Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Virginia Key LLC-Exhibits & Presentation-Virginia Key LLC response to bid protestsrecord for item(s) r on 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,OOOsf 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the 65' maximum in order to have the number of dry stack slips it claims it will provide given its proposed use of an outdated forklift system (Suntex Proposal, Appendix, Project Sheets). 8.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). t • 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). 1 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 t 3 Submitted into the public ' record for item(s) sP.1 on -06L2212016, City Clerk ' Automation, a billion dollar company with over 100ears of industry Y ' 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 tissued. ' 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). I22. 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). t 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 '0 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). '0 RCI's proposal provides the parking required for its development (RCI Proposal, Section IV., pg. 24). '0 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 ,i VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA 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 A.E. 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 lic VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXHIBIT D record nfodritm�;SP1 MIAMFGADE Flood Zones on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 0 Flood Zone for:3301 RICKENBACKER CSWY, 33149 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: rhe f. -,,d zone lnforeatlen provided is intended for u e in the unincorporated a of nia.l-Dade county. Municipalities will have n floodplain aunagement regulations and flood a e sup Information, which nay differ fro. the County's inforwstie.. mini -wee County provide[ this website as a public s rvlc, to its residents. •• the County Ss continually edit in( and updating GIS data to i.p rove pos it Tonal accuracy and informs tion. No w antler, espres sed or feplled, are provided for the pos ition>1 or cheat lc a U. of Me dale herein, Sts u r Sts interpretation. Although Strls period lc, lly updated, this lnforeu tion My not rethe di to currently on Elle at Ylsnl-Dade County and the County ossu no liability either for any er ors, ei sio printed r inaccuracies in tr:""'r"tion provided regardlest of the c of such or for any decislon evade, action taken, or action not make, bysthenusar in r.li,nce up.. any tnfor.ation provided herein. please direct all inquires, cos..nts, and suggestions to gis:.la.idade.gow 6/4/2015 MI/4MFiaADE M Flood Zones Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016. City Clerk 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 lee -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: • Nota: The flood zon. lnforutlon provided it intended for uta in the unincorporated areas of Mimi -Dada County. nunicip+lltles mill have their mn fill 1:11 mane{ement ra{vl atlans and flood z e wap information, mhlch My differ from Me County's tnform Clan. Mlawi-Dade County providef In,, m.bsil as a Dublic service to !ts residents. •• The County is cont Snu+lly adltin{ and updatin{ GIS d+ta to improv posit Sonel accuracy +red lnforvetion, No werrent las, +•pressed or implied, are provided for the potltlonal or themafis a racy of Me data herein, 11s u r Sts interpretation. Although it is periodically updated, this information —y not reflect tM data currently on fl la at Miami -pada Countyandthe County assumes no liability either for any errors, omissions, printed: r lnac curecSez in the Snfarmation pro idea ra{ardlest pf the c of such or for any decision wa da, acf ton taken, o a<f ion not rtakan by the ufer p • in reliance upon any information provided herein. PI.— direct all Sneuires, comments, and su{{•scions to {if#.iamtd,de.{o� 6/4/2015 50' waterfont setback overhead +65' above ground boat transferoil Elm - _ •= boat r transporter 0000.. s commercial J i, Base flood +10' .. ... ... �.,. . 00000Site 0 i . . ... , .....f -..9 �tevafion n Boat launch 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk bay walk elevated walk r Wi- .� 9QC [3lQ�Q o o DD C�(�ILQ`I�a ALL AIR-CONDITIONED SPACES, BOAT -LIFTING EQUIPMENT, BOATS, AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS WILL BE I' 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 " "" �" ` " ` " "BAR 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 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX - DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION a q'U U no o oho SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER a OW B�A�SE F`LE-LEVA11,19184 m � �.•/'i'"yam �yf e� E��` - ST ORE FrtO�©� ELEaVATiI,ON 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 V ABOVE BASE FLOOD. fioil II Irwk4a;•r1 .6 ? VIRGINIA KEY ' HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • ALTERNATIVE PARKING OPTION -:4 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX * PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS IUMI JW<JL NMW®t.1WM"JB IIL MMAL>MLJV�IIII vp jy -dig, ► P RSI N R R s' - L y e i 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 Peep � "E rpm VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP WATERFRONT SETBACKS ONLY MARINE RELATED USES EXTEND INTO SETBACKS (BOAT LIFTS) L T PLACE - �EIl6�r"t;i� sgftj'� y +� .w 4commercial O 4,990■sgft comme�r_c�ial_ ! f VIRGINIA KEY ,,,, HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER ROUP • ACCURATE GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS x r"IP"111, 1=1If 1 0101'''L: ill 1V 1 C; ii�.Ll r Y mill.-rtI ��'_ 1' 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • WATERFRONT SETBACKS BAYWAIK :0 �EW D00.5 AND BOAT LIF T AREP, 1 00, �yY j7�� pip ai 1i1 k ., ..,._ �. ,.r y. - - — . fir. ,,'•' � nr.�.- « wC a,,rw.n s 4 fit � _� -�------.-^••--U V -j 188' 4,4, Y _ 2� z, 1 5 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NR%1DOCKS 1w PUBLIC ,5AA,/Al K 900S I M IF ARC 34 SETBACK F ow MOW COMMERCIAL SOMA - now ="OU I SETBACK A NEW PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH D�,-S rND BOAT LIFT AREA 1 6 L�l 0 QjTtS IP Eli it'lil '4.1 j& 14 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 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 PROPOSAL FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DFVFL.OPMFN T & OPERATIONS manufacturers such as Bellingham, Mannetek 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 4 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. S 3 L-------- `i<UPOSAL i OR VIR<_-II',f1A K[:Y & OPERNFIONS 5 Submitted into the public record for item(s) Sp.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk PROPOSED RENOVATION / REDEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Virginia Key Conceptual Project Schedule YEAR ONE YEAR THREE YEAR FOUR YEAR FIYE F M A M J J A S O N D FMA M J J J A s O N D J F M A M J J A s O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J MIM A MMI J A S 17111 Item/ActionJ 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 Sti s / 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) SPA on 06/22/2016. City Clerk PROPOSED RENOVATION ! REDEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Virginia Key Funding Schedule Phase Rem 1 -Permitting and upland construction Permitting and Fees (All Dockage and Upland Areas) Boat Launch and Docks: Demo, Design, Permitting, Bid Das, Project C.A. & Closeout Existing Entry Drive Demo 11' wide Baywalk Armored Stone Shoreline llf Applicable) Wiggins FLX 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 RackSlos) Landscaping, Lighting, Signage 4 - Yacht Club Building Remove Existing 1,400 SF 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 Remi ral & New Dock Replacement Dock Removal Docks, Anchorage, Dock Utilities, Gangways 50 PROPOSAL FOR VIltC;INIA �x l_Y MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERA"f"IONS 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 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 V211 x 11" SKETCH SHOWING PROPOSED REMODELLING, RENOVATION BUILD -OUT IMPROVEMENTS OF PROPERTY. ALL COPIES MUST INCLUDE COPIES OF THIS SKETCH. VH. PROPOSED DOLLAR ($) AMOUNT 85,342,590.00 OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ VIII. PROPOSED RENT (BASE RENT AND PERCENTAGE RENT OF GROSS REVENUES). PROPOSED BASE RENT: $ 2,150,000 PERCENTAGE RENT: $ 829,06 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on O6 22 2016 City Clerk ' Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP -1 on 06/2,2/2016• City Clerk Attachment 9 — Form Lease Agreement beginning any sueh annual adjustment to the Base Rent Fesult in an iner-ease that is less than three t (30%), e than five Pee nt_(5'%) efthe Base Rent n the ameaflt lier�ea.. �. a�ay.�, u.u.i five �.yeaF inini edi telt' prior- to the eff etiye date of such a4just.-„ent 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 Frena the Lease Date From the date that the Lessee completes the initial Leasehold Improvements on the Phase I Area and Phase II Area (so lona as Lessee commences construction on or before the thirtieth Q0'h) 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 °' the eaxn percentages of Gross i RevDenu�es �onf the Lessee for any preceding tLease fir. aP--EI�c�.—Et^ITtY1dY.—YcENT SY�:`tLL BE SUB iG���1�(ET�Dc—i-� NAT-UP.M= rr= NOzpc A nTIFIC-I n T BRE n KPOI T.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 ON 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 MINIMUM FINANCIAL RETURNS 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Base Rent to City 2,150,000 2,214,500 2,280,935 2,349,363 2,419,844 2,4929439 29567,212 2,644,229 2,723,556 2,818,880 6% Rent from Boat Storage - - 609,102 909,990 1,074,042 1,185,384 1,277,004 1,362,722 1,443,974 1,494,513 5% Rent from Leases - 49,479 53,895 56,590 59,419 61,796 63,650 65,559 67,854 5% Rent from Fuel Sales - - 26,325 27,005 27,680 28,348 28,724 28,789 29,653 30,691 3% Rent from Merchandise - - 13,245 13,907 14,603 15,333 15,946 16,424 16,917 17,509 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 Total Rent to City 969,285 2,150,000 2,214,500 .......................................................................................................................................................................................: 2,979,086 3,354,160 3,592,758 3,780,924 3,950,683 4,115,814 4,279,659 4,429,447 Total Projected Rent to City (45 Yrs.): 310,695,045 *Rent payments to the City are included within the OpEx line item Total Projected Rent to City (60 Yrs.): 549,463,645 Total Projected Rent to City (75 Yrs.): 921,457,343 32 ------ ------ -- - — — ------ ------ --------- PROP05AE — —FOR VIRGINIA KFY MARINA [?EVFi_OPMENT -- & OPERATIONS Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk REQUIRED REDEVELOPMENT Our proposed project plan will include the following: Current Expanded Wet Marina 190 slips 554 slips Rack Storage Capacity 646 slips 820 slips Commercial/Mixed-Use N/A 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 Construct l 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 VHI. 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) Spa 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. 1 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 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06L22/2016 , City Clerk 2ND PLACE 0 SUNTEX 0 ESTIMATED BOAT COUNT PER DRAWINGS NOTE ALL WS ARE &-e C/C <32'-0-i MP> 5 LEVELS WK MAIME IDEAL OF 512 MkM FOOT LAYOUT PLAN 7---) 12 12 I M7 SF. IA V Imp L------1— L------1------1-- -------I------1-------L---- x >< x ------ 7 ------ ------- T ------- T-------1 ------ T ------ 7 ------- 7 ------- T I ------- T ------- 7 ------ r ------ T ------- F ------- ROWBI ------ ------- r ------- t ------- ------- r - NOTE ALL WS ARE &-e C/C <32'-0-i MP> 5 LEVELS WK MAIME IDEAL OF 512 MkM FOOT LAYOUT PLAN 7---) 12 12 Imp Idw� SPACE ROOF SYSTEM WILL OCCUPt - 14000indo) 10.000J X(3) 20,000# x(2) 15,000J x(3) 30,000# x(2) 25,000# x(2) x >< x 41' 41' 165' HAULOVER MARINA �j -65' building height limit allows maximium 4 boat high stack 120 boats / level= 480 boats total WESTREC HAULOVER MARINA SHOWN FOR COMPARISON Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, 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 S 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 FOk ', IRGINIA !:EY MARINA DLVEI.OPI'-It-NT & OP FR/01O0 S Is 14 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 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 PROPOSAL_ FOR VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DEVELOPMENT & OPERA -I IONS 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 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 mannas. 