Addendum

CITY OF DALLAS

Business Development & Procurement Services

www.bids.dallascityhall.org
1500 Marilla Street, Room 3FN Dallas, Texas 75201-6390

Addendum No. 8
(RFP BT1101)

Date: 7.11.11 Request For Proposal Number: BT1101 Proposal Title: Develop, Operate, & Manage Food & Beverage Concessions at Dallas Love Field Airport Proposal Due Date and Time: Changed from July 13, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. to July 22, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. The proposal reading will be webcast at 2:00 p.m. at http://www.dallascityhall.com/council_briefings/agendas/index_video-view.html.
The proposal due date and time has been extended to allow time to post answers to remaining outstanding questions below. If you have submitted your proposal, you may pick up your proposal and make desired changes if the below Q&As affect your submittal. 1. Questions about the Visual Transparency Zone and the see-thru visibility zone as

defined in the diagram on page 42 of the guidelines: a. What is the bottom and top height required for the Visual Transparency Zone? There is no dimensional indication of this. Answer: The Zone is defined on Page 38: "All Kiosks must be 60% transparent along their long side. Tenants on one side of the Kiosk must be able to see through the lease space to locate storefronts, restrooms, exits, and other Love Field signage or information." To meet the intent, this zone should be in the upper half of the Kiosk to allow all passengers and customers the opportunity to "see-through" to the other side. Calculations of the Transparency zone should be included on the response. b. Does the 50% see thru visibility zone indicated on the right hand side diagram notes go down to the floor? Does this mean that you must be able to see all the way thru 50% of the entire kiosk? Or is there a height from off the ground that can be opaque as shown in the C-2 example on page 41? Answer: No, the diagram note is to define that at least 50% of this entire area must maintain see thru visibility. "All Kiosks must be 60% transparent along their long side. Tenants on one side of the Kiosk must be able to see through the lease space to locate storefronts, restrooms, exits, and other Love Field signage or information." This means that 60% of the long side must have the Zone where
1
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum you can see thru 50% of the height. The lower portion of the kiosk can be opaque or solid as depicted in the example, as long as the upper portion meets the required "transparency". Answer to both a. & b.: The City requires that concessionaires plan a minimum amount of visibility through kiosks in order to maintain sight lines in the concourses. The Concession Guidelines do not specify the specific location of the Visual Transparency Zone provided that at least 50% of the area of the storefront along the long side of the kiosk is visually transparent. Further, all kiosk designs are subject to approval by the City.
2. I have some architects working on Love Field proposals in need of CAD files or

space layouts. Where can I find these or are they available upon request? Answer: They are available upon request., proposers should submit the request to BDPS with location needed.
3. In reference to the Optional Branding Zone, can you give examples of things you

would like to see there? Is it correct that utilizing this zone could mean an increase in rent? Answer: For those spaces identified in the Concession Guidelines to which the Optional Branding Zone applies, the zone is an opportunity for a concessionaire to add dimensionality to its storefront in order to support and enhance its concept or brand. The area is considered a permanent part of the improvements and may be used for design features such as seating, product display windows, or other design elements generally associated with the proposed concept or brand. Please note that this list is not inclusive and that other design features may be proposed. Further, all designs that use the Optional Branding Zone are subject to approval by the City. If a concessionaire uses the Optional Branding Zone, the area will be added to the Assigned Premises and, consequently, any rents or other charges that are based on square footage will be affected.
4. Will the City be granting any product exclusives or restrictions? If so, please detail.

