Pens_Int_Airport_Selection_Comm_meeting_evaluations_8-21-13.pdf

7/27/2019 Pens_Int_Airport_Selection_Comm_meeting_evaluations_8-21-13.pdf

1/17

PENSACOLA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 13-008

PRESENTATION EVALUATIONS

Held at the Pensacola International Airport, 2430

Airport Boulevard, 2nd Floor Conference Room,

Pensacola, Florida, on the 21st day of August,

2013, at 4:40 p.m.

Hitchcock and AssociatesRegistered Professional Reporters

111 South Baylen Street

P. O. Box 13253

Pensacola, Florida 32591-3253(850) 434-6447 / 434-6773

HITCHCOCK & ASSOCIATES


2/17

2

A P P E A R A N C E S

Greg Donovan, Director

Pensacola International Airport

Wes Payne, Manager

Cordova Mall

Perry Hunter, Manager

McGuires Irish Pub

Bill Dagnall, Business Account Officer

Navy Federal Credit Union

Brad Roberts, Power Quality Systems Director

S&C Electric Company

Michael Laven, Property and Budget Manager

Pensacola International Airport

Richard Chinsammy, Consultant

Concessions Solution Group



3/17

3

1 MR. LAVEN: Okay, welcome back,

2 everyone. This is the public meeting for the

3 section committee of the City of Pensacola Request

4 for Proposal No. 13-008, Pensacola International

5 Airport Food and Beverage Concession Lease.

6 I would like to ask each member of the

7 selection committee to introduce themselves so we

8 have you on the recording; and by the way, this

9 meeting is being recorded for the record.

10 Greg.

11 MR. DONOVAN: Greg Donovan. Im the

12 airport director of Pensacola International.

13 MR. HUNTER: Perry Hunter, general

14 manager of McGuires Irish Pub.

15 MR. ROBERTS: Brad Roberts, S&C

16 Electric Company.

17 MR. PAYNE: Wes Payne, general manager,

18 Simon Property Group.

19 MR. DAGNALL: Bill Dagnall, Navy

20 Federal Credit Union.

21 MR. LAVEN: Thank you very much. Today

22 is August 21, 2013. It is approximately 4:50 in

23 the afternoon---4:40 in the afternoon. We have just

24 heard presentations from the two proposals. We

25 heard from OHM Concession Group out of St. Louis,



4/17

4

1 Missouri, and Creative Food Group out of New York,

2 New York.

3 The presentations were not open to the

4 public, but they were recorded for the public

5 record. This deliberation is open to the public

6 and will be recorded and will also become part of

7 the public record.

8 Youve had access to your evaluation

9 sheets, and you may take notes. Those notes will

10 also become part of the public record.

11 What were going to do at this point is

12 were going to ask you to evaluate the

13 presentations from today, one at a time. Were

14 going to go around the room, and we are going to

15 ask you to identify what you found to be

16 responsive and what, if anything, you found not

17 responsive about the first presentation only.

18 As a reminder, the first presentation

19 consisted of two Einstein Bagels, Corona Beach

20 House, Surf City Squeeze, and Chick-fil-A.

21 Ill start with Greg Donovan, please.

22 MR. DONOVAN: Okay, so on the first

23 presentation?

24 MR. LAVEN: The first presentation.

25 MR. DONOVAN: I found everything to be



5/17

5

1 responsive and I thought it was a very

2 comprehensive presentation. I was impressed with

3 the products.

4 Well want to compare both or how---no?

5 Im fine.

6 MR. LAVEN: Okay, next.

7 MR. HUNTER: The first proposal was

8 extremely responsive, good products. I really

9 have no other statement on that.

10 MR. LAVEN: Okay.

11 MR. ROBERTS: I thought it was very

12 well done and very responsive. I think it

13 reflects their knowledge of operating airport

14 concession operations.

15 MR. PAYNE: It was very thought out,

16 great brands and a great presentation.

