Addendum No. 3
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ADDENDUM NO. 3 Ernest N. Morial New Orleans Exhibition Hall Authority 900 Convention Center Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70130 Project Name: Request for Qualifications Master Developer Convention Center District Development Project Contract No.: C-1564 Date: October 3, 2019 To: All Recorded Holders of RFQ Documents The provisions of this addendum are hereby incorporated into, supplement and become a part of: 1) the Contract Documents, 2) each qualification document submitted by each Proposer and 3) any contract executed by the parties. Changes made by Addenda shall take precedence over any conflicting provisions in the original documents. The Proposer shall be responsible to notify the Owner of any changes caused by this addendum which may affect other items in the Contract Documents and which are not addressed in this Addendum prior to the Submission of a qualification document. Any such condition which is not addressed in advance and discovered after the qualification documents have been received shall be resolved in a manner acceptable to the Owner without additional cost. Item No. 1: Q&A Clarification: The following questions have been received. Responses are included below each question. Evaluation Criteria: Q1: What is the basis for scoring under financial considerations given the fact that no financial information has been requested? A1: Financial strength and capabilities of the proposed developer/development team. Reference: Q2: Should references be provided for supporting team members (e.g. architects, engineers, planners, etc.)? A2: Not necessary Q3: Please clarify if you want 3 references for each team member firm or 3 references for the entire submitting team? A3: Three references should be provided for each company participating in the team’s proposal. Individual references may be submitted but are not required. Format: Q4: Where would you like the Small and Emerging Business Plan to go in the proposal response? A4: Include the plan within the material for section 2.3 Overview of the Master Developer Team. Small and Emerging Business Plan: Q5: Please clarify further as to what the participation difference is between “SEB/DBE Goods and Services” and “SEB/DBE Direct Participation. A5: SEB/DBE Direct Participation is a direct contract between the Authority and an SEB/DBE business. As such, any member of a Proposer’s team that is either an owner or joint venturer will count toward this goal. Further, any SEB/DBE that the Proposer intends to contract with as an operator of the development will count toward this goal. The SEB/DBE Goods and Services Goal refers to subcontractors that the Proposer intends to hire through a subcontract for goods or services. Q6: In the pre-qualification meeting it was stated that a “SEB/DBE Form” will be sent out via addendum and is expected back as part of the proposal response outlining the vendors, scope of work and contract dollar values. Addendum No. 1 has eliminated “Section 2.5 Scope of Work and Cost Qualification”. Are we to assume that the SEB/DBE Form is not going to be required at this phase of solicitation given we are no longer required to submit scope of work and cost information with this qualifications response? A6: Correct. The form will not be distributed nor a part of the qualification response. SEB/DBE forms will be part of the RFP process. Technical Questions: Q7: Have appraisals been performed regarding the Authority property? If so, we respectfully request that the Authority furnish us with any such appraisals? A7: Yes. Appraisals are part of Addendum No. 3. Q8: Have market studies (residential, retail, hotel, entertainment) and economic impact studies been conducted for the Authority regarding its property? If so, we respectfully request that the Authority provide those reports to us? A8: No. Studies have not been performed. Q9: Has the matter of Top Golf leasing the 7.16 acre Parcel G on Attachment 1 to the RFQ been resolved or is there any likelihood of that lease being resuscitated? If so, we respectfully request that the Authority advise as to the current status of this matter? Furthermore, has the Authority engaged in other discussions with other prospective end users regarding Parcel G? If so, please advise as to their names and the most recent discussions that have taken place. A9: There have been no proposals nor are there any active prospects. Q10: It is our understanding that an Economic Development District was established affecting the subject property. We respectfully request that Authority furnish us with any and all information regarding the EDD and how it will be applied as to the subject property and what impact it may have on end users in any development on the respective parcels. A10: Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 33 Sections 130.861 through 130.867 are attached. Additionally, City of New Orleans Ordinance No. 27261 created a new overlay district called “Convention Center Height Overlay District” that encompasses the subject property. The stated purpose of the district is “to create a process to request additional height allowances through the Planned Development for properties in the South of Convention Center opportunity site.” The ordinance is attached. Q11: Is the new street grid depicted in Attachment 1 to the RFQ final or will the Master Developer (“MD”) of the 20 acres have some flexibility in this regard? Will the Authority apply for any re- subdivision or street grid changes? A11: The proposed street grid is not final. The Master Developer will have some flexibility in this regard. The Authority will work with the Developer to apply for any necessary re-subdivision or street grid changes Q12: In our opinion, visual and physical access to the Mississippi River is critical to the successful development of the 20 acres. Are there any agreements and/or understandings between the Authority and the owner(s) of the land between the subject 20 acres and the river that would guarantee visual and/or physical access to the river for those occupying the 20 acres? If not, to your knowledge, are there any provisions or restrictions that would prevent the owner(s) of the subject waterfront property from erecting any structures or new buildings that would impede visual and/or physical access to the river? A12: The Authority has no agreements or understandings with owners of the riverfront sites. The Authority has no knowledge of any provisions or restrictions that would prevent the owner(s) of such property from erecting any structures or new buildings that would impede visual and/or physical access to the river. Q13: Are there any restrictions that would keep the Master Developer from building additional hotel rooms on the 20 acre site? A13: No Entertainment Venue Questions Q14: It is the opinion of our group that a strong focus on entertainment is critical to the successful development of the 20 acre tract; and, accordingly, we believe that the entertainment component should be coordinated by the MD and woven into the entire fabric of the neighborhood to achieve long term success of the overall project. Accordingly, why did the Authority withdraw the entertainment venue (EV) from the acreage to be developed by the MD? A14: The Authority is involved in discussions with an entertainment venue and determined this development component would be managed by the Authority. Q15: Secondly, how did the Authority determine that the EV should occupy 2.2 acres? It seems such an allocation of land was certainly not arbitrary; some measure of planning must have been done to arrive at the 2.2 acre site. What was the rationale for that allocation? Was that determination made by architects working for the Authority or was that determination made by a potential EV developer that might be or has been awarded the rights to develop the EV? If it was made by a third party EV developer, please furnish the name of that EV developer and the names of their people the Authority dealt with. A15: The Authority is not in a position to disclose the name of the EV at present, since active discussions are occurring. Q16: Thirdly, are there any restrictions to other entertainment components throughout the 20 acre development? If so, please advise as to the specifics of those restrictions. A16: No – there are no current restrictions; however, we reserve the right to approve any proposed entertainment concepts. Q17: Was an RFQ and/or RFP issued by the Authority for the EV? If so, please furnish same to us. If an RFQ and/or RFP was not issued, please furnish us with the names of that company or those companies with whom the Authority staff has dealt regarding selection of the EV developer. Is an EV developer soon to be selected or has an EV developer already been targeted or selected? If so, please furnish their names(s) and the name(s) of the contact person or people. A17: There was no RFP or RFQ. The EV is to be determined. Q18: Section 1.4 of the RFQ states “The Authority recognizes that it will fund certain infrastructure costs associated with site planning activities and other costs that provide a benefit to the public. (Attachment 5).” On page 4 of Attachment 5: Preliminary Infrastructure Analysis – Phase II dated August 20, 2019, it states, “the NOMCC/Developer will pay for construction of the roads, including all surface amenities and subsurface utilities.” We hereby respectfully request that that the Authority clarify who will be responsible for the cost and actual installation of surface infrastructure amenities and subsurface infrastructure and utilities? And if the MD is responsible for any of these items, would the Authority clarify what infrastructure will be the responsibility of the MD? A18: The Authority is responsible for all such infrastructure costs.