Atlanticville

Streaming Radio

Real Estate
Mortgage
Automotive
Employment
Services
Classifieds
Market Place
Media Kit
News
HOME
Front Page
Bulletin Board
Letters
Arts / Zest
Obituaries
Schools
Sports
Greg Bean's Podcasts
Online Obituary Submission
GMN Photo Page
Featured Special Sections
Monmouth Coutny East
Health & FItness Guide
About Us
Archive
Contact Us
Services
Advertiser Index
Search Archive

Copyright©
2000 - 2008
GMN
All Rights Reserved
Terms of Use

RSS
RSS Feed


Newspaper web site content management software and services


DMCA Notices
Front PageMarch 29, 2007 


Many firms interested in mapping fort's future
Fort reuse panel will announce choice of consultant April 18
BY LINDA DeNICOLA
Staff Writer

Everyone is interested in the fate of Fort Monmouth, including master plan consultants across the country.

The director of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitaliza-tion Planning Authority (FMERPA), Frank Cosentino, reported that the authority has received an unprecedented number of responses to a request for proposals (RFP) that was posted at the end of February.

At the FMERPA meeting on March 21 held at the Maple Place School in Oceanport, Cosentino said the RFP review committee is going to be looking over the proposals, but they have moved the deadline back a few days, from March 26 to March 30. An addendum to that effect was posted on March 20 along with the list of questions asked by companies responding to the RFP.

Deputy Director Rick Harrison reported on a mandatory preproposal bidder's conference that was held on March 13 at the Sea Girt National Guard Training Center. He said there were 85 attendees and 61 companies represented. In addition, the respondents came from 11 states and generated a total of 51 questions, either verbally or through e-mail.

Question number one concerned whether or not the consulting firms that would like to submit bids need to have actual base relocation and closure (BRAC) experience. The answer is that a firm's BRAC experience will be taken into account during the evaluation process.

Another question regarded whether the firm chosen will be eligible for future redevelopment efforts at Fort Monmouth.

The answer is: "Potentially there might be a conflict of interest. However, while the Authority encourages participation in all of its procurements, a determination would need to be made, based on, but not limited to, relationships, on a case-by-case basis at the time of such procurement."

The question of whether or not the Authority has determined what type of RFPs it will issue in the future was also asked. The response was that the authority has not determined what type of RFPs it will issue in the future concerning the reuse and redevelopment of the fort following the completion of the redevelopment plan.

Among the local companies attending the conference were Birdsall Engineering Inc., Schoor DePalma, Adams, Rehmann & Haggan, Maser Consulting and CME Associates.

Harrison said that interviews will be held April 10 and the selection will be made April 17 in time for the April 18 FMERPA meeting.

Anticipating the choice of a planning consultant, Cosentino said, the authority is "on the verge of moving from procedural into the product part."

In addition to the report on the RFPs, Harrison reported on the notice of interest (NOI) responses. He said, it is a humbling experience working with those who are advocating for the most needy in Monmouth County.

He noted that there were 14 NOIs submitted for homeless assistance, 26 for public benefit conveyance and one for a negotiated sale, which he explained, was submitted by a church that is looking for a chapel.