Answer: The City will not grant exclusives to any concessionaire. Restrictions upon concessionaires merchandise offerings and/or menus will be determined by the City in consideration of the Airport merchandising plan and concessionaires proposals. Any such restriction will be incorporated in the permitted uses exhibit of a Concessionaires contract. Further, the City reserves the right to enter into airportwide product exclusives with any third-party supplier and require concessionaires to sell only that suppliers products at the Airport (for example, a pouring rights agreement with a third-party beverage supplier).
5. What are the minimum amps of electric service and natural gas BTUs to be

delivered to the concession spaces? Answer: Food and Beverage Electrical: 400A for Kiosks and 600A for all others. Gas: 400,000 600,000 BTUH based on size and use. Note that Kiosks do not have Gas. Retail Electrical: 60A 100A, based on size and use.
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum Gas: No gas is supplied to any retail spaces

6. We have noted that Part J5, Exercise of ROFR, page 16 of the RFP is incorrect.

There is no required 14 day response period by the incumbent to agree to match the successful Proposers key terms. Answer: The ROFR requirement to respond is not defined in the contract between the incumbent and the City. It is not true that the 14 day requirement is not correct, it is the decision of the City to have this requirement in order to complete the RFP process in a timely manner.
7. In order to agree to match the successful Proposer in a reasonable time period,

please confirm that the City will provide a complete and true copy of the successful Proposers proposal document. Answer: The City will not provide a full copy of the most advantageous proposal, it will provide all relevant components and what is necessary for the incumbent to meet or exceed the required elements of the most advantageous proposal in the 14 day requirement.
8. Also we have noted that Addendum #3, the response to question 11 in Set 1 of the

Q&A is inaccurate. The incumbent is not required to submit all elements required in the RFP. Part J5, Exercise of ROFR on page 16 of the RFP correctly identifies the 5 areas that the incumbent is required to match. Answer: The incumbent will be required to meet or exceed the most advantageous proposal. The submittal by the incumbent must be adequate to satisfy the evaluation committee, using the same criteria listed in the RFP, that the key elements listed in the contractual agreement meet or exceed those by the most advantageous proposal.
9. In regard to the Workforce Ethnic Composition Report, if the proposing entity is a

new entity formed for the purpose of proposing on these concession packages, particularly in regard to a joint venture, please confirm that this form is to be completed with the ethnic composition only for the new business entity, and that the composition of the principal entities comprising the Proposer entity is not required? Answer: The Workforce Ethnic Composition should reflect the joint ventures actual composition as the proposer.
10. If a proposal is made on a multiple store package, such as Retail Packages 1, 2, 3

and 4, please confirm that it is permitted for the Proposer to sublease any of the stores? Answer: The proposers can sublease, or partner with others for the locations.
11. We note in the RFP that enplanements are provided for 2010 of 3,998,271 and that

enplanements for the first full year of 2015 are 5,261,000. What is the enplanement projection for 2014 when the first stores in the new terminal area open in April 2014 through December 2014? Answer: For concessions planning purposes, the City used enplanement projections developed for a 2008 Rates and Charges study. Planning was limited to 2015, the first full year of the completed new terminal and concourses. Enplanement projections for earlier years were not used for concessions planning purposes.
3
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum
12. Can the Airport provide a projection of enplanements for beyond 2015?

Answer: For concessions planning purposes, the City used enplanement projections developed for a 2008 Rates and Charges study. Planning was limited to 2015, the first full year of the completed new terminal and concourses. Enplanement projections for later years were not used for concessions planning purposes.
13. If the proposer is currently certified in the state of Texas as an ACDBE and

completes the necessary documentation required in the RFP demonstrating such and proposes on a package in this RFP as a 100% ACDBE Texas certified firm, will this fully meet the ACDBE requirements/goals of the RFP? Answer: Please refer to the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP. Even though a respondent is a certified ACDBE, the City will consider other factors in the evaluation of the respondents ACDBE participation plan including, but not limited to, making opportunities available to other minority firms.
14. If the proposer is currently certified in the state of Texas as an ACDBE and

completes the necessary documentation required in the RFP demonstrating such, similarly owns and operates airport concession contracts in other Texas airports, and proposes as the 100% owner and operator for a package in this RFP, will the proposer receive the full 15 points associated with the ACDBE evaluation criteria or are there further requirements need to achieve the maximum points? If further requirements, could you please explain? Answer: Please refer to the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP. Even though a respondent is a certified ACDBE, the City will consider other factors in the evaluation of the respondents ACDBE participation plan including, but not limited to, making opportunities available to other minority firms.
15. Section V. L. states Respondents must provide completed and executed ACDBE

