Northblock- RFD Drafts - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,~ John Whittington April 1, 1998 Page 3 ~... property. §4.5 of the Best Practices Procurement Manual should also be reviewed to glean additional evaluation criteria, as applicable. In section VII, the selection process should conform to the requirements of FTA Circular 4220.1D and §4.5 of the Best Practices Procurement Manual. In the third paragraph under section VII, there is a reference to negotiations between county staff and the development team. That should be revised to reflect that transit staff will also take part in those negotiations. At the top of page 5, item 6 should probably be revised to read "identification of offerors in the competitive range" to be consistent with §4.5 of tl~e Best Practices Procurement Manual. It is probably a good idea to identify more than one deveioper to negotiate with, If you only identify one developer, then you have probably foreclosed your options and, as a consequeoce, g-ive the single developer a stronger negotiating posinon when it comes to the details of the contract language. In the description of required submittals, it would be worthwhile to obtain a description of a proposer's experience with FTA financed projects. In paragraph 4, the word "specified" in the second line should probably be replaced with the word "mazked." In paragraph 7(should be 5), the reference to "business offer" should be elaborated upon. Since I think we all have a ground lease in mind, we might want to specify that the proposai include all of the pertinent economic terms of the ground lease, or perhaps a proposed ground lease document. In the very last paragraph on that Qage (paragraph 8 should be paragraph 6), the words "will be" should be inserted immediately before the word "returned." ~ On page 6, item number 9(should be 7), the reference to Marion County might be changed to refer as well to the Transit District, or perhaps it should refer to Co~u~e contra taze Pro~ect. Generally, the RFP should not appear as though the County is the only party Additionally, the RFP needs to describe what happens to the deposit of the selected teams. Is the deposit held until the ftnal agreement is signed, and under what conditions is the degosit forfeited. The return of the deposit after the "selection decision" is made should be more particular. It might be better to state that the $5,000 deposit will be returned to those project sponsors once they have been identified as unsuccessful proposals. In paragraph D, I would recommend that the concept of a memorandum of understanding be eliminated. Again, I do not believe tha[ it is best to have a single selected developer. It would be better to have two or more qualified "final" candidates to negotiate with. Once you enter into a memorandum of understanding, the other potential candidates are likely to be less interested and subsequently picking up negotiations. This gives the "selected" devetoper undue negodating power. I recommend simply negotiating with all of the finalists with a single final text of the definrtrve agreement, Qroducing the final and best offer on a level playing field. On the last page of the draft, in item (d) the word "this" should be replaced with the word "the." The standard FTA contract clauses excepting only those the FI'A has deternuned to be inapplicable, should be included as an item of the agreement. In item (fl, the word "final" should be inserted immediately before the word "phases." In Section VIII, item 5, the RFP should state that the Transit District has adopted a DBE policy, and is subject to DBE requirements by FTA. Unless the FfA deterinines that the developer is exemp[ from the applicable requuements, the developer will be obligated to make a documented, good-faith ''"' effort to engage disadvantaged business enterprises. The RFP should also state that the district's DBE policy and program are avaiiable for public inspection upon request.