SLED Opportunity · CONNECTICUT · CITY OF NEW HAVEN
AI Summary
The City of New Haven requests proposals from experienced firms to manage and operate the Ralph Walker Ice Rink, including rink operations, ice maintenance, scheduling, programming, and customer service.
The City of New Haven (“City”) seeks qualifications from experienced firms or organizations to manage, operate, and maintain the Ralph Walker Ice Rink, located at 1080 State Street, New Haven. The selected operator will provide professional management of rink operations, ice maintenance, scheduling, programming (for both ice-skating season and non-ice-skating season, and customer service consistent with community needs and City policies.
The Ralph Walker Ice Rink is composed of an outdoor covered ice rink, an indoor building that includes: concessions, restrooms, and a multi-purpose event room, and a separate building that includes indoor locker rooms and maintenance and mechanical rooms. In partnership with the City, Albertus Magnus College is constructing a new building to house locker rooms for its women's ice hockey team.
The ice rink is a municipal facility, regulation 200' x 85' rink and supports ice hockey, figure skating, and open skate activities. The entire facility was renovated in phases between 2017 and 2020. Those renovations included the installation of a new rink floor, refrigeration system, dasher boards, bleachers, sound system, and community/locker room buildings.
Existing partners for the rink include Albertus Magnus College (Division III Hockey), New Haven Public Schools, and various hockey and skating club.
Adjacent to the facility, additional renovations are planned for Blake Field. This includes the installation a segment of the Mill River Greenway Trail.
With an expected start date of May 2026, the contracted operator will be responsible for operating recreational programs within the rink. These should prioritize winter-time use of the ice rink but respondents are also encouraged to propose ideas for operating the facility year-round, including summer programming on the ice rink slab and within the surrounding park. The operator will be responsible for scheduling programming, ensuring that open skate times are provided to the public, operating concessions, providing equipment rentals, advertisement, promotions, customer interactions, and basic facility maintenance and upkeep.
Completeness:
Are all necessary requirements included? Does the set of requirements cover all aspects of the system's functionality, performance, and constraints? Are there any obvious omissions?
Are all stakeholders' needs addressed? Have the requirements captured the essential needs and expectations of all relevant user groups and stakeholders?
Are functional and non-functional requirements adequately represented? Does the documentation include both what the system should do and how well it should do it (e.g., performance, security, usability)?
Clarity and Unambiguity:
Are the requirements easy to understand? Is the language used clear, concise, and free from jargon or technical terms that stakeholders might not understand?
Is each requirement stated unambiguously? Is there only one way to interpret each requirement? Are there any vague or subjective terms used?
Are the requirements at the appropriate level of detail? Are they specific enough to guide design and development but not so detailed that they constrain implementation unnecessarily?
Consistency:
Are the requirements consistent with each other? Do any requirements contradict or conflict with other requirements?
Are the requirements consistent with existing systems and standards? Do the requirements align with any relevant organizational standards, industry best practices, or existing systems the new system will interact with?
Verifiability:
Is it possible to determine if each requirement has been met? Can each requirement be tested, demonstrated, inspected, or analyzed to confirm its fulfillment?
Are measurable criteria defined where appropriate? For non-functional requirements (like performance), are there specific metrics and target values defined?
Traceability:
Can each requirement be traced back to its source? Is it clear which stakeholder need or business goal each requirement addresses?
Can each requirement be traced forward to design elements, code, and test cases? Will it be possible to follow the implementation and verification of each requirement throughout the development lifecycle?
Feasibility:
Are the requirements technically feasible to implement within the project constraints? Can the system be built with the available technology, resources, and timeline?
Are the requirements economically feasible? Are the costs associated with implementing the requirements justifiable in terms of the benefits they provide?
Modifiability:
Is the requirements documentation structured in a way that allows for easy modification? Can changes be made to individual requirements without causing significant ripple effects on other requirements?
Is there a clear process for managing changes to requirements?
Testability:
Are the requirements written in a way that facilitates the creation of test cases? Can testable conditions be derived directly from the requirements?
Clarity and Focus:
Is the purpose of the demonstration clear? Is it evident what the demonstrator is trying to achieve (e.g., highlight key features, address a specific use case, show a new capability)?
