Memorandum
To: Director, National Park Service
From: Michael Adlerstein
Associate Regional Director
Chairman, Evaluation Panel for Gettysburg Visitor Center and Museum Proposals
This is to advise you of the recommendations of the NPS evaluation panel regarding the proposals received in response to the December 11 ' 1996, "Request for Proposals - Visitor Center and Museum Facilities - Gettysburg National Military Park." (RFP) which closed on May 16, 1997.
Subsequently, and after considering public comments on this concept plan, the park issued the RFP to solicit specific proposals from non-federal sources to enter into a cooperative agreement with NPS to provide new visitor center and museum facilities either on park land or on non-park land in the vicinity of the park.
As described in the RFP, the principal NPS objective in this effort is to achieve the cooperative development and management of a new Gettysburg Visitor Center and Museum, including new facilities for the Gettysburg Cyclorama, archival and artifact collections, library, archives, research rooms, and bookstore. Also included in this objective is the removal of the existing visitor center, museum and cyclorama center and the rehabilitation of their sites to historical condition.
The terms of the RFP invited creative proposals from all possible sources with few limitations so long as they further the NPS goals for the new facilities. The RFP required that proposals suggest a proposed site for the facilities within a specific area of consideration (extending beyond the boundaries of the park).
The NPS evaluation panel for review of the proposals consists of:
·
The evaluation panel initially reviewed the six proposals in May. Each of the offerors was then asked by letter to respond to several written questions to clarify their proposal. During the week of July 7 the evaluation panel met again to consider the proposals and the clarifications received from the offerors. In September, a majority of the evaluation panel interviewed the principals and team members of four of the organizations which submitted proposals. (Two proposals, although they were submitted by very capable organizations, were not reviewed further generally because they did not provide sufficient information under the terms of the RFP to allow further consideration).
The following provides a general description of the four remaining proposals, each of which contemplates the involvement of a non-profit corporation in the undertaking. We are providing for your consideration copies of the four proposals, the clarification letters received in response to our letter, and an item by item detailed assessment and evaluation of each of the four proposals under the RFP proposal evaluation criteria. The estimated costs of the proposals are between $41 and $45 million.
The Kinsley proposal was submitted by a development team headed by Mr. Robert Kinsley, principal of Kinsley Equities and Kinsley Construction Company of Seven Valleys, Pennsylvania. In addition, the team includes National Geographic Television, Destination Cinema, Gettysburg Tours, Inc., and John L. Adams and Company.
The proposal offers to construct a new Gettysburg Visitor Center and Museum on a privately-owned 45 acre site within the boundaries of the park and located at the intersection of Hunt and Baltimore Avenues.
In addition to the new Gettysburg Visitor Center and Museum, the facilities would include a new cyclorama and bookstore facility, a tour center, an orientation theater, a large format cinema (for display of a film about the Gettysburg Campaign to be produced by National Geographic Television), food service, a National Geographic store, a gift shop, and a Civil War arts and crafts gallery.
The proposal does not require that a fee be charged visitors for entrance to the Visitor Center and Museum facilities. Revenue would be generated through a continuation of the park's current interpretive fees, operation of the National Geographic film, tour center, the other facilities mentioned above, and parking fees. NPS would be responsible for a pro-rata share of operating costs related to use of its portion of the facilities.
The facilities would be owned by a non-profit corporation which will provide overall management of the facility (with NPS operation of its visitor center and museum elements) until its development debt is retired at which time title to the entire facility and its site will be donated to NPS.
The funds for the proposal are to be obtained from a combination of a non-profit fundraising campaign and conventional financing.
Thomas A Luetkemeyer
Thomas Mullan, III
2230 West Joppa Road
Lutherville, MD 21903
The Lemoyne proposal was submitted by the LeMoyne, LLC, of Lutherville, Maryland, a joint venture between Continental Realty, Inc., and the Mullan Company of Baltimore, Maryland.
