966.PDF AT and T Corp. v. Brevard County School Board, Case No. 14-1024BID (DOAH Oct. 1, 2014). "In this case, the Board announced its decision to change its award mid -protest. After learning that Bright House changed its presentation and pricing in response to the AT and T oral presentation, the Board determined that unfair advantage had resulted. The Board has not, however, addressed the fundamental issue related to the procurement process of this case: that the RFP cannot be read to allow submittals that would amend or supplement the proposals already opened. See § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. Although information clarifying a submittal or answering questions posed by staff may be permitted after the proposals were opened, an RFP cannot allow proposers to amend their proposals after they have been opened." • Clarifications after submission may be permitted after proposals were opened, but "an RFP cannot allow proposers to amend their proposals after they have been opened." • Vendors were not permitted to change the pricing schedules at the oral presentation. • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/2014/14001024.pdf Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 7 Argument Four (offshoot of other arguments, not in response to specific argument): Is there a concept of harmless error when supplementing a response if there is no tangible evidence that the Evaluation Committee member used the supplemented materials in his evaluation? Review "harmless error" as it relates to selection committee review of a proposal. Florida Statute 120.57(3)(f) - no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered. Burden on the protesting party. Financial Clearing House, Inc. v. Office of the Comptroller, Case No. 97-3150BID (DOAH Nov. 25, 1997). "The "harmless error" rule has been applied numerous times in administrative cases not dissimilar to the instant one. The analysis is first, whether a material error in procedure occurred and, if so, was there any unfairness or harm to the party challenging the error? Injured Workers Association of Florida v. Department of Labor and Unemployment Security, 630 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). An error is harmful where there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have been reached but for the error committed. Chrysler v. Department of Professional Regulation, 627 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)." • The case continues with more good quotes and information on harmless error • Case finds there was no harmless error in a 2-person panel because petitioner didn't allege anything that showed harmless error. • Case also discusses how proposers cannot supplementing their bid • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1997/97003150.PDF U.S. Foodservice, Inc. v. School Board of Hillsborough County, Case No. 98-3415BID (DOAH Nov. 17, 1998) "The 1996 statutory revisions categorically prohibit bid submissions after bid opening. Although this statutory provision is not expressly limited to material variances, it is unlikely that courts will apply it to minor irregularities, which are, by definition, immaterial and resemble a harmless error rule in bid law." • Case says that it will apply statute against "submissions after bid opening to submissions that constitute material variances" • Applies Fla. Stat. 120.57(3)(f) and uses harmless error standard for minor irregularities or immaterial additions • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1998/98003415.PDF Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum Page 8 Juvenile Services Program, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 87- 2800BID (DOAH Oct. 14, 1987) "Petitioner has not shown that Intervenor is financially unable to perform under this contract, and that therefore any award to Intervenor would be unreasonable. Acceptance of Intervenor's proposal despite the technical defect of failure to attach the Civil Rights Certificate (Attachment IV) is harmless error at most since Intervenor would still have received an overall higher rating than Petitioner if the five points for this item had been deducted. However, it was also reasonable for Respondent to accept Intervenor's answer to question 6 on the Civil Rights Compliance Checklist as compliance with the requirement of a Civil Rights Assurance Certificate since said answer pointed out that the required Assurance was already on file with Respondent." • Bid protest was dismissed • https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/1987/87002800.PDF MIAMI 5018212.3 74183/46889 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016, City Clerk Tifon Cites Wrong Case Law On March 17, 2016, Richard Perez sent a letter to the City of Miami on behalf of New Rickenbacker Marina, LLC, urging the City to disregard an "anomalous score" or to convene a new evaluation committee. In support of his argument, Mr. Perez cites the following cases: Hadi v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp., 927 So. 2d 34, 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) • Cited for proposition that: "Courts routinely overturn agency decisions that arise from arbitrary and capricious actions." (quote from Letter, not from case). • Quoted language from case: "An action is 'arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts,' and 'capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational."' Hadi has nothing to do with arbitrary or capricious scoring. This case involves a proposer that challenged two specifications listed in an RFP. The protest was brought against the government entity issuing the RFP. A proposer argued that the specifications in an RFP were arbitrary and capricious, but did not "allege any disputed material facts upon which its allegations are based, nor does it allege the specifications are so vague it cannot formulate a bid, or so unreasonable as to be impossible with which to comply." Moreover, the Court did not find that the subject specifications in the RFP were arbitrary and capricious. Centurylink Public Communications, Inc. v. Dep't of Corrections, ¶¶146, 149, Case No. 14-002828BID) (DOAH: Sept. 4, 2014; P.O. Oct. 6, 2014) • Cited for proposition that "when scores issued by a evaluation committee member are not rational, supported by logic, or clearly erroneous, the agency is required to reject such scores." (quote from Letter, not from case). The RFP in Centurylink included clear scoring instructions. The proposals were graded on a scale, ranking from "omitted" (0 points) to "exceptional" (5 points). The RFP associates a point value for each description for each particular scoring component. A score of 0 always meant that the vendor completely omitted any information from which a qualitative assessment could be made. The evaluators were trained on how to review the proposals in their entirety to properly evaluate and score them. The evaluators awarded a proposer 0 points for a certain requirement in the RFP. "A score of 0 is a factual finding by the Department that [the proposer's] 600-plus-page proposal had no information from which evaluators could qualitatively assess the proposal by that criterion" and "a score of 0 is not a qualitative assessment, like a score of 'poor' or 'exceptional.- However, the Administrative Judge found that the proposer had addressed the question throughout the proposal; it simply organized the answer in a different way than the other proposers. Thus, the response complied with the RFP requirements and could not rationally be deemed omitted: "The conclusion that [the proposer] entirely omitted a plan to address [the section of the RFP that was presumably omitted] is irrational and completely erroneous. Something was there. A score of omitted is not supported." Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk This case addresses the omission of a certain requirement and the associated point value. The same cannot be said for the opposite —that a perfect score necessarily means that a submission requirement was perfect. The case does not discuss this distinction but instead indicates that any score value given in an RFP evaluation is qualitative, so long as objectively the score reflects whether the proposer's response did, in fact, address the questions asked. Aurora Pump v. Gould Pumps, Inc., 424 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) • Cited for proposition that: "It is, in fact, axiomatic that evaluators may not look outside the RFP criteria when conducting their reviews of the submitted proposals." (quote from Letter, not from case). In Aurora, a losing bidder initiated a protest alleging that the ITB's bidding documents were not specific enough to assure fair competition to all bidders. The court agreed, as both "the invitation and the instructions were silent as to a specific procedure for conduct of the negotiations and as to a deadline by which cost proposal modifcations resulting from the negotiations could be submitted." There, the government entity allowed proposers to alter certain cost proposal documents after they were submitted but before they were opened. Those proposers, due to prior knowledge of the way that the government entity handled procurement procedures, knew the government entity would allow the change in the submitted documents. The protestor, however, was unfamiliar with this procedure and failed to submit the updated documents on time. At evaluation, a bidder with the lowest cost proposal was awarded the contract. Had the protestor been able to submit its updated cost proposal, it would have been the lowest bidder. The court concluded that the government entity's action in permitting the cost proposal documents to be submitted during a certain time, when the procedure for submitting the documents was not addressed in the ITB, was arbitrary and capricious. This case is not based off arbitrary and capricious scoring by a selection committee member. The issues in this case deal with whether the government entity acted arbitrarily when it allowed certain bidders to submit updated cost proposals when the procedure for doing so was not expressed in the ITB. MIAMI 4944958.2 74183/46889 Page 2 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk INN I =III EMI INN IIIIII =II 1111111 NMI IIIIIII IIIIM MS MIII INN NMI MIIII MINI I= R VIRGINIA KEY R$R80UR MARINECENTER Proposal Comparison Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk "Virginia Key Harbour" RCI "Rickenbacker" Tifon "Virginia Key SMI" Sun -Tex Capital Investment Capital Reserves for Asset Replacement Retail Program — ground floor Retail Program — upper floors Ratio of City Rent Payment Derived from Retail 10-year cumulative Rent to City (after sta bilization) $98,850,000 (builder estimate provided) 2.5 % $800,000 /year 36,000 SF at $38.33 /SF O SF 3.5 $49,272,000 realistic $56,340,000 (no builder estimate provided) 1% $300,000 /year 38,530 SF at $61.00 /SF 31,250 SF at $49.47 /SF 28 $49,137,000 unrealistic $73,776,000 (no builder estimate provided) 2% $540,000 /year unknown unknown unknown $43,235,000 unknown 1 1 1 Virginia Key RFP - Contrasts Between Competitors and Basin Count 'Mrginia Key Harbour" RCI: 1st place "Virginia Key SMr Suntex: 2nd place "Rickenbacker" Tifon: 3rd place Required 50' setback for buildings Properly within setbacks Major violation: 66% of Commercial Space in setback Major violation: 22% of Commercial Space in setback Occupied space below flood elevation Only car parking Program below flood elevation: 90,750 SF of retail Program below flood elevation: 36,735 SF of retail, 1065 SF of office Revenue -generating uses in setback zone None Yes: Illegal Yes: Illegal Revenue -generating uses below flood elevation Only car parking Yes: Irresponsible, uninsurable Yes: Irresponsible, uninsurable Legal Feasibility of Proposed Design Permittable Design Unpermittable Design Unpermittable Design Umimpeded Public Baywalk to Marine Stadium Provided Not Provided Not Provided Proposed Permitting Timeline for All Slips Reasonable Unreasonable Unreasonable Total Wet and Dry Slips Proposed 1,286 1,374 Unclear: either 1,300 stated in narrative; but 1,083 shown in plans** Overall Dry Slips Proposed 973 820 Unclear: either 800 or 603** Overall Wet Slips Proposed 313 554 Unclear: 500 stated in narrative; but 480 shown in plans** New Wet Slips Proposed in Northern Basin 151 (-12% of total slips) 364 (-26.5% of total slips) Unclear: 310 stated in narrattive; but 290 shown in plans (either -24% or -27% of total slips)** Revenue to City after Stabilization $49,272,000 $43,235,000 $49,137,000 "Tifon's plan lacks the detail and specificity to confirm the exact numbers that correlate to its financial projects and its proposal. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ME III MIN — fi — M MIN — — ME NM MIN — — — 11111 fi Suntex Summary Submitted Illusory Proposal Illusive — Percentage Rent Payment to City Unclear— Commercial Component Size Deceptive— Parking Space Count and Payment Misleading — Parking Garage Height Erroneous— Forklift Technology Fictional — Pro Forma Financial Projections Bid Protest Specious Wrong About RCI's Experience Wrong About RCI's Parking Requirement Contribution Wrong About Sustainable Design Ignored RFP Requirements Violated Height Restrictions Violated 50' Charter Setback Violated FEMA Flood Requirements Violated Private Parking Ban Violated City's Request for Sufficient Information to Evaluate Proposal Violated Litigation Disclosure Requirement City Attorney and City's Special Counsel AGREE Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 06 on /22/2016, City Clerk Tifon Summary Evasive — Commercial Space Reliance Misleading — Dry Stack Counts Confusing— Parking Compliance Unreal — Construction Schedule Fabricated — Financial Projections Bid Protest Hollow and Wrong RCI Agreed to Parking Contribution Scoring Was Proper Case Law Cited Completely Inapplicable Ignored RFP Requirements Violated FEMA Flood Construction Requirement Violated 50' Charter -Required Setback Violated Height Restrictions Violated Virginia Key Master Plan City Attorney and City's Special Counsel AGREE Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MI INN MI NMI MINI MN MINI IMO NM MINI INN =I NMI MEI MIN NMI INN NMI ' The Protest of The March 16, 2016 Manager's Recommendation of Award of Virginia Key Marina Request For Proposals • une 9, 2016 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 AWE, AMINE on 06/22/2016, City Clerk RCI Agreed to Make Parking Trust Fund Contribution Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk RCI's Proposal — Parking Contribution spec. "fhe farage will have reLil space and will be Opra*e0 and managed by the MPA Iho City dun take WO Cmuhkd000 the Peopseeh popsed location fur the parking garsgc. however, the Aerate I.roo*oo of Ile panting garage feciliy shell le o the sok end abahoe discretion of the Cay. The garage footprint it currently .Airn.ted to be uppmxmwely foray -live thousand (4 ,0W) npaec feel, ..eluding cm -back. and other r.vrklknw. the City will require the niees.ful Props:* to pay into a prop.*-*peclfic perk log un>t fund (-Parking Trust Fond", so am.nud for co mneton of the parking gars* 0 the time of the I..:se 'fro MI•A will me to fund. cumribuld to the 1•ykini I run turd to t011wrw,,h: porkier 14;ility to a:canerA t. Ilw tam oldie Project. The molter of parkin; .pa.ei will he hoed tot four lel ttper LIMO squat: feet of read. we 111 poking spas rye.v;ty live IS) boats of dry 0r wet Nmape. and ceste 1(1 .p..P, go" every 1.00U aquaae kin of oNaw+M gnu:. area. ..Rol PO 0...I w.1. Iw' rvquhi , .,.ill. 011. I.. IN. Psnk nne I toss 1 w,a 4PIll:.,. n, If.. ...Id ,l. ll.n s 13. ` x, . �or:.l I.• ly appOxwarely )a`0 vl the 0.l of conwocexm) Per cash sptemquueJ !ur tic ovewg site pupa.J, per the ratios p,ov1Jod 0F0vc. including the retail Mara in the VAMP .wV flowerer. minimum of 230 pwkng spaat .loll L re:pk,J Poe a site' Ilnnmwnm ;mall wnn.,la.n ..11s.a>,:,uw W to be paid by caahet's.Leck or looney order and delrrcred to the Dilutor of Real Imam & n.a.t Mao o *nrn1, 999 SW 20 Avcrwc, 3'9 !knot, Mond Florida 33110 upon all:envy tide of tlo Isere) Thi: p-lk oar garage comfihution will he deposited into an escrow account whose dcw•noal uw• .h;ll he applied to the Parkaq Test rued. to the event din the miescudom is not pas.ed, then. parking garage cawuawkm will he M,mnd to the _ostessrul Proposer. MPA may, in is sok dialA/on. elect n, bond additional parking ff AS beyond what a required for the sucnsafol Propuser's Project and adding City and MPA pastimeebligvom. Should the MPA choose so build add genial parking apaets.the MPA will pay erne hundred (green* (1001) of the additional cod. required for the additional :pares, as well as the cod for any ancillary ass Lwvrprned o the parking G enika. The successful Proposer will have no rated or'epeetented imarca, rights. apnoea, prekrerces, m ""..may in the (:ty's parking facility. other don *he Cky'r commitment thet those parking ipar,es will be availabk kr monthly bases kir all of the enmatercoVratsd it. , incorporated within the Platted. at sparking rate schedule that reflects fat rmrkel Ake. whose p.bbuhed rates will be p avidd w tanned uae.o.rs. The City will provide a Armco. for Ilve parking validaor a1 the grge for varying wage aril *brae frames (ocean. restaurant. 0 fits, etc.) in I. wilt exiting wvterhora venues in the ,no. The kx va)iduioe marpde will wsply with the Miami 21 ! a.g Code and will be established during base rega1Wlw sad nik0ted Ibvea The dednlc and ailenor. . for oongnwskn of the paling gangs and retail spaces by MPA will he developed ie mcipmen t with, and MII be compost& wi& the sumeseful Propoaae development Mart le be .derail Is ehe Isaac. 