1. Given the age of the facility and anticipated needs for repair that falls upon the selected operator, can the annual fee to the Conservancy be proposed as an investment offset rather than a direct payment? Specifically, a proposed monetary amount that will be reinvested into the site for Conservancy-approved alterations to government-owned facilities or other permanent site improvements that will remain with the property (renovation, reconditioning, improvement, replacement and heavy maintenance to keep the Conservancy’s fixed assets in prime condition or to meet laws, regulations, codes, etc., such as ADA); these things that will become property of the State of California rather than be removed by the operator at the end of the permit term.
As described in the RFP, the minimum consideration for the concession agreement will be the provision of the Required Services (as described in the RFP), including minimum maintenance activities. Proposers may additionally elect to propose a monetary rent, which must be proposed as a flat monthly or yearly fee. The rental fee to the Conservancy may not be expressed as an “investment offset,” “reinvestment,” or other form of in-kind benefit to the Conservancy.
2. Is the “Credit Worthiness Investigation” applicable to Watermans Landing since we are a successful existing business operating under the Tahoe Conservancy concessionaire agreement?
As explained in the RFP, the Conservancy may consider evidence of credit worthiness in evaluating a proposer’s ability to finance the proposed operation. The Conservancy must evaluate Watermans Landing’s demonstration of its ability to finance just like any other proposer, although track record may be relevant to this evaluation. We recommend all proposers review the “Ability to Finance” discussion on page 13 of the RFP and use their best judgment to provide as much evidence as they deem appropriate and reasonable to make the required demonstration. Proposers are advised to respond to all questions with a narrative explanation and any applicable supporting evidence, if available, rather than leaving items blank without explanation.
3. Does Watermans Landing need to show an “Ability to Finance” since it is an existing fully operational and financed business on Tahoe Conservancy / Patton Landing site and not a “start-up”?
See answer to question 2. All proposers must demonstrate an ability to finance the proposed operation. How proposers elect to make this demonstration is largely left to proposers’ discretion (unless otherwise stated as required in the RFP). In general, evidentiary support will likely help the Conservancy evaluate proposers’ ability to finance. Support for such a demonstration may be included as part of the information called for in Attachments G, H and I to the RFP.
4. What kind of financial documents (exactly) are you requesting for proposer’s extension of a current successful business operating under the actual Tahoe Conservancy concession agreement?
See answers to questions 2 and 3. Proposers should review the RFP and use their best judgment to determine the appropriate level of information to demonstrate the ability to finance. See, in particular page 13 of the RFP, and Attachments G, H and I.
Return to the main Request for Proposals page for Patton Landing