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 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 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (POST CONSTRUCTION) REVENUE % OF LF FT RCN PYS.COND AGE WETSTORAGE 554 23,170 27,0-9,778 I:XCEL1,I NT ( I DRY STORAGE 820 28,600 17,666,000 I:XCP.1.1,13N'I` ( I BUILDINGS 3 240,500 28,481,046 FXCi LILFNT (1 1,163,094 PRIOR 5 YR. NEXT 5 YR, TTM YEAR] REVENUE 9,930,741 18,031,340 10,964,867 13,662,814 CAGRIYOYGROWTH 9% 16% 4% 25% GROSS PROFIT 7,898,455 16,081,451 8,871,806 11,942,227 CAGRIYOYGROWTH 8% 18% 11% 35% MARGIN 80% 89% 81% 87% OI 1,542,993 4,599,436 2,233,935 2,695,410 CAGRIYOYGROWTH 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 PURCHASE PRICE 73,776,824 53,695 86% REVENUE % OF GROSS % O W11TSTORAGI, II,081,111 93% 11,0517098 47'f IMY STORAGE 10,202 292 40° 10,157,271 43 1,FASIiS 1.163.684 54 1,163,094 ;,: SERV1(T - 0° % OF TOTAL 0 BOAT RENTAI- 545 500 29' 469 909 33,952,220 FUEL 2,167,074 80„ 574,477 24,935 -ST0I:1-/)H11IR 531,535 2% 130,728 1 TOTAL 25,691,197 100% 23,547,168 10091, PURCHASE PRICE 73,776,824 53,695 86% MAJOR EQUIPMENT 7,450,000 5,422 9% RCN PYS, COND, AGE FORKLIFTS 1 72�iiiul I .VC'I 1 1,1:N I 1,963 EXISTING 5011.000 FAIR 10 OTHER 500,000 FA 1 R I TOTAL PER SLIP % OF TOTAL SOURCES EQUITY 33,952,220 24,710 400/ BANK DEBT (1) 34,260,246 24,935 40% BANK DEBT (2) 17,130,123 12,467 200/ TOTALSOURCES 85,342,590 62,113 1000/6 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% 7.10/( 5 - YR AVG. 5.10 UNLEVERED IRR 40/ UNLEV CASH MULT 1.2 HOLD PERIOD (YRS.) 5 ANNUAL YIELD (TOTAL COST) UNLEVERED EAR 1 6.9% YEAR 2 2.0% YEAR 3 3.1% YEAR 4 6.20/ YEARS 7.10/( 5 - YR AVG. 5.10 PROPOSALPROPOSALFOROR VIRGINIA A KEY MARINA DEVELOPME&OFF RATIONS 29 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP -1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk C�i#ia of rami I November 25, 2015 DANIEL J. ALFONSO City Manager IRE: 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. All future ' questions must be provided prior to the deadline for questions on January 4, 2016 pursuant to revised Section II A. of the RFP and shall be answered in this same manner and forwarded as Addenda. Proposals shall be due by 2:00 PM on February 1, 2016. ' Enclosed please find the following items: ' • RFP Questions & Answers • RFP Revisions 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 Project Desi nee Jason Spalding Jacqueline Lorenzo CBRE I Marina Services City of Miami ' 200 East Las Blvd, Suite 1620 Real Estate & Asset Management Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor Jason. spaldin a,cbre.com Miami, FL 33130 ilorenzo a,miamip-ov.com I cc: Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk V.tt140f i a M i 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?" Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA 4 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk C� fia of rami 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, Yd Floor Miami, FL 33130 ilorenzoamiamit?ov.com 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) Sp.1 on 06/22/2016. City Clerk AW VIT Taal DANIEL J. ALFONSO Ciry 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?" IAnswer 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 Submitted into the public 1 3 record for item(s) SP.1 on 06222/2016. 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. PROPOSAL_ I vi< VIRGINIA KEY MARINA DE_ L.L.OPMENT & OPERATIONS Is 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 1 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 A-3 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 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 Type of Project Project Total Project Project Name & Completion Time Cost by Location 1. Liberty Landing Marina Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $53,000,000 Location New Jersey, NY 2. Canyon Lake Marinas Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $24,000,000 Location Canyon Lake, TX Johnny Powers 3. Lake Ray Hubbard/ Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $26,000,000 President—Suntex Eagle Mountain Location Dallas, TX President — Virginia Key SMI, LLC 4. Ocean Yacht & Tidewater Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $20,000,000 Marinas Location Tidewater, VA 5. Cabo Marina Acquisition/Development 3-6 Months $52,000,000 Location Cabo San Lucas, Mexico 1. Crosswater Yacht Club Business Development 3-6 Months $8,000,000 Location Austin, TX 2. Pier 121 Marina Business Development 3-6 Months $14,500,000 Location Dallas, TX David Filler Principal - Suntex 3. Canyon Lake Marina Business Development, 3-6 Months $1,000,000 Location Canyon Lake, TX Vice President — Virginia Key SMI, LLC 4. Liberty Marina Business Development 3-6 Months $2,000,000 Location New Jersey, NY 5. Red Rock Marina Business Development 3-6 Months $6,000,000 Location Pella, IA Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk FINANCIAL CAPACITY C= 4. ^ Existing Marinas Owned and Operated by Suntex .PuiiMix I Property & Location Brady Mountain*, Royal, AR Sector Inland YearAcquired 2013 Wet 610 Dry 90 Total 700 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 2S8 250 508 9 Pleasure Cove, Pasadena, MD Costal 2014 36 380 416 10 Port de Plaisance, Sint Maarten, N.A. Costal 1 2011 90 0 90 I I 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 1121 275 387 managed/^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. IV. 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. 22 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA 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) SPA 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. t 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. (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. (3) 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. (4) 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) SPA 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 buildings to be reconstructed and/or renovations. The scale for illustrative drawings and site plans shall be as follows: 0 Scale for Site Plans: F'= 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" = V- 0" rThe 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) SPA 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: i. 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; iii. 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 of the 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) SPA 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 t 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: r(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) SPA ' 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 2" 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) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk IRCI PROPOSAL EXCERPTS VIRGINIA KEY ' Submitted into the public ° HARBOUR &� MARINE CENTER record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk oceanfront. Likewise, as the cars will certainly have been evacuated minor comprehensive plan amendments in tandem with rezoning ' in the event of a named storm there is little or no risk of damage to to a Special Area Plan ("SAP"). it appears to the Project Team parked cars as people will not be tempted to leave cars in the at- that the SAP rezoning is likely the best and most comprehensive 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. 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." As the RFP requires the Proposer to make a contribution to the MPA Use of County and State -deeded property in the Proposed Project 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 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 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 or July 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. City determines that we must use the Alternative Plan because of the INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 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 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 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 2,800 sgft Harbormaster 151 boats :. ._ 00sqft 0 North Surface Lot 78 Parking restaurants , �.. '�� .--tet �,._ -<+f• F .�_ , T. -1,000 sgft � 1 - w `commercial _ t � � Boat Shelter f Ground Level: 29,540 commercial r , •.._ v = 305 Parking South surface - ► , LV 2-5: 973 boats 46 Parking 162 boas 9,980 sgft commercial - - NW surface 68 Parking 105 parking spaces ! i - _ proposed outside of lease`` "� .,y,1. --r t= lines are not included in totals. Parking Calculation Parking Provided Required H.C. Loading Bicycle Provided H.C. Loading Bicycle Proposed Facilities Formula Parking Spaces Bays Parking Proposed Facilities Parking Spaces Bays Parking North Surface Lot Commercial 40,520 sgft (4/1000) 162.1 6 2.5 8.1 68 0 Restaurant 9,000 sgft (8/1000) 72.0 3 0.0 3.6 2 4 South surface parking Civil Support 1,286 boats (1/5) 257.2 7 0.0 12.9 497 4" ",4, 3 30 Total Required: 492 161 31 25 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 0( VIRGINIA KEY:• • •••International HARBOUR& MARINE CENTER City of Miami Department of Real Estate & Asset Management Request for Proposals (RFP) 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 DRY RACK FUEL - GAS $ PHASE 1 - $ PHASE 2 PHASE 3 $ PHASE 4 - - $ TOTAL - - CAPITAL 1,750,000 CAPITAL CAPITAL 3,000,000 CAPITAL - CAPITAL PROFESSIONAL FEES $ 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 200,000 $ 3,000,000 WET SLIPS MARINA - $ 3,000,000 - $ 3,000,000 PARKING - EAST SURFACE - - $ 750,000 MARINA -WET 750,000 - $ 8,500,000 - - $ 8,500,000 MARINA -LIFTS $ 2,350,000 - - - LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST - $ 2,350,000 MARINA TOTAL BASIN - $ 100,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST - - $ 300,000 $ 10,850,000 BASIN -WET $ - $ 24,150,000 - - $ 8,250,000 $ 8,250,000 BASIN -LIFTS - - - $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 BASIN TOTAL DRY RACK $ 7,400,000 BUILDING PH 1 W/DOCKMSTR $ 18,000,000 - - - $ 18,000,000 BUILDING PHASE 2 - $ 9,500,000 - - $ 9,500,000 BUILDING PHASE 3 - - $ 16,500,000 - $ 16,500,000 STAGING DOCK - PH1 $ 700,000.00 - - - $ 700,000 STAGING DOCK - PH2 - $ 250,000.00 - - $ 250,000 STAGING DOCK - PH3 - - $ 450,000 - $ 450,000 DRY RACK TOTAL $ 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 - - - $ 41000,000 COMMERCIAL TENANTS - 2 - $ 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 1 $ 2,000,000 $ 7,000,000 PARKING - ENTRY SURFACE $ 1,750,000 - - - $ 1,750,000 PARKING - DRY1 $ 3,000,000 - - - $ 3,000,000 PARKING - DRY2 - $ 1,800,000 - - $ 1,800,000 PARKING - DRY3 - - $ 3,000,000 - $ 3,000,000 PARKING - EAST SURFACE - - $ 750,000 - $ 750,000 $ 10,300,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - WEST $ 500,000 - - - $ 500,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST - $ 100,000 - - $ 100,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST - - $ 300,000 - $ 300,000 VIRGINIA KEY 1/26/2016 9:07 PM $ 39,250,000 $ 24,150,000 $ 900,000 $25,800,000 $ 9,650,000 $ 98,850,000 RCI PROPOSAL EXCERPT VIRGINIA KEY Submitted into the public HARBOUR&MARINE CENTER record for item(s) SP.1 V. OPERATING PLAN on 06/22/2016, City Clerk RCI will continuously review the operating and development plan adjusted during each phase. RCI is uniquely qualified to handle a 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 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 throughout the entire construction process. operation of the dry stack and marinas. Also, RCI will have a restaurant management team in place to oversee the transition of RCI will initiate permitting applications in various stages so as to the existing restaurant. 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 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 tto its customers by cleaning the docks, removing clutter, and The following green initiatives will be instituted upon RCI's upgrading the service level of the piers. Improvements will include assumption of management responsibilities: 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 • 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. phase with precision, RCI has completed many large-scale projects • Trash dumpsters will be replaced with trash compactors. 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 • 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 Pcge 11 Q VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER • Trash will be recycled by material type. CUSTOMER SERVICE ' • Security guards will ride/patrol their respective properties The following customer service guidelines will be followed in the on foot or bicycle, not golf cart or auto. operations of the Project: • Every vessel that arrives at the marina (harbor) will receive ' STAFF TRAINING a "Welcome" package which is intended to assist and In order to prepare for operations, RCI will institute rigorous familiarize the new arrival with the surrounding area. training objectives to ensure that staff is well prepared to provide • Customer satisfaction referral cards will be provided to each the highest and best quality of service to all customers and visitors. vessel. The owner will be requested to complete and rate the Staff training will be implemented and consist of the following: vessel's experience during its stay at the facility. These cards ' • All employees will sign an affidavit certifying they have will be preaddressed, so that this rating process can occur read and understand all aspects covered in the Employee any time during or after the vessel's stay. Manual. • Emails will be sent regularly to our customer base, so that ' • The Onsite Manager or Shift Supervisor will instruct and train every customer is apprised of upcoming marina events and each employee pursuant to a "Dockhand Training Checklist" activities as well as those occurring in Greater Miami. 