20 The successful Proposer will be required to contribute to the Parking Trust Fund up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) ... (for a total minimum parking garage contribution of $3,450,000.00... Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NM NMI 111111 NM NMI MI MIN MP NMI NMI /II EN 111•1 an 111111 NIB MIN UN RCI's Proposal — Parking Contribution iCy)Y.EVEY • 1.0..../0.1140.. • 4JSI'St aosas.. s 144, • ra• aatsaa was. at._ s s,sa, ja.1111.4-4 11. atcasaa an go a aa asa aS, Jo.. ax was aaaks .. le-lisammamealismie aSs ...as,. a 41.) ••••I goo, sa Mx 4 4 0.. ..4 e.r.nr$ saw...was...las, os. 14.0.1,41.41.11. imec — • ".'" - " , . . IV. PROJECT PLAN * * * RCI is prepared to make the required contribution of $15,000 per space to the MPA garage if it is to be built. Pg. 9 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/201fi City Clerk 7 I MB MS I I - UN M M N AO S / 1 NM N ! N I Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk r G A I E I! M i O M ! ! M — MI OM M N N RCI's Sustainable Design —Green Initiatives OM, MMOLIIM V. OPERATING PLAN * * * GREEN INITIATIVES The following green initiatives will be instituted upon RCI's assumption of management responsibilities: • Installation of solar powered and low wattage light sources to address the harbor's access and security needs. • Installation of solar powered, wireless security cameras at every pier and harbor entrance. • Electric car charging station installation throughout parking lots. • Trash dumpsters will be replaced with trash compactors. • In -slip sanitary pump out systems will be installed at every in water slip for customer convenience and environmental protection. • Trash will be recycled by material type. • Security guards will ride/patrol their respective properties on foot or bicycle, not golf cart or auto. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Pg. 11-12 NIB MEI INN MI MI MID NMI MI 11111 11111 MD INN MI 111111 Mill IND EN 11111 11111 Lease Agreement Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 11111 M - 0-- 1 i I OM 11111 WO MI a NS I i W Lease Agreement Attachment 9 - Form I.: ac Agra:meat This form lease :lull be amended to reflect the requirements set forth within Virginia Key Mara. REP 12-144177yyl ty I' 1-,A.11„ t d 4 m I- d m lu,di. m,. $. LEASE, ACREEMENT BETWEEN TIIE CITY OF MIAMI AND FOR TIIE LEASE OF CITY' -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT l'IRCINIA KEY 3301.3605, 3501, 3311, & 3511 RICICENBACEER CAUSEWAY MIAMI, FL 33149 WIT:- f Nc. Iusa..wm.. ly We Rl P I e.. thst60 NOTE: To the extent any of Lessee's requested changes to the Lease would deem the Lessee non -responsive to the RFP. Lessee automatically withdraws such requested change so that the Lessee would be responsive. Pg. 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MINI MO =I IMO INN INN OM MINI Mt NM INN MIMI all INN NM OM - - " RCI's Marina Experience Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NM! M 1 W MI M I NM! r MB I NM NM MB— MN NM 5 rnl ion nillbn 5 million For l,po No. 1, Miami Beach Marina Location Miami Beach, FL CEO, ° the 2. Bahia Mar - Hotel + Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Ion RCI 3. Bridgeport Lando nt... Marina/Residential/ 15 Years RC Rs 3. Bridgeport Landing Dev. Location Bridgeport, CT Location Miami Beach, FL Rated n r 4. Marker One Marina Location Dunedin, FL Location= Miami Beach, FL 1 5, Little Harbor Marina Location Ruskin, FL 3 Boston Yacht Haven Location Boston, MA vparaoomsrnarrogar i I 1 _._ r 4. Marker One Marina Location Dunedin, FL "'_�-,Y I location FI Lauderdale, FLI ReloJ+itastaurant I I 5. Little Harbor Marina Location Ruskin, FL ,}� . ,l I lttatbn Mram want, I L I m 4. Bayshore Landing Location Coconut Grove, FL I 1 I Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MB MS IIIIIII MINI MOIR 11111111 UM Mil =III NMI II= MN M OM RCI's Marina Experience ATTACHMENTS PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS For each member of your Project Teat, please list the name and role of the individual (for example, Principal/CFO, Opostiore Aatagur, Rcstauranl Manages, Retail Manager, Manna Manage', Architect, General Contractor, etc.), License No. (if applicable), number of years of experience in their respective Geld and the 1,100 Certification Status of the individual (as applicable). (Attach additional sheets if necessary). Nano/Role lilt of Roe (3) Similar Projects 9r NajeR 6a666 be oration Type of Project Project Completion Time Total Project Coal ARUUITfC7VNICA i la l pa, i:4.644k.W .e. 1, Vtlaalrert RW... ya,ernt Mrainall'ar:,l:lor:<ge. 1{.n1 2017 Pf1::a I 117 9 mates LocationJalarr re MannistRnal Storage, R..identc:l. R:LSI-lncne 2017 Pt:-ua, Confalentl9 Rvoissios WLrbore e.g.ia 2. Mn.0 Lbw _woke:Lo.nl 11.46urr 9V66' Pdmr+orn rl AIYinetErat Storage, R.Md.nanl, Hotel. grill off''' 2010 Molar Pi, 1a9011luron Jeces..,. ::hp7ar4a 1.JJ.4..hwe R,nhnp11t1.ed Location ..:.en., Ma FI R.anrntlal 12:4:11 ifa,spon t,n 2017 Pt,. I 'con Phase II $22. ns6al Architect N..r�rr, nl InrWn 4 JsoaW. hate 'i des Iax.l'on Iry.mW ''a1.a A.r nefBod 4ofage Roao1 denlul. HN, twig r>tere 2010 M •a:'1 Rim41_2 7 otoo ...Louisiana M,M'hont ww ...mot IOCation .0Usolar: I/A[ .,. The flarlau, Coconut 011n0 1. W4cllfoet Rederelopnlenl M..Iur.'(ioal 661/.g:., 11at>,I 2017 Pl+au 1 f17 g nuilwo Location el,zna FI Ma1,0--,Re, ,c,.ay R£udanllal,fiteut041rt. 2017 Matti I )afh thole l R 7lawwi. Watedront V'aag:. 2. Reed USE Oovappmanl location W/ st Palm PeAct. K. Peru An Mu:Swn Miami. 3 Fr4J ✓larc[ Mu;acum Museum Game, Pu0jc,•Face 1014 2016 1-^ m'Lfx1 I. 'is mli,on Landscape Architect Location 1t.me rf WanMont Puwk Spies 1ac.7 Phu:a I 'rep 4. Braoyn. toe 11.7v+.lk location 6fi+mi Ft inlr,&u1uos F Mn «a.ti.ti wsw'I u 201e 4lid'i mww, 1 lrlire lrallunml to $. Pen Tunnel Location Marro IL 1t N imta shot (.s apple able). (Aga.h..4ldn,oal Aerie II necessary). The Harbour Coconut Grove 1. Waterfront Redevelopment Location Miami, FL 1:0, else the Rybovich Waterfront Village 2. Mixed Use Development Location West Palm Beach. FL I a Corel. I Residential on 12013 - m eroaresrl 540 million Jacksonville Shipyards 3, Waterfront Redevelopment I Location Jacksonville, FL A I I Waterfront Toronto 4, Aqualina, Aquavista Location Toronto, Canada I I � Lulu Island Waterfront 5. Development Location Abu Dhabi, UAE Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPa1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Mr — N a— I R MB NM N--— NM 1 r I N r RCI's Marina Experience 1. Bluepoints Marina Location Port Canaveral, FL by 50a6b. 1 1 1 r 2. Haulover Marine Center Location Miami -Dade Co, FL 4. Marina Palms Location N Miami Beach, FL ..,.n., I MB,)ne 1 S. Marine Stadium Marina and Bulkhead Location Miami, FL ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS F 1. Garrison Bight Marina Location Key West, FL ' 1 4 )ritioe el..t, n. I 1 1 I Safe Harbor 2 Commercial Marina Location Key West, FL e.e .tee t]50D Imeglceei,.4 I.gS.sly.a 'lgtt n. , 1no LLYelbn.. t. rt Melt,2.:..,.! e. ,.i1. s.le1i0d0 tion S.ISon .,, 0.r..pe.t tarls.ner.tal Permitting (XXX) 5 y.u. 1.5 yeas. .. OHO Michael fisher, Po (0.115,4 eel, ow. , r. Ie. tete5leaLates or5. 3. Coserra .1 Redevelopment e.....0..a impacted .oil management 2.5 r.as. 0011 Senior Geologist Locatloopl.el-osa. Colette. IL ..folp.l ..wg. 4.0-], sees etatlon static. petsole.. an, hazardous waste seneOLtian 6 yeas. 5520e Location pale Beach rL Doll, 2.m1ne1a 5..eiu s.o..a a a of .n tlpa• .t n. t.0nan:1. 6 raar. $600D Location a.0e.on„111., rt. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk — r—— M— I— 11 M M I M I M I— W RCI's Marina Experience 0,1 ul FWD) Similar Pori... air Rol.c1 Name 8 by Locatbn location k!arida Tyne al Project awns kna nt rw ..yoa a al/musing ...e...eons ante r.oulet,n 1. Port Boathouse Pa9efeq onsMaot total Rolecl Cmt Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL 1 I U R LA RT 1�/ Moriarty L Poll fipeWWy Boat Dry Storage 1 Year $10.3 mkbn lacatiu, r, La„oeraal8 F.I.\ - ._ Condo with Seawall 8. Baywalk 2 Year. $73 Mon ,- Location Kam Beach. FL Condo with Seawall & Baywalk 2 Years 878 million B Murano Grande John Leete General Contractor location Mum Beach, FL Condo with Seawall 8 Baywalk 2 Ywr$ $70 million 4. Murano Portfolio location Miami Beech. FL 58 stay condo with lame 3 Veers $300 million 5 loon Bnckell Location Morn, FL bayhont walkways 8 seawalls Holder Paer 1, Potent 0000its System Patent Engineering 6 Application 5 Vsan $1.4 millionLocation Pero -Docks Worldwide. LLC Tied Venture ofoup) cks 8 Tecnnomanne Group) Palest 88568948 Design/Build Conabuctian 14 Months $4.3 million 2 Industrial Manufacturing Bldg. Location Akron. OH (Therrro88.) Design/Budd Crane Buildings 11 Months $2 7 millon 3. Industrial Machine Facility Richard C. Lydia VenConsulantsl Vendors Vendors Location Akron, (kl Warehouse Mfg. Buildings 14 Months $2.85 million 4. g Addition 1 Industrial Mfg. Location Akron. OH Design/Build Warehouse 11 Months $1.84 million 5 Addition 2 Industrial Mfg. Location Akron. OH 1, Miami Beach Marina/Monty's Location Miami Bench, FT, c., .,I,..,...0..r, ......,. w ... JS.0 ......t.....,........,.... ....Y.....W ,,.,....,�....... ........ .....u..,e... .....,.,........ 2. Bahia Mar -Hotel & Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3, Bridgeport Landing Dev. Location Bridgeport, CT 4. Bayshore Landing/Monty's Location Coconut Grove, FL 5. Conch Harbor (Dante's) Location Key West, FL Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk W— M S N— MI N S MN 1 N N— M MD r 111111111 Only RCI Complied with Flood Zone Requirements Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk — I i NS E 11111 NB EN En i I r NM MI ININ r NMI NM RCI's Plan —Flood Zone Boat bay walk elevated launch walk boat transporter Waterfront Setback: 50ft Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MI Al NM IMO MI MIN 11.1 II= INN INN OM MIN IMO IMM INN Mil RCI's Plan Flood Zone • Air -Conditioned Spaces • Boat -Lifting Equipment • Boats • Mechanical Systems 1 Foot ABOVE Base Level Elevation NO Revenue Generating Spaces Are Underwater Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016. Citv Clerk IME 1 MI IMO 111111 MEI ME ME Suntex & Tifon Proposals Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk I MN M NNE Mill =I Suntex Flood Zone Violation SIGNIFICANT Revenue Generating Spaces Are Underwater Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 nn (16/77/7M� rite r IcrL IMO MO MI NMI =I MINI NMI RIM IMO NMI IIIMI IM VIM Tifon Flood Zone Violation FLOODED Retail Space .,• FLOODED Retail Space SIGNIFICANT Revenue Generating Spaces Are Underwater Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MN NMI MO 1E11 IMO Mil M NM NMI MIMI MINI I= NM MINI MI M 1E11 M OM Tifon Flood Zone Violation FLOODED Retail Space SIGNIFICANT Revenue Generating Spaces Are Underwater Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk I W NM M M I M— 1— r I M MB a= r N an am RCI's Parking Garage Footprint Plans Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 111111 MIS 1111111 OM NM MR NM NM 1•111 INN IMO IMO NE all MIN MINI EN INN 11111 401'4 !ont Pt14421:4101,f4.ki t.",obt,tior :4 r, vi:44 trit 114 'jli ' Z.!, • • RCI's Parking Garage Footprint Plans VIRGIMA KEY HARBOUR &MARINE CENTER Covered Parking ALL SCHEMES Proposed Parking Outside of the Footprint Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk M M r M i M NM— WM ■IN M M ME MIM► N--- a RCI's Parking Garage Footprint Plans VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER MPA Garage Footprint Per RFP RCI has the LOWEST Parking Requirement and Would Need A-6 Level Structure Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1111111 NMI NM INN Ali MN MI MN MIMI WIN 11.111 Me MIMI MIMI Int MIMI IIIIIII NMI Competitors' Proposed Parking Garage Footprints • '41* . . Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk IMO MINI MEI OM MIN INN NIB ME IOW MIN NMI MO OM INN OM =I NM MX NM , • • • - • . • ............ e • • • ........ R • Suntex's Proposed Parking Garage Footprints I fW cxxszs Garage MPA Garage Footprint Per RFP ;., ViALV. JUJLJWA 71110004.stos00#0froo#00.0 1000110.0P.00.010114101:00101#0.01,# • Garage Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Tifon's Proposed Parking Garage Footprints Surface Parking MPA Garage Footprint Per RFP MIME . Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MR NM MI N NMI INN II= 111•11 NM MINI IIIIII NIB MN NM MI E NMI RCI Complies with the 50 Foot Mandated Setback Requirement Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NM s r— I— — MB N M NM OM— I1■111 — N M= IIIIIII RCI Complies with the 50 Foot Setback Requirement VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR &MARINE CENTER Only Marine Related Uses Extend Into Setbacks (Boat Lifts) tnt • ttcrttttttttLf tttttt 1ttttti NO Building Violates the 50 Foot Setback Requirement Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Competitors' Proposed Plans VIOLATE the 50 Foot Setback Requirement Suntex & Tifon Proposals Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Mill IMO MINI IMO 11.111 INN IMO NM MB NMI MI MINI 111111 1111111 ISM MI Mill IMO NMI Suntex's Proposed Plan Buildings Violate the 50 Foot Setback 50 Foot Setback L I ly—kAr tAti.11,1 "PA/ DeXPQ, A1,0 BOAT tit APlA 0111101.0looNswilifill oicioopoloisolopottfoisuoN ssompoopopeo*MillOttlioN Multiple Buildings VIOLATE the 50 Foot Setback Requirement Submitted into the public rc%rrtri4 for item(s) CD 1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 111111 MN 1 N E ! E I M 111111 1 r M — I M Tifon's Proposed Plan (17 L kn 7ster. Mc, • 1066 GSF 02 Hew Marina • no u 03 Horizontal porWg • pain • sou 04 WONMarina •Nou OS Mitt Spare • 74030 VW ao rtseorrunte • Hrnae • two caw 77 H►straane . /Haan • lervtcrs MOO 4sM le Haut Hoof leap - Hwang CMOs 07 pranernds 122 Dry Shad( balding g • as u• 00 JLklanbaciar cue.way Amiss 13 Gas etattan ON Hehrg bays • NW U. P. Jet AN silo . 110 u• 10 Boot Lmath Bay • Ory t5 Seim f apt* Buildings Violate • the 50 Foot Setback 50 Foot Setback Multiple Buildings VIOLATE the 50 Foot Setback Requirement Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk M EN N i i N N I MN N N N EN E IIIIN 1 M i• Suntex Percentage Rent Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MO ENO MB Mil MN MIN - - ISM 1111111 OM 11111 SIM INN Suntex Percentage Rent V. PERSONS) Al' 11/01117-ED 10 NF:COTIATF AND SICN TIM LEASE ACKEEMENT: Jeknt, I...nS. inallletasead. PROP(IMI) LIST IA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO FROKR ry ...0.14nna hJvb%h#.4O.. 51.1, RIO Km.10,11.1, Sti 1.4. No, ant Carrommlol Sok. .1".1/1/x11•4..,(0.1.VIrnaus I PORED Umudis. IlanksoiMmrssoomm MOM LWOW MOOR LOYDAS.000 ATTACH S 4i. II" SKETCH SOWN' INC PROPOSED RESIODELLINO. RANOVAI ION BUILD-01)E INIPKOVI.NIENTS 1» PIMPF.141 Y. ALI. COPWS MINT INCLUDE: C01.11, OF lIll, SKETCH. VII. PROPOSED DOLLAR (S) AMOUNT (IF CAN AL IMPROV EIDEN IS VH01.0)/ kricr (NAN'. HIS I ASO PER(EN I MINT 1/1, GROSS Ri I. I N 141). PROPOSED BASE RENT: s 1.1%0,000 Pi RI t ,11 MP lifia s • VIA* VIII. PROPOSED RENT (BASE RENT AND PERCENTAGE RENT OF GROSS REVENUES). * * * PERCENTAGE RENT: $829,086 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk M 1111111 =II MIN IMO IMO MIN IMO MEI MI NM NMI Suntex Percentage Rent dita6malY Fame Aa4,Ap,.ara ah.....» ...... M... a.., N.. .n..,.1.n..,.•.A• fr.,- -dowry. P.YKA..+...cr....+. tlwn-...e Yw._.4 _..._.l_. 0.w. * d. y...a... we.a .lJ ykilv, 7 W 1..2 .hall Ir hare I.a as pro Sloe .f l , l ,•. I I fir 'Soda w unl.•.uJ.w. Or a l sirs :kalMwpad.aI.a.,.n ara.t I1.. Sera:. I. I. Id t nl 6. assnas 1. ex. whn talatr. r• try Suer .A 1 L.: der. ILn ••a6...1 II. Id Alai !. pa:abl• t h, Is, se.laud Mint .. el.,* :nJ :n tan l..• •a 6111 Ism. Ine ..ate. kd dad n.t.Jlnii d:J�:. tr... ,. • tnt stag 1.1.6 t+so�lrteyLal lad a.14 4 thmsyfww b atn db Laad. Lass 'lull pry to b L I.• • let,.mage tl lx,wt • kn.( (.W M...art kik tonal yaw b Pttni.t l.r ahr ..arc Da.fe4IW remanup is bl M aayrO MY mimed kW. ren..r..lfl Kg, pny.0-, 4- *n*l .,N b LYa Dm adMarfady 60.0.01.W Ism 7Y P*...tga Ma W14 b. eq.lY 44.1 a rr sttr.4-a. -J txwt dr•a.as d b lad d. aa0 I•Y0604 LYN VI. rS*-4A...40.1 odwy 1I.MAL na AWM4AkW ,I 4( Odd 1 a ,^•va ,. y1, .!Yal .1N Y kathsAttabLawaiLlalus. llra....1at I% an a1...I.•.cr. Lialac14YYfkn I1,*'4sd dekW b. #16iOraYJE11111YNdai1615:,,a'.a d Ib. I.,_, ,ps •,N I fiktfaillatil aS.bkkry Id 01y66eti Iaab+U. AL.( f_(IL r. Its µvl.MdsIldlids.a 1aNdly,•.!L 1.14 .. e4r.nt u.•Ltlwla La a V,u1 Pun. Sax a," hi I,: YLLL .gg.n. A.W'd44 * had, - 1e:J+t�PJS`-,:mtL4aa#WiMuPl. Lit valxi..10, d[IWdua.aalW La V._at.a. u m cuNul OthnJla tit, u�rt. 1u. I Iasi Ms. I' .talit%J.l••w.aass anal WrI P1Van 4..rla4J aM v .I I. uw, Ox.•x. J.vi�taJ.tt-•t 4.14 Idasrsathismai h Paerups 1a.0Wl bs pay#,vitbm may (60) days aka the sad ofeab Lone Year Is. 0011 &Yen 10 As Late a .tams ant* bras the Qum 1a mm A..