Loading...
Item 9A Item 9A: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate a management agreement for the Southlake Tennis Center February 21, 2012 Presentation Overview History RFQ process Selection considerations & recommendation History of Southlake Tennis Center (STC) History of Southlake Tennis Center (STC) Presentation Overview History RFQ process Selection considerations & recommendation RFQ Process Standard process Scope and submission requirements Evaluation criteria and process Overview of submissions Interviews and finalist selection RFQ Process Consistent with City RFQs Advertised in accordance with State law through City Secretary’s Office Link to RFQ sent to interested parties, USTA and other tennis organizations Questions accepted from interested parties; posted on City’s website for all Open from September 20 – October 20 RFQ Process – Submission Requirements Part 1: Letter of Interest and Executive Summary Part 2: Respondent Profile, History and Proposed Organizational Chart with Staff Profiles Part 3: Experience and Philosophy in Managing Municipal Tennis Centers Part 4: References Part 5: Financials Part 6: Miscellaneous RFQ Process – Submission Requirements, Part 3 Describe in detail how you have managed similar facilities and how you propose to manage the Southlake Tennis Center Describe in detail your experience in providing and managing successful tennis programs to the community, and explain your plan for offering superior tennis programs to the Southlake community (minimum 3 years tennis center management experience required) Describe in detail your relationship and current standing with the USPTA; the Texas Section of the USTA; and the Community Tennis Association within the Texas Section of the USTA List of successful bids you have obtained for state and national level tournaments List of vendors you’ve established accounts with (Nike, Adidas, etc.) RFQ Process – Submission Requirements, Part 5 Provide your most recent financial statements consisting of a balance sheet and income statement RFQ Process – Overview of Submissions Thirteen submissions received Two disqualified as “non-responsive” for not following submittal process RFQ Process – Evaluation Criteria and Process Rating criteria and scoring mechanism based on RFQ requirements One – third of requirements based on subjective perspective of rater RFQ Process – Evaluation Criteria and Process Staff team: Jim Blagg, Assistant City Manager Chris Tribble, Director of Community Services Sharen Jackson, Director of Finance Kari Happold, Dep. Director of Community Services Candice Sanders, Asst. to the Director of CS Alison Ortowski, Assistant to the City Manager Over 50 years management experience Over 30 years Parks and Recreation experience Financial perspective Outside perspective RFQ Process – Evaluation Criteria and Process Team members individually reviewed submissions and assigned ratings Ratings compiled for group average by category Top four scoring submissions scheduled for interviews RFQ Process – Interviews and Finalist Selection Standard, follow-up, and submission-specific questions Forced-pair ranking method used following each interview Group compared individual rankings – unanimous selection of top two submissions RFQ Process – Interviews and Finalist Selection Follow-up interviews with top two candidates Clarification Potential contract provisions Candidate / city contract expectations Presentation Overview History RFQ process Selection considerations & recommendation Customer Satisfaction Survey - Background Duration January 18 through February 1 Objectives: Decision Analyst Involvement Communication / Outreach Assess customer satisfaction Assess frequency / type of usage Customer Satisfaction Survey – Survey Distribution 476 total respondents 284 resident respondents Customer Satisfaction Survey - Results Overview Overall, both residents and non-residents are satisfied with overall services at the center Total Respondents: 82% Very/Somewhat Satisfied Resident Respondents: 77% Very/Somewhat Satisfied Nearly half reported using the center 2-4 times per week; 6 out of 10 use the center at least once per week Two out of three total respondents reported that the center meets all of their needs Resident Respondents: 56% all needs met 39% some needs met Customer Satisfaction Survey - Results Overview Respondents are generally satisfied with specific services with 70% or more reporting very or somewhat satisfied across all categories. Respondents are least satisfied with the aspects of the pro shop and customer service. About nine out of ten total respondents would recommend the center to others. Resident respondents: 85% would recommend Selection Considerations & Recommendation Current vs. Alternate Operator Qualifications Financial considerations Customer satisfaction survey (current operator only) Recommendation Considerations Ten years operational history Very few complaints received by staff Strong industry relationships Responsive to improvement suggestions Coordinated additional facility investment No contract subsidies required Selection Considerations & Recommendation Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to negotiate a management agreement for the Southlake Tennis Center with Roxy Tennis, LLC Item 4C Questions? City-Managed Tennis Centers Qualifications Comparison Financial Considerations