1 which will become a permanent part of their file and will be • Good communication coupled with customer respect and regularly reviewed for completeness. first-class service is the best formula that ensures customer • The Manager will update with the Coast Guard all marina satisfaction and reinforces any business relationship. When ' procedures, operations, and conditions relative to the possible, office personnel will regularly review and receive facility's security readiness and post in a totally visual training through hospitality training CDs. This training will be ' location the current "Mar Sec" readiness rating. further reinforced by offering, receiving, and responding to • The Manager and the Shift Supervisors will meet with the customers' suggestions or comments made through comment local fire department officials, so that both entities and cards, emails and/or by telephone (all summarized and ' operations personnel understand what is expected of the logged in at the main office of each facility); all of which will other and the procedures to follow in the case of a fire be reviewed, commented on by each harbor master, and occurrence, • All fuel dock personnel will receive personal and video forwarded to the Manager's office. training on environmental protection protocols relative to Management oversight and direction will be performed by the ' fuel (oil) spill control from the "Designated First Responder" existing RCI Group staff which will be expanded to include and the insurance carrier that provides insurance for additional staff as required for Virginia Key Harbour & Marine 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 RC1. 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 (RFP) No. 12-14-077 Page 12 RC! PROPOSAL LEASE MARKUP Attachment 9 - Form Lease Agreement This form lease may, shall 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 NOJE: QA extent any e,s reaus-at-w- e Lease woul"Qsm ttl_e Us_sg_ non_resnonsiv_e to the RFP. Lessee automatically withdraws such requested _chan e_so that the L-css_e_ewould be r i MIAMI 4&8a__* -_N944832559.4 74183/46889 Submitted into the public 1 record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXCERPT, ATTACHMENT 4 Submitted into the public IX. DEFAULTS ON CITY CONTRACTS: record for item(s) SP.1on 06/22/2016, City Clerk tPlease state whether: 1 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 P9 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 ® 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 ® 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; ❑ Yes ® 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; ❑ 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 t`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. RC1' -OPOSAL EXCERPT 1. Boats arrive to 1 of 6 slips. 2. Automated systems center and lift boats tor ound level for passengers to r, disemba. Asro-Oock• �F �Aw 3. A boat tug mounted on rails lifts the boat from and transports it inside. COO, 4. Boats pass through a wash on the way into the building. 6. Tug deposits the boat in its slip and returns to the transporter -elevator. . # , tF t t[Eii 5. Tug moves the boat onto 7. Boats are reshuffled to access the transporter -elevator which thows that are stowed behind other simultaneously moves the boat boats. laterally and vertically to its appointed storage position. • Boats up to 60ft. and 175,000 pounds for 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 VIRGINIAKEY - • boat storage system I @Arquitectonica International GROUP HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER City of Miami Department of Real Estate & Asset Management Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 12-14-077 Page 13 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Rockwell Automation May 23, 2016 Rockwell Automation 5820 West Cypress St, Suite E Tampa, Florida 33607 Phone 813.289.5320 Fax 813.289.4716 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. t 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 t 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, 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 (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. I (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. 1 (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) Spa on 06/22/2016 City Clerk 'RCI PROPOSAL EXCERPT 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 Type of Project Project Total Project Project Name & Completion Time Cost by Location 1. Miami Beach Marina Marina/Retail/ 5 Years $15 million � 1h +•� :.� Location Miami Beach, FL Restaurant. RC1 2. Bahia Mar - Hotel + Marina Marina/Hotel/ 8 Years $400 million GROUP Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Retail/Restaurant 3. Bridgeport Landing Dev. Marina/Residential/ 10 Years $1.1 billion RCI Retail/Restaurant Marina/Drystack/ $15 million Location Bridgeport, CT 4. Marker One Marina 2 Years Developer and Project Lead Location Dunedin, FL Retail 5. Little Harbor Marina Marina/Drystack/ 2 Years $14 million Location Ruskin, FL Retail/Restaurant Texas de Brazil 1. Miami Beach Marina Marina/Restaurant/ 2 Years $7 million Location Miami Beach, FL Retail .R 1 '"' F*CI 2.Bayshore Landing (Monty's Marina/Restaurant/1.5 Years $15 million GROUP Location Coconut Grove, FL Retail RCI 3. Conch Harbor (Dante's) Marina/Restaurant/ 1 Year $4 million Restaurant Manager Location Key West, FL Retail Bridgeport Landing 4.(Uncle Buck's Fish Bowl) Retail/Restaurant 1 Year $6 million Location Bridgeport, CT Miami Beach Marina 5.(Monty's) Retail/Restaurant 1 Year $3.5 million Location Miami Beach, FL Name/Role List of Five (5) Similar Projects by Type of Project Project Total Project Project Name & by Location Completion Cost Time . �L ++ � 1 Miami Beach Marina Marina/Retail/Restaurant 5 Years $15 million Location Miami Beach, FL 4 itC! 2 Bahia Mar Hotel + Marina Marina/Hotel/Restaurant/ 8 Years 400 million GROUP Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Retail RCI 3 Boston Yacht Haven Marina/Hotel 4 Years $10 million Operations Manager Location Boston, MA 4, Marker One Marina Marina/Drystack/Retail 2 Years $15 million Location Dunedin, FL 5. Little Harbor Marina Marina/Drystack/Retail? 2 Years $14 million Location Ruskin, FL Restaurant �~ 1. Miami Beach Marina 60,000 sqft. Retail 5 Years $15 million Location Miami Beach, FL ` RC GROUP 2,Bahia Mar Hotel + Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Approx. 40,000 sqft. 8 Years $400 millio Retail + Restaurant RCI 3 Bridgeport Landing Dev. Approx. 150,000 sqft. 10 Years $1 billion Retail Manager Location Bridgeport, CT Retail + Restaurant 4.- Bayshore Landing Approx. 42,000 sqft. 4 Years $13 million Location Coconut Grove, FL Retail + Restaurant 5. Location ` � B RC1 f GROUP_ i Beach i h M Marina/Retail/Restaurant 5 Years $15 million $400 millio Location Miami Beach, FL 2. Bahia Mar Hotel + Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Marina/Retail/Office/ 8 Years Restaurant RCI 3. Boston Yacht Haven Marina/Hotel 4 Years $10 million Marina Manager Location Boston, MA 4 Marker One Marina Marina/Drystack/Retail 2 Years $15 million Location Dunedin, FL 5. Little Harbor Marina Marina/Drystack/ 2 Years $14 million Location Ruskin, FL Restaurant Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016, City Clerk 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 Type of Project Project Total Project Project Name & Completion Time Cost by Location The Harbour Coconut Grove 1. Waterfront Redevelopment Marina/Boat Storage, Retail 2017 Phase 1 $17.9 million Location Miami, FL Rybovich Waterfront Village Marina/Boat Storage, 2. Mixed Use Development Residential, Retail, Office 2017 Phase I Confidential Location West Palm Beach, FL Marina/Boat Storage, Jacksonville Shipyards Residential, Hotel, 2010 ARQU/TECTON/CA 3• Waterfront Redevelopment Retail, Office Master Plan $450 million Location Jacksonville, FL Architect Waterfront Toronto 4.Aqualina, Aquavista Residential, Retail, Transportation 2017 Phase 1 2018 Phase II $225 million Location Toronto, Canada Marina/Boat Storage, Lulu Island Waterfront Residential, Hotel, 2010 5. Development Retail. Office Master Plan $12.7 million Location Abu Dhabi, UAE The Harbour Coconut Grove 1. Waterfront Redevelopment Marina/Boat Storage, Retail 2017 Phase 1 $17.9 million Location Miami, FL Rybovich Waterfront Village 2. Mixed Use Development Marina/Boat Storage, Residential, Retail, Office 2017 Phase I Confidential Location West Palm Beach, FL ARQUITECTON/UA Perez Art Museum Miami & 3. Frost Science Museum Museum, Office, Public Space 2013, 2016 $220 million $275 million Location Miami. FL Landscape Architect 4, Biscayne Line Baywalk Waterfront Public Space TBD Phase I TBD Location Miami, FL Infrastructure/ $663 million 5 Port Tunnel ransportation, Tunnel Entrance & Signaae 2014 (entire tunnel ro'ect Location Miami, FL Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2o16 City Clerk 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 Type of Project Project Total Project Project Name & Completion Time Cost by Location Approx. 1 Vitra Residential 2013 - in progress $50 million Location Santa Catarina, Brazil Approx. 2 Yachthouse Residential 2013-2014 $150 million Location Santa Catarina, Brazil Approx. 3 Cyrela Residential 2013 - in progress $40 million Pininfarina Location Sao Paulo, Brazil Conception Design 4. Lagrange 12 Historical Requal./ 2013 - in progress N/A Interiors/Residential Location Turin, italy 5 Private Villa Global Architecture, 2014-2015 N/A Location Ukraine Interiors, Landscaping Approx. 1 Millecento Residences Residential 2015 $BO million Location Miami, FL Ifi N/A 2 Istanbul New Airport Airport TBD Location Istanbul Pininfarina (cont.) 3. Tifon Marina/Boat Storage 2012 - in progress N/A Location Rosario, Argentina Conception Design 4 Tifon Marina/Boat Storage 2014 - in progres N/A Location Buenos Aires, Argentina Retail/Restaurants Approx. Appr 5 Juventus Stadium Interiors Design 2011 $150Appr million Location Turin, Italy Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk ATTACHMENT 5 1 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 Type of Project Project Total Project Project Name & Completion Time Cost by Location Drystack Marina 5 years $18M 1. Bluepoints Marina Location Port Canaveral, FL hghq 2. Haulover Marine Center Drystack Marina 5 years $22M Location Miami -Dade Co, FL moffatt & nichol 3. Flagstone Island Gardens Moffatt &Nichol Location Miami, FL Mega -Yacht Marina 13 years $28M Timothy K. Blankenship Project Engineer 4. Marina Palms Marina 3 years $4.5M Location N Miami Beach, FL Reclevelopmen S. Marine Stadium Marina Drystack Marina �� ears $1M and Bulkhead Location Miami, FL Marina 5 years $20M 1. Rybovich Marina Rarlavalnnmant Location W. Palm Beach, FL Drystack Marina 2. Bluepoints Marina 5 years $18M Location Port Canaveral, FL moffatt & nichol Moffatt & Nichol 3. Flagstone Island Gardens Mega -Yacht Marina Christy J. Brush 13 years $28M Location Miami, FL Environmental Permitting Project Marina 3 years $4.5M 4. Marina Palms Redevelopment Manager Location N Miami Beach, FL 5. Marine Stadium Marina 2 years $1M and Bulkhead Drystack Marina Location Miami, FL Submitted into the public record for item(s) Spa on 06/22/2016 City Clerk r ATTACHMENT 5 t 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 Type of Project Project Total Project Project Name & Completion Time Cost by Location Z.Siegel Gas Petroleum assessment and remediation 3 years $350K Location Miami, FL � 2.Riviera Beach Marina Petroleum assessment and remediation 2 years $40K Location Riviera Beach, FL Arsenic and PAH G H D 3,Sky Chefs assessment 2 years $30K Location Miami, FL krsenic and chlorinat d Alex Chatham, PE Project Manager esticides assessment 4. Triple H Ranch remediation 2 years $150K Location Parkland, FL Arsenic and chlorinated Former Deerfield Beach pesticides assessment 5,Golf Course and remediation 2.5 years $200K Location Deerfield Beach, FL Failed petroleum AST I.G3Yr180n Bight Marina remediation 5 years $350K Location Key West, FL _ Marina development Safe Harbor Environmental 2. Commercial Marina Permitting (ERP) 1.5 years $BK Location Key West, FL GH D Commercial plaza Fountainbleau Lakes GC development impacted Michael Fisher, PG 3,Commercial Redevelopment p soil management g 2.5 years $80K Senior Geologist Location Miami -Dade County, FL Municipal sewage station petroleum an hazardous waste 4,A-39 Pump Station remediation 6 years $220K Location Palm Beach, FL Remediation of multiple NuStar Bulk Terminals releases at bulk 5.JAXPORT storage terminals 4 years $400K Location Jacksonville, FL Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016. City Clerk 1 Name/Role list of Five (5) Similar Projects by Type of Project Project Total Project Project Name & by Location Completion Cost Time FDEP Hazardous Waste 1.Program Assessment ana remectiation of dry cleaning and hazardous waste facilities Ongoing contract since 1997 $10M+ Location Florida t I Y,• I Former Atherton Oil 2,(Brownfields) Operations and maintenance of air sparge/SVE system Ongoing contract since 2011 $60K+ Location Pinellas County, FL GHD Brian Moore, PE 3 BMS Fort Lauderdale LLC Assessment and remediation 6 years $250K Technical Advisor Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL Gulf Coast Bulk Equipment Industrial Wastewater Ongoing contract 4.at Port Redwing permitting since 2015 $100K+ Location Gibsonton, FL Countryside Golf Course 5.Countryside Comprehensive assessment / actions Ongoing contract since 2004 $1.5M+ Location Clearwater, FL 1 Port Boathouse Boat Dry Storage 1 Year $10.3 million Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL MORIARTY 2 Icon South Beach Condo with Seawall & Baywalk 2 Years $73 million Location Miami Beach, Fl- LMoriarty Moriarty 3 Murano Grande Condo with Seawall & Baywalk 2 Years $78 million John Leete Location Miami Beach, FL General Contractor 4 Murano Portfolio Condo with Seawall & Baywalk 2 Years $70 million Location Miami Beach, FL 5 Icon Brickell 58 story condo with large 3 Years $300 million Location Miami, FL bayfront walkways & seawalls RD N Patent Holder 1.Aero-Docks System Patent Engineering & Application 5 Years $1.4 million Location Patent # 8596946 `� "`t `r �,::3 �•_:- _�,.:���� s�a��wn; 2 Industrial ManufacturingBldg. 