Results Report Downtown Market Analysis & Strategies Request for Proposal Competitive Contracting - Due Date June 1, 2016

Transcription

1 Results Report Downtown Market Analysis & Strategies Request for Proposal Competitive Contracting - Due Date June 1, 2016 Intent: It is the intent of the Borough of Madison to establish a contract with a qualified consultant to perform an independent market analysis for Downtown Madison. Proposals were submitted by: Urbanomics, New York, NY 4Ward Planning, New York, NY HR&A, New York, NY Sprung Planning Company, East Brunswick, NJ Wadley-Donovan Growth Tech LLC, Madison, NJ A committee of eight was constituted to review proposals and interview the finalists. All eight individuals had served on the larger committee that had drafted the original RFP and the rules to be applied for the evaluation of submissions. Since the RFP had explicit expectations, all the submissions to varying degrees addressed the same subjects, which included an analysis of the market penetration, the composition of businesses in town, zoning laws, processes for new businesses, wayfaring, branding, parking and other topics associated with revitalizing our downtown business district. There were, however, discernable differences that enabled the committee to make a decision regarding the three top contenders. In order to help with the decision for the Short List (top three contenders), Exhibit 1 was used by committee member to facilitate their evaluation. The top three candidates, as judged by their submissions, were invited to present and be interviewed by the committee. It was determined that Urbanomics, 4Ward and HR&A would be invited. Following is a brief overview of each submission with some explanation as to why Urbanomics was selected as the firm to be engaged in this project. Firms are listed in the order in which they were ranked. The first three firms were invited to present to the committee. 1. Urbanomics This proposal represented the combined efforts, expertise and experience of three firms. Urbanomics acting as the lead firm is focused on market and financial analysis primarily for municipalities in the tri-state area. Many of their clients are similar to Madison in size and other characteristics. BFJ Planning brings zoning and land use experience including traffic flow and parking. They are familiar with Madison from prior work experience and similarly to Urbanomics have worked for communities not unlike ours resolving problems that we all share. The third member of this group is Russell design, a firm familiar with developing consistent and distinguishing design elements for a municipality. Their expertise includes street design elements, signage and other elements of a consistent look and feel for the commercial aspects of a community. 2. HR&A This is an impressive group in terms of their experience and expertise. Many of the projects they are involved with are several magnitudes larger than our project. They also have a

2 more formal structure making us unsure as to how much time we would actually get from the more senior members of their team. They broke down time allocated to this project among their staff and it was heavily weighted to their more junior members. They were also significantly more expensive than the other firms we interviewed. Their presentation was very professional and informed covering most of the topics that Urbanomics described; however their staff did not represent as many disciplines as Urbanomics. 3. 4Ward Planning similarly to Urbanomics, 4Ward was the lead but not the only firm involved in this proposal. 4Ward Planning has particular expertise in economic and real estate development. For this project they partnered with VHB a firm specializing in planning, development and environmental studies. The combined focus suggested that their work would not be as broad in coverage as we might like a stronger emphasis on development and land use in a more macro sense rather than the more street level analysis of downtown problems. Although they were impressive their proposal seemed to be somewhat different than what we were looking for. 4. WADLEY DONOVAN GROWTH TECH LLC This proposal incorporated the work of three firms. WDGT, the lead firm, has expertise in economic and workforce development, Garnet, which focuses on economic and community development and Danth, which has expertise in multichannel retailing among other marketing oriented disciplines. This proposal touched on all the appropriate points; however it was not as well integrated or explicit in what would be delivered as some of the other proposals. Moreover, there appeared to be extensive overlap in expertise making us feel that might be more appropriate if we had a more narrow focus and/or decided to further evaluate certain aspects of our RFP. They were also on the high end of the range in cost. 5. Sprung Planning Co. seemed to be less a proposal to satisfy our requirements and more of a plan as to how this firm would analyze our issues and work with us on a multi-year plan executed by Mr. Sprung. Although the submission touched on many of the same topics as other proposals there were too many components in the 17-point plan that were not fully explained. More importantly the general orientation of this proposal was inconsistent with the objectives of our RFP. Interviewing the Short List : The three firms invited to present were each allotted up to one hour for the formal presentation and an additional hour for questions and answers. Firms were asked to address the questions contained in the RFP and they were made aware of the weighting scheme being used for evaluation. Audiovisual equipment was made available as needed. In addition provision was made for committee members to attend remotely. Of the eight committee members, two were unable to attend one meeting each. Scoring and other feedback was adjusted accordingly. Rating of Short List : The three firms invited to present were all rated on the same criteria. 1. Firm background and applicable project experience Experience with comparable projects Past performance for similar organizations Knowledge of local or regional economy Recent, current and projected workload