* b aYbsa k pd..gs 1.. perbd rlmMLhosisi lti_eml kMltg'). awl Lases dud pry .o rya City b maser of paeraatys its dale .,.1 ptyadk, if aty. le try Les. pap. la b term d b Ira Mad Nara Vacs% I* Lams shell is tipord =diva a 16 aaa►ba r aartwa by Y .Sr..1 Im. assfd b b dfdyj®LJift • 6*.. r, !tl .tams ad M b a_I6=r Ilemmo ma an mammon of op mamba Y'Edam% ix die seta. is. yak. Irks asd peak b Asrl hammy I 4.1.4. Percentage Rate From the date that the Lessee completes the initial Leasehold Improvements on the Phase I Area and Phase II Area (so long as Lessee commences construction on or before the thirtieth (30th) day after receipt of building permits and diligently pursues the construction to completion) and continuing throughout the term of the Lease, Lessee shall pay to the City a percentage of Lessee's annual Gross Revenues made from or upon the Premises for that same time period. Percentage Rent shall be computed on an annual basis ("Percentage Rent Period") beginning with the Lease Date and continuing throughout the Term. The Percentage Rent shall be equal to percent ( %) of the combined percentages of Gross Revenues of the Lessee for any preceding Lease Year. PERCENTAGE RENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO NEITHER NATURAL NOR ARTIFICIAL BREAKPOINT. Years and shall not exceed the minimum limits set forth in the RFP and recited below: Three percent (3%) of gross revenues for the restaurant if operated directly by the Lessee, or other negotiated percentage of the Lessee's income received from a Sub -lessee or assignee restaurant as set forth in the applicable sublease or assignment, if the restaurant is operated by a third party; Six percent (6%) for the marina operation (non -fuel); Five percent (5%) on gross fuel profits (gross fuel profits defined as gross fuel sale price per gallon minus cost of delivered fuel per gallon); Three percent (3%) for the ship's store or any other marine related sales other than those described above. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk I IIIIIIII I I M NM I M - I= ME I - I NM E N Suntex Percentage Rent MINIMUM FINANCIAL RETURNS 2014 NI 2411 4I4, 2*44 2921 1972 Nit 1,124 2925 Mau ken.,e l My 2,IW.mrt, 2.21 i,491 2.20,9,s 2.19.10 2A11,1N 2./r2,41r 2,4%211 1.441,221 2.72154 2.4111.440 4..1,9 Ir•m I,.,`.I.u.,< 111, 19: 'M,•,•11.1 111:1142 1441,'94 1.4//j191 1,162/II I4419/1 1494.111 4/. 24e91 9. .., 1.14w. 1942', 11491 11. 94 59419 41194 61.5.19 65559 4/,154 1'--. low lna:. y9111.91 N..2'• ,/131' 411,311 NY1ill 111 224 23,239 19,4yi 19.691 11.194/ 19s. /499.444w 11.211 1I4,12 I 1414 11,111 11.944 14,424 14,911 I 7,509 Toa1..1/9419.101 111.141 1P.4,11, 1.172,114 1,11111,4114 1.Y1.Iri 4A7144 4,44,444 1411,47 1•,,.1 Nem l., '9 , N1,214 2.1911p411 2.21130/1 1.171411114 1.KI,144 1,992,731 },7N,114 1.1911.611 4.111414 4.179439 4AI1Al2 11144143,0111 •Rwu my awls u• it. ('9r we 9rluded 991.14 Ma UYl•a IIr um. $1*A39M1 921A17.141 foal 1949/44 Rem w Co N1 Y,, 1 1991794,94 119.40(/0(01911 1eW pnlwNd 1t440 17173 Y9 I: Total % Rent to City 698,151 1,004,797 1,172,914 1,288,484 1,383,470 1,471,585 1,556,104 1,610,567 NONE OF THE ABOVE = $829,086 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 nn n6/22/2016. City Clerk IIMI M MOM E Mil MEI NMI MIR SIM 11111 MIMI MOM MEI MOM =I MIN 1111111 M MS Suntex Commercial Space Inconsistency Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NM M— M-- WM MN r i E -- NM— E= Suntex Commercial Space Inconsistency E ty.t•,J. J ., 0, err tl..x ••:ITcn top al prtmg • C<roR:+r 61.000 11 tononetilal o** g 1 fresh MUL0 v.erL Reetavanu +w Reta3 Space along the ptonvtvde Our total ...esnra,v wi weed ids Mdwn. Ow. foal u w o aev a wa:W tusa QeHaeabon numa t at rt tmxh more than mg* a puke+(bt fo. ooau. Uur .wwn •a to (MAW .--0Ntl4nnt :.ponenre at the Rw1.nbv. kv.+bNn :raate a Mp+bnnt def1e4e6 4. aenlaetei( metl1Nle relt0Want:. rota! wpas, attd r01+0W int<n,t4• la *oaten aW the gametal p..tdm s:ka the ndeval;p1J propels w1' a,/,.at tha pakdt peal n4MM+ end bey walks us:.d (+o Ise to make them mwe of ■ p•d & loatve- Thh ee(vlty w;S add:ca.axy tor.pfan ege the Rh:aty p+6ra. Reeuurent ae n walbt..a,nore tuatu.nary tJ d@ 144- 22 REQUIRED REDEVELOPMENT a,: ..,n„ w.y,,,n•uar a door, eateade the 300 .. ha1 +4Gc..c- ., cnxm gap How.,..of ep0 sloe by 6i How.,.. the nr6+vey .v. di,.h �.• . ru taa*eal on hoe, footage of doc*aie Gtmnly the •: o at rho e.+nn( man. n ei vet. per; total of 13501near leer mwaeaunn, en afd+t.-af the 30d wo dypt Jd �, J � ul nc ^+M; aa.ra(m( S7 feet, our prnp.ese. total of 31,578 . , ,..., , . .'.a15.538 laver Nat o1 dothaj+, an,,•.reat• of e37: . , t.. . ,,..s worth 53 54e 416 n ennufl rent • Construct 64,000 sf commercial adding a Fresh Market, several Restaurants and Retail Space along the Promenade Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MOP MN - NM OM NMI UM INN MI I= MI MIMI MO IIIIII IMO MINI IMO Suntex Commercial Space Inconsistency V. pERSON(M AUTHORIZED TO NIKG(MIATE AND SIGN THE LEASE AGRP.EMENT: Oho 0 Bows, W, /room dorkwood. MBA hiker, Chi "I OMB 4.1 pRopfls111 1.1,1 OF ( A PI I AL I M PRO% 4 MISI PROPPRTY Mow ...woo llOaling Dock Val Bodo twookord Oro Stork AM Md. Paddog fiord, KM SI yacht Club 70.000 If MVO 064.101. 5.4.46 1.:00 BIldr ItOildwaddl (Am; tcrov.ettal Pod. 15.4.1414 1,....10.1$110, a °OM/ Mee 115. n 30.09frf saup Su. Upractss, 1,200 Si, 5,000 SI aoolway Impeor•manu. 3.1. Boardwalk 30.000 Si, 15.224 ATTACH S94.1s II- SKETCH SHOWING PROPOSED REMODELLING. RENOVATION BUILD -OUT IMPROVEMENTS OF PROPERTY. ALL COPIES MUST INCLUDE COPIES OF THIS SKETCH. VIL PROPOSED DOLLAR (S) AMOUNT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS S VIM PROPOSED RENT (B ASE RYNT AND PERCENTAGE RENT OF GROSS REVENUES). PROPOSED B ASE RENT; IFERCLKTAGI RENT: 2./.50.000 $ SHAM VI. PROPOSED LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY * * * Commercial Space 17,500 SF Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Tifon Parking Submitted into the public record for item(d8P.1 unO6/22/2O1G'City Clerk r - M r 1 r r r r - r MN r r r r - r Tifon Parking Problem 01 Docktnaster'5 Office - i069 t.b 02 New Marina • 310 u 03 Horizontal parking •plaza • 50u 04 Existing Marto • 190 u 05 Retail Span • 24030 GSF 06 Restaurants. • Berton/ - 3300 GSF 11 Restroome • lockers • Servkes • 7600 G5F 12 Dry stack buMidkng • e40 u • ss 13 Gas station 09 Porkk q Garage • 1662 u.• 14 let skis alb • 150 u • 15 5erkes & Repok �...r;... 16 Pub& Boot Romp • Floating docks 17 Parking alternative access 19 Rkkenbocker Causeway Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 11111 En N NE— N-- N M I NM NM NM s r 1 NM Tifon Parking Problem As . we wa:_'d to toz:rust rove auf, 911OOt1 h It a retail space Whin eh. m n vrx:a't a.ear4w�.tg porhs, d the v.:h.n eastern w-d taadc'n'auxin ad alwatep the "aimed WD Mastro IA C. arc trtuy lauded by W:ac, Defer.. (rota S-ctbn b ywn foals AM CAp a. Jwho we are). w111 L. marcht wen howling the MA fr= IAC floFst. B9-RESTAURANT tbism -o city surou.W W war- hx surprisingly .'w accea/ie, waterlrar cram whom dle.sed y4n eh s f reta mcamn. Trion Wrre afr.: a prrrup quaky ad err..wte wratnrac drop ootlxs to d'e'rade.t a of IIe fey of AWM V have tzextecowne of 110 roost wawa -ern art rynaor. town, tcamw.rato's web entchwye ad pawncepewe* Titan IN✓npL .:Io bud tr._frl.g ayes IWO Or. the •nlnl Naaredar. on the ground Ran WaYJ.:y ice's w4 be dnokheci ear replaea by a raw tram! -rapaarp s eewall core, rpr,,Atriril eat trators on de ...lora Knmd ewe wen wa ..x nre a ed IX.weuw Avert lra;aownzd Berton Carle fi:L. M,A,Atq w.rao- to, the, The ary two crng :)yes veia ctplawe on Ate I.t+t vew, d to •entw.:i: ratwel sot• rc Yo+gs the •bra ewe iew.+tewn Wan Prd:0cn c dpcnhc.: rot IN,.100 spar" Iccwrrg two S00 ti s: ea.) wilt be the wxrlcrelawn tl.Yw rc"ee a -arc>. S0*Y.:ap I.o:01Y01.507 Aryl *a pest;.yw3 le:wec.nto restage., Le a9. ..- •..:optl'pow.,:tot the WA wet analut ad cleagn the patting a. : f:h? leo,, Miami proposes a prkrp'.- .to iocaleo wan: . - tln':IIwf1••4nvorwv: aposp Nv wee 1;:rwy;,,na..r V. pwwapfo OR k-N y+.a nF desk 4.. to Marc ludtsrtegrm.d - I;n, Irr..; specltetiliy tle:Cried to be hop ktlepeltlotty from the Other 51Nclues of gel,' of the sahh fa,ade of the project. toward Rdmbncker Ca sews.. the probed �^ are:specut care to reA4e Ow Wad enpart et the 010001 a of Its soroadrps Takhc a Logue 'Canc`,o••rn. the 1acery blends in naturally .tth toe erWrorrleh One of the fuidrnrral cna-acterstics of the parkas garage is N. ability to mars k 'rem both ends of the ground floor. Thaf atue helps amid traffic a culatblLonfkls. ewuts I -creased haw Ar g Peak usage fertods .clwlg the Baru Slow and other same hall at the Mann Stad.mue B5 — MPA PARKING GARAGE The proposed parking garage consists of approximately 225,000 sq. ft., distributed amongst four levels, providing for 841 parking spaces. INCONSISTANT Parking Spaces — 841 1662 Parking Spaces Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MN N— —— NM NE M NM I a M I M— s I I NE Tifon Parking Problem warwl.-a Mma asr.,m,,.. 4,404 le_ua.....m.a,a ...nu am u....w+:u.e...rm.oe..- orw...e�r row.. .rr+.sws ala. Maws ,.m.uca v.a•mar.u.:<•:x u..- �.� r.�.e,..ra.w.mn......o... fag Arava nr Parking 227,900 INCONSISTANT Parking Spaces — 227,900 with 3 Floors li LJ 4 Levels Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MN MIN NM INN i NM NM ME MN MI NMI OM Tifon Parking Problem •�Mw Y! a.4444 I. ea Wfa, r LJ La.,.'.. 5..4. 1.1111,14 AYH Y4Y IY4 IYW (NW Leteran.....1 a.. an ....+ua cta.. car44.4. a Sa waI be44 S LAY YAx tau. tear n..nle the Mew! 1'.:.x*[:Jr Nw 1(a(... _.. teat ea Maul Gnu( Yaur., UP.