Prospectus Questions and Answers
Lake Berryessa Prospectus
Meeting
Questions & Answers
July 9, 2007
| Correction: In Part 3, on Page 3-11, Reclamation made reference to a section in Part 5 that does not exist. In the last sentence of paragraph 4, we referred the reader to Criterion B.2. (g) in PART 5 of the Prospectus. The correct reference is Criterion B.4. (e). |
Q: What is the total point tally for the Prospectus?
A: The total possible points are 156.
Q: Who is the governing agency for reactivation of Putah
Creek’s fuel system?
A: Although CDF and Napa County Environmental are involved,
and permits may be required from other state and local agencies, Reclamation
will make the final determination. Final determination will be
based upon the requirements of the above agencies at a minimum and
the addition of any federal standards if they are higher.
Q: Lake Berryessa Marina’s sewer and water system
needs to be upgraded. What condition is it in currently?
A: Reclamation’s website will give you some information
on the condition of the system and you may also wish to speak with
Guy Childs of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Contact
info:
Guy Childs
3443 Routier Rd. Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95827
916.464.4648
childsg@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov
Q: Regarding removal of trailers currently in concession
areas, will there be any ramifications with trailer owners that will
hold up removal?
A: We do not anticipate any hold up in the removal of trailers.
Q: Are these vacation trailers
privately owned?
A: Yes, all mobilehomes and trailers located in the concession
areas are privately owned.
Q: How many travel trailers are there versus mobilehomes?
A: Approximately 250 travel trailers and approximately
800 mobilehomes
Q: Will employee housing be removed?
A: Employee housing owned by individual employees must
be removed by the end of the current concession contracts. Contractor
owned employee housing may be considered in new contracts as interim
short term employee housing with Reclamation approval. These
units are considered personal property not permanent facilities and
are not subject to PL 96-375. If an offeror intends to utilize
any of these units, it should be identified in their proposal and addressed
in their redevelopment plan. If a successful offeror does not
include the use of these units the existing contractor must remove
them prior to the end of the current contract. Reclamation has
identified which units are contractor owned employee housing. This
transaction will be between a willing seller and a willing buyer.
Q: Our contract ends in 4 months. Do I need to have
all employee housing removed by then?
A: Yes. However if a successful offeror is selected
before the end of the contract, refer to previous question. There
may be some flexibility at the end of the contract if some types of
negotiations are underway pending the new contract and inclusion of
some trailers utilized for housing employees that may be included in
the next contract. Final determination will not be possible until
the time approaches.
Q: Can I factor the existing contractor owned trailers into
the rental stream or consider only revenues from other commercial activities
that do not include ‘trailers’?
A: A prospective offeror may consider any continuing operation
in their revenue stream; however, trailers that do not meet certain
criteria will not be approved in new contracts. Criteria to be
reviewed by Reclamation that might result in changes to current operations
include architectural guidelines, park models, location, elevation,
condition etc.
Q: With regard to Putah Creek’s water treatment system,
the waste discharge permit from the State allows a maximum of 14,000
gallons per day, down from 35-40,000 per day. Do they have the
capacity to discharge 35-40,000? Is there demand for that amount
or will it drop when the trailers are gone?
A: The current capacity is 14,000 gallons per day due to
the condition of the system. With appropriate upgrades the discharge
capacity may increase. Reclamation is unsure of the demand until
such time as a development proposal is considered. An offeror
should consider discharge needs in their proposal.
Q: I am permitted to have something in the trailer spaces
during a transition period, correct?
A: It is likely Reclamation may approve reuse of trailer
spaces during “transition”; however without a specific
proposal for review, we can not provide a definitive answer.
Q: How can we serve the public when the transition is going
on?
A: Reclamation has acknowledged that the visiting public
will be somewhat inconvenienced during any development activities. However
we consider the inconvenience to be a normal part of any redevelopment
project. All things being equal, Reclamation considers a proposal
providing minimum closure of facilities for any length of time during
development, superior to one that has a closure for a greater length
of time.
Q: Can you further explain the integrated operation aspect?
A: In the Record of Decision, Reclamation committed to
the extent practicable, to assure that Government and commercial recreation
operations at Lake Berryessa are developed, implemented, and managed
on an integrated, lake-wide basis to
(1) provide the widest practical spectrum of recreation experience
for the visiting public, (2) preserve and protect natural resources
in and around the lake, (3) promote the safety and security of people
and facilities, (4) support the economic goals of surrounding communities,
especially gateway communities, and (5) maintain the opportunity for
a fair and reasonable profit by concession contractors.