9• Desi n/Build Construction 9 14 Months $4.3 million Location Akron, OH (Thermo-Rit ) Aero -Docks Worldwide, LLC (Joint Venture of Aero -Docks & Technomarine Group) Industrial Machine Facility 3. Desi n/Build Crane Buildings g g 11 Months $2.7 million Richard C. Lydle Location Akron, OH Technical Consultants/ Vendors 4. Addition 1 Industrial Mfg. Warehouse Mfg. Buildings 14 Months $2.85 million Location Akron, OH 5 Addition 2 Industrial Mfg. Design/Build Warehouse 11 Months $1.84 million Location Akron, OH Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk 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 Type of Project Project Total Project Project Name & Completion Time Cost by Location 1. Miami Beach Marina/Monty's Marina/Retail/Rest. 5 years $15 million Location Miami Beach, FT, C-) Bilzin Sumberg 2 Bahia Mar -Hotel & Marina Marina/Hotel/ 8 years $400 million Retail/Restaurant Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3, Bridgeport Landing Dev. Marina/Residential 10 years $1.1 billion Bilzin Sumberg Location Bridgeport, CT Retail/Restaurant Attorneys 4 Bayshore Landing/Monty's arina/Restaurant/Retail 4 years $13 million Location Coconut Grove, FL 5. Conch Harbor (Dante's) Marina/Restaurant/ 1 year $4 million Location3. WestrFl Retail 1. Location 2. Location 3. Location 4. Location 5. Location Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2o16_ 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. I(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 1 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) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk XI. 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: R 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 JYMorgan 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 S. Orange Avenue, FL 10 Orlando, FL 32801 407-236-5408 (T) 407-279-3288 (F) 1 4 City National Bank P.O. Box 025620, Miami, FL 33102-5620 1 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, 1 John Costa Senior Vice President Submitted into the public record for item(s) Sp.1 on 06 22/2036 City Clerk 1 I citynational.com .�r 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 ly 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.i 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.flus/ROS/2011/11000257.pdf ' Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Inc. v. Dept of Children and Family Services Case No. p Y , 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 IL-3 Straits, B-404865, June 8, 2011 t 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/6801675753.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. Dept 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) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Memorandum t 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 1 Memorandum ' Page 6 System Development Corp. v. Dept 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 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)(0 - 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 • httas://www.doah.state.f1.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)(0 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) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1 Memorandum Page 8 i Juvenile Services Program, Inc. v. Dept 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 06122/2016, City Clerk Tifon Cites Wrong Case Law t 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. 1 st 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, $T146, 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) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ' This case addresses the omission s ion 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 t 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. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 MIAMI 4944958,2 74183/46889 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ' Page 2 i 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, 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 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY RFP EXHIBIT D MIAMEQAGE 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 i x ;ws 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: Mote: The flood xone lnforeatlon provided is intended for u e in the unincorporated areas of nlami-Dade County. Municipalities will have their n floodplain we r, ment regulations and flood x e Tap lnfareation, which say differ frees the County's inforeation. Miami -Dade County provides this website a a public s rvlce to its reslaents.n r •• The County is continually editing and updating GIS data to improve positional aumaacy and infortion. Mo w antis. eapr.—d! or STplied, are provided for the positional or thematic accuracy of the data herein, its u r its interpretation. although itis periodically updated, this information may" reflect the data Currently on file at Miami -Dade County r And the County Assume M liability tither for any er ora, emiaeien:, printed r int .cies 1n 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, coasients, and suggestions to gissimlamidade.,ov 6/4/2015 MIAMF4AD� 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 ). Submitted into the public record for item(s) Spa on 06 22 2016 City Clerk Disclaimer: • Note: The flood zona information provided is intended for use in the unincorporated areas of Miami -Dade County. Munlclpa lilies rill have their rrn floodplain wanegemen[ regulations and flood z e we infnrwtlon, Nhich wy differ from the County's informs t l on. Miaati-Dada County provides Nis me bs its as a pub ll, s rviu to Its res ldents�n •• The County is continually aditing and updating GIS data to improve positional a acy and infortion. No anties, expressed or implied, are provided for the positional or thawtic ac racy of the data herein, its use, or Its uwv interpretation. although it I, periodically updated, this Snforwtion wy not reflect the data currently on file at Miami -Dada County and the County ..sows no liability either for any errors. pati,:ions, rinted: 6/4/2015 'Mur' Snaccur. ties in Ma SnforwtSon provided raprdlass of the ca of such or far any decl.lon wde, action tabsn, o action not rt.ken by the user p ' in reliance upon any information prov Seed herein, please direct .11 inquires, coanents, area suggeselans to gisiwiamidade.gov 50' waterfont setback b overhead boat Th � Base flood +10' �. ... ...• ... ••.00.44 4.. �levafion � n.g.1�.; Boat bay walk elevated launch walk commercial' +65' above ground �+.. boat ay transporter if3 • -400%1 A •Fay• Submitted into the public record for item(s) Sp.i on 06 22 2016 City Clerk 1=1 M M it M 1=11 1=11 111=1 M I♦ M M M M 1=11 M IM 111=1 1111M ALL AIR-CONDITIONED SPACES, BOAT -LIFTING EQUIPMENT, BOATS, AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS WILL BE VOR 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 V ABOVE BASE FLOOC Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk PV299 W499D NIMQ 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. p p ... >- B. _ O O o pwav101[`J 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 3RD PLACE • TIFON • DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION _�Y,,�z- ,k. SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER o o D NW ag@H 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 3RD PLACE a TIFON * DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION FLOOD ELEVA IO SIGNIFICANTREVENUE 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 I' ABOVE BASE FLOOD. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016 City Clerk 3RD PLACE • TIFON • DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION D. a o D CIQt`t�lQ[t� SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS SEA LEVEL +10' AT VIRGINIA KEY. REPRESENTS A I% 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) SM on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 40mm 4m� Ono 41mmw 4now 04 Amp 4� 400M 40� MOWN- ...... . . . . . . VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE RCI GROUP PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS A IS MPA C .4E "COVERE1 PARKItffi-R AG E F 03 i VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE • RCI GROUP • ALTERNATIVE PARKING OPTION ~^ pl H►A�S� L�OW�ST PA�f Awl t: 3RD PLACE • TIFON * PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS 01 n14, 4 { f05 fA 04 I ) I{j - _ _ 1 Z _ 1110 - t�l 4'1 1 1 r M3 L 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 FMM it LN I J 4`�` VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER I ST PLACE - RCI GROUP - WATERFRONT SETBACKS -�A ONLY MARINE RELATED USES EXTEND INTO SETBACKS (BOAT LIFTS) w monow VIRGINIA KEY ■ HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER ST PLACE -MC:lGROUP •ACCURATE GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS �tllilt Is, i le 400b doom o 4101ow •: OEM11qft .ao0�o 0 � ..mcommercialid 4,990asft ,. . --1111j"7commercial_ 3RD PLACE @ TIFON e WATERFRONT SETBACKS 01 Dockmaster*s Office - 1065 GSF 06 Restaurants - Bertonl - 3300 GSF 11 Restrooms - Lockers - Services - 760005F 16 Public Boat Romp, Floating docks 02 New Morino - 310 U 07 Promenade 12 Dry stock butilding - 940 U. 17 Parking alternative access 03 Horizontal parking - plaza - nou 09 Pickenbacker causeway Access 13 Gas station IS Rickenbacker Causeway 04 Existing Marino - 190 U. 09 Parking Garage - 7662 U:* 14 Jet skis silo - 150 U 05 Retail Space - 24030 GSF 10 Boat Launch Bay - Dry 15 Serices &Repair FrZ .010 .400 . . . . . . .. . . . A --goo Dgfl me Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk 3RD PLACE - TIFON • ESTIMATED GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS 91 Dockmaster's Office • 1065 G5F 06 Restournnte • Bertonl • 3300 G5F 11 Restrooms • Lockers • Services • 7600 GSF 16 Public Boot Ramp - Floating docks , 92 New Morino • 310 u 07 Promenade 12 Dry stack bulliding B40 u • 17 Parking alternative access 93 Horizontal parking - plaza • Bou. 08 Rickenbocker causeway Access 13 Gas station 1B Rickenbncker Causeway t 94 Existing Marina • 190 U. 09 Parking Garage • 1662 u• 14 Jet skis silo • 150 u 75 Retail Space `24030GSF 10 Boat Launch Bay Dry 15 Serices d Repair �Qg f N > €e N"!gry 7 - .. ." < .a .... 40 o e J x 10 +�••. wr... .. ori w .�-v:. 16 19 07 1 1RVICESE a O p .r. � �.•r. ; .rte` 5..� 04 6 0 0 �P o D' o O` l - - 9 @X@ BPH _ f--� i • Odulllpm !--- 6�3 : o o � ��74 C;GaG�3• ffi0Facc-liffia 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 01102103104105106107108109110 111112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120121122123124125 Dry stack Building .................... Restaurantes & Retail spaces .................... Marina renovation Marinas 300 additional wet slips Dockmaster's office..............n.. Roads & Sidewalks 000001000000=000001 Parking garage By MPA ■ Plans/Permits ■ 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, Won 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. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NFW tPlL'leFAIRAClfER ,4fAR/1VA L L C 45 I TI FON 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. �n 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 comment [16]: This provision should include - concrete and reasonable standards for Lessor's � essor shall deliver possession of the portion of the Premises currently known as Marine review and comment of proposed Plans. 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 [v]: This provision should be revised evidence, as may be reasonablsatisfactory to the Lessor, that Lessee has sufficient funding or to reflect the phasing plan set forth in the proposal. In addition, the delivery to Lessee of the leasehold �inding funding commitments L complete the Leasehold Improvements to be constructed at the improvements to which the city has title should be subject Premises. described a . 5.3 Payment and Performance Bond Y Comment ha]:This provisions should be amended to reflect the possible phasing of the development and contemplate that the funding may ' Within ten 10 days after the Lessor approves the plans in writing and Lessee obtains ( ) Y PP P g not be binding until such time as leasehold mortgage is perfected. 