Seeking Proposals for Feasibility Study for a Performing and Fine Arts Education Center in Brooklyn Park, MN

Transcription

1 Seeking Proposals for Feasibility Study for a Performing and Fine Arts Education Center in Brooklyn Park, MN A working group that includes the City of Brooklyn Park, North Hennepin Community College (NHCC), Metropolitan State University, and Osseo Area Schools, with support by Hennepin County, seeks a consultant to assist in completing a feasibility study of a shared vision for a Performing and Fine Arts Education Center. The Brooklyn Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) is the contracting authority for this proposal. Located on NHCC s land at the northeast corner of West Broadway and 85th avenues, this project would build on a focal point in Brooklyn Park adjacent to the new Brooklyn Park Library. The METRO Blue Line Light Rail Transit (BLRT) Extension project will bring an LRT station to this corner by The shared vision for a Performing and Fine Arts Education Center includes: 1. Inspirational design with dynamic teaching, creative, learning spaces 2. Inviting aesthetics that allow for distinctive and connective experiences 3. Community-centered educational programming (including science, technology, engineering, arts, and math) 4. Equitable access and opportunity for all 5. Financial stability through leveraged partnerships The working group seeks proposals from qualified firms and/or individuals with relevant experience who desire to assist decision-makers, staff, and the community to study and evaluate the feasibility of this vision. The methodology in developing this feasibility report will involve a participatory approach that investigates current market and demographics, evaluates project assumptions, prepares preliminary conceptual drawings, engages and builds a strategy for engaging with potential private and public sector partners and individuals, including potential funders and local arts leaders, who have the interest and capacity to support the advancement of the vision. Project Assumptions: 1. The facility will be located on the land at the northeast corner of West Broadway and 85th avenues, adjacent to the Brooklyn Park Library. 2. The project construction is estimated at 110,000 SF with a more refined size projection upon completion of the study. 3. The facility is envisioned to house a multipurpose theater ( ), a black box performance space, a small art gallery, flexible teaching spaces for fine and performing arts, traditional teaching spaces for 9-12 and post-secondary education, indoor/outdoor concessions, and a skyway connection from the north side of 85th Avenue to the Bioscience and Health Careers Center (BHCC) building (existing support on south side in BHCC already prepped). The facility will tie into a shared public plaza on the corner of 85 th and West Broadway avenues and will include a small outdoor performance space and a welcoming lobby with clear circulation to the skyway and connection to NHCC s main campus. Proposed Deliverables: 1. Conduct a market and demographic analysis that helps to define the scope of the work. a. Assess the current state of the arts, science and cultural facilities, including locations, sizes, use and program offerings within the northwest metro service area or the greater Twin Cities b. Assess the impact on current venues with like facilities and host similar events, if any c. Identify current trends for this type of facility based on the growth expectations of the area

2 Fees 2. Engage with an architectural firm to assist in development of preliminary conceptual plans. Provide cost estimates for the design and development of facilities and site. 3. Research, consult with the team, and produce a comprehensive report that recommends 1) a financial model and 2) a long-term maintenance and operations strategy that will inform the partners as to the feasibility and potential timeline of the project and next steps. The following questions will guide this work: a. What findings were discovered through the market and demographic analysis that informed the project's feasibility position? b. What was learned from community engagement and stakeholder analysis that informed the project's feasibility position? c. What case studies from other comparable facilities can inform this project? (existing case studies are available from related studies) How have other similar venues successfully structured their agreements among multiple parties regarding ownership, ongoing participation, and facility management? d. What were the key findings with regard to the form and function of the facility in terms of collaborative partnerships around education and community programs? Involve lead staff, students, residents, and other stakeholders, particularly in the scoping of recommendations around facility components and programs e. What if any potential barriers/considerations should be addressed to ensure partnership success? f. What potential resources (revenue streams, other funds, people, and programs) can each partner bring to the project? What other resources could be developed or captured and from who? g. How would the operations (revenues and expenses) be sustained in both the short and long term? h. What are best practice guidelines for facility management and oversight for this type of facility? i. How would reinvestment occur over time to ensure sustainability? 4. Conduct stakeholder engagement throughout the process among key constituents, students, staff, community partners, local arts leaders, and residents to assess desires and support for such a venue. Engagement could be done through public forums, surveys, focus groups, community meetings and the parties will assist with this work. The expected range for the outlined scope of work is between $60,000 and $70,000. Responses Firms/persons interested in being considered should submit a proposal highlighting a recommended approach, a work plan outline and schedule, relevant experience, and associated fee. This document should be limited to five pages with references, case studies and other supporting materials permitted as appendices. Proposals shall be submitted in pdf format and are due January , 2018 to: Brooklyn Park Economic Development Authority Kim Berggren, Executive Director kim.berggren@brooklynpark.org