Q: It seems like Reclamation’s approach is that the
integration would come from having fewer concession contractors. It
seems to me that the concession contractors could have a good working
relationship each other even if there are 7 contractors.
A: Reclamation does not disagree that 7 concession contractors
could effectively work together. However, Reclamation recognizes
that fewer contracts provide a more predictable assurance of ‘integration’ as
outlined in the prospectus (PART 5 Sec. 4[e] pgs. 47 & 48). Seven
individual concessionaires have a more limited ability to accomplish
effective integration of services and facilities and there are many
factors beyond just cooperation among operators. These factors
have to do with the core aspects of the business models and economic
feasibility of individual operations. The prospectus permits
individual proposals for single concession areas that include services
and to what extent they can address the way integration will occur.
This information is needed for the agency’s evaluation of proposals. Remember
that this is only a small part of the overall point system in scoring
the eventual proposals received.
Q: There were numerous questions about the additional points available to an offeror that submits a proposal for more than one concession area. Please refer to the Prospectus PART 5 Criterion B.4. (e) Page 5-47, for a complete explanation of how the points are applied.
Q: If someone submits a proposal on all 7 concession areas
and Reclamation considers 2 of the 7 to be unresponsive, will Reclamation
give them another chance to bid on the 5?
A: Reclamation will give the option to the offeror to be
awarded the 5 responsive bids.
Q: Doesn’t this method discriminate against smaller
businesses?
A: Please refer to the Prospectus PART 5 Criterion B.4.
(e) Page 5-47 where the positive aspects of fewer contractors is discussed.
Q: The franchise fees and length of contract are negotiable,
but not the layout of the concession area?
A: The concession assignment zone is available for proposed
development. Any offeror should include full development plans
with their submission.
Q: The prospectus gives negative points for providing annual
occupancy units.
A: No negative points are given to any criterion. However,
a higher score may be awarded to proposals that do NOT include annual
occupancy units. This is appropriate based upon the wording in
the ROD that identifies that Annual Occupancy Units should only be
considered if necessary for economic feasibility.
Q: Are CAD files available of the concession areas?
A: Files are posted on the Prospectus website. The
files are relatively current, however as it relates to Steele Park,
please review the topographic maps located on the Prospectus website
for the adjusted boundary. Additional topographical maps of this
region are available from many sources including the U.S. Geological
Service at usgs.gov by clicking on Maps. Township and Range Map
info for all resorts is listed below.
Markley Cove
Resort |
Pleasure Cove
Resort |
Steele Park
Resort |
Spanish Flat
Resort |
Lake Berryessa
Marina Resort |
Putah Creek
Resort |
Rancho Monticello
Resort |
|
Q: Where is the copy of the houseboat policy which is being
revised on the website?
A: We are still in the process of revising it. Offerors
should use the current
policy available on the Lake Berryessa website. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/berryessa/laws_regs/op_policy01.pdf
Q: If Reclamation decides that a 50 houseboat maximum is
more appropriate than 75, will the offerors lose 25 houseboats when
the new contracts are issued?
A: No.
Q: Who is on the evaluation team? Do you have a team
selected to evaluate our proposals?
A: Six Department of Interior employees comprise the evaluation
team who are all outside of the Mid-Pacific region. There are 3 from
the National Park Service, 2 from Reclamation and 1 from the Bureau
of Land Management.
Q: Is there private mooring or a houseboat owners association?
A: No.
Q: What is the status on the trail that is being planned
for the lake?
A: A 150 mile trail around the lake is being planned. Presently
small sections are being aligned and flagged.
Q: Does the trail go through the resorts?
A: Yes, we expect that it will be on established routes.
Q: Will the trail be multi-use?
A: Yes
Q: How is it funded?
A: Currently the trail is being funded through grants and
volunteer groups.
Q: How will you cross the gaps at Pope Creek Bridge and
the dam?
A: The trail alignments for those areas have not yet been
addressed.
Q: Will this require serious grading?
A: Trail construction will require crossing all types of
landscape. We expect grading, cut, fill, bridges and different
surfaces.
Q: Would planning for parking for trails in proposals receive
points?
A: Integration points may be given, however, the actual
sites will be unknown at the time of the offerors submission of proposals.
Q: Who has jurisdiction over the trail?