3 Weight (40%) 2. Project team leadership and experience Experience with comparable projects Abilities of personnel Understanding of project objective Project approach Weight (35%) 3. Cost of Services Weight (25%) Criteria ratings were: 4= exceeds criteria; 3=meets criteria; 2=partially meets criteria;1=does not meet criteria The numerical scores follow. Urbanomics was rated significantly higher than the two other firms. Urbanomics Ward 9.24 HR&A 9.40 Urbanomics has committed to the following list of tasks that are part of their proposal: 1. Intend to work closely with Borough Steering Committee 2. Kick off meeting and Initial Data Gathering 3. Stakeholder and Community Outreach 4. Inventory of existing businesses. 5. Overview of community and regional economy 6. Retail Gap Analysis 7. Future demand for housing and other land use 8. Planning, Zoning and Development Context 9. Inventory and mapping of all on and off street parking 10. Review of Borough s zoning regulation and policies 11. Gateway, urban design and streetscape recommendations 12. Pilot program review 13. Branding recommendations 14. Interventions and Implementations 15. Key finding report 16. Public meeting presentation Their estimated time to completion is consistent with our RFP. Total cost is $57,000. There is the possibility of some additional and complimentary analyses. One is a Parking Occupancy Survey and the other is a survey of parking users. If we elect to go ahead with these two additions it would add $10,000 to the total cost.

4 Exhibit 1 RFP Evaluation 1. Technical Criteria: i. Proposed methodology: 1) Does the vendor's proposal demonstrate a clear understanding of the scope of work and related objectives? (2) Is the vendor's proposal complete and responsive to the specific RFP requirements? (3) Has the past performance of the vendor's proposed methodology been documented? (4) Does the vendor's proposal use innovative technology and techniques? ii. Are sound environmental practices such as recycling, energy efficiency, and waste reduction used? 2. Management criteria: i. Project management: (1) How well does the proposed scheduling timeline meet the contracting unit's needs? (2) Is there a project management plan? ii. History and experience in performing the work: (1) Does the vendor document a record of reliability of timely delivery and on-time and on-budget implementation? (2) Does the vendor demonstrate a track record of service as evidenced by on-time, on-budget, and contract compliance performance? (3) Does the vendor document industry or program experience? (4) Does the vendor have a record of moral integrity? iii. Availability of personnel, facilities, equipment and other

5 resources: (1) To what extent does the vendor rely on in-house resources vs. contracted resources? (2) Are the availability of in-house and contract resources documented? iv. Qualification and experience of personnel: (1) Documentation of experience in performing similar work by employees and when appropriate, sub-contractors? (2) Does the vendor make use of business capabilities or initiatives that involve women, the disadvantaged, small and/or minority owned business establishments? (3) Does the vendor demonstrate cultural sensitivity in hiring and training staff? 3. Cost criteria: i. Cost of goods to be provided or services to be performed: (1) Relative cost: How does the cost compare to other similarly scored proposals? (2) Full explanation: Is the price and its component charges, fees, etc. adequately explained or documented? ii. Assurances of performance: (1) If required, are suitable bonds, warranties, or guarantees provided? (2) Does the proposal include quality control and assurance programs? iii. Vendor's financial stability and strength: (1) Does the vendor have sufficient financial resources to meet its obligations?