17 MR. DAGNALL: I, too, thought that the

18 first presentation was very responsive. The

19 questions were answered effectively and

20 efficiently, and nothing else from my end.

21 MR. LAVEN: Okay, next I would like you

22 to identify what you found to be responsive of the

23 second presentation only and what, if anything,

24 you found not to be responsive about the second

25 presentation only.



6/17

6

1 As a reminder, that presentation was

2 the Tapheads---Bagelheads, the Fish House, Pensacola

3 Bay Brewery, and Varonas.

4 MR. DONOVAN: Another quality

5 presentation, very good products.

6 I did have some issues or some

7 concerns, and I would ask Richard---you are our

8 consultant on this---maybe for some clarity because

9 I heard something a little different in the

10 presentation, that there was a 369,750 minimum

11 annual guarantee that was raised during the

12 presentation itself; and during the written

13 presentation it was a $300,000 MAG. Which one---how

14 does that work on what---which number should we be

15 using?

16 MR. CHINSAMMY: Well, based on the

17 purchasing---our rules and the rules of the RFP,

18 Greg, we do see the calculation in Submittal 5,

19 minimum annual guarantee form, that reflects what

20 was articulated during the presentation; however,

21 the minimum annual guarantee offered that we must

22 accept in this process is $300,000.

23 MR. DONOVAN: Okay.

24 MR. CHINSAMMY: As articulated in

25 number and letter format in the RFP, Form No. 5.



7/17

7

1 MR. DONOVAN: There was also---I also

2 had a concern about the pre-security location that

3 has altered between 800 to 1,000 square feet, and

4 use of the area outside of that, to return that

5 back to the airport as a leasable space. How does

6 that fall into the criteria in the selection as

7 well?

8 MR. CHINSAMMY: This area---that area

9 was never included in the proposal. In fact, one

10 of the addendums did ask for the specific

11 dimensions of the pre-security location to include

12 the 2,500 square feet. That was answered in the

13 addendum. It was approximately 50 feet on the

14 storefront side and 50 feet deep. So the only

15 way---because there was no actual square footage

16 stipulated in the proposal, I just took the

17 $240,000 investment amount divided by the minimum

18 of $300 per square foot to come up with

19 approximately 800 square feet in the pre-security

20 location.

21 UNIDENTIFIED: To further answer the

22 question, when we started to lay out the plan for

23 the food and beverage concessions program, it was

24 always the intention to have the operator---

25 concession operator operate on the front part of



8/17

8

1 that space that is very large today and then

2 (unintelligible). This is a plan four years old

3 and recently revised before the RFP was published

4 to (unintelligible) the space so that the airport

5 and the city could potentially lease space for

6 storage or airlines or anyone else who wanted to

7 lease as a revenue generator for the city. So we

8 purposely pushed the space forward to

9 (unintelligible) the rest of it, to demolish it,

10 and to make it a rentable space for the city.

11 That was the intent.

12 MR. DONOVAN: And then some of the

13 sublease discussion that took place during the

14 presentation as well, again, in terms of what we

15 were asking for in a proposal, it sounds like its

16 another step, another process. I have concerns

17 about that as well.

18 UNIDENTIFIED: Subleases are---

19 inherently, there is a process in any sublease

20 with a prime and a subleasee in the airport

21 environment, in general. The proposed structure

22 adds a layer---an additional layer that requires

23 city approval in terms of financials, and theres

24 a number of different items that the city would

25 have to vet in order to approve a sublease



9/17

9

1 agreement under the structure currently proposed,

2 correct. There is another layer.

3 MR. DONOVAN: Okay, thats all my

4 comments.

5 MR. LAVEN: Okay. Next.

6 MR. HUNTER: I thought they were very

7 responsive. Some concerns on maintaining the

8 quality out here at the airport versus in the

9 restaurants here in Pensacola would be just a

10 concern of mine, being in the business itself,

11 fine reputable products out there. We know these

12 people. Theyre part of our community, and I

13 would just want, as a citizen of Pensacola, to

14 make sure that the same quality I get over at the

15 Fish House or Bagelheads is going to be reflected

16 out here, and thats where food costs and labor

17 costs and all that kind of factor in for me.