( 4. ..k 4 ar.atN rW anu w.. u:::.:M.J kat,: 1'.at44Y:sJ L.L4Y(' (.4(1.teIennaUl4ra:.aL:YN..`N..eawl(P(JCYertanyaHankered (�1 .L.:n et.4.40.,'wby MAW iwum•Y4 N.4 54talm(W 4444[ 3...•.'s N.,. la 46 Me•d.R Ll the e 4, u( newer In.aetaru n .J L.41 I .au W Aug( Vad+".w a , Hakeas u:erl 1%PVWv'e u1Ate.urer .4l u..er adeehdiez 441 enW hJ HunanLJ Ratek4.«.x. ]A.W ]llw JJI.d an W. ♦I•m uJ Y.0 (Lr Ya.: Re. A4J ra ... wu,ua.... I.. M41.. 4 •lu4 the I.:alai (.4. 4L4 .4L ry i.e.. W.-J Y.L.. (.+Earle rela(bw . A. M wlJ.aWK ..r.r r.114 •ya.l _.+J. 44444.( kl] lel1YY d eMa4,6.4terYlw alanow w.t. NIY IYwJr44b....11 n (. u. 1.•.....+ .1114 ..u.lu1N4�Lr44( 1444 .AW .. n M.., .. te... 1....I I'nWW u re.. ire kwJ t w4ra(y .win• . W L.0 4Jr1e rl b.a M4.M(+NL 4JL S. Fa 11 u(4 LY'A YAri.44ar•J twLlra Yal4en44. I JW4. 4a4.,( ..L. ;II. J4. ,._late, (l4: • mall.' NJ., Ira* tW(.Y4W15 r 44 LJ+4c. 1•.11W I4xl I.W I'wa t. .44.4y akai de .+ Y..4., Na4:Llw,. 44. era. 1.J(4.. ...44 m4( Aly• 4.2 Parking Trust Fund Contribution Upon execution of the Lease, the Lessee shall be required to contribute an amount equal to fifteen thousand and 00/100 dollars ($15,000.00) per parking space required to meet the Lessee's parking requirement pursuant to the RFP. Based on the development contemplated by the Proposal, the Lessee's total contribution to the Parking Facilities shall be Eleven Million One Hundred Thirty Thousand dollars ($_11,130,000.00) for the non-exclusive use of a total of 742 parking spaces... INCONSISTANT Number of Parking Spaces Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 8E11 11E1 MN Mlle 11111 111•1 INN NMI MN NEI NM IMMO 11111 11111 11111 — 1 11111 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk EN M In M 111111 I I 1 M — — 111111 NM INN Tifon's Unrealistic Projections IX. FINANCIAL RETURN TO THE CITY ,,r,..1 Fenn w.6..t..:• In wortfa ore nrattlfiessa bud 4aW Grpety M orgy n weed genentrg.o=;arrr.-;a,ree.... n• to w (ty ax..o el tux of pa.dre vevera'r 1:..tt. to He to n,.say ry uh'yl ..d» r, a. 1.. ore 4.y :a.: na ,.eeke, l«oval., al He pi*, • Aeyy W.r a'i.A V (sy a• Kw. awaonar.ev a.rdrdbana,,.de,4CAN r Mnkn aM St4 • .> tern-4.1 Frac wrR _.. r. a .y-... .ve.ny rv.r.W..r bre. •e . •.a •..a..,.,:..e.Perr.. rr te,preirrdoer amrc W. lira at s.e.t5U(KK.µr Wile sea ammunarrM0!tame at 1%aa .•::w•-u.wrwas& b'ctelrg tm Kw rwaan tm .1.•ge..au.utivrort a,:J558b K53KIWV+,i+*t w541M0.�krnpawt+Wavy M(ammelbY .a++Ms,.parAttc•d•.r+ 1J1.01 eta talaliga •vry p-a hal twyatrt4a•MAY. _. .ear.{Ie(Ye„ yetAp0•IVro•,tr[s. tar. aeh.v, ,.'.uJWntftt MAP a•ry NOW, Iaun, enr tapa,ara.t*al.d ronrW fromR Arta, eat tan a AWalbe •• yrn, r.w.yy. nen ay..l:w mot ae t ywacrA. • .+gw.rattar pWn(..wow, OH 1„d aw.,Jl V•y• rrn4 id., lsd•A•yyy) • '+d;a + '4y.t:onMao emn.a.^..bv sl.•AM. • n•J KV WSW, e011/0,1.1W i'•M110,5lMdp':pr[yunnrrd mYaYYra a,Crrrdmnra0 ...+ a uy.(A tN fCt...eg•...r'4'.egd a. RsvnJ..aasMtalm CAA oaMi U„aX r, :, ? ;.... n. i_ A .Waal N.MWrW Y MINN 0alrvYn .. tag.g .m 11.41 tau . wall .ages a., rev. was ,. - .. am.* wow ., W. .aged ra aAMw am) saw WWI a.rW rag OAaw ear u.r Woo .rlr ri. Uator OW* M. .a .sow WA• Alan gaga NM WAY ImAll >v . LIU .lire. MAI ags• asr Ye. VP I. Oa: 1.00 .,w na. —•• MUM ara. ..1 a.e., ,ua,a .,.. AA.. n...e WI* Yeer9 2.723.556 —Yer10 2.805.262 Yearn 2.889,420 Year12 2,976,103 Total 30.512.864 BASE RENT PERCENTAGE RENT YEAR MARINA BASE RENT CONSTRUCTION RENT OPERATION FUEL SALES R&M SERVICES RETAIL RESTAURANT 1.075.000 420,726 43.470 97.447 9.000 18,000 1,663.643 Yer2 - 1,107,250 446.719 46.102 103,527 - - 1.703,598 Yer3 2.280,935 727,417 655,019 60,945 128,381 284,731 84,883 4222310 Yer4 2,349.363 727,417 747,199 69.048 142,428 410.582 122,401 4.568.437 Years 2,419,844 727,417 848,130 77,474 157.075 573,935 180.104 4.983.976 Year6 2.492.439 - 948.566 86.422 172,524 591.153 185,507 4.476,611 Year7 2,567,212 - 1,043.267 94,205 185,019 608.887 191,072 4,689,663 YerO 2,644,229 1,126,277 101,437 197,550 627,154 196,804 4,893,451 1.200.557 107,505 207.071 645.96E1 202,709 5.087.366 1,237.042 110.731 213.283 665347 298,790 5,240.456 1,203.817 114.053 219,682 685,308 215.053 5.407.333 1,32/.112 117,474 226,272 705.667 221.505 5.569333 21.993.314 52,506.178 UNREASONABLE & INCONSISTANT with the Market Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk OM IMO IIIIIII ME 11•11 OM MIN OM MIN =I INN IIIIM =Ill IMO ME MI MI MI MN Proposals Comparison Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk i i i MINN i i i i i i i i i i i i i Proposals Comparison Capital Investment Capital Reserves for 40 Asset Replacement Retail Program — Ground Floor Retail Program — Upper Floors Ratio of City Rent Payment Derived from Retail 10-Year Cumulative Rent to City (After Stabilization) Virginia Key Harbour $98,850,000 (Builder Estimate Provided) Rickenbacker Tifon Virginia Key SMI Suntex $56,340,000 $73,776,000 (NO Builder Estimate Provided) (NO Builder Estimate Provided) 2.5% 1% 2% $800,000 / Year $300,000 / Year $540,000 / Year 36,000 SF at $38.33 / SF 0 SF 38,530 SF at $61.00 / SF 31,250 SF at $49.47 / SF 28% Unknown Unknown Unknown $49,272,000 $49,137,000 $43,235,000 Realistic Unrealistic Unknown Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MN MIN 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • DURING BA -SE FLOOD CONDITION ALL AIR-CONDITIONED SPACES, BOAT -LIFTING EQUIPMENT, BOATS, AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS WILL BE 1OR MORE ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. NO REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER. FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT 11-IIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN YEAR, REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING INTERIORS AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOD. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk EN E - MI MN 1 - M - - NE N - ! - M - MI 1M 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER LOO mgwarDom FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT THIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN YEAR. REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING INTERIORS AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOD Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NM M M _ — I N A M = N E M NM E NM I M i 3RD PLACE • TIFON • DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER BASE Lo0 FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL 10' Al VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING AT THIS HEIGHT ANY GIVEN YEAR, REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING AT 1' ABOVE BASE FLOOD. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk il11Et-.ill14y_ 411110 011110 ar 41111110 amp ter► 4=110 RCN 11 GROUP VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS ■ ASHED AREA PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7+ LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES. SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk INN N — N — — I N MI 111111i — ISM M ! MI 1•11 INN 441111410 i ! 4111111. ! QUIP 41! MEMO i 411111110 MN. ! MO, i VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • ALTERNATIVE PARKING OPTION AREA G1C41IYZA ROM PA; IIN FOOTP 12Hif PC Q 2.11p PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7+ LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES, SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE MPA FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MN MIN IMO Ilea MIMI INN INN NIS NM MO IMP MIN NMI INN IIIIIIII GARA 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS ILI LJI LLI NU UN 101 LLI NI NU UJ MN La 11U1 LLLJLJ ' rit-rt t F.1 AREA NEW C-•UN LA!,,NCH PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7+ LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES, SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE MPA FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk MI— NM r I I M En MN E MN En N M N— 1— M 3RD PLACE • TIFON • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS i glongp E A RK�I AREA IS MPA GARAGE F,0...0iliPR4NIT. PER GARAGE mo'E PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD I-IAVE REQUIRED 7-4- LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCHEMES SO ALL SCHEMES PROPOSED PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE MPA FOOTPRINT. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk OM, 11111 MS NM — MN MO MEM 11111 11111 111111 111. 1 NM 111M 11•11 111111 141111111111110 .5 ' 11 .SETBAC.K mu' f/444/. aiitor tit rjj rarrmIrn rrpnifittrrrn rtr"rm ni JJJ LTV UJJ1IIJ • ,.* VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • WATERFRONT SETBACKS Ar, ONLY MARINE RELATED USES EXTEND INTO SETBACKS (BOAT LIFTS) 4P: jib I lip 1401ilp 1110..4.6. ALroAk ' icang© A\LT, ©R17 PODONDIMA [PMEETEIP 4EMAIN 00°ETBACTK r Him! irrerarimpirri, frrrrair. GEM 4111111M1 .111sardialia,aa.. LITht- 4- ettlittettittillEMITITUtit=t • Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk INN IN111 NIS Ilia 11111 1111111 ONE NM INN 1111M1 INN INN 10111 NEI 11E11 NM [FY: •dir111. 