Program forms as appropriate (Attachment G 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), and 10(4)). If the proposer is a 100% ACDBE firm, how should the proposer complete Form 10(1) B? Should the proposer enter N/A since it has already achieved the ACDBE goal and is not sub-contracting or entering into joint ventures? Would the proposer then skip on to number 9? Answer: Yes. However, please refer to the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP. Even though a respondent is a certified ACDBE, the City will consider other factors in the evaluation of the respondents ACDBE participation plan including, but not limited to, making opportunities available to other minority firms.
16. May two (or more) parties submit an RFP for the same restaurant brand? For

example, one proposer submits an RFP for a specific franchise restaurant and a second proposer submits an RFP for the same franchise restaurant. Will the review committee entertain both bids? Answer: Yes
17. How may we get clarification regarding answers in the RFP that are vague and

ambiguous? For example, the specialty deli description does not distinguish between the subspecialities of the deli segment of the dining industry. By not doing so, how does an bidder compare a Subway, Paneras Bread, Corner Bakery, Which Wich, Pot Belly, MacAlisters and other brands. Answer: The solicitation process included a question and answer period (ended4
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum April 22) where interested parties could submit questions related to any aspect of the proposal including asking for clarification to any aspect of the proposal that was not clear. To address the example provided, proposers should submit the segment that they feel best meets the Citys criteria. The evaluation committee will compare all proposals based on all the criteria, not any specific segment.
18. We are proposing a casual, non-branded Italian dining concept and for one reason

or another none of the labeled Packages will allow what we are proposing. Will there be any willingness on the City's part to accept something like what we propose? Answer: Yes, the City designation for any package is suggested to complete a diversified program for customer satisfaction. The City will evaluate each package for the most advantageous proposal, this may include, but is not limited to, the suggested concepts listed in the RFP.
19. We have a non-branded Italian casual dining concept that will offer beer, wine and

spirits and we are interested in submitting bids for either Package #1, Package #2 or Package #3 as they all allow beer, wine and spirits sales and offer spaces in the range of 1,700sq. ft. - 2,700 sq. ft., however, our concept is not consistent w/ the labeling on the Packages. 1, Package 1 (C2216) is labeled "Texas-Themed Cuisine", can this be modified to allow non-branded Italian casual dining? 2. Package 2 (C2396) is labeled "Branded Casual Dining", can this be modified to allow non-branded Italian casual dining? 3. Package 3 (C2596) is labeled "Traditional Tex-Mex", can this be modified to allow non-branded Italian casual dining? Answer: The concept designations shown in the RFP for any package are suggested to complete a diversified program for customer satisfaction. The City will evaluate each package for the most advantageous proposal, which may include, but is not limited to, the suggested concepts listed in the RFP.
20. I am seeking architects for Love Field RFP concepts. Is there a way to access the

list of attendees for the meeting re RFPs. Answer: The pre-proposal attendees list has been posted on the Citys website www.bids.dallascityhall.org for your convenience.
21. Can a "package" used to submit the RFP be a binder?

Answer: Yes, a binder can be used to hold the proposal. However, the binder must be enclosed in a sealed envelope or box with the information requested in the RFP listed on the outside.
22. The 3 airport/landlord references, can we submit references from landlords that are

not an airport? Answer: Yes.

