Protect Our Parks

The complete outline is in this PDF file. marina_rfp_to_town-edtc.pdf

Below is a edited version

Background

The Fort Erie EDTC was invited by the NPC and the Town of Fort Erie to solicit proposals for the potential (re-)development of the Niagara Parks marina.Through this process the EDTC was to investigate and evaluate land use potential with the goal of exploiting significant and complementary development opportunities, and providing thereafter, a recommendation to the NPC.More specifically, the EDTC was to;-gauge interest in the potential (re-)development of the marina within the investment and development communities;-access and evaluate the qualifications and capabilities of those expressing interest;-evaluate concept designs and development plan(s); and,-assess the degree to which proposals are complementary to, and in-line with, the NPC mandate.

The goal of the Fort Erie EDTC was to determine the best, most viable project that can be recommended for consideration to the NiagaraParks Commission board. Important Considerations included(but were not limited to);-primary focus must remain that of an operating marina (with innovative ancillary developments being encouraged);-title must remain with the NPC, so a proposal must be based upon the long-term lease with the NPC; and,-the NPC must realize positive economic/financial impact as a result of any potential (re-)development.

Overview

Establishment ofof Steering Committee

(December 2005)Draft Terms of Reference / Request for Proposals

(December ’05 –January ’06)Review & Modification of RFP Document(s)

(January 11, 2006)Launch of RFP

(January 23, 2006)Close of Call for Proposals

(March 10, 2006)Dissemination and Review of Proposals

(March 17 –April 11, 2006)Steering Committee Evaluation Session

(April 12, 2006)Shortlist Proponent Presentations

(April 19, 2006)Evaluation & Deliberation (& Decision)

(April 19, 2006)Presentation to NPC(April 21, 2006)

Establishment of The Steering Committee

Herb McGirr-Chairman

James A. Thibert-Secretary

Tony Rodway -NPC Representative

Rick Shular -FE Town Councilor

Ric Gorham, Wayne Nelson, Patrick Gedge, Heinz Hummel, Serge Felicetti

Nick Murphy-Advisor

Adam Joon-Advisor

The Steering Committee was established to bring to the table a diverseand relevantgroup which included representatives from the NPC, Town of Fort Erie, Fort Erie EDTC, the Region, and the Niagara development community.

A detailed RFP document was drafted, which outlined;
-Background information
-Description of the opportunity and the
property itself
-The terms upon which all proposals must
be based (i.e. NPC and Town of Fort Erie
requirements for potential development)
-RFP submission guidelines and logistics
-Evaluation criteria(s)
-General Terms and Conditions

The Steering Committee reviewed the draft RFP document(s) and suggested modifications to best reflect the nature of the process/project, and to highlight the requirements of the NPC and Town of Fort Erie.
The eligibility and evaluation criteria was also reviewed and modified to ensure efficiency and objectivity in the evaluation and selection process.
Project timelines were also established at this time.

A Request For Proposals was launched nationally, and locally in Niagara and Western New York on January 23, 2006.
Media Placement Included;
The Globe & Mail (national)
Niagara Media (full coverage -local)
Buffalo First (Western New York)
Fort Erie EDTC Website (with links to the Town of Fort Erie)
TOTAL COST OF RFP LAUNCH = $14,710

Close of Call for ProposalsProposals were due to the Fort Erie EDTC, no later than 2:00pm, Friday March 10th.Town of Fort Erie Clerk and Staff oversaw the opening of the proposal packages.Three formal proposals were received;

1)Niagara Parkway Marina Village Development Consortium

2)Sentex Development Inc. -Miller Creek Shipyards

3)Niagara Parkway Marina Proposal -Heelis, Williams, Little & Almas

Other significant expressions of interest (which were not considered for evaluation as proposals) were also received, indicating further interest in the project.

Steering Committee Evaluation Session On April 12, 2006 the Steering Committee gathered to conduct its formal evaluation session. Two of the three proposals met the committee’s eligibility criteria and were further evaluated;

1) Sentex Development Inc. -Miller Creek Shipyards

2) Niagara Parkway Marina Village Development Consortium

The third proposal was deemed not to be eligible for further inclusion in the process (a number of mandatory criteria were not satisfied).Prior to evaluation process and discussion, it was determined a 20% differential in scoring must exist between eligible proposals towarrant a clear and decisive “winner”. Short of a 20% differential, proponent proposals would be required.