18 Were now taking, in my eyes, a third

19 party, and were interjecting that---or a second

20 party, and were interjecting that into the

21 discussion and into the business. So I think that

22 could be tricky---with national brands. Its maybe

23 a little easier with local brands. The owners are

24 in this city, and it concerns me that that second

25 group can make sure that the quality and quantity



10/17

10

1 and the reputation is up there.

2 MR. LAVEN: Next.

3 MR. ROBERTS: I thought it was a very

4 good proposal. Obviously, theyre all cherished

5 brands in the Pensacola area, and to give them

6 additional publicity in the airport would be a

7 good thing. I guess I didnt read the original

8 proposal close enough to understand the concept of

9 them not running the food prep in those particular

10 facilities; but teaching that to somebody else,

11 that does give me concern, but thats my only

12 concern.

13 MR. PAYNE: I follow along suit with

14 that as well. Im very excited to see the local

15 brand participation here in the market, and I

16 think it would be very beneficial. Im a little

17 concerned about the turnover of their brand to a

18 third party or, again, like I say, a second party

19 to maintain those standards. Its not the only

20 concern, but that was a concern. Im very excited

21 to be part of the---to have the local brands

22 represented, but theres a few holes.

23 MR. DAGNALL: I thought the

24 presentation was very enthusiastic and responsive.

25 I think its a great compliment to have, if you



11/17

11

1 would, a national firm in Creative Foods to come

2 down and identify local talent and our local brand

3 here that we so cherish.

4 My main question was the MAG number

5 which was---that was washed out and made---and

6 clarified moments ago. So other than that, I have

7 nothing further.

8 MR. LAVEN: Okay, is there anything we

9 need to add? because the next step would be to go

10 around the room and ask each of you who you feel

11 is the highest ranked, most responsive, most

12 responsible proposer. In that case your

13 deliberations would be over. If you have anything

14 else to say, I can open up the committee, and you

15 can discuss amongst yourselves the responsiveness

16 of the first proposal versus the second proposal,

17 if you feel the first proposal ranked above the

18 second one or the second one ranked above the

19 first one. This is really---its an important

20 decision, so this is your opportunity to speak

21 amongst yourselves.

22 MR. CHINSAMMY: If you would like to.

23 MR. LAVEN: Yeah.

24 MR. CHINSAMMY: And I think I want to

25 add to that, Michael, that, you know, we had a



12/17

12

1 scoring process in the first where you all ranked

2 the various proposals, and so again, if you simply

3 would like to reiterate that, if youve changed

4 your mind from the first to now, you can simply do

5 that as well, and Michael will tally that.

6 MR. DONOVAN: Ill go ahead and start.

7 First, I think the entire day was filled with

8 quality presentations. I think the products that

9 were offered were absolutely amazing. In a

10 perfect world you take a little bit of this, take

11 a little bit of that, and merge it into the

12 winning product. Both were very, very close in my

13 opinion, and I consider the airport to be very

14 fortunate to have such enthusiasm in business

15 proposals being presented.

16 I think both would do very well, but

17 the fiscal responsibility of the airport is one of

18 the big responsibilities that I have, and looking

19 at the differences in (unintelligible), the things

20 that have been presented, many distinguishing

21 facts are there from a numbers-wise. Over a ten-

22 year period of time, one is providing more than a

23 million dollars, or roughly a million dollars in

24 additional minimum annual guarantees. Now, one

25 can say sales could go up, and it wouldnt



13/17

13

1 necessarily equate to that, but there is a lot of

2 satisfaction in the fact that there would be a

3 million dollar separation between the two.

4 The other is the capital investment in

5 the facilities itself, about $100,000 difference.