A: Reclamation will oversee the trail management with the
assistance of volunteers and the concession contractors.
Q: Where is the concession contractor’s responsibility
for trash pick-up on the south side of Markley Cove?
A: The successful offeror at Markley Cove will be responsible
for litter and trash removal at the waterline recreation and shore
areas even though this portion of the cove is not within the concession
assignment zone. Reclamation is responsible for trash pick up
on the highway turnouts. Exact boundaries have not yet been established.
Q: Some of the assigned concession areas at various locations
have not been developed. Can that area be proposed for use by
the concession contractor?
A: Each offeror should provide a complete development plan
for the concession area in their proposals, including areas not previously
disturbed.
Q: Lake Berryessa Marina and Steele Park resorts are both
smaller in the new contracts. Is there opportunity to reclaim
that land?
A: No. Lake Berryessa Marina is the same size as
in the existing contracts. Steele Park’s boundary has been
realigned to exclude Steele Canyon Cove from the concession area to
provide free access to this part of the lake to fisherman and eventually
a non-motorized zone.
Q: Is Reclamation proposing a launch ramp at the Steele
Canyon Cove area?
A: Yes. This would be a hand launch ramp for kayaks
and canoes.
Q: Why doesn’t Reclamation allow anything over 24
feet at Oak Shores?
A: Due to safety reasons, the length of vehicles is restricted. Narrow
roads prevent large vehicles and trailers in Oak Shores while maintaining
access for emergency equipment.
Q: We understand that if a successful offeror has decided
not to retain the existing slips, the appraised value would not have
to be paid. Is this correct?
A: Yes. A successful offeror would only pay the appraised
value of the facilities (slips in this case) they wish to retain, assuming
Reclamation approves those facilities to remain on-site.
Q: If a successful offeror plans to replace all existing
slips, how long could the existing slips be retained in order to maintain
service? We anticipate that it would take 2 years to remove the
existing slips in an orderly fashion and replace them with a quality
product.
A: Offerors should describe in their proposal how and when
they proposed to replace existing slips. Assuming Reclamation
would allow the existing slips to remain for a short time (2 years
as identified in this question), the replacement time frame of 2 years
is probably not excessive, as long as the existing slips are maintained
in satisfactory condition and there is a firm replacement date.
This prospectus does not propose to limit the ability of a new incoming concession contractor from negotiating property transfer with an outgoing concession contractor. For example, a successful offeror may specify what facilities they would like to go into the new contract. That same offeror may propose an arrangement with the outgoing contractor that allows the short-term use of certain facilities (slips in this example) while they begin re-development and until such time as new docks can be placed. Such a proposal could be as simple as agreeing to take on the responsibility of eventual removal, a rental rate, or a percentage of the revenue derived from their use for the period of time the slips remain. This arrangement would be made by willing participants. In such a case Reclamation could direct the willing parties to treat the slips as though they were personal property and would not be a part of the compensation determination.
Q: Could we have complete copies of the appraisals?
A: Reclamation will provide narrative summaries, however
Reclamation policy does not allow release of the full appraisal.
Q: Compensation to the current concession contractor for
real property acquired is at Fair Market Value. Is the acquisition
negotiable with the current concession contractor or is the new concession
contractor required to pay the appraised price as identified in Part
7.10?
A: The value reflected in Part 7.10 is merely an appraisal. A
willing seller and a willing buyer may negotiate prices different than
represented in the prospectus. However, Reclamation reserves
the right to direct the concession contractor to purchase facilities
Reclamation determines will be included in the future contract. In
that case, the incoming concession would be required to pay the value
reflected in the appraisal. Conversely, Reclamation may disapprove
the purchase of facilities that Reclamation considers inappropriate.
Q: A new concession contractor is not obligated to buy any
real property (facilities) from a current concession contractor. Are
the current concession contractors aware of this, and what is Reclamation’s
plan to ensure that all real property not acquired will be removed
prior to the inception date of the new contract?
A: Yes, the existing concession contractor is required
to remove any permanent facilities not continuing into the new contract.
Q: Where in Public Law 96-375 is the language that addresses
real property assets owned by a concession contractor and said concession
contractor is not due compensation from either the new concession contractor
or Reclamation because they did not want to acquire a specific asset? If
the issue is covered under law what is that law?
A: PL 96-375 states:
“…at the option of the Secretary of the Interior, the United
States may require that the permanent facilities mentioned herein not be
removed from the concession areas, and instead, pay fair value for the permanent
facilities or, if a new concessionaire assumes operation of the concession,
require that new concessionaire to pay fair value for the permanent facilities
to the existing concessionaire.”