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_x2 t Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NE L+1 RICA'EIV6ACi6FP IWARIN,4 L L C _�� ~„ M T///iT%/ As such, we intend to construct more than 98,000 sq. ft. of retail space within the main t 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. t 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 theP ublic 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 DemoUtion and Site Preparation Earthwork and Utility Infrastructure Roads &Sidewalks Landscaping Decorative Hardscapes and Amenities ' Signage and Traffic SignaUzatlon CATEGORY TOTAL $3,020,000 ' DRY SLIP STORAGE + REPAIR Dry SUp Storage + SILO Boat Repair Shop — Included in Ste Development ' CATEGORY TOTAL $24,030,000 WET SLIPS Docks + 310 New Wet Sllps ' Existing Marina Improvements Boat Lifts CATEGORY TOTAL $15,010,000 PARKING Horizontal Parking ' Parking Garage CATEGORY TOTAL $11.130,000 RETAIL, GROCERY & RESTAURANT Retall Market Restaurants ' PavlLlon — Bar CATEGORY TOTAL $12,640,000 ' OTHER Administrative Office Space Dock Master's Office Back of House (Storage, Restrooms) ' CATEGORY TOTAL $1,640,000 TOTAL COSTS 4 567,470,000 t3. The figures are expressed in present values as of 0112016 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 $69,620,000 ' JW -W �µ 32 miAmi NEW R/CA(ENSACKER h14R1.NA LLC ,y r►�-. .,_...� w4 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, Won 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 41 Or' 06 22 2016 City Clerk TI FON PROPOSAL EXCERPT, MARKET STUDY Neighborhood Analysis ' The proposal conforms to and/or exceeds each element of the RFP according to the table below: De cent CoDpwivon W" WF 9" Requirements Plan ' Wet Storage Capacity 500 WetSlips+ Dry Storage CapaE ft 840 slips + Total LW jet ski spaces ' Fueling%ation 2 Fueling Stabc ►s Boaigwd 1 BoatYard t D HdIcumsbar 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. 2 Development Plan Use Type FirstFloor 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 01" TIFON PROPOSAL EXCERPT, DRAFT LEASE 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) pay the Lessor (x) the monthly Base Rent and (y) the Percentage Rent, and (ii) deliver the corresponding Annual Percentage Rent Statement and Gross Revenue Report for the preceding Lease Year to the City of Miami, ' Department of Real Estate and Asset Management at the address noted 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 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 ($15,000.00) per parking space required to meet the Lessee's parking requirement pursuant to the RFP. Based on the development contemplated by the Proposal, the Lessee's total contribution to the Parking Facilities shall be Ele"en Million One Hundred Thirty-T_ho_usand_dollars ($I1,130POQ._QQ) for the non-exclusive use of a total of , 42parking spaces, which amount may be adjusted as set forth below ("Parking Trust Fund Contribution"). he 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, 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. 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 Facilities therefore, the actual amount of the contribution will be Comment [111: 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 Miami 21. 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 Comment [13]: Considering that the size of the Parking Facilities will not be tied - to the size of the retail area to be operated by the MPA, this provision should be modified to provide for an adjustment based on the amount of development constructed on the Premises. Furthermore, the Lease should include the AtPA 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 manned by the MPA. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk I' IMI MI � I♦ I♦ M M MI I♦ M � IMI M I♦ MI M M M 01 Dockmoster's Office • 1065 GSF 06 Restourante Bertonl • 3300 GSF 11 Restrooms - Lockers - Services • 7600 GSF 16 Public Boot Romp • Floating docks vs + 02 New Marino • 310 u 07 Promenade 12 Dry stock bulliding • 040 u. 17 Parking alternative access rR 03 Horizontal parking • plaza • 90U. DB Rickenbocker causeway Access 13 Gas station 1B Rickenbacker Causeway 04 Existing Marino • 190 u. 09 Parking Garage • 1662 u.• 14 Jet skis silo • 150 u 05 Retail Space • 24030 GSF 10 Boot Launch Bay • Dry 15 Serices & Repair 02 .•ri�i , N• � v #r !� A _ 05 , X01 y.- ground floor Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk north elevation l south elevation mn� BEHARWFONT FORTUNE r, submitted into the public record for item(s) Spj on 06 22 2016 City Clerk E t'p• ; r. V N N.Al 1 r a d '' • 4j� �.0 .. '4 L.. _.... air QW, ''ts 71I.��e rwgs7��t�w111 ri (!47 WPM, n I X11. 4n 111 east elevation 1 west elevation All 11 r rot? BE,HAR.-F,ONT FORTUNEact r a Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016 City Clerk NEW ROCKENRACREP 41AR11VA L L C Marina and the Marine Stadium have 100% and 951/b occupancy, respectively). During the Construction Period, Tifon Miami plans on operating with said permits and extending Rickenbacker Marina's current price range (monthly S30/ft.). The uniform pricing might initially lead to a lower occupancy rate of 900/c 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 750/6 (equal to 630 vessels), which will increase gradually year after year. The increase in occupancy rates is supported by diverse factors: l) 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 2G'-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 Tiffin 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 S2 in present value from the current Rickenbacker Marina rates (which equates to S33.9/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 5395 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 Von 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: S5 to Se per day for transient slips, S65/ft. per month for monthly slips, S56/ 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. tSubmitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 35 ' on 06/22/2016, City Clerk � =1111 01111111111111111 �� M IM M i� M � i � Mll� IM M 01 Dockmnster's Office • 1065 G5F OG Restourante • Bertonl • 3300 GSF 11 Restrooms • Lockers • Services • 7600 GSF 1G Public Boat Ramp • Floating docks 02 New Morino • 310 U. 07 Promenade 12 Dry stack builiding • 940 U. 17 Parking alternative access 03 Horizontal parking • plaza • aou. 08 Rlckenbocker causeway Access 13 Gas station 18 Rickenbacker Causeway 04 Existing Morino - 190 u. 09 Parking Garage • 1662 U.• 14 let skis silo • 150 U. 05 Retail Space • 24030 GSF 10 Boot Launch Bay • Dry 15 Serlces & Repair b, ground floor IT1O3 T FORTUNE t,e sx :u segingT3l Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 01 Terraces 02 Retail Space • 213'_ 03 Parking Garage second floor mph B E H A R f O N T FORTUNE ..I Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 01 Terraces 02 Restaurantes • Segafredo - Novecento • 15750 GSF 09 Retail Space • 9900 G5F 04 Dry Stock Building third floor 03 N 0 ti 10 � t 50 100 0 300 mpg B E H A R FONT FORTUNE ,j� �y;r r BeEingham cssam Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk j�. NEW R/CA(ENSACfIER MAR/NA L L C mivrni 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. 84 - 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, Tiffin 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 fa4ade 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 Row 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 17 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 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), Tiffin 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, Tiffin Miami will have a capacity of dry rack slips for 840 boats and 150 jet skis, and 500 wet slips. 1 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. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk NEW R/CKENBACKER MAR/NA L L f 44 miq�ni TIFON PROPOSAL EXCERPT, MARKET STUDY Neighborhood Analysis The proposal conforms to and/or exceeds each element of the RFP according to the table below: D C=wVwivon wHh F" RFP Requiratwnlls Pian Wet 9brateCapacittr 500 wdtSGps+ DryShWageCaplikEft wslips+ Mezzanine Third Floor 150 jetski spas Fuel inc stabon 21Fuelinestabom Boagard I bx&Ywd DOCIM asffi 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. 2 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 L11 NEW R/Cf(ENSAC.YER &AR/NA L L C noillfi= ri on&= ■ it N 0001 H H N H t z 0 4 83 - 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 16 on 06/22/2016. City Clerk NEFW R/CKENHACR'ER MAR/NA LLC -W ATA, " 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 NFW R/C1i'FN9ACffFR MARINA L L C ^� �, ..,.r.+.. it is estimated that during the Construction Period (Years 1&2) total payrollwill 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 560,000 (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 1 556 Retail Level 2 $48 Retail 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 50/6 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. Tifbn Miami anticipates obtaining 5120,000 (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 38 ' on 06/22/2016, City Clerk NEW RICffEANBACf(ER &4R11V,4 L 4 C AV- �+r 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: S2/sq. ft. • Common Area Maintenance (CAM): S8/sq. ft.during Years 1-4 and S10/sq. ft. during Years 5-12 • Property Tax: 515/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 Tifon 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, Tifon 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 S68 million equity investment and performance under the proposed ter- ms as outUned 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.l on 06 22 2016 City Clerk IX. FINANCIAL RETURN TO THE CITY ' Tifdn 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. 1 • 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. Tifdn Miami is committed to a Base Rent of $2,150,000 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 $586,156,340 (equivalent to $161,250,000 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, Tifdn 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). t • 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 TOTAL BASE RENT CONSTRUCTION RENT OPERATION FUEL SALES R&M SERVICES RETAIL RESTAURANT Yearl - 1.075.000 420,726 43.470 97.447 9.000 18,000 1,663.643 Year2_ 1,107,250 446,719 46,102 103.527T1�_._1,703,598 Year3 2-80.935 —` 727.417 655.019 60345 T 128381 284,731 84,683 T- 4,222,310 Year4 2.349.363 727.417 747,199 69,048 142,428 41.582 122,401 4,568,437 Years 2,419,844 727,417 848.130 77,474 157,075 573,935 180,104 4,983,978 Year6 2,492,439 - — 948,566 86422 T72,524 591,153 185,507 4,476,611 Year7 2,567,212 - 1.043267 94,205 185,019 608,887 191.072 4,689,663 YearB 2,644.229 - 1.126,277 101.437 197,550 627.154 196.804 4,893,451 ' Year9 2.723.556 - 1200.557 107.506 207,071 645,968 202,709 i 5,087366 Year10 2,805,262 - 1.237.042 110.731 213283 665.347 208,790 5,240,456 r ' Year11 2,889.420 - 1.283,817 114.053 219,682 685308 215,053 5,407,333 - Year12 2,976,103 - 1.322.112 717,474 226,272 705.867 221,505 5,569333 Total 30,512.864 21,993314 52,506,178 40 177417m/ NE "I R/Ch"ENSACKE"R tbfARfNA L LC r 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, Tifdn Miami will provide a parking contribution of $11,100,000 to con- struct the parking garage. 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA 41 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, 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 I!4i. PROJECT "': A'O. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk QDVIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR WRINE CENTER oceanfront. Likewise, as the cars will certainly have been evacuated minor comprehensive plan amendments in tandem with rezoning in the event of a named storm there is little or no risk of damage to to a Special Area Plan ("SAP"). It appears to the Project Team parked cars as people will not be tempted to leave cars in the at- that the SAP rezoning is likely the best and most comprehensive ' grade garage as they might be with a multi -story garage. Further, way to establish appropriate zoning regulations to control the utilizing this at -grade space for parking minimizes the visual impact implementation of the Project plan in a way that will recognize 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. 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." As the RFP requires the Proposer to make a contribution to the MPA Use of County and State -deeded property in the Proposed Project 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 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 or July 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. City determines that we must use the Alternative Plan because of the INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MPA required garage, we are prepared to do so as the balance of the plan remains virtually the some 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 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 P no -�- N rt 1. �•■ Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 t; on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 2,800 sgft a Harbormaster R 9,000 sgft restaurants I rare 1,000 s ft ' commercial'""- Boat Shelter Ground Leve(: 29,540 commercial 305 Parking South surface LV 2-5: 973 boats 46 Parking ' 162 boats 9,980sgft641 commercial NW surface -105 parking spaces rface 68 Parkin �._.. proposed outside of lease lines are not included in totals.