The proposal offers to build a new Gettysburg Visitor Center and Museum on a private 6.9 acre site which is currently the location of the Gettysburg Tower. It proposes to demolish the National Tower and construct the new Gettysburg NMP Visitor Center and Museum (but with an archival storage and research center located elsewhere on park land). The facility would be managed by the LeMoyne organization (with NPS management of the visiter center and museum elements). In addition to the NPS facilities, the project would include retail shops and food outlets. The proposal suggests that the acquisition of the site would be structured as a contribution of the land to the government or an appropriate charitable organization. The proposal provides for the construction, maintenance and operation of the facility and its interpretive exhibits at no cost to NPS. Commercial loans would be obtained to fund the construction costs. Costs associated with orientation and interpretive services provided by NPS as a part of the visitor center/museum operation are borne by NPS.
Randy Harper
5220 Spring Valley Road
Dallas, Texas 75240
The McGorrisk Group/Gettysburg Battlefield Coalition, Inc. proposal was submitted by a development team headed by Mr. Randy Harper, a principal of the team's development manager, the McGorrisk Group of Dallas, Texas. The team also includes the firms of Andrews and Kurth, Ralph Appelbaum Associates, Thos. S. Byrne, Inc., and Wheat, First, Butcher and Singer, Inc. A new non-profit organization, Gettysburg Battlefield Coalition, Inc., has been formed.
The proposal offers to construct a new Gettysburg NMP Visitor Center and Museum with the elements needed by NPS. Archival and research facilities could be off-site. Four possible sites for the facility are identified, three on park land and one on the same 45 acre privately-owned site suggested by the Kinsley proposal and located at the intersection of Hunt and Baltimore Avenues. The facility would not contain retail facilities other than a bookstore/museum store. The proposal contemplates coordinated retail activities at various sites in the Borough of Gettysburg. The proposal contemplates a substantial admission fee for entrance to the main part of the Visitor Center and Museum and a parking fee.
The facilities would be owned by the Gettysburg Battlefield Coalition, Inc. and managed by the NPS through a management contract with the nonprofit. When the development debt is retired, the facility would be offered to NPS as a donation.
The proposal contemplates debt financing for the project to be obtained through issuance of tax exempt bonds with the admission and parking fees as the bond's major revenue stream.
131 Carlisle Street
Gettysburg, PA 17325
The Monahan proposal was submitted by the Monahan Group of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in cooperation with a new non-profit corporation, the National Museum of the American Civil War Foundation. Other team members include Barclay White Incorporated, Greystone Communications, Inc., and Odell, Roper Simms, Inc.
The proposal suggests constructing a new visitor center and museum to be known as the National Museum of the American Civil War. The facility would be a part of an educational entertainment complex called the American Heritage Campus to be located on a 90 acre portion of a 280 acre site at the intersection of Routes 30 and 15, approximately 3 miles from the park. The American Heritage Campus in addition to the museum would include related commercial facilities.
The visitor center and museum portion of the campus would be operated by NPS.
All funds for the visitor center and museum would be obtained through a fundraising campaign undertaken by the non-profit organization.
With respect to the Visitor Center and Museum facilities, the Kinsley proposal offers to provide the elements of the facilities requested by NPS on site. The evaluation panel considers the proposal to be good with respect to evaluation criterion 1, consistency with NPS goals for the NPS facilities.
In addition, the panel generally considers that the scope and type of related facilities suggested by the proposal are appropriate complements to the Visitor Center and Museum. The Visitor Center and Museum would be the focus of the facility. The evaluation panel considers that a National Geographic film of Gettysburg, approved by NPS as to historical content, would be an appropriate interpretive activity for which a reasonable fee could be charged under NPS guidelines. The evaluation panel also considers that most other elements of the related facilities may prove to be acceptable if operated under appropriate terms and conditions. Accordingly, the evaluation panel rates the proposal as strong under the RFP's goal III, related facilities, as incorporated in evaluation criterion 1.
The evaluation panel considers that financing plan provided by the Kinsley proposal is an achievable mix of equity raised through nonprofit fundraising and debt obtained through a commercial loan. The project is not totally dependent on the problematic results of fundraising nor totally dependent on debt financing (with concomitantly higher need for revenue flows from the facilities). The evaluation panel is impressed with the capability of the Kinsley group both with respect to its ability to obtain conventional debt financing and, with the assistance of team member John Adams of the John Adams Company, to effectively undertake a successful fundraising campaign. Accordingly, the evaluation panel considers the proposal to be strong under evaluation criterion 7, financial capability.