Q: Has Public Law 96-375 been tested in a court of law? If
so, please provide specific details of the litigation.
A: No
Q: Can you provide us with a copy of the Solicitors opinion?
A: Reclamation is referring this question to the Solicitor.
Q: Are the facility levels (numbers and type) as outlined
starting with Section 4-4 through 4-10 current and accurate?
A: The facility levels are current as of release of the
Prospectus.
Q: What is Reclamation’s plan with respect to ensuring
removal of mobile homes from each of the sites prior to the current
concession contractor’s contract term ending?
A: Existing concession contractors are responsible to assure
the removal of all personal property placed by their customers on the
Federal estate.
Q: If the mobile homes have not been removed by each concession
contract term, will Reclamation stand financially responsible to remediate
each site or will the incoming concession contractor be responsible?
A: The responsibility for the removal of private property
is that of the rightful owners, the existing concession contractors
have a responsibility to assure that their customers comply with the
removal requirement.
Q: What will be the penalty for a current concession contractor
who does not have the mobile homes removed and each mobile home site
remediated prior to contract termination?
A: The prospectus requires that the existing concession
contractors comply with all requirements in order to successfully compete
for new contracts. If an existing concessionaire fails to accomplish
the removal of any or all trailers in their area they will not be further
considered as qualifying offerors to the prospectus. Any other
penalties will be the subject of litigation.
Q: What are the annual gross receipts by year, by location for the period 2002 through 2006 (5 years) broken down in the following classifications?
- Entrance Fees
- Use Fees (Day, Launch, etc.)
- Mobile Home Site Rentals
- Motel, Cabins, Cottages
- Campsite & R/V Rentals
- Boat Berthing, Launching
- Houseboat Rentals
- Small Boat Rentals
- Gasoline
- Diesel Fuel
- Retail Merchandise (Convenience Store Items)
- Restaurant/Snack Bar
- Bar
- All Other Gross Receipts
A: Reclamation does not have that information. However an offeror may contact the existing concession contractor and request the information directly.
Q: Gasoline is a significant contributor to gross receipts
but low margined. Would Reclamation please provide the annual
gallons sold by location for the years 2002 through 2006 for the following
fuel types?
Gasoline
Diesel
A: Reclamation does not have that information. However
an offeror may contact the existing concession contractor and request
the information directly.
Q: Would Reclamation please provide by location the number
of gasoline and other fuel storage tanks, maximum storage capacity
of the fuel tanks and octane levels.
A: Reclamation does not have that information. However
an offeror may contact the existing concession contractor and request
the information directly.
Q: If the fuel storage tanks are compartmentalized, please
provide the capacity for each octane type?
A: Reclamation does not have that information. However
an offeror may contact the existing concession contractor and request
the information directly.
Q: What company performed the cost approach appraisal
to determine the values provided in the Appendix 7.10?
A: Integra Realty Resources
Q: Will BOR release the supporting documentation that
is the basis for the Appendix 7.10?
A: A narrative summary will be posted on the prospectus
website.
Q: In the preparation of Appendix 7.10, does the appraiser
use the Kleinfelder report which refers to the Inventory for Engineering
Evaluation & Condition Assessment Report by Resort (Inventory Report),
prepared by Ms. Cheryl Riley of the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation? This report apparently contains a summary
of existing buildings and structures, including color photographs,
of each of the buildings to be surveyed. Due diligence is impossible
without detail that is available in the work performed in preparation
for this Appendix 7.10.
A: The appraisers used the Kleinfelder report along
with onsite inspections to determine value of permanent facilities. The
Inventory Report can now be accessed on the Prospectus website
Q: What time line does the BOR propose for the release
of the information in the previous question and any other supporting
documentation for the appraisal?
A: Reclamation will post the summary narrative for
the appraisals as soon as they are available from the appraiser.
Q: In Appraisal Appendix 7.10, regarding the cost
approach method to appraise the existing concession capital replacement
reserves, please provide an explanation of assumptions that were made
to arrive at these estimates.
A: The appraisal summary will provide this information
once posted.
Q: If the Kleinfelder recommended upgrades were accomplished
before the property changes hands to a new concessionaire will the
value of the CIR in the appraisal be higher or remain the same? Will
the adjusted value be based on the value noted in the Kleinfelder improvements
schedule or the actual direct cost of the improvements?