3 Evaluation criteria A committee will review each proposal and select firms/individuals to interview. The selection committee will use the following criteria to consider which consultant should be recommended: 1. Firm's and assigned individual's specialized experience, qualifications, and technical competence, including engagement with any sub-consultants. (20 points possible) 2. Firm's demonstration of a clear understanding of the stakeholder s needs. (20 points possible) 3. Firm and individual's past record of performing the required services on comparable projects. (20 points possible) 4. Firm's demonstrated ability to work successfully with various project stakeholders, including engaging the broader community as well as local arts leaders. (20 points possible) 5. Firm's proposed fees relative to work scope. (20 points possible) Consultant Selection Upon completion of interviews and rating of consultants, the selection team may negotiate a draft contract with the top ranked firm. Only action by the Brooklyn Park Economic Development Authority to approve a contract shall constitute acceptance of a proposal. The Brooklyn Park EDA will coordinate payment with the successful consultant. Timeline: December 11 RFP distributed by December 18 Deadline for Proposer's Questions via December 22 Deadline for Partnerships Response to Questions via January 8 Deadline for Proposer s Questions via Extension (Round 2) January 12 Partnership Response to Questions via (Round 2) January Deadline for proposals sent via January Potential candidate notified February 5-9 Candidate interviews February 20 Candidate selection at EDA meeting If you have questions or wish to be considered, contact Kim Berggren at (o) / (c) or kim.berggren@brooklynpark.org.

4 Questions and Responses, Part 1 Provided December 22, 2017 Question 1: Regarding #2 in the Proposed Deliverables, does the working group already have an architect or would look for the Consultant to partner with an architect as part of the submittal? No architect has been involved to date. We are asking the selected firm to engage an architect for some high level conceptual design work. Question 2: How much of the budget do you anticipate to be allocated to the architect s work? We anticipate a modest amount of the total budget to go toward the concept plan and construction cost estimates, with the focus of this phase of our project on the ongoing operational feasibility. Question 3: Do tabs, covers and cover letter count toward the 5-page limit? No; however, we prefer ed pdf proposals to have fewer pages for ease of printing for those reviewers who prefer to review paper copies and to reduce waste. Question 4: Will the project partners be assisting with matching up consultants? We would be happy to share information about parties who are looking for matches. Please submit your contact information and area of specialty or skills being sought and we will distribute submitted information to parties who have informed us of their intention to submit a proposal. Question 5: Can we call someone to discuss the RFP? Yes, please contact Kim Berggren (contact info above) by January 8 if you intend to apply to discuss any concerns or questions. Clarifying information provided via phone will also be ed to all the proposers. Question 6: Would it be possible to extend the deadline for questions and proposals? Yes, given the timing of this RFP around the holidays, we are extending the deadlines per the new dates listed above. (Responses continued on next page)

5 Questions and Responses, Part 2 Provided January 12, 2018 Question 7: How did you decide who to distribute the RFP to initially? Initially, we did not have a well-established network or complete information about who would be good contacts. Our distribution list has been built organically over time as the RFP is shared and we gain new information. Currently, the list includes both people who we originally contacted as well as those that were contacted through networks or who reached out to us with questions. Anyone can be added to the list. Please contact Kim Berggren if you would like to be added. Question 8: Why was the RFP posted on the City of Brooklyn Park s website at a later date? The delay in posting the RFP on the City website was unintentional. Question 9: We have an interest in working on this project, but not as a lead. Can you share who we might partner with? Yes, below is a list of firms we have sent the RFP information to or who have contacted us regarding the RFP. Please note that this is simply a list of contacts. We do not know if those listed here are interested in submitting a proposal. Firm Contact Person Phone 292 Design Group Maria Manion mmanion@292designgroup.com AMS Planning & Research Liz Davis LDavis@AMS-ONLINE.COM ArtsMarket, Inc. Louise K Stevens lstevens@artsmarket.com Artspace Wendy Holmes wendy.holmes@artspace.org Convention Sports & Leisure John Kaatz jkaatz@cslintl.com International Ground Floor Partners Melissa Leger mleger@groundfloorpartners.com HGA Architects and Engineers Amy Braford Whittey abrafordwhittey@hga.com Johnson Consulting AJ Yoon ayoon@chjc.com Propel Nonprofits Kate Barr kbarr@nonprofitsassistancefund.org Miller Dunwiddie Architecture Denita Lemmon dlemmon@millerdunwiddie.com NTH, Inc Paul Johnson pjohnson@nth-inc.com Perkins + Will Jay Demma jay.demma@perkinswill.com RSP Dreambox Teri Kwant Teri.kwant@rspdreambox.com Schuler Shook Michael DiBlasi mdiblasi@schulershook.com St. Paul Riverfront Corporation Darlene Walser walser@riverfrontcorporation.com Sutton & Associates George Sutton george@gfsutton.com Urban Design Associates Megan O'Hara megan.ohara@urbandesignassociates.com Webb Management Services Carrie Blake carrie@webbmgmt.org Wolf Brown info@wolfbrown.com WSB & Associates Breanne Rothstein brothstein@wsbeng.com

