Laserfiche WebLink
CC Work Session 2. 2. <br />Meeting Date: 11/12/2013 <br />Title: <br />Discuss RFP for Real Estate Broker Services <br />Information <br />Purpose /Background: <br />Case Background <br />This case was originally discussed on September 10, 2013; at which time, Staff was directed to conduct a Request <br />for Proposals (RFP) for real estate broker services on a select number of City owned properties. Attached to this <br />case is the original RFP. <br />Staff solicited about 100 brokers to provide a response to the adopted RFP, the City received five total responses <br />and Staff conducted three informal interviews. One response included interest in listing both commercial and <br />residential real estate- -the remaining four responses indicated interest in listing residential real estate only. <br />Overall, Staff was unsatisfied with the number, and quality, of RFP responses received. However, through the <br />original RFP process, Staff has concluded that a better model is evident (for real estate broker services) than was <br />prescribed in the original RFP. Consequently, staff is proposing the City Council terminate the original RFP process <br />initiated on September 10; and, consider a new process for soliciting real estate broker services -- Request for <br />Qualifications (RFQ). <br />Purpose of Case <br />Terminate the RFP process initiated on September 10; and, consider a new process for soliciting real estate broker <br />services -- Request for Qualifications (RFQ). <br />New Proposed RFQ Process <br />Attached to this case is the newly proposed RFQ. Based on feedback from the broker community (three informal <br />interviews) and staff research, staff is proposing the following changes be made to the original RFP <br />process /document: <br />(1) Rather than identifying a list of specific parcels to be listed by a broker (up front), staff is proposing a <br />more flexible approach- -for the City to select a 'preferred' broker. Parcels for sale would be added and <br />removed from the preferred broker as requested by the City (this is the reason for the change from RFP to <br />RFQ) <br />(2) Rather than only listing two specific small parcels in The COR, Staff is proposing the discussion be <br />opened up to allow a large majority of The COR to be listed. NOTE: specifics /details of which parcels will <br />be listed in The COR will be discussed by the Council at a later date, based on input from the selected broker <br />(and a Staff recommendation). At this point, Staff is advertising a large portion of The COR will be available <br />for listing by the selected broker. <br />(3) Rather than leaving the scope /requirements of the RFQ document very open ended, Staff is proposing <br />certain parameters are narrowed (i.e. preferred method of compensation, term, carry -over fees, role of broker, <br />desired outcome, etc.). <br />(4) Unlike the first RFP, Staff is including a section that outlines services the City is not expecting <br />(development management services, re- branding services, advanced market analysis reports *, engineering <br />services, website management, strategic /master planning or creation of advanced marketing materials *). <br />*Beyond normal real estate broker standards. These, and other development tasks, including any incentive <br />