Resolution 2022-31987RESOLUTION NO. 2022-31987
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER, TO REJECT ALL
PROPOSALS RECEIVED PURSUANT REQUEST FOR PRPOSALS
(RFP) NO. 2021 -188 -WG FOR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS SERVICES AT THE CITY'S
FLAMINGO PARK TENNIS CENTER.
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2021, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance
of Request for Proposals (RFP) 2021 -188 -WG for Professional Tennis Management and
Operations Services at the City's Flamingo Park Tennis Center (the "RFP"); and
WHEREAS, the RFP responses were due and received on May 24, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City received proposals from the following seven firms: Casely Tennis
Foundation, Inc., David Ensignia Tennis Academy, Inc., Sport Partners, LLC, Gorin Tennis
Academy, Inc., Agape Tennis Academy, LLC, Tennis Revolution, LLC, and Club Med
Academies; and
WHEREAS, the proposal from Club Med Academies was determined to be non-
responsive for failing to submit the minimum annual guarantee per the requirements of the RFP
and, therefore, could not be further considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager appointed an Evaluation Committee ("Committee"),
comprised of: David Berger, Member, Parks and Recreational Facilities Advisory Board; Cindy
Casanova, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation Department; Zhaoming Guan, Recreation
Superintendent, City of Miami; Lindsey Lovell, Board of Governors, Miami Beach Chamber of
Commerce; and Stephanie Rosen, Vice -Chair, Parks and Recreational Facilities Advisory
Board; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was provided an overview of the project, information relative
to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law, as well as general
information on the scope of services, and a copy of each proposal;
WHEREAS, the Committee was further instructed to score and rank each proposal
pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the evaluation process resulted in the proposers being ranked by the
Committee in the following order (See Attachment A):
1st ranked — Casely Tennis Foundation, Inc.
2nd ranked — David Ensignia Tennis Academy, Inc.
3rd ranked — Agape Tennis Academy, LLC
4th ranked — Tennis Revolution, LLC
5th ranked — Sport Partners, LLC
6th ranked — Gorin Tennis Academy, Inc.
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department ("Department") has been operating
the Flamingo Park Tennis Center ("Center") since February 2020; and
WHEREAS, although challenges encountered due to the COVID pandemic were
expected, the Center flourished, play increased, and the Department successfully rose to the
occasion; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the Department has instilled an increased level of trust and
satisfaction with the tennis community, tennis patrons and instructors that had been strained by
the previous management company; and
WHEREAS, further, profitability rose significantly under the management of the
Department, and more so than with the previous management company; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the successful management of the Center by the
Department, the Administration determined that it was in the best interest of the City to receive
and evaluate proposals for the operation of the Center by a private entity, through the issuance
of an RFP; and
WHEREAS, it was the Administration's expectation that seeking proposals from private
operators would result in opportunities to promote innovation, increase customer satisfaction,
and yield higher revenue; and
WHEREAS, while some proposals appear to propose revenue that is higher than is
currently yielded by the Center, City staff does not believe that any of the proposals will result in
the significant improvement of the Center operations, particularly with regard to customer
satisfaction; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City Manager considers that it is in the City's
best interest to reject all proposals received pursuant to the RFP, and continue with the in-
house management of the Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the City Manager, to reject all proposals
received pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) 2021 -188 -WG for Professional Tennis
Management and Operations Services at the City's Flamingo Park Tennis Center.
PASSED and ADOPTEI)AN 20 day of 7"nkq'r 2022.
ATTEST: �Fpp.?TED•`
RAFA L E. GRANADO, CITY CLERK
JAN 2 5 2022
DAN GELBER, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
City Attomey
to
-L
C7 -Resolutions U
MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Alina T. Hudak, City Manager
DATE: January 20, 2022
SUBJECT:A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED,
PURSUANT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 2021 -188 -WG, FOR
PROFESSIONAL TENNIS MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS SERVICES
AT THE CITY'S FLAMINGO PARK TENNIS CENTER.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Commission accept the City Manager's
recommendation to reject all proposals received pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP)
2021 -188 -WG for professional tennis management and operations services at the City's
Flamingo Park Tennis Center.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
On April 23, 2014, The City of Miami Beach entered into an agreement with Miami Beach
Tennis Management, pursuant to RFP 095-2013ME, for tennis management and operations
services at the City's Flamingo Paris and North Shore Tennis Centers. The Agreement
stipulated a term of three (3) years with two (2) additional one-year renewal options for both
Flamingo and North Shore Tennis Centers. However, on July 26, 2017, the Mayor and City
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2017-29935, removing the North Shore Tennis Center
from the scope of the Agreement. The management and operations of the North Shore tennis
facility are currently not under consideration and are not part of the scope of this RFP. As a
result of this action, Miami Beach Tennis Management would continue to operate only the
Flamingo Park Tennis Center through May 31, 2019.