The evaluation panel considers that the Gettysburg Tower site selected in the LeMoyne proposal is not of sufficient size to properly accommodate the proposed facilities in a manner that meets NPS objectives. Particularly, the panel does not consider that the site could accommodate sufficient parking to meet visitor needs nor provide adequate screening of the facilities. In this regard, the proposal suggests that there may be a need for overflow parking on park lands near the site, lands which the RFP intends to be returned to their historical condition. This is an unacceptable solution to parking needs. In addition, facilities built on the site would be visible from interpreted areas of the park, providing a contemporary intrusion on the historic scene.
The LeMoyne proposal suggests conventional financing as the means to finance the construction of the facility. However, the proposal does not contain substantive detail describing the feasibility of such financing. NPS is concerned that the resources that would have to be obtained to pay the debt are not achievable at least in a manner compatible with the purposes of the visitor center and museum. In addition there is insufficient information in the proposal to allow a determination as to whether the related facilities suggested by the proposal may be acceptable. The proposal suggests a number of visitor admission charges, apparently including at least some which would be operated by NPS. However, none of the charges are available to NPS to help pay its operational costs. This would represent a net loss to NPS, since it would lose income it currently receives from visitor interpretive fees. The evaluation panel considers the LeMoyne proposal to be only fair with respect to evaluation criterion 7, financial capability.
The evaluation panel appreciates that the LeMoyne proposal contemplates the demolition of the Gettysburg Tower. However, this result, although highly laudable, is not sufficient to overcome the panells concerns about the small size and other drawbacks of the Tower property. Accordingly, the evaluation panel considers the proposal only fair with respect to evaluation criterion 4, site selection.
Primary site #4 includes parts of Farm 1 and Farm 2 of the Eisenhower National Historic Site. Farm 1 is a National Historic Landmark, and development there would compromise the integrity of the site and heavily impact views from President Eisenhower's home. Farm 2 was the location of the President's Angus cattle operation. The proposed site incorporates most of the pasture area used by Eisenhower for his herd. Use of this site may violate the Secretary's standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and it is highly unlikely that the State Historic Preservation Officer would recommend such a plan.
For the reasons discussed above with respect to the Kinsley proposal, the 45 acre site is considered the most desirable site suggested. The proposal, accordingly, is strong with respect to evaluation criterion 4, site selection, based on the proposed 45 acre site.
The panel is impressed with the time and effort that went into preparing the McGorrisk proposal and the amount of detailed information it contains with respect to the project. The proposal also offers to provide the facilities needed by NPS. Accordingly, it meets the RFP's evaluation criterion 1, consistency with NPS goals. It also proposes no related facilities on site. The panel considers it strong with respect to the RFP's Goal II, compatible related facilities.
However, the panel is concerned about the fact that the proposal suggests 100% debt financing for the project. In simple terms, the higher the debt level of the project, the higher the revenue from the facilities must be in order to service the debt. In this connection, a major identified revenue stream would be a substantial admission charge for the main body of the Visitor Center and Museum. NPS in other park areas does not charge admission fees for visitor centers nor does it normally charge a fee for general interpretive exhibits. For example, the current Gettysburg Visitor Center and Museum is free to the public. Admissions are charged only for specialized interpretation (the electric map and cyclorama).
It appears to the evaluation panel that the need to pay off the large debt for the project and the fact that there are no major new revenue-producing activities in the facility drives the proposal to charge a substantial Visitor Center and Museum admission fee.
The McGorrisk proposal, however, does suggest tax exempt bond financing as a means to lower the interest rate on the proposed debt. If tax exempt bond financing could be obtained, the interest cost would be considerably less than that for conventional financing. This is an innovative method to reduce the costs associated with the facility under evaluation criterion 9, innovation and leverage. However, this lower interest rate, if obtainable, would not significantly alleviate the evaluation panel's concerns about the amount of revenue the facility would have to generate, in large part from a Visitor Center and Museum admission fees, in order to service the debt.
For these reasons, the evaluation panel considers the McGorrisk proposal to be only fair under evaluation criterion 7, financial capability. In this connection, the evaluation panel notes that the proposal indicates that the team would also could consider conventional financing mechanisms and fundraising. However, the proposal contains no substantive discussion of these possibilities. The panel also notes that the McGorrisk team does not include an organization experienced in non-profit fundraising (unlike several of the other proposals).
