Laserfiche WebLink
5.1 All questions should be submitted in writing. This allows the team to caucus <br />.... if necessary, protect the team from controversy and lawsuits, and allows <br />responses to be distributed to other offeror's if necessary. <br />Page 5 <br />Required Submittals <br />5.2 (d) How will the preliminary project budget and ten-year proforma factor into the <br />mix and how will it be analyzed? What is the criteria? A positive cash flow <br />or stipulated rate of return? <br />PROPOSAL EVALUATION, NEGOTIATION AND SELECTION <br />Pages 6-9 <br />Proposal Selection Process <br />6.3 General Comments-This section is generally confusing and complicated. We <br />understand that the FTA requires an objective approach in the ranking and <br />selection of the successful offeror, but this language seems cumbersome and <br />difficult to follow. Can't this procedure be simplified? <br />Page 7 <br />Qualification Requirements <br />6.3(a) ii. Evidence of "integrity on mixed use development projects" is probably too <br />specific. Success in a mixed-use project may be irrelevant to their proposed <br />project. In addition, if the proposer and proposal is sound, a good general <br />development track record should be sufficient. <br />Page 7 <br />Evaluation Criteria <br />(b) i. Does the language: "A proposal having a~reponderance of unacceptable <br />exceptions and conditions may be cause for the proposal to be rejected" <br />provide us with enough control? It seems that if there is ~ exception or <br />condition that makes the proposal unacceptable, we should ha~e the ability to <br />discontinue negotiations immediately. <br />Page 9 <br />Application of Evaluation Criteria <br />(c) i Should there be further definition of "success" as it relates to the "Excellent, <br />Very Good, Good, etc." ranking; e.g. Does the "probability of success" refer <br />to the offer or the development? <br />Page 11 <br />Evaluation Procedures <br />6.4 (d) Paragraph Two-While this language gives the owners the ability to reject <br />changes to the ground lease, doesn't open the door a little wide for <br />negotiating terms? I understand that we want flexibility, but this paragraph <br />implies that there may be an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the Ground <br />Lease. <br />