5
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum 23. You have provided enplanement figures for 2010 and estimates for 2015. Please provide estimates for 2011-2014 so potential bidders can understand how traffic will change between now and when the interstate flight restrictions imposed by the Wright Amendment are lifted in 2014. Answer: For concessions planning purposes, the City used enplanement projections developed for a 2008 Rates and Charges study. Planning was limited to 2015, the first full year of the completed new terminal and concourses. Enplanement projections for earlier years were not used for concessions planning purposes.
24. Please provide an estimate of the construction schedule and timing so bidders can

understand which 12 gates will be open during the interim period and which 8 will be the last to open. Please provide the schedule for opening the last 8 gates, (e.g. staged openings, timing of each opening, or whether they will be opened all at once at the end). Answer: The first 12 gates in the new terminal are expected to open April 2013. These will be all 10 gates on the east wing of the new concourse and the first two gates on the north side of the west wing of the new concourse (those adjacent to space #C2101). The remaining eight gates become operational at the completion of the new terminal and concourse.
25. Please indicate how the airport intends to handle passenger traffic during the period

of time that up to 8 gates are closed. Specifically, indicate whether there will be a reduction in flights, or whether the existing 20 gates will be capable of handling all the current passenger traffic during such time period. Answer: The Airport will maintain 20 gates in operation throughout construction. At the anticipated opening of the 12 gates in the new terminal, the existing terminals T1 (Continental/Delta) and T2 (SWA Gates 1 4) will continue to operate. At the completion of the new terminal in October, 2014, all 20 gates in the new terminal will be operational and all gates in the existing terminals (T1 and T2) will close.
26. If all concessions are open during the interim period, does this mean there will be 20

Food and Beverage concessions (vs. 7 today) competing for the business of the current 3.9M (or less due to closed gates) enplaned passengers? Answer: Not all concession locations will be opened as of the partial opening of the new terminal and concourse. Further, some of the existing locations will close as of the partial opening of the new terminal and concourse. Table 3 of the RFP shows the expected opening date of the concessions in the new terminal and concourse.
27. Does the airport have firm commitments from airlines for any projected increase in

additional enplanements after the interstate flight restrictions imposed by the Wright Amendment are lifted? Answer: No.

28. The provisions in Attachment A and answers to questions 5 and 26 in Addendum #5

dont answer the question of how often concessionaires may submit updated comparison store prices so they can ensure that the prices being charged at the airport comply with the street pricing policy. Other similar venues allow for up to 4 submissions per year at the concessionaires discretion. Please indicate specifically how many times concessionaires will be permitted to submit comparison store pricing per year. 6
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum Answer: Section 9(N) of the Agreement states the airports street pricing policy. With the exception of a price list to be issued by the Concessionaire, and approved by the City, prior to the opening of a facility, there is no formal approval process for concessionaire prices. However, the City may, at any time, require the concessionaire to submit evidence that its prices meet the street pricing policy.
29. It is understood that special promotional pricing may be excluded from the street

pricing policy at the airport, however, please indicate how concessionaires are expected to set pricing for menu items at the airport that have special promotional pricing at the comparison locations but will have regular pricing at the airport? For example, please indicate whether it would be acceptable to submit the price that would be charged for such items at the comparison locations if they were not being offered for sale at a special promotional price. Answer: Special promotional pricing is excluded from the street pricing policy. The regular price in effect prior to the promotional pricing shall be the comparison price for determining compliance with the street pricing policy. If there was no regular price prior to the promotional price, then the promotional price shall be used as the comparison price.

30. Please indicate how concessionaires are expected to set pricing for products that

are not offered at the comparison locations (e.g. bottled soda will be sold at airport locations but not offered at concessionaires comparison locations), but are popular items that concessionaire would like to offer in the airport? For example, may concessionaires be permitted to submit the pricing for that item as it is priced at other of concessionaires airport locations? Answer: Concession locations at other airports will not be allowed as comparison locations. For items that a concessionaire is allowed to sell, which are not offered at a comparison location, the concessionaire may use other comparable locations within the City of Dallas limits and immediate suburbs, subject to approval by the City.
31. In response to question #36 on Addendum 5, the airport indicated that it would like a