Is the demonstration focused and concise? Does it avoid unnecessary features or tangents, sticking to the most relevant aspects for the intended audience?
Is the flow of the demonstration logical and easy to follow? Does it progress in a way that makes sense to the observer?
Content and Relevance:
Are the key features and benefits clearly showcased? Does the demonstration effectively highlight what the product does and the value it offers to the user?
Is the demonstration relevant to the audience's needs and interests? Does it address their potential pain points or goals?
Are realistic use cases or scenarios presented? Does the demonstration illustrate how the product would be used in a practical context?
Is the level of technical detail appropriate for the audience? Does it avoid being overly technical or too simplistic?
Delivery and Presentation:
Is the demonstrator knowledgeable and confident? Do they exhibit a strong understanding of the product?
Is the demonstrator engaging and enthusiastic? Do they capture and maintain the audience's interest?
Is the pace of the demonstration appropriate? Is it not too rushed or too slow?
Is the language clear, concise, and professional? Does the demonstrator avoid jargon or use it appropriately with explanation?
Are visuals (if used) clear, effective, and well-integrated? Do slides, screen shares, or other visual aids enhance understanding?
Is there effective use of the product itself? Is the product interface easy to see and understand during the demonstration?
Are transitions between topics smooth? Does the demonstration flow naturally from one point to the next?
Engagement and Interaction:
Are opportunities for questions and interaction provided? Is the audience encouraged to participate?
Are questions answered clearly and effectively? Does the demonstrator address audience queries in a helpful manner?
Is there an understanding of the audience's reactions and adjustments made accordingly? Does the demonstrator adapt to the audience's cues?
Overall Effectiveness:
Does the demonstration effectively communicate the product's value proposition? Is it clear why someone would want to use the product?
Does the demonstration leave a positive and lasting impression? Is the audience likely to remember the key takeaways?
Does the demonstration achieve its intended purpose? (e.g., generate interest, explain a feature, secure a sale).
Is the time allocated for the demonstration used efficiently?
Clarity and Focus:
Is the purpose of the demonstration clear? Is it evident what the demonstrator is trying to achieve (e.g., highlight key features, address a specific use case, show a new capability)?
Is the demonstration focused and concise? Does it avoid unnecessary features or tangents, sticking to the most relevant aspects for the intended audience?
Is the flow of the demonstration logical and easy to follow? Does it progress in a way that makes sense to the observer?
Content and Relevance:
Are the key features and benefits clearly showcased? Does the demonstration effectively highlight what the product does and the value it offers to the user?
Is the demonstration relevant to the audience's needs and interests? Does it address their potential pain points or goals?
Are realistic use cases or scenarios presented? Does the demonstration illustrate how the product would be used in a practical context?
Is the level of technical detail appropriate for the audience? Does it avoid being overly technical or too simplistic?
Delivery and Presentation:
Is the demonstrator knowledgeable and confident? Do they exhibit a strong understanding of the product?
Is the demonstrator engaging and enthusiastic? Do they capture and maintain the audience's interest?
Is the pace of the demonstration appropriate? Is it not too rushed or too slow?
Is the language clear, concise, and professional? Does the demonstrator avoid jargon or use it appropriately with explanation?
Are visuals (if used) clear, effective, and well-integrated? Do slides, screen shares, or other visual aids enhance understanding?
Is there effective use of the product itself? Is the product interface easy to see and understand during the demonstration?
Are transitions between topics smooth? Does the demonstration flow naturally from one point to the next?
Engagement and Interaction:
Are opportunities for questions and interaction provided? Is the audience encouraged to participate?
Are questions answered clearly and effectively? Does the demonstrator address audience queries in a helpful manner?
Is there an understanding of the audience's reactions and adjustments made accordingly? Does the demonstrator adapt to the audience's cues?
Overall Effectiveness:
Does the demonstration effectively communicate the product's value proposition? Is it clear why someone would want to use the product?
Does the demonstration leave a positive and lasting impression? Is the audience likely to remember the key takeaways?
Does the demonstration achieve its intended purpose? (e.g., generate interest, explain a feature, secure a sale).
