Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Staff Summary: <br />The Staff which reviewed the proposals consisted of City Administrator, Deputy City <br />Administrator, Finance Officer, Director of Public Works, Planning Manager, and Economic <br />Development Coordinator. The following are the reasons the finns were not recommended for <br />interviews. <br /> <br />Not recommended for Interview: <br /> <br />Thor Construction, partnering with 1000 Friends of Minnesota and LHB Engineers and <br />Architects: <br />This proposal was heavily residentially focused; staff was concerned regarding the experience <br />with retail and commercial markets. They placed a significant emphasis on environmental <br />sustainability which was not a focus which came out of the visioning session. It lacked a <br />financial analysis component. <br /> <br />Ehlers: <br />This proposal lacked TOD experience. They show a comprehensive financial capability, but <br />staff is concerned about private development experience. Ehlers deals with public entities and <br />private nationwide development experience is critical to the success of the proj ect. <br /> <br />Foster Real Estate Advisory Services, LLC partnering with RLK Inc.: <br />This proposal is a little weak overall. There is no TOD experience and it is light on the financial <br />experience. RLK is a strong partner, but the proposal did not rise to the level of the three <br />recommended. <br /> <br />Disqualified: <br />Solution Blue, Inc.: <br />This proposal did not meet the criteria of the RFQ. It did not contain any sample proj ects, or <br />financial analysis. These were both requirements of the submittal, since they were not included, <br />this proposal was not considered. <br />