This document is a letter from Thomas Courguechon of Prairie Sun Builders responding to inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the city's evaluation of proposals submitted for redevelopment of the Court Street/Linn Street site. The letter provides a point-by-point critique of the city's evaluation, clarifying details about Prairie Sun's proposal and experience. It expresses disappointment that the city disregarded the stated goals and requirements of the RFP and failed to provide Prairie Sun an opportunity to address questions. The letter maintains that an objective evaluation considering compliance with goals would support selecting Prairie Sun as the developer.
This document is a letter from Thomas Courguechon of Prairie Sun Builders responding to inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the city's evaluation of proposals submitted for redevelopment of the Court Street/Linn Street site. The letter provides a point-by-point critique of the city's evaluation, clarifying details about Prairie Sun's proposal and experience. It expresses disappointment that the city disregarded the stated goals and requirements of the RFP and failed to provide Prairie Sun an opportunity to address questions. The letter maintains that an objective evaluation considering compliance with goals would support selecting Prairie Sun as the developer.
Original Description:
Prairie Sun point-by-point critique of city evaluation
This document is a letter from Thomas Courguechon of Prairie Sun Builders responding to inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the city's evaluation of proposals submitted for redevelopment of the Court Street/Linn Street site. The letter provides a point-by-point critique of the city's evaluation, clarifying details about Prairie Sun's proposal and experience. It expresses disappointment that the city disregarded the stated goals and requirements of the RFP and failed to provide Prairie Sun an opportunity to address questions. The letter maintains that an objective evaluation considering compliance with goals would support selecting Prairie Sun as the developer.
This document is a letter from Thomas Courguechon of Prairie Sun Builders responding to inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the city's evaluation of proposals submitted for redevelopment of the Court Street/Linn Street site. The letter provides a point-by-point critique of the city's evaluation, clarifying details about Prairie Sun's proposal and experience. It expresses disappointment that the city disregarded the stated goals and requirements of the RFP and failed to provide Prairie Sun an opportunity to address questions. The letter maintains that an objective evaluation considering compliance with goals would support selecting Prairie Sun as the developer.
Ms 1rlcla 8rown and Ms Lmlly nelson lowa ClLy ress-ClLlzen 123 n. unlon SLreeL, SulLe 2L lowa ClLy, lowa 32243
Sub[ecL: LL11L8 1C 1PL Lul1C8S SenL vla Lmall uear Ms 8rown and Ms nelson, l am wrlLlng Lhls leLLer ln an efforL Lo clarlfy our company's poslLlon ln response Lo Lhe ClLy's selecLlon of Lhe flnallsLs" for Lhe re-developmenL of Lhe CourL SLreeL / Llnn SLreeL slLe. We belleve Lhe slLe, also known as Lhe SL. aLrlck's re-developmenL slLe, ls one of Lhe prlnclpal gaLeways from Lhe downLown C8u Lo Lhe 8lverfronL Crosslng ulsLrlcL. ln addlLlon, lL ls Lhe flrsL slgnlflcanL pro[ecL locaLed wlLhln Lhe 8lverfronL Crosslng ulsLrlcL. As such we fully appreclaLe and accepL Lhe ClLy's re-developmenL goals and ob[ecLlves for Lhe properLy (as referenced ln Lhe ClLy's 8l), a mlxed use, urban scale complex for llvlng and worklng LhaL becomes parL of Lhe fabrlc of Lhe nelghborhood communlLy and alds Lhe LranslLlon from C8u Lo 8lverfronL Crosslng. ln our proposal careful aLLenLlon ls pald Lo pedesLrlan and vehlcular access, llnks Lo publlc LransporLaLlon, sLreeL level reLall, nelghborhood servlces, casual gaLherlng spaces and landscaped plazas. 