Is the time allocated for the demonstration used efficiently?
Objective: To assess the qualifications, experience, and availability of the personnel proposed for the project.
Relevant Experience:
Expertise Match: Do the assigned staff members possess direct experience and expertise relevant to the specific tasks and technical requirements of this project?
Role Alignment: Are the skills and experience of each individual appropriate for their proposed role and responsibilities?
Qualifications & Certifications:
Educational Background: Do key personnel have relevant academic qualifications?
Professional Certifications: Are there any required or highly desirable professional certifications (e.g., PMP, specific technical certifications) that the assigned staff hold?
Availability & Dedication:
Time Commitment: Is the proposed time commitment for each staff member sufficient for their assigned tasks, considering other potential commitments?
Stability: Is there a clear indication of staff availability throughout the project lifecycle?
Team Structure & Cohesion:
Clear Roles: Are the roles and reporting lines clearly defined for the entire project team?
Team Experience: Does the proposed team have a history of working together effectively on similar projects?
Key Personnel Stability:
Designated Leads: Are key project leads identified, and do they have a proven track record of leadership in similar projects?
Succession Planning (if applicable): Is there any indication of how critical roles would be backfilled in case of unforeseen circumstances?
Technical Proficiency: Does the proposer demonstrate a deep understanding of open-air ice maintenance, including weather-dependent adjustments and refrigeration systems?
Standard of Play: Clear ability to meet NCAA Division III requirements for Albertus Magnus (timing, resurfacing frequency, net maintenance).
Equipment Care: Detailed schedule for maintaining the Zamboni, dasher boards, and skate sharpener.
Seasonal Transitions: Specific plans for "start-up" and "shut-down" (logo installation, floor painting, and power washing).
Objective: To assess the organization's experience and understanding of working within a context comparable to the project's location.
Direct Relevance:
Population Size: Has the organization successfully completed projects in cities with a comparable population size?
Demographic Similarities: Does their past experience reflect an understanding of similar demographic characteristics, if relevant to the project?
Contextual Understanding:
Regulatory Environment: Does their experience suggest familiarity with similar local regulations, permitting processes, or bureaucratic structures?
Infrastructure: Have they worked in environments with similar infrastructure challenges or opportunities?
Logistical Capabilities:
Local Resources: Does their past work demonstrate an ability to mobilize resources effectively in a similar urban setting?
Stakeholder Engagement: Have they successfully navigated stakeholder relationships in comparable city environments (e.g., local government, community groups)?
Challenges & Solutions:
Problem-Solving: Can they articulate specific challenges encountered in similar cities and how they successfully overcame them?
Adaptability: Does their experience show an ability to adapt strategies to specific local conditions?
Stakeholder Balance: How will the operator manage the hierarchy of priority (Albertus Agreement → NHPS → Resident Youth → Others)?
Public Access: Firm commitment to the 12-hour weekly minimum for public skating.
Non-Ice Activation: Creativity and feasibility of the "Memorial Day to Labor Day" programming (e.g., roller skating, bike rentals).
Marketing: Plan for the publicly accessible website and daily schedule updates.
Revenue Share: Competitive offer relative to the historical $5,000/mo + 10% NOI model.
Financial Health: Proof of stability to handle annual operating expenses ($450k+ historical).
Internal Controls: Systems for reporting gross receipts and managing sublicensee revenue (if applicable).
Reporting: Commitment to providing the monthly itemized financial reports and annual P&L.
Proposers should include supporting documentation of their company/organization's financial worth, including but not limited to Certified Financial Statements, Balance Sheets and Income Statements and tax returns from the past three (3) years (corporate and/or personal).
Proposers should identify the intended source of all funds proposed to be invested at the site.
Track Record: Proven 5-year history of operating similar rinks.
Safety Record: Evaluation of past incident rates and safety precautions.
Compliance: Evidence of the ability to obtain a Food Service License and perform basic first aid training for all staff.
Leadership: Quality of the designated on-site manager and shift supervisor structure.
Customer Experience: Detail of the "customer service training program" and feedback mechanisms.