detailed listing of all locations owned and operated by proposer/subtenant in airport or other high-traffic environments in the past 5 years to be provided in response to the operating history. However, where concessionaire is a national company, operating thousands of restaurants in airports and high traffic locations, and where it would be impractical to include hundreds of pages of store locations in the response to the RFP, would the airport accept a listing of ten (10) airport restaurants operated by the proposer and corresponding 5 year sales history in lieu of such a broad request? Answer: If a respondent operates more than 10 airport restaurants in multiple airports, then please provide a listing of airports. Please note those airports where concepts/brands similar to the concepts/brands proposed for Love Field are operated. Provide the 5-year sales history for 10 concepts/brands proposed for Love Field in airports most similar to Love Field. Note that the City reserves the right to request additional sales history data if deemed necessary, in its sole judgment, to complete the evaluation of a respondents proposal.

7
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum 32. Why would anyone waste $15,000 - $20,000 to create a proposal, only to have it taken away by this lottery need? Will the City please take care of the incumbents rights first and then modify the RFP and the packages? Packages with locations that are not adjacent or near the same gates defeats the purpose of packaging. Answer: The City has determined the method by which it will select the concessionaires for Dallas Love Field. It has made a decision to include the right of first refusal through a lottery process as the best method to balance creating a competitive environment with the opportunity for the incumbent vendors to be successful. The City disagrees completely with the statement that locations not adjacent to gates cannot be successful, as there are many airports with successful program that include a variety of offerings at all locations throughout the terminal.
33. There is no value at all for the pre-security location. Many other airports have tried

this only to have them struggle or close. Would the City please remove this location from the assortment? If the traffic warrants a pre-security location, it can be developed after we know the exact EPAXs and traffic patterns. Answer: The City disagrees completely with the statement that locations presecurity have no value. As a matter of fact, the current program at Dallas Love Field has offerings pre-security, and while not as successful as those post-security, they are profitable and provide a much needed amenity to the customers, employees, and those not ticketed.
34. The wine bar / coffee location needs to be removed from the assortment or

relocated to another space. The sole interest of passengers is to find their gates first, therefore this location is going to experience many walk-by customers. Will the City please leave this space empty for future development when traffic warrants the need? Answer: The City disagrees completely with the statement that the location cannot be successful due to walk by customers. The City has engaged a number of architects and consultants to design the terminal and the concession locations within it. The design is based on their experience and the latest information regarding passenger behavior and other successful programs. Older airports, not designed to current standards cannot be used as a comparison to the new terminal design.
35. How can the Evaluation Committee possibly pick the best financial offer when we

are being asked to bid BOTH the MAG and the percentage rent? Proposals with exaggerated planned sales will therefore offer more rent, but their planned sales are not realistic or achievable. Will the City please allow only one to be bid? Answer: You may not understand the function of the MAG. If you refer to the RFP, the MAG is used to set the baseline number in the first year, with rent being used every year afterward. The MAG serves as down side protection for the City incase a vendor does over estimate rent. The City will be diligent in its evaluation of sales projections, and those projections and estimated rent are only one part of the evaluation criteria.
36. Does anyone on the Evaluation Committee have any experience in owning or

operating a F&B concept? Does anyone on the team have any experience at managing an airport concessions program? Is there a voting representative from Southwest serving on the Review Team? Who will handle future conflicts with Southwest (and other airlines) if they are not pleased with the recommended winners or the outcome? Answer: The City will have representatives that have extensive experience in8
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum managing a public concessions programs. You must agree operating a concession and managing a concessions program are two very different experiences, and since the City is not operating a concession, the experience of managing a concessions program is far superior and more appropriate. There will be a number of industry experts and consultants also involved in the process, including Southwest Airlines. The concessionaires will be contracting with the City only, and all matters regarding the contract and performance by the concessionaires will be handled by the City exclusively.
37. The traveling public based in the Dallas / Ft. Worth area has experienced airport