1he bulldlngs we propose slL, aL sLreeL level, noL as a solld barrler edlflce, buL as a more open laLLlcework of sLrucLural elemenLs lnvlLlng enLry, movemenL and provldlng opporLunlLles for sLreeL level reLall. 8y lncorporaLlng workforce, affordable and markeL raLe resldenLlal opLlons our proposal lncorporaLes a broader cross secLlon of Lhe larger communlLy and offers 63 aparLmenL unlLs of rellef from splrallng houslng cosLs. SevenLy-Lhree markeL raLe renLal unlLs provlde eleganL and graclous houslng opLlons for professlonals, senlors and empLy nesLers LhaL deslre Lo llve ad[acenL Lo Lhe C8u. lL ls llLLle wonder Lherefore, LhaL we were shocked and confused by Lhe number of lnconslsLencles and mlsundersLandlngs made by Lhe ClLy's proposal revlew sub-commlLLee ln Lhe !uly 31, 2014 Cvervlew of 8esponses Lo 8l. 1hls documenL, flrsL publlshed on CcLober 2 nd , (whlch we presume was used, or was lnLended Lo be used, as a parL of Lhe ClLy sLaff reporL Lo Lhe ClLy Councll), mlsrepresenLed several of Lhe Lhe Cvervlew lgnored Lhe lnLenL of and compllance wlLh Lhe ClLy's sLaLed redevelopmenL goals for Lhe SL. aLrlck slLe. lurLher, we also noLe LhaL Lhe revlew commlLLee dlsregarded Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe adopLed lorm 8ased Code for Lhe 8lverfronL Crosslngs ulsLrlcL". vlrLually all of Lhese lmporLanL plannlng crlLerla were lncluded ln our proposal. Whlle we provlde a polnL by polnL crlLlque of Lhe mlsundersLandlngs and mlsrepresenLaLlons conLalned ln Lhe clLy's evaluaLlon of our proposal aL Lhe end of Lhls leLLer, sufflce lL Lo say Lhe preparaLlon and publlcaLlon of our proposal cosL our Leam ln excess of $40,000 and Lo be seL aslde and mlsrepresenLed, as we belleve we were, demonsLraLes Lhe ClLy's dlsregard for our very serlous, carefully consldered efforL. AlLhough we made our enLlre Leam avallable Lo Lhe ClLy Lo answer any quesLlons, provlde any clarlflcaLlons or dellver addlLlonal lnformaLlon, we were never asked Lo do so desplLe our repeaLed aLLempLs. We are of Lhe bellef LhaL Lhe ClLy's handllng of Lhe processlng and evaluaLlon of Lhe proposals submlLLed ln response Lo Lhe 8l demonsLraLes Lhe lack of a deflnlLe common sLandard on whlch Lo
329 L. CourL SLreeL, SulLe 2C, lowa ClLy, lowa 32240 submlL compeLlLlve proposals. 1he fallure by Lhe ClLy Lo noLlfy all parLles LhaL Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe 8l were noL Lo be enforced denled us (and oLher quallfled developers) an equal opporLunlLy Lo compeLe. lL ls our poslLlon LhaL an ob[ecLlve evaluaLlon performed ln Lhe conLexL of accuraLe lnformaLlon and ln conslderaLlon of compllance wlLh Lhe ClLy's sLaLed goals and ob[ecLlves for Lhls pro[ecL should secure ralrle Sun 8ullders, LLC as Lhe developer of cholce for Lhls properLy. Slncerely,
1homas A. Courguechon
329 L. CourL SLreeL, SulLe 2C, lowa ClLy, lowa 32240
olnL-8y-olnL CrlLlque of ClLy LvaluaLlon As Lo Lhe lnconslsLencles ln Lhe evaluaLlon offer Lhe followlng clarlflcaLlons: 1he responses Lo Lhe 8l were Lo be graded on a polnL sysLem, Lhe 16 crlLerla for whlch were lncluded ln Lhe 8l (Sect|on 7). 1o daLe we have noL seen Lhe resulLs of LhaL polnL sysLem. 1he CcLober 2, 2014 memorandum, ConflrmaLlon of flnallsLs for Lhe redevelopmenL of Lhe CourL/Llnn slLe" lncluded only 4 of Lhe 16 evaluaLlon crlLerla. kI Sect|on 1: 8ackground Informat|on and ro[ect Goa|s sLaLes LhaL 1he ClLy lnLends Lo enLer lnLo a developmenL agreemenL and convey Lhe properLy Lo Lhe developmenL Leam whlch besL meeLs Lhe ClLy's goals" o "Increas|ng the taxab|e va|uat|on of the property o Ach|ev|ng h|gh qua||ty arch|tectura| and s|te des|gn o kedeve|opment of vacant ] b||ghted property o Ach|ev|ng energy-eff|c|ent deve|opment w|th susta|nab|||ty features o Creat|ng h|gh qua||ty emp|oyment opportun|t|es" uurlng Lhe pre-submlLLal meeLlng held by Lhe ClLy, sLudenL houslng, as a use for Lhe properLy, was speclflcally dlscouraged. Cur proposal noL only fulfllls Lhe ClLy's sLaLed goals buL also makes no menLlon of sLudenL houslng. Cur proposal