— Parking otals. Parking CalculationW Parking Provided Required H.C. Loading Bicycle Provided H.C. Loading Bicycle Proposed Facilities Formula Parking Spaces Bays Parking Proposed Facilities Parking Spaces Bays Parking Commercial 40,520 sgft (4/1000) 162.1 6 2.5 8.1 10 Restaurant 9,000 sgft (8/1000) 72.0 3 0.0 3.6 2 Civil Support 1,286 boats (1/5) 257.2 7 0.0 12.9 ( Total Required: 4921 161 31 251 VIRGINIAKEYTabulation- •International U1 HARBOUR MARINE CENTER City of Miami Department of Real Fstate & Asset Management Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 12-14-077 Page 24 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 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 $ 900,000 VIRGINIA KEY 1/26/2016 9:07 PM $ 39,250,000 1 $ 24,150,000 $25,800,000 1 $ 9,650,000 $ 98,850,000 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL PROFESSIONAL FEES $ 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 200,000 $ 3,000,000 WET SLIPS MARINA MARINA -WET - $ 8,500,000 - - $ 8,500,000 MARINA -LIFTS $ 2,350,000 - - - $ 2,350,000 MARINATOTAL BASIN $ 10,850,000 BASIN -WET - - - $ 8,250,000 $ 8,250,000 BASIN -LIFTS - - - $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 BASIN TOTAL DRY RACK $ 7,400,000 BUILDING PH 1 W/DOCKMSTR $ 18,000,000 - - - $ 18,000,000 BUILDING PHASE 2 - $ 9,500,000 - - $ 9,500,000 BUILDING PHASE 3 - - $16,500,000 - $ 16,500,000 STAGING DOCK - PH1 $ 700,000.00 - - - $ 700,000 STAGING DOCK - PH2 - $ 250,000.00 - - $ 250,000 STAGING DOCK - PH3 - - $ 450,000 - $ 450,000 DRY RACK TOTAL $ 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 - 2 - $ 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 $ 1,750,000 - - - $ 1,750,000 PARKING - DRY1 $ 3,000,000 - - - $ 3,000,000 PARKING - DRY2 - $ 1,800,000 - - $ 1,800,000 PARKING - DRY3 - - $ 3,000,000 - $ 3,000,000 PARKING - EAST SURFACE - - $ 750,000 - $ 750,000 $ 10,300,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - WEST $ 500,000 - - - $ 500,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST - $ 100,000 - - $ 100,000 LANDSCAPING/SIGNAGE - EAST 1 $ 300,000 - $ 300,000 $ 900,000 VIRGINIA KEY 1/26/2016 9:07 PM $ 39,250,000 1 $ 24,150,000 $25,800,000 1 $ 9,650,000 $ 98,850,000 I There Was No Bias or g cess. Prejudice in the Scoring Process. o 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. Dept 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) SPA 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. Dept 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 5018212.174183/46889 2 record for item(s) SPA 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 p Y 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 isro er to take into P p ' 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 5018212.174183/46889 3 record for item(s) Spa ' 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. Submitted into the public MIAMI 5018212.174183/46889 4 record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ' 14. Tifon also had ample opportunity to raise questions regarding instructions and tscoresheets 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 Won 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. Dept 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) SPA 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 ¶ 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 1 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 t 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/AO6368#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. De 't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 � p e Se ces, Case No. 87- 2800BID (DOAH Oct. 14, 1987). 1 • 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) SPA ' 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. Dept 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 tHearing 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)(0, 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.flus/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. f1. 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" t • Applies Fla. Stat. 120.57(3)(0 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) SPA ■ 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. 1 st 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, ¶1146, 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) SPA 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 t 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) SPA Page 2 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY WlRBOUR AtARINECENTEII PrODosal Com arison Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 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 0 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 $49,1371000 unrealistic $73,776,000 (no builder estimate provided) 2% $540,000 /year unknown unknown unknown $43,235,000 unknown IVirginia Key RFP - Contrasts Between Competitors and Basin Count I "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 'Virginia Key Harbour" "Virginia Key SMr "Rickenbacker" RCI: 1st place Suntex:2nd place Tifon:3rd place Major violation: 66% of Major violation: 22% of Required 50' setback for buildings Properly within setbacks Commercial Space in Commercial Space in setback setback Program below flood Program below flood Occupied space below flood elevation Only car parking elevation: 90,750 SF of elevation: 36,735 SF of retail 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, Yes: Irresponsible, uninsurable 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 Unclear: either 1,300 Total Wet and Dry Slips Proposed 1,286 1,374 stated in narrative; but 1,083 shown in plans" Overall Dry Slips Proposed 973 820 Unclear: either 800 or 603" Unclear: 500 stated in Overall Wet Slips Proposed 313 554 narrative; but 480 shown in plans" Unclear: 310 stated in 364 (-26.5% of total narrattive; but 290 New Wet Slips Proposed in Northern Basin 151 (-12% of total slips) slips) shown in plans (either -24% or -27% of total slips)" Revenue to City after Stabilization $49,272,000 $43,235,000 $49,137,000 I "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 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 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 Wrong About RCI's Experience Wrong About RCI's Parking Requirement Contribution Wrong About Sustainable Design Wrong About Scoring Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk WrW'171"A 1111�� 7777.-, Submitted Illusory Proposal Ignored RFP Requirements :.P. Hollow ani ,40) Evasive — Commercial Space Violated FEMA Flood RCI Agreed to Parking Reliance Construction Requirement Contribution I Violated 50 Charter -Required Scoring Was Proper Misleading— Dry Stack Counts Setback W Confusing— Parking Compliance Unreal —Construction Schedule Fabricated— Financial Projections Violated Height Restrictions Violated Virginia Key Master Plan Case Law Cited Completely Inapplicable Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.i on 06122/2016, City Clerk The Protest of The March 161 2016 Manager's Recommendation of Award of Virginia Key Marina Request For Proposals RCI Agreed to Make Parking •«O111r9110191r[s. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk nfocc. "I Is pyre will bare —tI gree aIW .41 be oper.eJ and .—Vol by the MPA '11r ('uy a1x11 Ill, into co uid—tun the Pmpoter's pop.ed k—kt, fur the parkity g:lre{�.c. Iluweva, It. A-1. Lust— urn. puking garage facilty dull k k d. ;ok and ab:okne di.rel nn of the Cay. The flair foapiln is c.—Mly ,A-10 a b; uppro—iy forty -live lhmnand (O.OW) square [.t, ..lud, ca-W:M a.W otf.r r:vrkuuw. lb, City will rwulre the tue—ful N.I.— to pay i.. a prupr.l-:pclfic parking Vu>l food (-'P..ku1g Tru. 1cod"1-...nerd for—,oe w.n of the p,o% — J the tin. of the I<"*'• '11. MPA rill u. 11. I.W. cu.riho"d a 1R. 1'ykini Iros11-MW le --.suer the ptkun• fecilily to e:.ana ,iMc Jim utelt of d. Pt j-ct. The -letber of park V tpawa will tr 4;..d ml blur 141 If -per I.Wn sgoa:e k.-1 retail, or. I l l I"kilg xp'xe rye —Y Iire 15) lusts of dry or wet -1-41. mW 10, III 14-- 41- -very I.OW square k el of reNwVM III— wan .,Rd Yor.Ir r w dtw' reyur-J x a,.nli a,�. R. dr Mvrk errs I,xe I wW 41� 1.IJt..o If.. w.a:W ,l.11.ris i).` x� o.dwlto Wapp h-l'}u`Y vl thv cat of con>trucl—IP er ca.h spawe,..luued fur the overall site prop.], Per d. ws pro-Wcd halod'atg 11. ""1 yea in If. pe." i1wV Ifo.evtt, a um of 230 ).rkutC apart .Imll L .:p4,J 0 a u,Vl Imnmwni iwkx�I M�tLut.,n o1 41.1",— W 1u be p W by eua.r' a't—L a nasty a.Jer �rW 141—rod to It. Dhnta of Real r—. & Aaa.t Mauvyr.n.n1, M, SW 20 Ascnuc, 3'r 4krar, Mond FIurida 33110 tqun el):etive d.. of Ili Isere) Thi: p-lk by gauge catuibakn will 1. drylnsi.duuu vt -.row account wh.e dev--uW u,c till b..ate :ppiod w n. Pahuq '1' t F.W. Io n. I— that the tele ..uI um it rut lod, thin parkinC Cer-!'- aswdwreturned will be d w the _,ruuea,Nl No 1. MPA may, . ee wk di—kt., ci- .- build addllbral P,4in IPaws bey.W wlul a euqui.J to, It. too fiol Yrupuser'i Plgwt sod W., City aod MPA parAkyl eblrg.av ShouFJ d. MYA ck+ow bbuiW add Ip.LMg upx'n.Iht MPAwill pay one lt.todfrtr.,W (1 W;:) of U. ad .—I Writ ..guild for the ad.3burul ipaat, to well ere t1. m.1 tut any ..iliwy — u—.V—.d m the pukuµ hsiliti— The auewtJW Propoeer will have -..led to T e—d uvea, eigtut. eptiom, puck. ­ a any in It. Coy'. pa ki., fa -flay. aha don IM City', .—.—.h. *.. Wkuy ap.et will be anilahk far —hly kerns Well of the coma.rcuWelad owe u.aporatal wkhin thr Proje-l. m a yrkitg r-.brdtrk that .fl— Lie mrk. ukr.wlnw pub3.hod r.er will 4 pwid., m kauie. u, ..oras T. Cty will provide a nru.wa W kw do k.K valW.ket a the grga fw varyi t race aril tune kerma (read reeuur.u, ®ria, e..) In k. ." -.Berg, .v .f—. v.u.t in d. orw. Tae trx ralidaio. mstarcs will w.Vly wiW the Muni 21 ! ft (ode ad wfIf be wublided dlr6g I.— vS-dl— aodrencaedthwea Tis.—., odHe—for—out.tkn ofthe P.W4 gnee aad retail tpam by MPA will be deeclupnl I. —*-i.. .4h, sad NY be cot�.{bk with. the .Icwsful Prop— d—le3ar.. Ma W be .0—d I- be b 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 x,^r-W u•a iw.ghwn', r.K.V .adv, N':4, Y.. vwu .dwn✓ i 1.. r,uxae, a.l w b p~`�' [ ana.F.v.J. .4.am....Mrrr «uwro ,v.,w+. r+.< wx.., ad w•tu. M♦•.ux.vx u, 1,. �^ .. ._. a...w ,,..yaa.tenu4.ruwwvr ru Jn,uuwe..J,wr•.Nd..,• .... .. .:.raW a.•+na .4 m .a,an.F tx M .t+ x nbv M4uWra. ... w,.«. ... YN•4L � r.D++a-+., v .•bn. _ .r..a.n .+.M Yw....4r.aw r.r a.any... ..na.lw.mr•9.s.W w.+r.airvv�. l4.s..a,mw. .0 wrA.)..r wxy.u..w lw4c..ntirw.w.aw Y..i1.rN'a+ ... ..a..vb.l 'wvo •i ia'o. �«r~0.uW.wv xrt r.ur M�..r.,.a«+.ur w..xLrdw.nUx. N.Iu.J tN.• 't '••w9 w. a v..,. w •rk Fu i. .I.,.I.xr«u.a.a.4ur aa, r .Nv,i. y, ... :*FacF. U+tlquwmd Aw.,e azf to y:b: i.w .s• �.u. :.vauvuw.Wa.+..au4�v.w „rr r is ..s,........i...a. w.,.......+v r..w..JN✓adv-. ,. v rw.y�..n~. .A.u��. `..ae +. ,. .. .,.... nM +.-.4•«aA Y:,3 x.. -...a w.m-'•.I mnr .�.0-�. a.r..-r.rrAc .. aA�..M+«IaJ..+.-.�t. nsr,., ,..... , . rw u,...Y: ,... _.....n x .a.. «n.r.�r...,, ...� Mv.• tw.,.��. v.•. 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. • Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk D C, 01mr..O.. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 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 n • Installation of solar powered, wireless security came every pier and harbor entrance. • Electric car charging station installation throughout parking lots. • Trash dumpsters will be replaced with trash compact • In -slip sanitary pump out systems will be installed at in water slip for customer convenience and environm protection. • Trash will be recycled by material type. • Security guards will ride/patrol their respective prope on foot or bicycle, not golf cart or auto. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk M Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Allwhm 9 - Fw I- Ayr -M Thin foml lose:lull hn wended Io rcf.d the rcquirem w f dh within Viryi 6. K- hli­ RFP19-14477�wL14. •,..I ..i"..,ii.J 1. �. i.,._. ,:,�...�.I.i�i. LEASE, AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIIE CITY OF MIAMI AND FOR THE LEASE OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT VIRGINIA KEY 3301.3605, 35M. 3311,& 3511 RIC'AENIIAC'EER CAUSEWAY MIAMI, FL 33149 M1i4311:. 1�0. II IL e.l,C-1 •�-x •Id ll. 11 I .lull 1.1, ,.11♦ xi 1.. �.• u.L lc ,+led .1... . h� llv NOTE: To the extent any of Lessee's requested changes the Lease would deem the Lessee non-responsive to t1 RFP. Lessee automatically withdraws such requested change so that the Lessee would be responsive. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerl __ ___ _ _ _ _ _...Y,,„..,_ _._._ _ -,..-�„�,� . ,�,, �,_....... ._ �., ,,. „�.,��_ __„�„�„W_ .�,.�-`�`�.,.. _.mow.” -:*fir �+..w�„��r�g' �a'.�`�";, ��" -a 1, Miami Beach Marina Opc Location Miami Beach, FL ft 3. Boston Yacht Hagen Location Boston, MA 4. Marker one Marina Location Dunedin, FL location 1 e ar a e, a ai + as uan 5. Little Harbor Marina Location Ruskin, FL �atn 4. Bayshore Landing Location Coconut Grove, FL Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk i ATTACHMENT5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS P« Tach m,mh,r of rum Pr int Tram Phos, liar th, nam, and ruk of rh, inmvi&W (f , —Jn Pri-imucea I ne Harbour L;oconut urove 1. Waterfront Redevelopment Location Miami, FL F. s (All - AM, 0ne�esaary. Rybovich Waterfront Village 2. Mixed Use Development Location West Palm Beach, FL Jacksonville Shipyards 3. Waterfront Redevelopment Location Jacksonville, FL Waterfront Toronto 4, Aqualina, Aquavista Location Toronto, Canada Lulu Island Waterfront 5. Development Location Abu Dhabi, UAE Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP -1 on __ 22 2016, City Clerk El 1. Bluepoints Marina Location Port Canaveral, FL I by laotb. ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE FORMS F 1. Garrison Bight Marina Location Key rest, FL (loll Y Safe Harbor 2. Commercial Marina Location Key West, FL Pon". I.q*ulte.'lgnt w ln. I.L1.0 p.uo .�r rii.lSon 5 p.0 t]tgx t.vlcner.ua f.e.1t!!ng litvl 1.5 Y.u. - boom ltYilkxl.. • rt f . w. w. 2.:..( 1.1 w Sex ... t.41... •l..r. ac 3. ICo.u.val.l .Wwl.pru e....a.pr.a l�.at.a .oil rv.ge..! 3.5 r DHD Michael tleher, PQ tlOx t330x 6anior oeolog iat Location Yl..a-g, 4.A-lf I�ep gt.11on ..lvlp.a ..r.q. cation p.ttol.ue . 6 r.. Loc. (ion P— x D.la r.aml�ul. _ Iti .l.a o.l. o $tow Loovon ].u.on Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk r r �r rr rr rr r� �r rr r� r rrr rr r rr r r r r Man./Role Lh1 d FM 151 $NnIW Protect• by lyn dProjp Prelact Mary 8 by LPcallen Oct Roue aaa[a 1 a Y al anln9 ], lra0ra. ardoua a L—U.. llorlda 1R Port Boathouse coraplagw Cml Tiara ofW w 199] d10a4 Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL 1. Miami Beach Marina/Monty's Location T\/Ti 2mi Beech, FT, 2. Bahia Mar -Hotel & Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3. Bridgeport Landing Dev. Location Bridgeport, CT 4. Bayshore Llanding/Monty's aaaal Location Coconut Grove, FL 5. Conch Harbor (Dante's) Location,�,F� Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk L Poll Baalhar. .11 —.a 1Year $10.3m9an MIL.U— R Ledak fL -uo-er- ._ 1�OR[ R TY -- - -- -- 2. Icon Soule Beall Condo wall Seawall& O,yw lk 2Years $73 million Location Ka. Beach, FL M—dy 3 Murano Grande Condo v4lh Seawall & BWywalk 2 Yea. $78 mekon JONi Leete IDC•Lion Mam Beach, FL General Contractor 4. Murano PorddioCollo wM Se M 8 Baywalk 2 Years $70 nNlan location Miam Beach, FL 5. loon Bnckell 58 condo with lama 3 Years $300 miles Location Mame, FL rIt bayhont walkways 8 saawalh Patent Patocks S 3, Patent H ld system Patent Ergineenrp B Application S vsa. $1 4 mil'on Location Paten1x85g8948 2 Industrial ManuhUu ing Bldg. DaegNBudd Construction 14 MoMM $4.3 rrd9on Aero -Docks id Worldwide, LLC location Akron, OH (Thermo- Rrt ) (Jam Ventura d Aero -Docks 8 Tecnnmarine Group) 3. Industrial Machna Facility DesgNB�Ad Crane Bu4dirps 11 Months E2 ] millnn Richard C. Lydle Location Techncal Consulantsl Vendors Addition 1 Industrial Mf 4. g Warehouse Mfg. Building• 14 Months $2.85 nWlion Location Akron. OH 5 Addition 2Ind ustrial Mfg. DesgnJBuiO Warehouse 11 Months $1.84 million location ASH 1. Miami Beach Marina/Monty's Location T\/Ti 2mi Beech, FT, 2. Bahia Mar -Hotel & Marina Location Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3. Bridgeport Landing Dev. Location Bridgeport, CT 4. Bayshore Llanding/Monty's aaaal Location Coconut Grove, FL 5. Conch Harbor (Dante's) Location,�,F� Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk � M�Mll M 11M �� MI M M M M M MI M r M M Dnly RCI Complied lood Zone Require Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP -1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk � IM i IM m IM IM m m I• i m r IM m m r m m overhead boat transfer lip Base Flood Elevation: +10ft ,f Boat bay walk elevated RCTs Plan —Flood Zone Vlt • Air -Conditioned Spaces • Boat -Lifting Equipment Boats Mechanical Systems I Foot ABOVE Base Level Elevation Base Flood Elevation: +10ft -MA: NO Revenue Generating Spaces Are Underwater 0— IM M M M M M M M (♦ 1111=1 M11111111 =111 M M M M M M M Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ra.- ,airs VP #1 Retail •.ce .�.. x� Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Tifon Flood Zone Violation . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ,FLOODED Retail Space -- WE! SIGNIFICANT Revenue Generating Spaces Are Underwater FRFJI�-N.. _ Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk ...... ..... iCl,fs Park -Ing Garage Footprint P Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk RCTs Parking Garage Footprint Plans VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR &MARINE CENTER Covered Parking MPA Garage !�e- -!!q- U Sii4rface Parking Footprint Per RFP kl4n�g'­" ALL SCHEMES Proposed Parking Outside of the Footprint RCTs Parking Garage Footprint Plans -- - VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER w i _ er1i;, ripr �1 www MPA Garage Footprint Per RFP 4PRCI 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 Competitors" Proposed Parking Garage Footprints Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk Suntex's Proposed Parking Garage Footprints 0 PA. $010 Ot Oft) 0 10 k ONO $ROW Garage 41�1 ''— Surface Parking MPA Garage Footprint Per RFP m Garage ----•""�"'c;rw� ;``- „�,i�,�- ti�..: .\g .pw�.. .. vy.,.. �-�.-.._X#.�� _.'`r u'`.. 41�.�PSaPi"°.-• Mii9• j�,'".iaFX!kr-�lf1''i',?N ` ' ��1Aea=-iflpWallr.' _ _a �ws Awl --- a a•W e� =-- MPA Garage Footprint Per RFP m Garage ----•""�"'c;rw� ;``- „�,i�,�- ti�..: .\g .pw�.. .. vy.,.. �-�.-.._X#.�� _.'`r u'`.. 41�.�PSaPi"°.-• Mii9• j�,'".iaFX!kr-�lf1''i',?N ` ' ��1Aea=-iflpWallr.' _ _a RCI Complies with the 50 Foc i Ev I Ms LTM iFTi17:iii Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk RCI Complies with the 50 Foot Setback Requirement (�! NO Building Violates the 50 Foot Setback Requirement yrs' Propo he 50 Foc ��i Suntex & Tifon Proposals A • Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Suntex's Proposed Plan CAI i '--w- - -;N,- - - . - .,Tr w MCKS M A= Buildings Violate the 50 Foot Setback 50 Foot Setback ---------- 111 111111 INI111I IIIII 0 r Multiple Buildings VIOLATE the 50 . Foot Setback Requirement_ 7 Subuitted into tir, i At 11 H �i�� AP� A � � �i fir, �iIA"r � � � 0 r Multiple Buildings VIOLATE the 50 . Foot Setback Requirement_ 7 Subuitted into tir, ut oonvmstw's (hKe • msa &w uo ttsunra ge wreWe zeoo W n m strvaa. uxjwv - swvim rfiw u sr ro w�iWucr wrp - MOU" atlas W tteW kk"m - no u 07 Pnw..md. gNoor fi Dry stark &dldhg • as u • f7 P*m QWaRrnW"M1W amu U3 MWVW par" � piam - eau ot o8 wcwm nbadcuseway Amna D Gas stman to Gangway W ridakv A4riw - rro u LIJ Pohtq twroy. • ou U. N Jet slat sdo - W u• OS Fbed Sputa ..WW W ID Boot Laegh Boy • Ory I t5 Serkes S "W w 0 �x Percentage Re �. ,• .,. <,i. ,� .....,�.,:'�9..�1ve�m'[vx-A,Wr�'xu't'i, ryn:Z:. .._ �-9MR+Rr�+iq'k4Y` rr¢—v�.,._�5��. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 11 PrR%ON(S) At, nIORIZED IONEGOTIATr ANuswwmv. IKASF Vt. PROPOINFU LIST OF kArITAL IMPRomirm To rRopury ,).WY M. wMw UNOV.10MV ATTACH 1 14" It' IKKTCII SIIOWIlt; 1-korOiED REMODELLING. RkN0'VA`IIONBUILD-0111 mrRovi.saxism rRunklY. AULCOPI&.%hIIjKr INCLUDE COMIS OF IIHSSKIA c3C 1*11. PROM SED DOLLAR ($I AMOUNT OF (:At'[ FAL IMMOVENWIN I I %III I-ROPONIA) krNT INAI%V. ki-P, I AND rk.k(M AG .9 IIIINTOV GROW KEY I.N 14.') PROPOSED BASE RMT; PFRI FNI AC;F MEN r: 3 00" V111. PROPOSED RENT (BASE RENT AND PERCENTAGE RENT OF GROSS REVENUES). PERCENTAGE RENT: $829, 86 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk e 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 (301h) 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 (S%) 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 items) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 0 40 MINIMUM FINANCIAL RETURNS 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 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 211x• 1911 3VIY 1611 14Y4 2Utl tV!! lull 11121 2911 Mau NmI+e4 NI 1,1 W.Un4 2.'.11,4. 2.141.911 S.G9.M4 SAI,J44 2.411,41, 1.47,211 IM1,21, 2.11IM4 1AGAW Ii .Y.ql lr•,n M.;I `.t.x..< 1",11, -1WO 1-4 W2 I.Ig1,144 1.:1/.(41 1,11,].11: 14416/1 14•M.111 5`r Nenl fl..,l.aau. 4.14 Ni /1;91 1l, VAI S-1419 !,I !'M. 41..I.1U 4!554 WAS4 '•'-. Nw.111•r:.21J yk1 N••i'• 1/!NI' il!.M1I 26.14 lx 121 14,1"'1 19,451 1V,!•'11 15. 11e111.s. !.k- 1 1.213 11.NII 111/rl 11,111 I1.'Nq 11,424 14.911 17,11. Tnral �: M1n11�1 p1 4",141 I.N.7T 1.1711,14 1 "All I,YI,Iri IAl1V4 ItV,lY4 1,116,111 I•,1JWpl wr n! 43,,20. I.II4AV6 2.1143" 1.9"."6 3.14,146 ],!91.16 1,'/Y6,1G 3.9"A6) 4,11!.14 4,149,139 4AI1.44t fpal YwpnN Rrn1 w CnYN1 Yr11 119AVSA12 •M4ru PYa:wu w Mr ('YY are 11p114ad wpAn *..Opp. I.-- .-urnI I1A!7,Y 1 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 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk • • • r. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk \': • C<nrpt.cf M.COt. ft romntr.tal u10.^� 1 frMt MP,1,K v.rrL Rruc.runf +^J Rat+f fpur 1k^N fM Manvnldr Jar Pont ...rnTaro w! guard $NS M&-. Qr pi's w vu. f wu�1J cusr rnmeru-- rMrt—A. morn V•>,n—,*a pukrn(bt F. oo1u. CTv .uwn •f fo usrte .--..Mrrfinnf :.prnenrr as the p.�rNMu.r. k?t#Wn H :rV r4 r M4+bnnr dPfl�nr6:rn <VPMPrriN mWW.10 rR1IrWLrf:. ".4 rru, .Aw rf LAW &—w. la 1— ud AN "—.1 pIow 11:ka: Thr mdevalopiJ prcpnty rf' v — rha pubir p—AI, r -W Aar wdkt 011dmN0v1 IN w m#ka Pham— of ■ p,tbka kuwa- YI* unvfry w N :dd:ca.#Ny conpfanwns 1M pvrq vfkra.0.aru✓rm 1r n wVlbtn� ntrxx mssv.nr# t> dna fat. REQUIRED REDEVELOPMENT 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 V. PERSON(S)AL711ORIZED TO NF.(:orlArl! AND SIGN THE LEASE ACREEMEN'l: VI PROVOSPI) 1.111 4W (All VAL IMP140% I MIN P11 III PROH1,14TV ---------- 30.m Cr C-5F bw. ­P UK—, ATTACH P" . W SKETCH SHOWING PROPOSED RFMODELLING, RENOVATION BUILD-OUT IMPROVILMENTS OF PROPERTY. ALL COPIES MUST INCLUDE COPIES OF THIS SKETCH, VII. PROPOSED DOLLAR (S) AMOUNT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS S VUL PROPOSED RENT (BABE RENT AND PERCENTAGE RENT OF GROSS REVENUES} PROPOSED BASE RENTS S 2460AW pERCjjqTAGX RENT; , AMOS 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 0 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk I"" Of Docktnaster's Office tach t.b 06 Restow"r • Bertmi - 3300 GSF 11 Restroonm • lockers Servkes • rGoo GSF 16 Public Boot Romp - Foo" docks 02 New Marina • 3a a D7 A-Dowmde 12 Dry stock bt b*ig • w u • 17 Porkkrg oltenwtive access 03 Hortrontal porkArV • plaza • 0uu 95 13 Gas st~ 18 Wkenbocker Crnneway 04 Extsav Marina • 190 u 09 Perkgtq Garoga • *62 u.• 14 let skis W • 150 u 05 PAMM Spon • 2uw GAF 15 Serkes 6 Repok t x _- - 09 Parking Garage —1662 Us* Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Of ft r„aw - ch�s If de d, "ty m : n rrcm eano,x d me yw.tl noon. rtlifeaU¢e nny:.aavatfi�ac.�a�e,,.oM1ri>.�regn�,«�ea r�u, a+� cep � vgms Kn,ma me eou vaw b,d ome r.... rwe a rro � sma..nue B5 - MPA PARKING GARAGE o,e The proposed pa rl<i ng garage consists of approximately 2251000 sq. ft., distributed amongst four levels, providing for 841 parking spaces. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Parking ........... 227.900 Submitted into the public record for item(s) Sp.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk •�Mw Y. as 41 r W(rir t'1 LaT,.'.. )v. YNOi9 JYY YaY IYi YYYYI (Nw � I Mew! 1 O r a 6.1rY,w tr b twtl I.PN. YaN I.nxs xl+. N 1m.., _.. xPY r A�1J GIUN Ya.tar Nape V •,a,+gal. u,. w.,,,:..._4./wu�wJa Y:w l.YaNr U] irYs l..wi: Ulllrs...,.:,N<N✓v aal,Plac Yertany, N.aaV (�1 J:.:n Ns :.vrv.,'wby Ae.W it,� 1Uu Saw,Aml W IJ+Y[ n r N..I 1 aau W Auc, l+au,+"�w a .L wLk.a u:�J i:l'raljlNa� aN V'hJ l..ax:. 4.1 11w N YwL.P IIx+YW1 r.M1xw aWi M wr.a Y...axa, r r.va •V..I a ..,J • , •bw. , lll] eliu YW M+ �^f yox rawwJ x, x f I, x, ar NIY Nr.a W ♦ ,YpMn - - - (, 1 ..;~rlWx.uJelNb�IrYay IN,YV xxh MYbww+vY I w1F h wr.0 WwP wr M . . v. 7,- 77 -my I'n4xP . WF ._I, rY..uMv :.a.�,lb.w:.. u I'ae4.y i.xalW twMra.h.w �.. •. _ ut Wu laiP W A..a NYvylrNt aa1Nu- x.NwYYA �Y4i Na.xnJ tuJJW YHxeB&P. ."i.t� M P' N lxel Y W <xn,6YN+ MP`le I x rryr. u.nx+� I+iJI sYuw �, x:l,.l a tlY AIYA 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 Thirtv Thousand dollars ($11,130,000.00) for the non-exclusive use of a total of 742 parking spaces... Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M IM 0 zrw D 01MISINO Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 n 06/22/2016, City Clerk iur W�,.+pcy.l P''y' w.a.ut,.:il hP'o.,Y ua nratNhsrs bu d rre4wdGR+'ty ld riv nurrtrt0®e.�aYVF..o•.;+ar.r rrm::A,tv:•raWC.ry. ax.\oncarrxdpn.bn[+m ��'v ..dr..,,.lu neia\:,yr: l.�y.uwukN.al«nvntrnd tls p.K • Anr W.r ai Ax [Ay a 14.T.nYwtoom•rJ 6✓iHdbl;(pr,.gllxN1Y11 unkn,Id dlhP` •.> tyr4�'Ay Frac.P.cK .. n„nn+io,awi w.dsl.vuutw rrc wv wV.amvnunretulvrrawdn 3% A. ..�:w.•=u.w+-wos b'duar=etlroKw'rww wmil.nsrxnrca ., s,:J558b K53KIWVv.�'*tw541M0.lYk.npcwt,Wrny M(.mtlwlGy ..,+4Aenaory w.coMn-.r+lJLd ra Ga�t'Rbv dlry us ha MayYrt 4aW\oP� _. .+,. b � W O ydnV�r, lr[.. Mu.ad as S, w.'.4AW nlitt rad erov ArIFn �. rJ.m,�'Nc.oPHatwrA'pidrN W-KdrranR JrWN[uw R,IW bbv .igwr�ulrpWnllw llw4rdn lulew.\,6Vcv �\uMW eitnd rwl M1AnVvd) �.aaa , '4ycl:anr\pY,etltl.a,-..a,, u•�1. • naJ na.OWJ,YtMm,•IW aroMS.ldiSSl .dP'.y.'WLYnttU mr\nYv. M/Rdnuvvrj ,.. , + ...,r,i V.: rCYury\.nr.'aeewd u. Ra�nJ.