A: If improvements are made to the existing permanent
facilities after the value date of this appraisal and prior to execution
of any new contract, the value will be based on the condition at time
of transfer.
Q: Does the appraisal value given in the Appendix
7.10, equal the suitability or need for upgrade or improvements?
A: Yes in general, however an offeror may identify
which facilities they propose to use in new contracts.
Q: Has the BOR ever issued written instructions identifying
and retaining structures?
A: No. The prospectus has provided the opportunity
for any offeror to submit a list of facilities that they propose to
use in new contracts. Any facility not included or listed in
the proposal will be considered NOT going into new contracts. However,
Reclamation retains the right to direct the concession contractor to
purchase or not purchase facilities.
Q: If the answer to previous question is yes, what
are the instructions and do they apply to all similar installations?
A: See previous answer
Q: What provisions (fund amounts and specific targeted
activities) does the BOR have in current authorizations to fund activity
known as “Trailer and Shoreline Structure Removal” and/or
rehabilitation to other disturbed areas within the concession areas?
A: Reclamation has no appropriations for these activities.
Q: Regarding the provisions noted in previous question,
what provisions are planned for or under discussion for FY2008, FY2009
and FY2010.
A: See previous answer
Q: Since the Kleinfelder report was issued in 2002,
what improvements, based on the record of requests made by concessionaires
and approved by the BOR, have been made that would update the costs
in the report if done again by Kleinfelder?
A: The current appraisal reflects the actual current
conditions and therefore would include any improvements subsequent
to the Kleinfelder report. The appraiser utilized on-site inspections
to determine value and used Kleinfelder in part to determine the inventory.
Q: Does the BOR receive copies of any County, State
or Federal orders affecting the operation or restricting the operation
of any concession at Lake Berryessa?
A: It is possible that some orders could be issued
and for some reason Reclamation is not made aware but in most instances
Reclamation receives copies of any order as the land-owner and maybe
even identified as a co-violator (State Water Quality Control Board). Along
with the SWQCB there are also such orders or direction from certain
county offices (i.e. health).
Q: Regarding the previous question, if received,
will BOR provide copies of the orders including any abatement correspondence
or action taken reports?
A: Reclamation recommends contacting the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board or accessing their website for
any orders.
Q: For what purpose does the sample contract include
a definition of Arbitration?
A: The contract is NOT merely an example and the
list of definitions is generic. Arbitration is not included
in these contracts.
Q: What are the circumstances that would lead to arbitration?
A: See previous answer.
Q: Does the value of CIR or the use of the cost approach
method for appraised value warrant the use of Arbitration?
A: See previous answer.
Q: In the Concession Prospectus notice in the Federal
Business Opportunities (Fedbizopps) page, the synopsis refers to CCR
registration. There is no mention of CCR registration included
in the RFP document. Are offerors required to be CCR registered
contractors?
A: CCR registration does not apply to these concession
contracts.
Q: Does Selection Criteria B.3.(b) scoring allow a
concessionaire to engage a qualified professional recreation and hospitality
management company to provide key operations, administration and maintenance
functions and still receive maximum points?
A: Yes, provided that the management in no way can
be identified as sub-concession. They must become employees of
the concessionaire if actually involved in providing services to the
public as no sub-concessions are allowed. However, having an
external firm on contract to provide advice or recommendations in regard
to operations is fine.
Q: How can the systems and roads be appraised at such a
high value?
A: The appraisers work independently, Reclamation can not
provide an answer.
Q: Were the appraisers a private contractor?
A: Yes
Q: Does Reclamation want services at all 7 concession areas?
A: Ideally, Reclamation would prefer to have all 7 concession
areas utilized and operated by concession contract. However,
if a well thought-out proposal was submitted that provided the same
level of service with fewer concession areas, Reclamation would not
be opposed to that as well as season operations at certain locations.
Q: Why does the current Reclamation policy not apply to
the existing contracts?
A: The contracts were issued well before the current policy
was established. Only those contracts that were entered into,
renewed, renegotiated, amended, or modified after the policy was in
place, must comply with the current policy.
Q: What is Selection Criteria B.2.(g) of Part 5 of
the Prospectus that is referred to in the Instructions to the Offering
for Preparing the Proposal on page 3-11?
A: Please see italicized opening statement on this
document
Please direct questions to Janet
Rogers, Park Manager
(707) 966-2111, x105