Steering Committee Evaluation Session
ELIGIBIITY REQUIREMENTS YES NO
Proposal submitted on time, in accordance with submission
requirements/logistics
Description of similar/relevant development experience
Description of organization, project and management team
Minimum of three (3) references
Identification of all sub-contractors
Detailed work/development plan
Demonstrated ability to secure financing
Design/Conceptual drawings, diagrams, illustrations
Proposal includes expanded ongoing marina operations
Proponent accepts long-term lease criteria
Proposal highlights/includes increased value or revenue to the NPC
Draft business plan
Proposal does not include detached single-family housing
ANY PROPOSAL WHICH DOES NOT SATISFY ANY OF THE ABOVE ELIGIBILITYCRITERIA IS DEEMED INELIGIBLE AND DISQUALIFIED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION AND CONSIDERATION.

Steering Committee Evaluation Session
EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS
Feasibility of primary and ancillary development(s) (i.e. creativity, compatibility,
sensibility) /10
Comprehensiveness of development plan /10
Confidence in methodologies, assumptions and schedule(s) /10
Comprehensiveness of operating/business plan(s) /10
Demonstrated ability to secure financing to ensure completion of any and all
developments proposed /10
Demonstrated long-term financial viability and sustainability /10
Quality and success of similar development(s) /10
Qualifications (and/or professional designations) of technical and support staff,
senior staff and project lead /10
Stability and reputation of the firm/proponent organization /10
Innovativeness of Project (the project concept) /10
Overall quality of proposed document(s) /10
Track-record of the proposed project team /10
TOTAL /120

Shortlist Proponent Presentations
Sentex Developments Inc.
Niagara Parkway Marina Village Development Consortium
Based on the critical evaluation of the written proposals, formal proponent presentations were required to answer/address the following;

Is the re-routing of the Parkway essential to feasibility of the plan?
Will internal harbor cause stagnant water issues/problems?
Would it be possible to speed-up the timeline of the project?
Clarification of revenue to NPC required.
Feasibility of “dockominiums” on leased land?
Have all navigable waterway and water-flow issues been explored to ensure feasibility?
Are 8 story condo towers essential to feasibility of plan?
Can group demonstrate the financial wherewithal to finance a project of this scope?
Can group demonstrate a track-record of similar development?
Have considerations been made for winter storage/dockage?
THEME;
Could you clarify a couple of things for us?
THEME;
Can you actually pull this off?

SENTEX DEVELOPMENTS

The site plan is a concept
only, and will no doubt be
modified through
consultation with the NPC,
Town, area residents and
public at large.
Inner-harbor design is
less intrusive from a
watercourse perspective,
and would likely be more
feasible from a navigable
waterway perspective
(i.e. Federal and
Provincial waterway policy
and legislation).
Proposal includes; a hotel,
restaurant(s), condo
applications, small retail
space(s), heritage/museum
application(s), parkland
and has been designed to
include public access to
the site.

Rational and Critical Thinking
The Sentex –Miller Creek Shipyards proposal was chosen, unanimously, following the proponent presentations for the following reasons;
The Sentex group was seen as the more knowledgeable, more experienced and more professional development group.The Sentex development team has an extensive background and expertise in marina and waterfront development projects, and a proven track-record (as a team) of success in this area. The Sentex group is open to negotiation with the NPC with respect to the conceptual design of the development, and has expressed sincere concern for residents of Cairns Crescent, and the needs and requirements of the NPC.The Sentex group is willing to operate the NPC marina in its current state through the 2007 boating season while preliminary development initiatives are undertaken.The Sentex group is open to the prospect of developing a profit sharing program with the NPC, above and beyond an initial lump-sum payment and on-going lease rates.

Rational and Critical Thinking
The Sentex Development proposal represents a $70-$100 million investment at the NPC marina site (exclusive of housing)
Sentex has brought together a cohesive development group, with regional and provincial experience as a core development group;
Sentex Developments Inc. –John DeGroot, President
PB Marketing–Chris Mullin, President
Warren DAC Investments–Jim Ruscica, President
Bob O’Dell, Partner
Charter Contractors–Don Ward, Principal
Quartek Group Inc. –Doug Peters, Director of Engineering
Robert Tyler, Director of Architecture
Meridian Credit Union
Davis Family Investment

Next Steps/Conclusion(s)

There is considerable interest within the development community to develop the Niagara Parkway marina; -over 50 calls from developers with respect to the RFP;-over 25 terms of reference distributed (with others downloaded from theEDTC website);-three serious proposals received (with capital investments ranging from $40-$100 million); and,-serious expressions of interest from some of Canada’s largest developers (i.e. Cherokee Canada, The Rose Corporation,etc) with respect to the project.The Sentex Developments Inc. proposal was chosen decisively, based on the written proposal and formal presentation, as the developer of choice, and has proven itself capable of undertaking and completing a development of this scope and nature.