Prior to the expiration of the contract with Miami Beach Tennis Management, on February 13,
2019, the City issued RFP No. 2019 -046 -WG, for professional tennis management and
operation services at the City's Flamingo Park Tennis Center. On May 8, 2019, the Mayor and
City Commission accepted the recommendation of the City Manager and authorized the
Administration to enter into negotiations with Miami Beach Tennis Management for the
management and operations of the Flamingo Park Tennis Center. However, negotiations
became protracted and, in January 2020, Miami Beach Tennis Management elected to end
negotiations and move out of the facility by February 2020. Since that time, the City of Miami
Beach Parks and Recreation Department has been managing the facility in the interim.
Page 375 of 1313
The Parks and Recreation Department has received positive feedback from tennis players and
coaches regarding its operation of the center. Notwithstanding, in an effort to solicit competition
and evaluate available options, the Administration determined that it was in the best interest of
the City to request proposals for the management and operations of the Flamingo Park Tennis
Center, including instruction, programming, operations, and maintenance of the tennis courts, as
Well as operations and management of the pro shop and the food and beverage concession.
On April 21, 2021, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for
Proposals (RFP) 2021 -188 -WG for professional tennis management and operations services
at the Cityis Flamingo Park Tennis Center. RFP responses were due and received on May 24,
2021. The City received proposals from the following seven firms: Casely Tennis Foundation,
Inc., David Ensignia Tennis Academy, Inc., Sport Partners, LLC, Gorin Tennis Academy, Inc.,
Agape Tennis Academy, LLC, Tennis Revolution, LLC, and Club Med Academies.
The proposal from Club Med Academies was determined to be non-responsive for failing to
submit the minimum annual guarantee per the requirements of the RFP and, therefore, could not
be further considered.
The Evaluation Committee appointed by,the City Manager convened to consider the proposals
received. The Committee was comprised of: David Berger, Member, Parks and Recreational
Facilities Advisory Board; Cindy Casanova, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation
Department; Zhaoming Guan, Recreation Superintendent, City of Miami; Lindsey Lovell, Board
of Governors, Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce; and Stephanie Rosen, Vice -Chair, Parks
and Recreational Facilities Advisory Board. The Committee was provided an overview of the
project, information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government
Sunshine Law. The Committee was also provided with general information on the scope of
services and a copy of each proposal. The Committee was instructed to score and rank each
proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP.
The evaluation process resulted in the proposers being ranked by the Evaluation Committee in
the following order (See Attachment A):
1 st ranked — Casely Tennis Foundation, I nc.
2nd ranked — David Ensignia Tennis Academy, Inc.
3rd ranked —Agape Tennis Academy, LLC
4th ranked — Tennis Revolution, LLC
5th ranked — Sport Partners, LLC
6th ranked — Gorin Tennis Academy, Inc.
SUPPORTING SURVEY DATA
Not Applicable.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Not applicable.
Amount(s)/Account(s):
Not applicable.
Page 376 of 1313
CONCLUSION
As previously stated, the Parks and Recreation Department has been operating the Flamingo
Park Tennis Center since February 2020. Although challenges encountered due to the COVI D
pandemic were expected, the tennis center flourished, play increased, and the Parks and
Recreation Department successfully rose to the occasion. Additionally, the Parks and
Recreation Department instilled an increased level of trust and customer satisfaction with the
tennis community, tennis patrons and contracted instructors that had been strained with the
previous management company. Further, profitability rose significantly when compared to the
previous management company.
During Fiscal Year 2021, the center generated approximately $1.39 million in revenue with a
profit of approximately $266,000. In Fiscal Year 2022, the Department is projecting a revenue
yield of approximately $1.51 million with an estimated profit of approximately $178,000. The
profit projection is conservative to allow for potential increases in operating expenses.
Notwithstanding the successful management of the center by the Parks and Recreation
Department and the revenue yields, the Administration determined that it was in the City's best
interest to consider proposals, through the issuance of an RFP, for privatizing center operations.