Community Relations: Plan for maintaining positive relationships with the East Rock Park neighborhood as well as Fair Haven while also extending outreach to surrounding neighborhoods and the Greater New Haven community.
The fee offer should state the highest sum each proposer is prepared to pay as a license fee, expressed as guaranteed annual minimum fee versus a percentage of Gross Receipts, whichever is greater. New Haven urges that there be an escalation of three to five percent (3-5%) per year (compounded annually) in the guaranteed minimum fee over the license term. Proposers should fill out the chart below and include it in their proposal. A cost proposal excel sheet that can be filled out online is included in section 7.3
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
% of Gross Receipts |
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum Fee |
|
|
|
|
|
The City needs you to get the Disclosure Form notarized. We are offering you a convenient way to do this online through Notary Online (https://notarylive.com) . However, you don't have to use this online service. If you do choose to use it, it will cost you $25 each time you use it for a notarization. You can explore other ways to get your document notarized if you prefer not to pay this fee, click "No".
An online notarization option will be provided for you when responding.
Important: If you don't have the document notarized, your response will be disqualified.
In essence, you must legally verify your identity and the authenticity of your signature on the document.
Important: If you don't have the document notarized, your response will be disqualified.
In essence, you must legally verify your identity and the authenticity of your signature on the document.
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
Statement of Qualifications:
Each solicitation response shall include a Statement of Qualifications in the format provided in this Solicitation upon stationary of the responding entity.
All questions must be answered, and the data given must be clear and comprehensive. The respondent may submit any additional information he/she desires.
This comprehensive financial review is a necessary step for the City of New Haven to ensure the respondent possesses the financial capacity to successfully undertake and complete the proposed project. Your affirmative response confirms your understanding and willingness to comply with these requirements if requested.
Briefly describe your reason for answering no.
By submitting a response to this solicitation, you acknowledge and accept the terms and condition of each individual policy.
As a bidder or proposer, any document you submit to the City of New Haven may be a public record and be open for personal inspection or copying by any person. In Connecticut ‘s public records” are defined as all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. Section 1-210, CT. A document is subject to personal inspection and copying unless it falls under one of the public records exemptions created under Connecticut law. Answer No if : No part of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the Connecticut public record law.
By claiming that all or part of the bid or proposal is exempt from the public records law, the undersigned bidder or proposer agrees to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold the City of New Haven, its officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from and against all claims arising out of a request to inspector copy the bid or proposal. The undersigned bidder or proposer agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, provide defense (including payment of attorney fees, court costs, and expert witness fees and expenses up to and including any appeal) for and defend any such claim at its sole cost and expense through counsel chosen by the City of New Haven and agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, even if they (claims, etc.) are groundless, false, or fraudulent.
The following parts of the bid or proposal submitted are exempt from disclosure under the Connecticut public records law because: (list exempt parts and legal justification - e.g., trade secret):
By submitting a response to this solicitation, you acknowledge and accept this requirement as a condition of award."
For Example: "Homeland Security"
If answered yes, please attached confirmation email from Fleet, in the internal attachment section
If answered yes, please attached confirmation email from the Technology Department , in the internal attachment section of this project.
Instructions for Project Managers
Based on the information you currently have, attempt to answer this question to the best of your capability. Ultimately, purchasing will review this carefully and edit and update as needed based on your solicitation requirements.
As a standard, all activities for Construction and Service require the following:
Any Professional Services type project (usually Request for Proposals) will require the following:
For Commodity, General Liability is the minimum requirement.
This particular question is to be answered for the company (or their subcontractors) not their employees.
Please enter the specific License or Certification required to be eligible to compete on this solicitation. For example, "CPA - Certified Public Accountant."
Guidelines used to determine whether a response is good, effective, or meets expectations of the project
Choose your evaluation factors. Below are example factors you can consider for your Evaluation Criteria. It is important that your actual evaluation of proposals is consistent with the factors and criteria you include in the RFP document. You will be able to add or edit any custom criteria along with the point values (using a 100-point-scale) while you are editing the Evaluation Section of this project.
The determination of whether a city contract is to be submitted to the board of alders for prior approval pursuant to section 2-376 is if one of the following conditions exist:
a.