addressed Lhe lssue of Land urchase Cffer and ub||c I|nanc|a| Ass|stance parLlally on Lhe basls of Lhe sLaLemenLs ln Sect|on 4 of Lhe 8l, flexlble resources LhaL may be able Lo asslsL ln brldglng fundlng gaps", and flnanclal asslsLance wlll be based on Lhe pro[ecL meeLlng Lhe ClLy's goals for Lhe properLy". Cur gap flnanclng" calculaLlon lncluded all of Lhe mechanlsms avallable Lo Lhe ClLy Lo help off-seL Lhe flnanclal burdens of Lhe ClLy's sLaLed ob[ecLlves for requlred componenLs such as workforce houslng, buslness lncubaLor space, non-proflL buslness space, chlld day-care faclllLy space, eLc. 1he flnanclng narraLlve secLlon of our proposal clearly sLaLes LhaL
329 L. CourL SLreeL, SulLe 2C, lowa ClLy, lowa 32240 "f|nanc|ng of the pro[ect w||| have severa| |ntertw|ned components" and "w||| requ|re, e|ther |n the form of |ower cap|ta| cost (|.e. d|scounted |and cost), h|gher rents, tax |ncrement f|nanc|ng ass|stance or other means ava||ab|e". ulscounLed land value ls one of Lhe prlnclpal Lools avallable Lo a ClLy and as such slgnlflcanLly llmlLs Lhe need for Lax lncremenL flnanclng, ln Lhls lnsLance by as much as 40. 8ank I|nanc|ng-1he Cvervlew of 8esponses Lo 8l descrlbes Lhe bank flnanclng evaluaLlon of our proposal as unclear". lncluded ln our proposal package, however ls a leLLer from 1he 8SC Group that states "|t |s our op|n|on that the contemp|ated cap|ta| stack proposed for th|s deve|opment |s reasonab|e, and as such we be||eve the dea| to be em|nent|y f|nanceab|e once you have rece|ved a|| of the necessary approva|s". ln addlLlon, buL noL lncluded ln our proposal package ls a leLLer from CreaL WesLern 8ank LhaL sLaLes, "Great Western 8ank wou|d be |nterested |n cont|nu|ng to pursue the mer|ts of th|s pro[ect". nelLher sLaLemenL could be consldered unclear. Market-8y plan and lnLenLlon Lhere ls no ment|on of student hous|ng |n our proposa|. Cur LargeL markeLs lnclude only workforce/affordable (as deflned by Lhe ClLy) and hlgh end houslng for professlonals, senlors and empLy nesLers. Sect|on S, Subm|tta| kequ|rements lndlcaLes LhaL proposals musL comply" wlLh a 40 page llmlL. SelecLed flnallsLs submlLLed up Lo 67 pages allowlng for slgnlflcanLly more deLalled explanaLlons. Contractor- 1he enLry ln Lhe Cvervlew of 8esponses Lo 8l shows ralrle Sun?", apparenLly expresslng some confuslon as Lo our lnLenLlon for consLrucLlon servlces. Cur proposal provldes slgnlflcanL deLall concernlng our conLemplaLed approach. Cur unlque program Lo consLrucL Lwo very dlfferenL, buL compllmenLary bulldlngs, allows us Lo have more Lhan one prlme conLracLor. We chose noL Lo name a speclflc conLracLor so LhaL our opLlons would remaln open up Lo Lhe polnL when a muLually agreed pro[ecL program ls deLermlned. ralrle Sun 8ulldlng Servlces, LLC wlll provlde pro[ecL managemenL, deslgn/englneerlng managemenL, agency consLrucLlon managemenL and owner's represenLaLlon servlces. Cur currenL pro[ecL program lncludes Lwo prlme conLracLors, one for subsLrucLure, lnfrasLrucLure, parklng sLrucLure and Lhe Llnn SLreeL bulldlng, anoLher for Lhe fabrlcaLlon and erecLlon of Lhe modular/prefabrlcaLed CourL SLreeL bulldlng. 8readth of Lxper|ence]Staff Notes-1he Cvervlew of 8esponses Lo 8l descrlbes our breadLh of experlence as new 1eam". Whlle ralrle sun 8ulldlng Servlces, LLC was organlzed wlLhln Lhe pasL Lwo years, Lhe prlnclpals of Lhe flrm have been worklng LogeLher on varlous Lypes of pro[ecLs for a mlnlmum of 7 years, some as long as 30 years. 1he background blographles of Lhe prlnclpals descrlbe prlmary responslblllLy for
329 L. CourL SLreeL, SulLe 2C, lowa ClLy, lowa 32240 mulLlple pro[ecLs ln excess of $60,000,000 and up Lo $203,000,000. CumulaLlve experlence ln Lhe buslness ls greaLer Lhan 100 years. Cover Letter-Cur cover leLLer pursuanL Lo SecLlon 3(2) was lncluded ln Lhe hard copy submlLLal dellvered Lo Lconomlc uevelopmenL. AnoLher copy can be dellvered upon requesL, however our lnLeresL ln Lhe pro[ecL can surely be evldenced by Lhe proposal we dellvered.