The evaluation panel does not consider that the site suggested by the Monahan proposal provides a location which is as suitable for the new facility as the site selected by the Kinsley proposal and discussed in the McGorrisk proposal. The Monahan site is several miles from the park and the most direct route from it to the park is through the Route 30 commercial strip. This concern could be alleviated in part if a mass transportation system linked the park and the site. However, the proposal, although mentioning such a possibility, does not indicate how or when it could be implemented or funded. This element of the proposed site does not achieve the site selection criterion for linking of the museum experience to the park's on-the-ground resources. Accordingly, the panel considers that the proposal is only fair with respect to evaluation criterion 4, site selection.
The evaluation panel also considers that in light of the scope of related facilities contemplated by the Monahan proposal, the NPS visitor center and museum would not be the central architectural focus of the complex as contemplated NPS goal 2. The panel is concerned that the proposed visitor center and museum would necessarily be subordinate to the extensive commercial facilities described in the Monahan proposal. The panel considers, accordingly, that the proposal does not achieve the NPS goal of having related facilities that are fitting and appropriate to the mission and educational purposes of the park and which complement and enhance the activities of NPS. In addition, the panel considers that the proposal is fair with respect to NPS goal 2, that the visitor center and museum should be the central architectural focus of the proposal.
The evaluation panel is also concerned that the Monahan proposal to finance the cost of visitor center/museum facilities only through fundraising is far too ambitious. In addition, the evaluation panel has concerns that charitable contributions for visitor center and museum facilities at the site selected by the Monahan proposal may be difficult to obtain in light of the relationship between the public visitor center and museum facilities and the commercial activities the Monahan proposal contemplates for the site. For these reasons, the evaluation panel considers that the proposals financial aspect is only fair under evaluation criterion 7, financial capability.
The panel notes that in a letter submitted after our interview, the Monahan group indicated that it would be willing to provide some equity funding (no amount specified) for the visitor center and museum. To the extent that this letter may constitute an amendment to the Monahan proposal, it is not permissible under the terms of the RFP. However, in any event, the evaluation panel does not consider that this offer is sufficient to overcome the other concerns the panel has about the Monahan proposal.
The evaluation panel was impressed with the general quality of the proposals and the time and effort that went into their preparation. In particular, the evaluation panel considers that the teams suggested by each proposal are made up of very capable firms and individuals. In addition, and although the proposals varied as to evidence of the financial means of the principals, the panel considers that the proponents of any of the proposals, if the financing concept suggested otherwise proves to be achievable, would have the financial capability to implement the project. For this reason, all of the offers were considered as equally acceptable with regard to the financial means of the proponents.
It is the unanimous recommendation of the evaluation panel that the Kinsley proposal is the best proposal received and that the Kinsley group be selected for the negotiation of a cooperative agreement for the development of the new Gettysburg Visitor Center and Museum.
The Kinsley proposal offers to have a non-profit corporation provide the facilities sought by NPS on an excellent site and ultimately would result in the donation of the facilities to Gettysburg National Military park. In addition, the Kinsley organization is a successful and experienced development team and includes an experienced fundraising organization. The funding for the facility appears achievable and in general the limited related facilities suggested would appear to be acceptable under the terms of the RFP.
Other proposals were as good as the Kinsley proposal in certain respects. overall, however, the evaluation panel believes the Kinsley proposal provides the best opportunity for the Gettysburg National- Military Park to achieve its principal objective of cooperative development and management of a new Visitor Center and Museum for the benefit of the park and its visitors.
However, the evaluation panel points out that neither the Kinsley procosal nor any of the others fully achieves all of what NPS would like to achieve under the terms of the RFP. Although we consider it the best proposal received, there are several aspects of the Kinsley proposal as it now stands which need to be negotiated in order to achieve an acceptable cooperative agreement.
In the event that you approve of our recommendation to select the Kinsley proposal but negotiations with the Kinsley organization do not prove successful, another of the proposals may be selected. The cooperative agreement will not be considered as having been awarded to the Kinsley organization until such time as a final cooperative agreement is fully executed by both parties. The evaluation panel in light of the relative merits of the Kinsley proposal does not consider that negotiations with other offerors should be pursued at this time.
Please indicate below your approval or disapproval of our recommendation to select the Kinsley proposal as the best overall proposal received.
Approve: X
Disapprove:
Robert G. Stanton
Director, National Park Service
Date: (November 6, 1997)