pricing that is NOT firm Street Pricing for many years. What funds are being set aside to advertise that Love Field will have a lower pricing requirement? Without some effort to inform the public, Street Pricing only serves to reduce our margins and the City's potential rents. What promotional effort is planned? Answer: Once the concessions contract(s) are awarded the City and the vendors can work on public awareness plan relating to street pricing.. Please bear in mind the City is not allowed to promote the airport as part of the five-party agreement.
38. There will need to be another Q&A addenda once the revised MAGs and values

have been released and we have had time to work on our proposals. Will the City allow another Q&A addenda and will the City allow at least 30 days time from the release of the last addenda until the Due Date for the proposals? Answer: That has been done via Addendum 7.
39. Can the City provide the Gate Utililization Plan that the airlines are planning to

follow? Historically, new terminal openings at many other airports, have never provided the passenger counts (EPAXs) that were predicted. We are basing our proposal on 5.0 Million EPAXs for the first full year. If that is not what the airlines are planning, what are the plans? Answer: The City does not have a gate utilization plan, the City can only estimate the utilization and the effect of the repeal of the Wright Amendment.
40. Addenda # 5 seems to offer that the operators will be allowed to find and negotiate

for the needed support and stock rooms. In the absence of any specific spaces before we submit a proposal, we are left with planning support space inside the specified LOD, which then limits the business needs like product assortments and customer seating. Support space must be located on the same level as the F&B space. If it is one level up or down, it will add to our costs and therefore have an impact on our rent offers to the City. What will be the cost per ft for the negotiated support space? Is that cost competitive with storage space or warehouse space that I can find within five miles of the airport? If that cost is being offered at the Terminal Rate, the City must therefore also account for the above Terminal Rate that we are paying for our concession spaces. Even if the support space were free, when it's added to our concession space, we are paying much more than the Terminal Rate. Will the City offer this support space at a competitive rate? Answer: Until the final award of concession contracts, the City cannot plan for needed storage space based on number of vendors. There is storage space, but how that allocation will occur cannot happen until the awards are made. The Airport will provide a competitive rate for the space.
41. When will we have a decision on the TABC permission to allow alcohol beverages in

the food courts.

Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum Answer: The City is not, nor will, seek any TABC input. That will be left to individual concessionaires.
42. We don't see the space that has been set aside for the food court seating. Can the

City please provide a revised Attachment D showing the food court seating space? Answer: The terminal has two food court seating areas, one immediately in front of spaces C2186 and C2181 and the other immediately in front of spaces C2077 and C2081. Each seating area is approximately 2,022 sq. ft.
43. Please provide the assumptions and numbers that are driving this RFP. Please

review the industry actual sales by airport and give us a list on any and all airports that have less than 8 Million EPAXs and that drive sales per ft at $900 psf as is presently being offered in this RFP. Pittsburgh has about 5.0 EPAXs and generates less than $700 per ft (and their program is mature). Portland has approx 8 Million EPAXs and produces approx $830 per ft, and is also a mature program. Indiana has about 4.2 Million EPAXs and produces less than $800 per ft. What data and assumptions could possibly be driving a plan of more than $900 per ft? Answer: It is not clear upon what this question is based on. The City has used assumptions for planning and future estimates. The RFP process and the proposals are not required to use the same assumptions that the City has used. Any vendor can use the assumptions they feel comfortable with in submitting a proposal. The MAGs have been revised to no longer be and are not based on sales assumptions.