6 Question 10: Are you looking for someone at a national level or a local group? We have no expectation one-way or the other. Local or national teams are both welcome to submit. Question 11: Do you have a point of view about who you want to lead this work? Are you looking for a firm with a specific planning/feasibility focus, or could an architect lead this work? We are looking for someone who is motivated to lead a skilled multi-disciplinary team to get the requested work done, regardless of specialty area. We do not anticipate that the architectural work is a significant portion of the feasibly study. The lead must be able to remain unbiased and provide objective analysis of the feasibility of this project. Question 12: Are you looking for someone with specific experience in arts facility design? The selection committee will consider specialized experience, qualifications, technical competence, and past record, especially as related to the arts and arts facilities. The team should have representatives that are familiar with performing and fine arts programs and the associated support facility needs to help inform the building plan. Additionally, the planning and feasibility focus should be rooted in an understanding of performing arts facility design and function. It will also be important that the consultant team has experience in the development of facility partnership models for long-term sustainability. Question 13: Do we have to have an architect selected to work with at the time of submission, or can we leave an allowance for the architect and select one at a later time? A proposal that makes a case for identifying the architect later in the process would be considered if the team appears qualified and capable of achieving the outcomes requested in the RFP. However, the consultant must demonstrate with their proposal that they have the capability and experience necessary to provide all deliverables, including preliminary conceptual plans and cost estimates. Identifying an architect upfront may help selection committee members fully understand the team s capacity and track record, particularly as it relates to estimating cost to build, revenue generation, operational costs, and cost recovery based on the overall partnership model. Question 14: How much detail are you looking for in concept plans and cost estimates? Would cost per square foot estimates be sufficient? We are looking for high-level concept design and cost estimates. The consultant should provide estimates within a range, based on concept design and materials assumptions and the development costs of reliable comparables. There needs to be enough detail in the concept design to determine the cost per square foot for specific types of arts facility components (theatre, classroom space, concessions, lobby, etc). Additionally, the consultant will be expected to determine not only the construction cost, but also the operational costs. Question 15: Has programming been determined? No, we would like the consultant to capture desires among the partners to inform space programming. The consultant will be responsible for working with the partners to identify the type and size of feasible space, with the programming needs driving the facility design.

7 Question 16: How were the project assumptions (especially regarding building size and number of seats) determined? The size provided in the RFP was to give a sense of scale. We want the consultant to test our assumptions and help us refine the size after additional analysis. For background on the project, the following resourced may be useful: o o o Request to the Brooklyn Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) for feasibility study funding from August 21, 2017: Video from the August 21, 2017 EDA meeting, which includes a presentation from project partners on the background of the Performing and Fine Arts Education Center project: North Hennepin Community College Master Facilities Plan: Question 17: Who will be on the selection committee? Currently, the selection committee is made up of Barbara McDonald, President of North Hennepin Community College; Kim Berggren, Director of Community Development for the City of Brooklyn Park; and Jody Yungers, Director of Recreation and Parks for the City of Brooklyn Park. We are in the process of determining who else will be on the selection committee to represent other stakeholders. We will share the committee make-up prior to interviews. Question 18: What level of community engagement are you expecting? And does the community engagement need to done by local people on the ground, or could you see it being managed by a non-local firm? We would like the consultant to have a strategy in place with clear direction around meaningful engagement. We envision that the consultant would guide outreach and do some of the work. Fieldwork could be minimized if there is a clear strategy in place to guide the partners. The partners have high expectations around engagement, but the City of Brooklyn Park (and perhaps other partners) has some capacity to help with outreach. Question 19: Do you have any expectations around the length of the study process or a deadline for the completion of the study? We would seek advice from the proposers on the appropriate/planned timeline for this work. Question 20: Do tabs, covers, and cover letters count toward the 5-page limit? No Question 21: What is permitted as appendices? Along with references and case studies, can we include key personnel and firm information as appendices? Yes, personnel and/or firm information could be included as an appendix. We do not have a list of allowable appendices, but please only include materials that are relevant and of a reasonable length.