13;.;71.3.i-rTi rrii rill. rrrt rrn.q. 111.7.1.FM 11117[Ii • • IT Thrill 1111 Parking 1.1 / // \A\4\wavu Inirmitn ill 1.11.111.1w..11 UJI 1 JIJLLIIIIU1J LIJ.1flLiLjJJLiLUtj1 ThmTh ...41111101111111halina Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk • NDV913S ,OS a3N111038 31-11 ONI1V10IA 21001d aNnoso ONICI11119 AO SNOLISOd 32IV SVRIV NNId SNOVELOS 1NONd1131VM • miNns • 30Vld WIZ >pialD Al!D 9TOZ/ZZ/90 uo VdS (s)wal! .101 ruopai oNnd atp ow! pall!wqnS S'AZ'Cra I MIMI IMO MIMI MINI IMO II= 11111111 IMO NM NMI IMO 11111111 IMO NMI IIIIII INN MINI MN 111111 M 1— E— M I— — MI r— M M— M N NE\J DACE; _ er 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • ESTIMATED GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS ILA -LJWMULa-L -LAUD-L1IJLJLA -LIL NJ NJ RP ' n s ) g'T T[AAItiAIL «UMMER®l,± NEvd FUN IC [,CAT [Off i.i'QC BOAT PAGE1 MNPMIA, 0 o 2 P A p[QOO D EQ)) Rq@ ©ARA©[ Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk A A111111 NM A A A A I A A A A A A A A A A 3RD PLACE • TIFON • WATERFRONT SETBACKS 01 Dockmoster's Office • 1065 GSF 02 New Marino • 3101.1 03 Horizontal parking • plaza • BOU 04 Existing Morino • 190 u. 05 Retail Space • 24030 GSF 06 Restauronte Berton! • 3300 GSF 07 Promenade OB Rickenbocker causeway Access 09 Parking Gorage • 1662 u• 10 Boat Launch Bay • Dry 11 Restrooms • Lockers • Services • 7600 GSF 12 Dry stack buliding • B40 U • 13 Gas station 14 Jet skis silo • 150 U • 15 Serices & Repair 16 Publlc Boot Romp • Floating docks 17 Parking alternative access 18 Rickenbocker Causeway PINK AREA HE BUILDING C ROUIN FLo® V10LATING THE REQUIRED, 'ETBAC fllo Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ' , 11•110C3YCt r� — i i NIP IEEE i i i i Ili i i i i I MO Mlle 01 Dockmoster'5 Office • 1065 GSF 02 New Marino • 310 U 73 Horizontal parking • plaza • 90U. 94 Existing Marina • 790 U 35 Reto(l Space • 24030 GSF ••••1110 IMMO 3RD PLACE • TIFON • ESTIMATED GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER nDA MtMI 06 Restourante• Berton! •3300 GSF 07 Promenade 08 Rickenbocker causeway Access 09 Parking Garage • 1662 U. 10 Boat Launch Boy • Dry 'ETBA « OMMEROIAL 11 Restrooms • Lockers • Services • 760o GSF 12 Dry stock bulllding • 640 U. • 13 Gas station 14 Jet skis silo • 75o u • 15 Serlces & Repair 16 Public Boot Romp • Floating docks 17 Parking alternative access 16 Rlckenlwcker Causeway .Md w O U m El 7,600 SF SERVICES `" OUITS'iDE S AC«K 990,80 Q6 0 o C3P OUTSIDE ;oo 11776 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk EM i ® N 1=1 MI NM MIN N MI N NM MIN =I X 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • ESTIMATED BOAT COUNT PER DRAWINGS a^ I 1 I— 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I -i----t----1------i--- fi---I---rt---r--� w�---t---rt--- fi---I---rt---r---r---rt---� i i i i i i I i j I I I i i 1 i I a-x at ar a1 ! I ! 1 1 ! 1 t j I RowA! I I I I I 1 3717 3. L NOTE ALL BASS IRE 32.-r C/C <32'-O.3 C11U 5 LEVELS HICK REAsnc 1OUL OF 512 BOATS. FOOT LAYOUT PLAN 12 u uiir. 1 / // / 12 • — _ V. —.1 1-, //////i/// _ — SPACE ROOF SYSTEM WILL OCCU•Y _, mig00011.m(i) Jr 20,000/ x(2) 15,OOOj x(3) %; 30,000g x(2) . - 25,000i x(2) I 41' 53' 41' 165' HAULOVER MARINA 65' building height limit allows maximium 4 boat high stack 120 boats / Ievei= 480 boats total WESTREC HAULOVER MARINA SHOWN FOR COMPARISON Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk M NM IMO NMI MN MI MN VIRGINIA KEY HAMM Mdkitit CtU Ek Proposal Comparison "Virginia Key Harbour" RCI "Rickenbacker" Tifon "Virginia Key SW" Sun -Tex Capital Investment Capital Reserves for Asset Replacement Retail Program — ground floor Retail Program — upper floors Ratio of City Rent Payment Derived from Retail 10-year cumulative Rent to City (after stabilization) $98,850,000 (builder estimate provided) 2.5 $800,000 /year 36,000 SF at $38.33 /SF O SF 3.5 $49,272,000 realistic $56,340,000 (no builder estimate provided) % $300,000 /year 38,530 SF at $61.00 /SF 31,250 SF at $49.47 /SF 28 $49,137,000 unrealistic $73,776,000 (no builder estimate provided) 2% $540,000 /year unknown unknown unknown $43,235,000 unknown Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IGY OCEAN BAY PROPERTIES LIMITED and ISLAND GLOBAL YACHTING LTD. Plaintiffs, v. OCEAN BAY PROPERTIES I LIMITED, OCEAN BAY PROPERTIES II LIMITED, BRITISH COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED, PRK HOLDINGS LTD., ADURION CAPITAL LIMITED and GEORGE ALLEN, CO Defendants. Index No. COMPLAINT VoRK 0 0 3 3 0 ;.; Plaintiffs IGY Ocean Bay Properties Limited ("IGY") and Island Global Yachting Ltd. ("IGYL"), as and for their complaint against Defendants Ocean Bay Properties I Limited, Ocean Bay Properties II Limited (the "Ocean Bay Entities"), British Colonial Development Company Limited ("British Colonial"), PRK Holdings, Ltd. ("PRK"), Adurion Capital Limited ("Adurion") and George Allen ("Allen") (collectively, "Defendants"), allege as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action arises from the breach by the Defendant Sellerst of a Purchase Agreement for the sale of a parcel of land in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas (the "Bahamas"), and also Defendants' tortious interference with Plaintiffs' existing and prospective contractual relationships, unfair competition, and the fraud in the inducement of Defendants Allen, the Ocean Bay Entities, British Colonial and PRK. Any capitalized terms which are not defined in the Nature of the Action have the meanings ascribed to them in the Factual Background below. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 2 of 31 (5) On the fifth cause of action, granting IGY damages on its cause of action for fraud in the inducement in an amount yet to be determined but believed to be no less than $ 85,000,000. (6) On the sixth cause of action, granting IGY damages on its cause of action for unfair competition in an amount yet to be determined but believed to be no less than $ 85,000,000; (7) On the seventh cause of action, granting IGY and IGYL damages on their cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations in an amount yet to be determined but believed to be no less than $ 85,000,000; (8) Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys' fees; and (9) Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper and equitable. Dated: New York, New York October 5, 2007 29 Simon Miller Sophia Tsokos 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 801-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 30 of 31 6-CITS ATTY CAUSE NODC-14-03499 INDEPENDENT BANK, F/K/A UNITED COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. PARK LANE EQUESTRIAN, L.P., BRP INVESTMENTS, INC., MICHAEL OLSZEWSKI, JOHN D. POWERS, BRYAN REDMOND and JEFF SWOPE, Defendant. FILED' DALLAS COUNTY 4/2/2014 5:28:26 PM GARY FITZSIMMONS DISTRICT CLERK RITA Rodgers IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Plaintiff Independent Bank, formerly known as United Community Bank, N.A. ("Plaintiff'), and files this its Original Petition complaining of Defendants Park Lane Equestrian, L.P., BRP Investments, Inc., Michael Olszewski, John D. Powers, Bryan Redmond, and Jeff Swope (collectively, "Defendants"), and in support thereof, would respectfully show the Court the following: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Discovery in this matter will be conducted under Level 2 of the Discovery Control Plan set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3. This is not an expedited action, as the amount in controversy, which includes damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees, exceeds $200,000, but is not more than $1,000,000. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 001 VIII. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Independent Bank, formerly known as United Community Bank, N.A., prays that on final trial, Plaintiff have and recover from Defendants Park Lane Equestrian, L.P., BRP Investments, Inc., Michael Olszewski, John D. Powers, Bryan Redmond, and Jeff Swope the following: 1. Judgment against Defendants for all amounts due and owing under the Note; 2. Pre judgment interest; 3. Post -judgment interest; 4. Reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and expenses; 5. Cost of suit; and 6. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may show itself to be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 5 SHACKELFORD, MELTON, McKINLEY & NORTON, LLP By: /s/Brandon L. Starling TIMOTHY D. ZEIGER State Bar No. 22255950 MICHAEL D. McKINLEY State Bar No. 13716500 BRANDON L. STARLING State Bar No. 24047556 3333 Lee Parkway, Tenth Floor Dallas, Texas 75219 (214) 780-1400 FAX (214) 780-1401 tzeiger@shackelfordlaw.net mmckinley@shackelfordlaw.net bstarling@shackelfordlaw.