?nite of or ENWRONMENTAL PROTECTION PHILIP D. MURPHY . NATURAL HISTORIC RESOURCES CATHERINE R- MCCABE Governor 0F LEASES CONCESSIONS Acting Cammissioher MAIL CODE 501-04c SHEILA v. OLIVER . 9.0. BOX 420 Lt. Governor TRENTON, NJ 08625-0420 TEL: ii 6053-5333575 FAX: ii 609-984-0836 May 3, 2018 sent via regular and certified mall Mr. David Hefty Controller WA Golf Company LLC Liberty National Golf Club 100 Caven Point Road Jersey City, New Jersey 07305 Dear Mr. Hefty: The New jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would like to thank WA Golf Company LLC for participating in the request fer p'rOposal to pronde recreational amenities at Caven Point in Liberty State Park. We regret to inform you that,_ after a thorough review by the department?s evaluation committee, the DEP has concluded that it must reject WA Golf?s December 2017 bid proposal under Section_1.4.10 of the RFP asmaterlally nonreSponsive to a number of essential requirements, Please be further advised that Section 6.2 of the prohibits the DEP from soliciting and considering lnfOrrnatlon to supplement, Change orcorrect the proposal in any way. The stated goal in Issuing the RFP was to advance the use of the unlqt?Ie location of Caven Point toprovlde enhanced public or private recreational amenities while Simultaneously preserving or enhancing. existing recreational uses, natural resources and: ecological values of the site, Ineluding onsite marshlan'ds, and generating sufficient revenue to allow the department to Improve the condition and operations Of Liberty State Park. To that end, Section 6.3 of the RFP sets forth specific criteria to allow the DEP to accurately determine whether a given proposal would satisfy the intent of the RFP. Acceptable proposals were required, among other things,- to'lnclude detailed information as to how the bidder plans to satisfy the speCific compensation and operational requirements of the REP. For the reasons that follow, the pro?posai Was not materially responsive to these criteria. The State ofNewJerseyis an equ'oi opportunity 'e'mpio'yer. Printed on'recyded and recyclobie paper.- First, the proposal fails to meet the compensation requirements set forth in Sections 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 of the RFP. Speci?cally, Section 4.4.5 required each bidder to submit, as part of its monetary bid, ?a proposal for fixed annual rent equal to the fair market value for the proposed use adjusted annually by three percent [and] a percentage of the annual gross receipts of at least eight percent or other equivalent compensation that will be paid to the Department as variable rent. The expressly states that failure to meet these standards renders the bid materially nonresponsive. In accordance with the 2011 lnteragency State Land Lease Valuation Panel Report, DEP policy and practice requires all leases, in addition to enhancing the public?s' enjoyment of state lands, return fair market value as demonstrated through an appraisal and bid process. Contrary to these requirements, the proposal offered as compensation only a ?monetary contribution in the form of an annual rent of $10,000.00 or a direct, one-time payment of $200,000.00 to be paid upon execution of the lease.? However, WA Golf provided no information to demonstrate that this amount of fixed rent was equal to the market value of the proposed use. Moreover, the proposal provided neither the required annual increases in fixed rent nor the minimum 8 percent of annual gross receipts as variable rent. The proposal therefore failed to meet the requirements of Section 4.4.5 of the and must be deemed materially nonresponsive. Similarly, Section 4.4.6 of the RFP required each bidder to state "where the bidder proposes private recreational amenities or any other activities that will or may reasonably be expected to result in a diversion and/or conversion, how it will satisfy the compensation requirements of the Green Acres Act and the LWCF [Land and Water Conservation Fund] regulations.? Since the proposal is for a private amenity, it will therefore likely trigger both the state Green Acres and federal Land and Water Conservation Fund compensation requirements. This includes providing replacement land of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location, pursuant to the LWCF Act of1965, 16 U. S. C. 460, et seqseq respectively. WA Goif?s offer of $400, 000 of unspecified land within the Pinelands does not meet this standard because it would not serve the. residents ofiersey City and provide public recreating at Liberty State Park, including Caven Point, or provide similar wildlife habitat. Additionally, the proposal fails to provide sufficient detail to address the information required by Section 4.4.3.2 to demonstrate a tangible public benefit for the loss of 21.5 acres of parkland, specifically the: i. Description of the recreational amenities the bidder will provide; ii. Description of how It will preserve and enhance the existing public recreational uses, natural resources and ecological values of Caven Point; Description of how it will compensate and mitigate for any adverse impacts, including replacement of any lost recreational uses with ones of greater recreational value, in a manner that enhances Liberty State Park; and New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Erwimer daPrr'nied on Recycfedf?opor and Recyclable iv. Description of the public benefits of bldder's proposal to the surrounding communities and the state. The proposal recognizes that the conversion of the Peninsula, the area will no longer be accessible by bus and nature walks conducted at the Peninsula would need to be relocated to other areas ofthe park [but] Caven Point Beach will remain to the public by water through Liberty State Park sponsored programs.? The RFP required that address, with specificity, how it would preserve, enhance or mitigate for these impacts but WA Golf failed to? do so. Additionally, the proposal offers only vague references without detailed maps, drawings, renderings or any other information to describe the proposed recreational amenities, or how those amenities will enhance or replace the "recreation, natural resource or ecological values of Ca'ven Point. While WA Gelf offers to house the ?First Tee Program" on its property, the proposal lacks the required detail on how the program will operate, how public access to the program will be guaranteed, why the program cannot otherwise be accommodated on WA Golf?s property or how It will serve to replace the lost amenities at- Caven Point. Flnally,-Section 1.2.1 of the RFP expressly provides that the successful bidder shall be responsible for all environmental inVestigation and reme?diating the property to a standard for unrestricted use. Contrary to this requirement, specifically clarified in the DEP's response to WA Golf?s. questions submitted In accordance With Section 1.3.1 of the RFP, the submitted proposal reciuired't'he DEP to "be solely responsible for all pre-exlsting environmental conditions on the leased premises and must obtain a Remedial Action Permit and Remedial Action Outcome-for unrestricted use.? I For the reasons above, the DEP finds that the WA Golf Company proposal is materially nonresponsive under Section 1.4.10 of the RFP. This shall also serve as notice that the DEP has exercised its right, in its sole discretion, to reject all bids, responsive or otherwise, and not to pursue the project "at this time, Thank you once mere for your participation. If you have any questions, you or your colleagues are most Welcome to cantact me at (609) 6333:7860 or George.Chidley@dep.ni.gov. Sincerely, Mme?.- Manager New Jersey is an Equal Opporfu?ioJ Errurioyer ?f?r?futed on Regular? Paper and Recycfable