44. There is a City need to be flexible in the RFP and we understand that need.

However, there is a driving business need for costs and concept specifics in order to create a proposal. The requested concepts seem to be vague. Addenda # 5 adds to this confusion by allowing us to propose two concepts in a space that is originally offered as a single concept. How can the Evaluation Committee possibly decide what concepts will be appropriate and in the best interest of the City without specifically defined Use Clauses? For example, when you say branded, do you really mean National Branded or Regional Branded or Local Branded concepts? Answer: You are correct in the desire of the City to be flexible. While the City has endeavored to create a comprehensive program with a number of offerings to provide the customers, it does not wish to limit the creativity of proposals that may bring other concepts that can be determined to be the most advantageous to the City. The evaluation committee will use the established criteria to determine the most advantageous proposals. In the case of your example the term branded could be any of the three. Each of the brands will be only part of the evaluation
45. Is it the City's intent to resolve the value of the spaces and also fulfill the

incumbent's right of refusal before we need to finalize our proposals? If 27% of the value of this RFP is taken by the incumbent, then all of the packages should be reassorted. Will the City please resolve the incumbents claim first and then repackage the remaining spaces? Answer: The values have been determined and published. The City has determined the lottery process is the best method to encourage competition and yield the most advantageous proposals.
46. I would like to ask for clarification on Section E of Proposal Submission Requirements for RFP BT1101, to Develop, Operate and Manage Food & Beverage Concessions at Love
10
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum
Field Airport. Section E appears on pages 37 and 38 of the Food and Beverage RFP. The last paragraph of this section states: The Experience and Qualifications Statement section of the proposal should not exceed eight (8) pages. Sales schedules and photographs of existing facilities requested in Attachment G Form 5 do not count toward the page limit. Attachment G Form 5 which is included in this section asks for resumes of the principal owner(s) and manager(s) of the respondent including, specifically, the individual who will be the primary contact to the City for contract and Concession matters and the individual(s) who will be primarily responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Concession. I am seeking clarification on whether or not the actual Form 5 Experience and Qualifications Statement counts toward the eight (8) page limit. The form itself is three (3) pages and by the time a respondent includes the requested resumes and operating history, the chances of exceeding the eight (8) page limit are great. The respondent is also asked to submit sufficient information [to demonstrate relative business experience and qualifications]. . . with special emphasis upon prior experience with the ownership, operation, and management of businesses at airports and other highvolume, high-traffic venues. This section also requests for respondent to identify its architectural team, specifying prior experience in the design of retail facilities (including resumes and project experience). I hope I have explained my request clearly. If I can further explain or answer any questions, please email me or give me a call at the number below. Answer: Section E shall not exceed eight (8) pages, excluding Form 5 and the information specifically requested by Form 5. This applies to BT1101 & BT1102 47. Section B RFP Acknowledgement Forms states Please insert executed acknowledgements of all addenda issued from this RFP. I do not see any signature fields on the addenda. Are we supposed to print the entire addenda have have an authrized person from the responding entity sign and date the 1st or last page of the addendum? Answer: Please complete the form below Addenda Acknowledgement BT1101.

48. Can you please provide me direction on financial requirement of the Concession RFP BT1102. If it is a JV offer the majority stake holder provides the financials and all other supporting documents in this case is the RFP asking the ACDBE to provide all the financials details too? A recent credit report and a letter of good standing and bank reference is what typically is asked of ACDBE partners. Answer: Yes, we are asking for that information for all owners as follows: Any owner or joint venture partner who is investing in the concession either equity or debt must provide the requested financial information. This applies to BT1101 & BT1102.

11
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum

CITY OF DALLAS

Business Development & Procurement Services

1500 Marilla Street, Room 3FN, Dallas, Texas 75201-6390

Addenda Acknowledgement BT1101

By signing below, I acknowledge that I have read, understand and have responded accordingly to all addenda issued in respect to Request For Proposal BT1101 - Develop, Operate, & Manage Food & Beverage Concessions at Dallas Love Field Airport.

Date

Full Legal Company Name

(Address, City, State and ZIP Code) Note: No Post Office Box

Telephone No.

Fax No.

Email address

Authorized Signature

Print Name

Title

For questions related to information contained herein, please contract Mario Alvarado at
12
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115

Addendum mario.alvarado@dallascityhall.com .

13
Rev. 1 - 3/25/10 Doc#BDPS-FRM-115