If its initial term is longer than one year, exclusive of options/renewals that are less than two years.
b.
If options/renewals on the initial term exceed two years collectively and/or consecutively, or
c.
If any options/renewals materially alter the terms or conditions of a contract in the judgment of the city purchasing agent.
The determination of whether a city contract is to be submitted to the board of alders for prior approval pursuant to section 2-376 is if one of the following conditions exist:
a.
If its initial term is longer than one year, exclusive of options/renewals that are less than two years.
b.
If options/renewals on the initial term exceed two years collectively and/or consecutively, or
c.
If any options/renewals materially alter the terms or conditions of a contract in the judgment of the city purchasing agent.
General definitions and parameters of each approach.
Q (No subject): Aside from the Albertus Magnus agreement, are there existing customer contracts the new Operator is expected to assume? If yes, can you please provide them?
A: As indicated in the RFP Documents, the existing partners for the Ralph Walker Ice Rink include New Haven Public Schools, in addition to Youth & Recreation Dept. We are not aware of existing contracts pertaining to ice time however there are obligations to provide Public open Skate sessions as well as continue to maintain, expand and improve upon the relationships with the current dedicated user groups and other organizations that utilize Ralph Walker Ice Rink. There is also an annual city events such as the Elm City Cup weekend that would be expected to continue to be scheduled.
Q (No subject): Are the rental rates stated in 7.1.11 Admission Ticket Sales of the RFP existing rates? Are these the rates the City would like in place going forward?
A: Per Code of Ordinances 17-201 the existing fee schedule is current and as approved by the Ice Rink Advisory Board and the Board of Alders. As stated in the RFP documentation the pricing schedule may be amended from time to time.
Q (No subject): Have there been any major capital investment projects over the last ~3 years? If so, can you provide the cost of each project?
A: Yes,within the past year over $150,000 of improvements have been made to the ice rink facility, including upgrade and installation of a new HVAC system for the main community room building, top end overhauls to the ice rink condenser/compressor, roof and plumbing repairs, dasher board replacement, lighting, electrical and communication upgrades, etc. Additional projects are planned for the upcoming season to include but not limited to rubber flooring replacement outside the locker rooms, security fencing upgrades, exterior improvements including lighting and Blake field renovations, among other surrounding park facility upgrades.
Q (No subject): Are there any anticipated near-term repair and maintenance expenses, such as work on the second Zamboni? If yes, can you provide a cost estimate for the work?
A: After each season certain zamboni repairs and maintenance is completed by an outside vendor. The cost estimate for the second Zamboni is in process and has not been completed yet by the vendor however is expected soon after the season ends.
Q (No subject): How many employees are staffed at Ralph Walker today, and what are their positions? How does the number of employees staffed change during the off-season (i.e., Summer months)?
A: The number of employees staffing Ralph Walker Ice Rink vary per event and throughout the peak ice-skating season. There are administrative employees as well as staffing required for the concessions, specific ice-skating instruction and other hockey events, programs and related activities. There has not been much if any active programming during the summer months (non-ice-skating season) in recent years other than a few program engagements offered on a very limited basis that were provided by specific City departments. Program activation and facility use during the summer months non-ice-skating season is a specific goal of this RFP so that more community utilization and sustainabile use of the facility can be achieved.
Q (No subject): What is the $35k rent expense in last year's income statement related to/derived from?
A: City Compensation of $5,000 per month of the ice-skating season was indicated in Section 15 of the current operator agreement contract. The $35K rent expense is derived from the 7-month ice skating season, from October through April.
Q (No subject): Can you provide last year's ice schedule, broken down by user in Excel?
A: Please refer to the Albertus Magnus hockey program website for men's and women's hockey schedules. We do not have last year's ice schedule broken down by user in an excel file. An example of past program offerings may be available through the Skate Haven facebook page past posting history however in addition to this information there are other time alottments/skate rentals that are booked by the operator throughout the ice skating season. The current Open Skate schedule for March can be found at Skate Haven website found here at https://skate-newhaven.com/open-skating-schedules.
Q (No subject): Why are there no utility expenses in the provided income statement for last year, and what is the cost of annual utility expenses?