•iNRla ln: eN. LJul a„PX Wlntl NUW4u.n r{AIIA OYA[vlr, i..,u l.rr w.v ., tlir .ran rrnAe w -• yk5iP77AMNOV tla UNREASONABLE & INCONSISTANT with th, y Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk BASE RENT PERCENTAGE RENT YEAR MARINA TOTAL BASE RENT CONSTRUCTION RENT OPERATION FUEL SALES RSM SERVICES RETAIL RESTAURANT Yawl - 1.075,010 420,726 43,470 97,447 9.000 18,000 1.663.643 Yer2 - 1,107,250 446,719 46.102 03,527 - - 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 40.582 MAGI 4,568.437 Year5 2,419,844 727,417 848,130 77,474 157.075 573.935 180,04 4,983.978 Yer6 2.492,439 - 948.566 86.422 1`72,524-------591,153 185,507 4.476,611 Yer7 2,567.212 - 1,043.267 94,205 185.019 608.BB7 191,072 4,689,663 YerB 2,644.229 - 1,126.277 101,437 197,550 627,154 196,804 4.893,451 Year9 2.723.556 - 1,200,557 107,505 207.071 645.968 202,709 5.087366 YerO 2.805.262 - 1,237.042 110.731 213.283 665.347 208,790 5,240.456 YearTl 2.889,420 - 1,203.817 114.053 219,682 685308 215,053 5,407,333 Yer12 2,976,103 - 1,321112 117,474 A^ 226,272 705.667 221.505 5.569,333 Total 30,51].864 21.993.314 52,506.178 UNREASONABLE & INCONSISTANT with th, y Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Proposals Comnar-Isc Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk Capital Investment $98,850,000 $56,340,000 $73,776,000 (Builder Estimate Provided) (NO Builder Estimate Provided) (NO Builder Estimate Provided) 2.5% 1% 2% $800,000 / Year $300,000 / Year $540,000 / Year 36,000 SF 38,530 SF Unknown at $38.33 / SF at $61.00 / SIF 31,250 SF 0 SF Unknown at $49.47 / SIF 3.5% 28% Unknown $49,272,000 $49,137,000 $43,235,000 Realistic Unrealistic Unknown Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016. City Clerk 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) 2.5% 1% 2% $800,000 / Year $300,000 / Year $540,000 / Year 36,000 SF 38,530 SF Unknown at $38.33 / SF at $61.00 / SIF 31,250 SF 0 SF Unknown at $49.47 / SIF 3.5% 28% Unknown $49,272,000 $49,137,000 $43,235,000 Realistic Unrealistic Unknown Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016. City Clerk i 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 4.10' 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) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX - DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER A �l0° E@p .P. AS 'LOO � =LE TIO 510:0n, .. 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 3RD PLACE • TIFON • DURING BASE FLOOD CONDITION SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATING SPACES ARE UNDERWATER MP FA VO)o n F�C�C�',�Afl @ H FEMA BASE- FLOOD ELEVATION! IS SEA LEVEL ,; 10' AI VIRGINIA ;EY. REPRESENTS A iSo ('-'HAHCE OF FLOOEA,!G :`,T THIS HEIGH-1 ;,i !Y GIVEN! YEAR, REFERRED TO AS 100 YEAR FLOOD. INSURERS REQUIRE BUILDING AT V ABOVE BASE FLOOD. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk s VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER IST PLACE • RCI GROUP • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS .4 4`,������- .o ! r 40M mew ! ! i ! 4� " COVERED_ t •r► ••► �. ...► �• P A R K I N G ED AREA A AR}A', 'Ej U4 .11, 6 RAF" vow �.. -c r ARKS N`G � 'St7RFA Cds P ,� ::� 'k, VIRGINIA KEY (,f ' HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE - RCI GROUP - ALTERNATIVE PARKING OPTION �c low. law It 111111E Jil a t •� 4� 4� ! ! i 4NI" � ASHED AREA IS MPA GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER RFP - r--- - i i iiiWill GARAGE M� W� PA � SIN 2ND PLACE - SUNTEX - PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS RJ IIIIIIIII ILA I" 0LJ LJ1 W IIIIIIIII NU LJLJ W ILA LA 16J LA RJ ILJ � FV AMA Fl/,-\ ((�i X -n—, (�P Rj-5K,5)TMWf FPM �ff tj I PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 74- 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 3RD PLACE • TIFON • PROPOSED PARKING FOOTPRINTS °UVIAYT/.i(C` j� 16 05 n R■ Ifs � � - 15 04 1T I } 12 4 L1 itt ; .a n.... GARAGE .x _ ,_ --- PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT PER THE RFP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 7-+- LEVELS OF PARKING FOR ANY PROPOSED SCI-!Ei\/iE-S 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 -- -- s VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER 1ST PLACE RCI GROUP WATERFRONT SETBACKS ?` _ 50' SE�TBACK :gip ONLY MARINE RELATED USES ��� •Dior"''. EXTEND INTO SETBACKS (BOAT LIFTS)70 +" "- -► 4STIN TRUCTUR+E� H ON Y UILDtNGS K. ERMITTE TO +EMAIN IN 0' ETBACK r r r r rr11 ft •a. • ri1 VIRGINIA KEY �"�' '�� �■ HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER c o �~ T PLACE•_R I',GROUP ACCURATE GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS 'Flip e14+4 oil�. mmmmw- ...... "� "� 1,0 0 sgft 4ami, .commercioh— -`l _ r i 4 � i �...� 4 � ... r► 4 . .i i 05 Parking i 4,990ssg 1111"11HIIII11Hill -4 rnme' rcl�al-�; __ 7. ift,, I�i S)I:DV813S 1N011JS3lVM 9 MiNns 9 3:)Vld GNZ jj@j:) Al!:)'-J�Toz Zz�qo UO V-d—S (S)W@I! JOI PJO:)a-I :)ilqnd ay; olui pall!wqnS 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX - ESTIMATED GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS IUMILJWKILJOWWWNUUJMWLJLAMSAL,MLJY� COMMERCIAL COMM -R A T, �2 F � _ = OUTSIDpE SETBA@ZK ' ff TA K NH- N1KN00w,7 N • � � F'L • • R P N PROVIDED ss' 0 44,370 ARK�ING GARAG 37 2.7U' Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06 22 2016 City Clerk 3RD PLACE • TIFON - WATERFRONT SETBACKS 01 Dockmaster's Office • 7065 GSF 06 Restauronte Bertoni • 3300 GSF 11 Restrooms • Lockers • Services • 7600 GSF 16 Public Boot Romp • Floating docks , 02 New Marino • 310 u 07 Promenade 12 Dry stock builiding s40 U • 17 Parking olternative access 03 Horizontal parking plaza • sou OB Rickenbocker causeway Access 13 Gas station 18 Rickenbacker Causeway ; 04 Existing Morino • 190 U 09 Parking Garage • 1667 U• 14 let skis silo • 750 U 05 Retail Space • 74030 GSF 10 Boot Launch Bay • Dry 15 Serices S Repair n,a l' ETB C REQUIRED .�W,> Asa, �iwv' *MW 40M r -no . dorslrct Submitted into the public record for item(s) Sp.1 on 06/22/2016 City Clerk 3RD PLACE • TIFON • ESTIMATED GROUND FLOOR AREAS PER DRAWINGS r 01 Dockmaster's Office • 1065 G5F OG Restouronte Berton! • 3300 G5F it Restrooms • Lockers Services • Man G5F 16 Public Boot Romp • Floating docks ; 02 New Marina • 370 u 07 Promenade 12 Ory stock buillding • e40 U. 17 Parking alternative access 73 Horizontal parking • plaza, SOU. 08 Rickenbocker causeway Access 13 Gas station 18 Rickenbocker Causeway h 34 Existing Marina . 190 u 09 Parking Garage • 1662 u.• 14 !et skis silo • 150 u 75 Retall Space • 24030 G5F 10 Boat Launch Bay - Dry 15 Serices b Repair �= 13 01 s o tj ` m 07 O U h z r • �' • 990 : o o BP � DOLS � ,� �, 6�3 : o o � �57a «f,�3 • � . . . 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 2ND PLACE • SUNTEX • ESTIMATED BOAT COUNT PER DRAWINGS L NOLE ALL BAYS ME 32'-e c/C <V-W:k MR> FOOT LAYOUr PLAN HAULOVER MARINA 5 LEVELS LM REALISM MM OF 512 eM74 (sa�q 12 12 h SPACE ROOF SYSTEM WILL OCCU 10,000] x(3) 20,000# x(2) 15,0001 x(3) 30,000# x(2) 25,000] x(2) 41 I e3 I 41 II L 165 "65' building height limit allows maximium 4 boat high stack 120 boats / level= 480 boats total WESTREC HAULOVER MARINA SHOWN FOR COMPARISON Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016. City Clerk VIRGINIA KEY HG{i$IiUR 4EAMO UNIEk Proposal Comparison Capital Investment $9$,850,000 $56,340,000 $73,776,000 (builder estimate provided) (no builder estimate provided) (no builder estimate provided) 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) 2.5 $800,000 /year 36,000 SF at $38.33 /SF 0 SF 3.5 $49,272,000 realistic 1% $300,000 /year 38,530 SF at $61.00 /SF 31,250 SF at $49.47 /SF 28 2% $540,000 /year unknown unknown unknown $49,137,000 $43,235,000 unrealistic 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, VIA OCEAN BAY PROPERTIES I LIMITED, OCEAN BAY PROPERTIES II LIMITED, BRITISH COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED, PRK HOLDINGS LTD., ADURION CAPITAL LIMITED and GEORGE ALLEN, co1 Defendants. Index No. COMPLAINT OCT 09 2007 �Sw YO a 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 Sellers' 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) SPA 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 GREENB By: Simon Miller Sophia Tsokos 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212)801-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 29 I I Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 30 of 31 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 1 6-C ITS 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 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: JUDICIAL DISTRICT 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. 1 ' Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page l 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: I . 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, 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 tzeiver@shackelfordlaw.net mmckinley@shackelfordlaw.net bstarling@shackelfordlaw.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Submitted into the public PLAINTIFF's ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 5 record for item(s) SPA 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 El 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 ® 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 ® 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; ' ❑ 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; ❑ 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 ' Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA ' on 06/22/2016, City Clerk 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 1995. 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 IMI M Ml M M M M M M M w M M r M M M M M SUNTEX PROPOSAL EXCERPT .. ion ,jam PROPOSER'S ORGANIZATIONAL CHART DAVID FILLER Ro.cq„I: S,aear CITY OF MIAMI. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RONALD SCHULTS, PE STAKEHOLDERS 1—p.l t Edge.<,mr Resource. .nr.na ma,. Vi a rr.n.. ta,+ .rw.. Edgewater U<.ern--.......nu Pnnrr. M„ucnn<.., r a s Siresource, JOHNNY POWERS Rmchwl and CEO GREG WEYKAMP• ASIA LEED AP. SD rC BRYAN REDMOND CHRIS PETTY /nnctpal PLy .v Prurclpal Rrnopal PAUL MADDEN KEVIN KROGULECKI JUSTIN THOMPSON JOSALYN CLAUSSEN Lute Yacht Mari eging Specialist Land,tapeAhcNwt Yke la,—knt (%rector d M'r .W'g JOHN SPENCER LINDSEY MATHUS. EIT Manna D—iop,wnr Pc—.nwg a Enrol—u Manna i Rea1 Estate Opemuor-.a SUZIE FROMSON..ASLA LEEDAP COLIN HASSENGER PE I._' n,. Auarney I C L.•ndsrapn M<Mt«t Rryert Engnee. WET SLIP OPERATIONS I CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ. ESQ OARYI VFIDMAN, PE MICHELLE RUMSA RACK SLIP OPERATIONS ►atner Cnd and Site Entinaer Ratnured Archaaa PROPERTY MANAGEMENTAEAL ESTATE OPERATIONS Arrrstrnunrs jAMM V"ELConcept Oesigo YACHT CLUB OPERATIONS CFP•MBAF CM TY Lm, Ino. 1intl•`•I'•°•cs"'•"'^° _.... HUGH DARLEY Community Outreach ALVARO J. PIEDRAH(TA. PE Principal' Idea Mrc. ask W at Ad.,.,., heafdett a CI -I Enc t— OIf e, CHRISTOPHER BROWN r—A. Ann T.yb. an Arch -t.1 i VHB Foundry A CEO Mun<T. Go JOSEPH M.YESBEGK. PIELdscape j Nat—I Qrr<rw l Arnttean 8 Lehr LLP COON PHENDERSON A..u,n«ra, t.^^n,,. Sr. Erwrrmmen:al Sc.entat RONAL DR FIEtDSTONF Putney EBS Cound Cnrmrsuntty Outreach MIGUEL DIAZ DE LA POATILLA .Rt,wBE V.^..am. P ... w : Znnng and Pt,." YVONNE GARTH SHAKE -A -LEG MIAMI P.e.uknt a CEO I Gum Solutk— N—PmRt MA4.d Bomer R..gn,. Cuintru clan F irn.0 MINORITY BUILDERS LOCAL MGM SCHOOLS MARINA CONSTRUCTION COALITION ALLIANCE LOCAL COLLEGES DOCK MANUFACTURER RELATIONSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS LAND -SIDE CONSTRUCTION RACK STORAGE CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITIES 33 PROK-)SAL FOR vlRGI NVr KEY (`IARINA LIFVLL.0PMFN f & OPE!, AJ 10 S Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA on 06/22/2016, City Clerk SUNTEX RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION Virginia Key SMI, LLC (Lessee) MARINE MAX (Anchor Sub -Tenant) CITY OF MIAMI, Master Lease Sub -Lease JOHNNY POWERS CHRIS PETTY — Boat Sales, Boat Brokerage, Service (Lessor) BRYAN REDMOND DAVID FILLER Center ("Principals") RON SCHULTS, PE Partners f JW L �Irej� Cu -Developer, Financier & Marina Operator Marinas KEVIN KROGULECKI JOHNNY POWERS SCOTT MCMULLIN Principal and CEO Principal & Chairman BRYAN REDMOND RON RHOADES Principal Principal CHRIS PETTY TOMTIPTON Principal Principal & CFO DAVID FILLER BRUCKER STENSRUD Principal VP of Acquisitions JUSTIN THOMPSON RON TENEYCK Vice President VP of Operations JOSALYN CLAUSSEN STEPHEN LEHN Director of Marketing _._....__..........._ VP of Asset Mngt ... .................................................................................._. Edgewater Co -Developer, Design & Project Management resources RON SCHULTS, PE GREGWEYKAMPASLA.LEEDAPBD+C Principal / Engineering Principal / Planning PAUL MADDEN KEVIN KROGULECKI Large Yacht Marketing Specialist Landscape Architect JOHN SPENCER LINDSEY MATHUS, EIT Marina Development Permitting & Entitlements SUZIE FROMSON,ASLA, LEED AP COLIN HASSENGER, PE Landscape Architect Project Engineer DARYLVELDMAN, PE MICHELLE RUMSA Civil and Site Engineer Registered Architect ... .._.... ..I ...... ..1..111 ..................: Counsel, Consultants & Strategic Partners President & Chief Executive Officer JOSEPH M.YESBECK, PE National Director COLIN P. HENDERSON Sr. Environmental Scientist Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06Z22/2016, City Clerk __. Local Counsrl, Planning & Zoning .. 1111..... ... 1111. _111_1. 1111_ Concept Design & Architecture: ._................ 1111....... 1..........1.1.1.............. _.. Comnwnity Outreach / MBEIWBE Programs Arnstein & Lehr LLP IDEA, Inc. Garth Solutions RONALD R. FIELDSTONE, Partner HUGH DARLEY Yvonne Garth, President &CEO MIGUEL DIAZ DE LA PORTILL.A, Principal Miami To Go Partner Carole Ann Taylor, Founder & CEO, CHRISTOPHER BROWN ...........................1 ........................... i Permitting &Local Knowledge Local Accountants & Partners TY Lin, Inc. ADAM SPIEGEL- CPA, MBAF CPA's ALVARO J. PIEDRAHITA, PE CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ, ESQ President & Chief Executive Officer JOSEPH M.YESBECK, PE National Director COLIN P. HENDERSON Sr. Environmental Scientist Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 on 06Z22/2016, City Clerk