It was the Administration's expectation that proposals from private operators would result in
opportunities to promote innovation, increase customer satisfaction, and yield higher revenue.
However, while some proposals seem to propose higher revenue than is currently yielded by the
center, staff does not believe any of the proposals will result in significantly improved center
operations, particularly with regard to customer satisfaction. It should be noted that while the City
was in the transition of operating the tennis center from the previous management company in
2020, many tennis patrons expressed concerns to the Parks and Recreation Department that
the privatizing of the management and operation of the center may sometimes lead to
contractors being more concerned about profitability over customer experience, a consideration
that the Department has been very cognizant of during its management of the facility. With
regard to the high revenue yields included in some proposals, it is important to note that, based
on historical data, it does not seem to be possible to achieve increased yields without an impact
on maintenance and customer service, or an increase in fees. Further, the Administration does
not believe that prioritizing a modest profit yield over customer satisfaction and service to
residents and other center customers is advisable.
Based on the foregoing, I believe it is in the City's best interest to reject proposals received
pursuant to the RFP and continue with the in-house management of the center. The Parks and
Recreation Department will continue to maximize the quality of tennis instruction and
maintenance of the courts, while prioritizing a high level of customer satisfaction.
Therefore, I recommend that the Mayor and City Commission accept the recommendation to.
reject all proposals received pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) 2021 -188 -WG for
Professional Tennis Management and Operations Services at the Citys Flamingo Park Tennis
Center.
Is this a "Residents Right
to Know" item, pursuant to
City Code Section 2-14?
Yes
Does this item utilize G.O.
Bond Funds?
Yes
Page 377 of 1313
Legislative Tracking
Parks and Recreation/Procurement
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
❑ Attachment A
❑ Resolution
Page 378 of 1313
IFP 2011.188 -WO
Veteran's
Points
Revenue
Pro oeal
Revenue
Proposal
Points
Agape Tennis Academy,LLC
0
S
180 40.00
12
Cesely Tennis Foundation,
Inc
0
$
300 000.00
20
David Ensignia Tennis
Academy Inc.
0
$
288,000.00
111
Prof"donel managenwlR
and Operation Fladrigo Park
0
David Berger
219 999.99
g
$�
S ort Partners. LLC
Cindy Casanova
S
1811000.00
Zhsomin9 Own
Tennis Revolu0on LLC
0
Lindsay Lovell
210,000.00
qr
StephWs Rouen
LOW
T nls Center
n`
n8$
gg
d Aggregate
Totels
Qualitative
Quantitative
Subtotal
Qualitative
Quantitative
Subtotal
Qualitative
Quantitative
8ubta"I
Qualitative
Quantitative
Subtotal
Qualitative
Quantitative
Subtotal
Agape Tennis Academy, LLC-
80
12 ._
92
4
__71
12
83
2
72
_ 12
84,
3 76
12
88
4
72
12
84
4 17 3
Casely Tennis Foundation,
'
_ _
Inc. __.._
._ 77
_20
97
2
66
20
86
1
68
20
86,
1 72
20
92
1
73
20
93
David Ensignia Tennis
_,_
_
_
_
Academy Inc.
80
19
99
1
,_82
19
3
69
19
88
1 70
89
3
87
19
86
2 2
_,81—
_19
Godn Tennis AcademyInc.
71
15
86
6
59
15
74
5
86 _
15
83
4 68
15
83
6
89
15
84
4 25 8
5 art Partners, LLC _,___ _
77
72 _.
89
5
81
12
73
8
68
12
76
5 73
12 _
85
5
73
12
85
3 � 24 5
Tennis Revolution LLC _._
_ 80
11
94
3
84
14
78
4
81
14
75.
6 76
14
BO
2
80
_
14 _._.
74
6 21 4
Proposer
Veteran's
Points
Revenue
Pro oeal
Revenue
Proposal
Points
Agape Tennis Academy,LLC
0
S
180 40.00
12
Cesely Tennis Foundation,
Inc
0
$
300 000.00
20
David Ensignia Tennis
Academy Inc.
0
$
288,000.00
79
Gorin Tennis Academy Inc.
0
$
219 999.99
15
S ort Partners. LLC
0
S
1811000.00
12
Tennis Revolu0on LLC
0
210,000.00
14
FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL RANKING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN AWARD RECOMMENDATION.
Page 379 of 1313