A: The utility accounts are processed directly by the City of New Haven for the Ralph Walker Ice Rink Faciity.
Q (No subject): Why would there be lower gross and net income in exhibit D P&L for the upcoming season from this year's actuals? a. This year gross $667K, net $207k b. Proposed budget gross $641K, net $135k
A: "Exhibit D" that is being referred to in this question is found in Attachment J. Draft contract and is shown for general reference for an example and is not intended to be used for projecting current budget profits and loss, gross and net. The figures shown in exhibit D are derived from the previous RFP process completed in 2021 and are not intended to reflect current financials. Attachment J. Draft contract is shown as a draft example of what that particular exhibit in the contractor operator agreement might generally look like however the specific categories and amounts do not represent a forecast or projection of revenue and/or expenses by New Haven Parks at this time; a future year(s) projection would be required to be added to the resulting operator agreement contract from this RFP. The figures shown in Attachment J. Exhibit D nor Exhibit K do not incorporate any potential revenue for programming conducted during the non-ice-skating season.
Q (No subject): The budget reflects an increase of 25% in public skate and LTS, but where is the additional ice coming from?
A: Any increase in the public skate and learn to skate reflected in the budget directly coincides with the program offerings by the operator and the ice time that is made available for those offerings.
Q (No subject): There are added programs w/no apparent ice allocation: Youth programs, Stick & Puck and Open Hockey. Can you share a complete event schedule?
A: Please see answer to #7 Question.
Q (No subject): There looks to be increase to parties and skate sharpenings as well, what is the thought process? More open ice?
A: The range of program offerings to increase the utilization of the Ralph Walker Ice rink by the community and New Haven residents from across the City is a goal identified for the future operator. The operator's ability to promote and make welcome these opportunities is expected to be incorporated into the responding operator's overall proposal.
Q (No subject): If every renter returns for the new season, is there enough available ice to support these trends?
A: Based on overall scheduling requirements working with Albertus Magnus as well as the primary partners of New Haven Public Schools and Youth and Recreation Dept. as well as other City Dept. organizations, dedicated ice time made available by the operator through the scheduling process could support certain trends of ice rink use while expanding current offerings during the ice-skating season. This process can prove challenging and difficult based on the multitude of entities and organizations that require a balanced approach for benefit to the general public and multiple user groups. Customer Service, Marketing and Promotion as well as improved communication and transparency for all activities that can be provided and supported at the Ralph Walker Ice Rink is essential to the response to this RFP. Please note increased offerings for the non-ice-skating season is also to be incorporated into the response.
Q (No subject): Several expenses were on this years P&L, but not on exhibit D - Can you explain the why behind this? a. Credit card fees b. Technology c. First aid supplies d. Corporate travel e. Dues/subscriptions f. Licenses/permits g. "pass through entity" tax (was $20K this year) h. Rent, snack bar commission (was $39k this year)
A: Please refer to answer to question #9. This year's P&L has updated new information.
Q (No subject): Our understanding is that the current arrangement with the City is that the existing operator pays the City $5,000 per month plus 10% of net operating income. Would you please confirm this as accurate, or provide the details of the existing agreement if that is inaccurate?
A: The Current Operator Agreement indicates in Section 15 Compensation 15.02.In consideration of the Operator performing the Operator’s obligations under this Agreement, the Operator shall be paid the equivalent of the Net Operating Income less payments to the City consisting of (i) $5,000 per month (the “City Payment”); and (ii) 10% of the Net Operating Income above $100,000 per annum (the “City Percentage”). 15.03. Additionally, the Operator shall pay the City a sum equal to ten percent (10%) of the monthly gross revenue from the Concession (the “Concession Payment”). The current compensation structure shall be re-negotiated, revised and updated as part of the new resulting contract from this request for proposals.
Q (No subject): How much (what $ amount) did the City of New Haven spend on the rink, away from P&L provided? Put differently, were there any costs incurred by the City that were not recorded on the P&L? If so, what were they?
A: Please refer to the answers to questions #3 and #8. In addition to these answers please note these do not include New Haven Parks staff or material/supply costs that also contribute to the overall maintenance and operational support of the facility.
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.