6 I look at the sales per enplane passenger in both

7 of the proposals, and there was a higher one,

8 ranging from 4.81 to 3.85; and all those things

9 are very, very important to the airport and the

10 financial security of the airport.

11 To be self-sustaining, the Pensacola

12 International Airport is not on the tax system.

13 It has to generate its own revenue, and our food

14 and beverage, this is an opportunity for the next

15 ten years for us to advance, to progress.

16 Again, I think the local products are

17 extremely important, and I struggled internally

18 between what I want to give people as a first

19 impression coming to the airport or leaving,

20 something that is known for this area, and theres

21 a strength in that. At the same time, though, I

22 know that there are price sensitivities to them.

23 There are time considerations when traveling.

24 Somebody that is traveling through our airport is

25 going somewhere else, and they make decisions



14/17

14

1 along the way what theyre going to purchase, and

2 its a very difficult decision to make; but

3 originally I believed that OHM outperformed

4 Creative slightly, and my recommendation is OHM.

5 MR. LAVEN: Okay, thank you very much,

6 Greg. Next well go to Perry Hunter.

7 MR. HUNTER: Let my original vote

8 stand.

9 MR. LAVEN: Okay, so your first most

10 responsive would be---

11 MR. HUNTER: Creative.

12 MR. LAVEN: Creative Food Group, okay.

13 Next we go to Brad Roberts, please.

14 MR. ROBERTS: This was a good session.

15 In reviewing everything I think Im going to stay

16 with my original recommendation in scoring.

17 MR. LAVEN: Okay, so that would be OHM

18 Group. Okay, thank you.

19 Next we go to Wes Payne, please.

20 MR. PAYNE: Yes, Ill stay with my

21 original scoring.

22 MR. LAVEN: And your original scoring

23 was OHM Group.

24 Mr. Bill Dagnall, please.

25 MR. DAGNALL: I thought the



15/17

15

1 presentations were both very excellent, well

2 executed today, but nothing really jumped out from

3 both today to change my original decision, so I

4 will, too, stick with my original scoring which

5 was OHM.

6 MR. LAVEN: OHM Group, okay. Thank you

7 very much, sir.

8 So to summarize, we have four of the

9 selection committee members have chosen OHM

10 Concession Group as the highest ranked, most

11 responsive, responsible proposer, and one ranked

12 Creative Food Group as the highest ranked, most

13 responsive, responsible proposer. So at this

14 point is it the recommendation of the committee to

15 recommend OHM Group to the mayor to recommend

16 approval to the Pensacola City Council?

17 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.

18 MR. DONOVAN: Yes.




22 MR. LAVEN: Okay, thank you very much.

23 I want to thank the members of the selection

24 committee. You did a wonderful job. I know this

25 took a lot of time out of your busy days. The



16/17

16

1 mayor has a lot of trust in the selection

2 committees, and he does appreciate the time that

3 you serve on the committee. I, working at the

4 airport, do appreciate the time that you spent;

5 and Greg, Im sure hes told you many times we do

6 appreciate you as well.

7 Both proposers, we do thank you for the

8 time and the energy you spent on this. Thank you

9 very much.

10 MR. DONOVAN: Thank you.

11

12 WHEREUPON, the meeting was concluded.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



17/17

17

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA

I, PATRICIA D. HITCHCOCK, Registered

Professional Reporter and Notary Public, State of

Florida at Large, hereby certify that I was

authorized to transcribe the foregoing recorded

Selection Committee meeting and that the transcript

is a true record of the proceeding. I further

certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney

or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative

or employee of any attorney or counsel connected with

the action; nor am I financially interested in this

proceeding or its outcome.

Dated this day of September, 2013.

PATRICIA D. HITCHCOCK

Registered Professional Reporter andNotary Public, State of Florida at Large

My commission expires October 22, 2015.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anonymous-zrsuuxncc
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Pens_Int_Airport_Selection_Comm_meeting_evaluations_8-21-13.pdf

Documents