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 005 SUNTEX PROPOSAL EXCERPT, ATTACHMENT 4 IX. DEFAULTS ON CITY CONTRACTS: Please state whether: A. The Proposer or any principals comprising the Proposer was ever in arrears to the City for any debt or obligation within the past ten (10) years; ❑ Yes © No B. The Proposer or any principals comprising the Proposer have had uncured defaults or have failed to perform under the terms of any agreement or contract with the City within the past ten (10) years; ❑ Yes E No C. The Proposer or any principals are in default under any agreement or contract with the City on the date and time the proposal is due; O Yes E No D. The Proposer or any principals have caused fines to be levied against the City within the past ten (10) years; ❑ Yes ® No E. The Proposer or any principals have initiated any current, pending or past litigation against the City within the past five (5) years; ❑ Yes E No F. The Proposer or any principals have any litigation or a legal dispute involving a real estate venture within the past ten (10) years; O Yes E No G. The Proposer or any principals have current, pending or past bankruptcies or foreclosures within the past seven (7) years on projects the Proposer or the Proposer's principals have owned or controlled; O Yes E No H. The Proposer or any principals have caused any city -owned land or improvements to incur environmental damage, environmental contamination liability or any other liabilities. ❑ Yes E No Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Proposer or principals of the Proposer who disputes the City's claim or demand for any debt or obligation, may, during the pendency of the dispute, deposit the amounts the City claims are due in an escrow account, subject to an escrow agreement negotiated with the City prior to responding to this RFP and seek a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. Any such escrowing of funds shall allow a Proposer to qualify to respond to this RFP Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk OM M M 2 Suntex is a leading owner, operator and developer of high -quality coastal and inland marina properties located throughout the United States. Suntex and its predecessor companies have been in the marina business since I995. Currently, Suntex owns, or has under contract, 25 marinas comprised of approximately 13,000 boat slips with a combined value of approximately $350 Million. Suntex is led by a management team with over 100 years combined experience investing in, acquiring and operating marinas. Suntex currently employs 35 people in its corporate office and approximately 380 on -site at its marinas. Suntex is has experience with Florida and the Rules & Regulations governing Marina Operations by currently owning and operating the Amelia Island Yacht Basin in Fernandina Beach, FL and Snook Bight Marina in Fort Myers Beach, FL. Over the last two decades, the principals of Suntex have acquired, managed and/or sold approximately 40 marinas. The principals and management of Suntex and its predecessor company have typically invested in partnership with high net worth individuals, family offices, private equity firms and hedge funds. Suntex's realized and unrealized investments have a demonstrable track record of providing high current income, as well as significant capital appreciation. PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS In 1995, Johnny Powers, Ron Rhoades and Scott McMullin invested in Lakeway Marina, their first marina together. Between 1995 and 1999, they were active in multiple real estate classes, including office, multifamily, industrial, retail and golf assets - investing an aggregate of over $200 million in partners' and third -party capital. In 2000, Johnny Powers and his partners decided to focus the business solely on marinas, divesting their non -marina real estate assets. They formed Sun Resorts International and over the next six years amassed a portfolio of 13 marinas and built a marina management company. In a series of transactions in 2006 and 2007, Sun Resorts International sold all but three of its marinas and the management company to Island Global Yachting ("IGY"), and subsequently the team worked under the IGY umbrella, leading the acquisition team throughout 2007 and 2008. It should be noted that Suntex successfully developed these world class marinas and subsequently sold them to IGY. In August 2015, Suntex also raised $200 Million in equity and $300 Million in debt (total $500 Million) to purchase and develop additional marinas. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk M I— NM E—— MN NM MO w M— r M M M-- SUNTEX PROPOSAL EXCERPT PROPOSER'S ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Suiitex Marinas DAVID FILLER P,00_: S.raer RONALD SCHULTE. PE Principal/ Edgewater Resource. ,nr a Man.. rane atme, JOHNNY POWERS Prnrchwl and CEO B CYAN REDMOND CHRIS PETTY Prncipal Prhnpal JUSTIN THOMPSON Yke Prusadenl Manna & Real Estate Operations WET SUP OPERATIONS RACK SUP OPERATIONS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/REAL ESTATE OPERATIONS YACHT CLUB OPERATIONS JOSALYN CLAUSSEN EMettor al M,ri,ea,g Attorney Cmntsel CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ. ESQ Painter Ac CO4InCAIIC s ADIAM SPIEGEL CMI, ?OAF CPA's Community Outreach Hut W C..oie Ann Taylor Fa.t,ok, { CEO Mum To Go PAUL MADDEN Large Yacht MarY.nnng Specialist JOHN SPENCER Manna Drvrlopment SUZIE FROMSON..ASLA IEED AP Landscape Arthrtcct DARYL VFLDMAN. PE Cnd and Site Engineer CITY OF MIAMI. PUBLIC AND PRNATE STAKEHOLDERS Ili Edgewater u<,,,n,En.,,Ma,nrnn<.,, resources GREG WEYKAMP, ASU. LEE) AR BD rC Principal / Planing KEVIN KROGULECKI LanduapeArcNtert LINDSEY MATHUS. LIT ►rrmatrg & Enrrtlemrnn COLIN HASSENGER PE Prgrrt Engnr., MICHELLE RUMSA Regmeted Architect TY Lot, Inc. Prnt,mnt,Eanaarm. •la.,uatm...nerr ALYARO J. PIEDRAHITA. PE P'.Jdutt i Onel Ere ubte Office, JOSEPH M.YESBECK. PE Weave Durttor COLIN P HENDERSON S. Enetronmental Snenlat Cnrmnunity Outreach reaLwet Wuerem. YVONNE GARTH P.ehdent t CEO / Gar eta Solutiom MINORITY BUILDERS COALITION ALUANCE RELATIONSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS SHAKE -A -LEG MIAMI Non.Prtaftt OisaIrted Boater Pa ognm LOCAL HIGH SCHOOLS LOCAL COLLEGES Concept Oesign "not. aloe Art/nr..rnre HUGH DARLEY Principal' Wet In,. CHRISTOPHER BROWN Landscape Arch.tert VHB Arnsteln & Lehr LLP Arh.urvc, RONALD R FIELDSTONE Partner ; EBS Cooed MIGUEL DIAZ DE LA PORTILLA Partner r Zonal and Planning C wntrucnun Fun,. MARINA CONSTRUCTION DOCK MANUFACTURER LAND.SIDP CONSTRUCTION RACK STORAGE CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITIES 33 PROPOSAL FORVIRGIfVIr't KEY MARINA !IFVLL.CiPriF(v f & �>PE!2H,1 1iiN5 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk = M = NM NMI MI MN MN — NM M M OM MIN INN ME I Edgewater Co -Developer, Design & Project Management SUNTEX RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION Cv!!llG�' Marinas CITY OF MIAMI, (Lessor) Master Lease Virginia Key SMI, LLC (Lessee) JOHNNY POWERS CHRIS PEI IY BRYAN REDMOND DAVID FILLER ("Principals") Partners Co -Developer, Financier & Marina Operator JOHNNY POWERS Principal and CEO BRYAN REDMOND Principal CHRIS PETTY Principal DAVID FILLER Principal JUSTIN THOMPSON Vice President JOSALYN CLAUSSEN Director of Marketing SCOTT MCMULLIN Principal & Chairman RON RHOADES Principal TOMTIPTON Principal & CFO BRUCKER STENSRUD VP of Acquisitions RON TENEYCK VP of Operations STEPHEN LEHN VP of Asset Mngt mod resources RON SCHULTS, PE Principal / Engineering PAUL MADDEN Large Yacht Marketing Specialist JOHN SPENCER Marina Development SUZIE FROMSON,ASLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect DARYLVELDMAN, PE Civil and Site Engineer G REG W EYKAM P ASLA LEED AP B D+C Principal / Planning KEVIN KROGULECKI Landscape Architect LINDSEY MATHUS, EIT Permitting & Entitlements COLIN HASSENGER, PE Project Engineer MICHELLE RUMSA Registered Architect Lot-a1 Counsel, Planning & Zoning Arnstein & Lehr LLP RONALD R. FIELDSTONE, Partner MIGUEL DIAZ DE LA PORTILLA; Partner Permitting & Local Knowledge TY Lin, Inc. ALVARO J. PIEDRAHITA, PE President & Chief Executive Officer JOSEPH M.YESBECK, PE National Director COLIN P. HENDERSON Sr. Environmental Scientist Sub -Lease MARINE MAX (Anchor Sub -Tenant) Boat Sales, Boat Brokerage, Service Center Counsel, Consultants & Strategic Partners Concept Design & Architecture IDEA, Inc. HUGH DARLEY Principal CHRISTOPHER BROWN Local Accountants & Partners ADAM SPIEGEL, CPA, MBAF CPA's CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ, ESQ Community Outreach / MBE/WBE Programs Garth Solutions Yvonne Garth, President & CEO Miami To Go Carole Ann Taylor, Founder & CEO, Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk