Evaluating operations could lead to better service and greater profitability.
Parking is a vital part of
many commercial property operations. In multifamily, office, and retail
properties, parking is often the first thing that visitors experience, and
parking facilities often serve as de facto lobbies for commercial buildings and
complexes. As such, tenants expect convenient, safe, and secure parking for
their staff and customers.
Yet, in spite of parking’s
importance, many property owners take a hands-off approach to working with
their parking operators. If specific problems don’t arise, owners are often
content to give their operators a free hand from year to year. However, when
assessing the bottom-line performance of an operator, it makes sense to take a
closer look every now and then.
Since the recession and
the slow market upswing, property owners and managers have focused on
controlling costs as a way to improve a building’s financial profile. In
addition, investors considering ways to add value to a property acquisition may
have overlooked parking as a potential area to improve operations and
profitability. In both cases, ignoring a parking operation could result in lost
revenue to deficiencies in a number of key areas, including audit control,
facility maintenance, marketing policies and pricing for daily and monthly
rates, staffing requirements, and technological advancements.
Providers, Not Partners
In the past, property
owners often regarded parking operators as their partners. However, parking
management has changed dramatically in recent years. Today, parking operators
should be viewed as providers, and owners must regularly gauge what services
are being provided at what cost.
For example, previously
owners would pay only the actual direct costs incurred for their operation,
which included a fair profit for the operator. Now many operators assess
additional fees for the cost of insurance, uniforms, payroll taxes, equipment,
and credit card fees. This is a way of marking up expenses and an approach that
many property owners and managers are not aware of. To ensure that only those
direct costs associated with managing your asset are being paid, property
owners and managers should implement a policy that requires regular and
thorough reviews of all monthly operating expenses.
If an owner or manager
feels they are leaving money on the table each month, it may be time to issue a
request for proposal for a parking operator. The RFP process lets the owner and
property manager know if they are paying too much, whether their parking
operator is using the latest technologies that can save money, or if a
high-volume parking structure is being operated as efficiently as possible.
Two Case Studies
The RFP process provides an
opportunity to evaluate a parking operation on a number of criteria in addition
to cost, and if necessary, select a new operator. Of course, because the
property manager may choose an operator who may not be offering the best
economic package or price point, it’s imperative that the selection process is
fair and impartial, and that, in the case of public facilities, no favoritism
is shown toward the winning operator. In addition, the RFP process offers
support and validation for the chosen operator, based on an “apples to apples”
comparison among competing service providers.
The experiences of two
parking owners illustrate the value of issuing an RFP to assess the competence
and competitive value offered by an incumbent parking operator. In the first
case, the incumbent operator had handled the day-to-day management of a parking
facility for more than 20 years, and the property manager frequently expressed
satisfaction with the operator. However, because of continuing economic
challenges and a new company-wide policy of obtaining competitive bids for all
third-party services, an RFP for parking management services was issued.
Through this process, the property manager discovered that his company was not
receiving the best possible value for the management services being provided.
The RFP contained staffing
schedules and historical revenue data that clearly defined the scope and
magnitude of the operation. After receiving responses from several qualified
operators, a side-by-side comparison matrix of proposed operating expenses was
developed. The matrix compared the operating expenses proposed by the longtime
operator with other proposals. Additionally, all the proposed expense budgets
were compared to the annual budget submitted by the operator, three months prior
to issuing the RFP, which the property manager felt was representative of the
actual operating expenses required to manage the facility.
Much to the chagrin of the
property manager, the expenses contained in an outside operator’s submittal
were 12 percent less than those contained in incumbent’s budget submitted
months earlier. When questioned about this variance, the competing operator
stated, “We assumed some economies of scale that had gone unnoticed during the
annual budget preparation cycle.”
Unhappy with this
response, the property manager requested a best and final budget proposal from
the incumbent operator. Ultimately, the operator with whom the parking manager
had done business for two decades did not survive the final review process and
was replaced by a respected third-party firm.
Additionally, other bidders offered an array
of marketing opportunities the incumbent operator had failed to explore. The
successful bidder also noted under-market pricing and proposed to manage the
parking facility with the same level of staffing at considerably less cost. The
end result was additional bottom-line profit for the owner.
This situation isn’t
unusual. It’s easy for long-time vendors to become so comfortable in their
relationships with owners that they fail to look for new opportunities to
improve the operation and find efficiencies. That’s why it’s important for
owners and managers not to become complacent with their operator, no matter how
well they seem to be operating the facility — or how close a personal
relationship they may enjoy with the operator.
In another case, an
operator had managed a parking facility since its opening 15 years earlier.
During this period, the property was sold and the operator was retained by the
new owner under the terms and conditions of an existing agreement with the
previous owner. Two years after purchasing the property, the new owner issued
an RFP to assess operating costs as well as the fees charged to manage the
In the proposal review
process, several bidders offered new marketing initiatives and technological
enhancement opportunities. The incumbent operator promised business as usual. A
comparison matrix of proposed operating expenses also revealed that the
incumbent proposed annual operating costs were 11.5 percent higher than the
nearest bidder and 47 percent higher than the least expensive, using a base
staffing schedule included with the RFP.
The owner subsequently
requested that the operator submit a best and final budget proposal and revised
marketing plan. Much to the owner’s dismay, the best and final budget was still
5.5 percent greater than the nearest bidder and 26 percent higher than the
least expensive. Additionally, the revised marketing plan clearly lacked the
creativity shown by other respondents.
Eventually, the operator’s unwillingness to reduce expenses, explaining
that “some operators are just better and in fact command greater fees,”
resulted in the owner awarding the asset to another firm.
To begin the RFP process,
the property owner or manager, with assistance from a parking consultant,
prepares a list of qualified operators from whom they would like to request
proposals. Along with the RFP documents, a sample management agreement is
included to ensure an unbiased comparison among providers.
A pre-proposal meeting and
walk-through is held after interested operators have had a chance to review the
RFP document thoroughly. Questions are not typically allowed during the
pre-proposal meeting and walk-through to ensure that no operator will have an
unfair advantage by reason of unilateral conversations with the owner or the
owner’s consultant. Any questions resulting from reviewing the RFP or from the
walk-through are solicited from the operators and answered through a written addendum.
Most owners and management companies select a committee to evaluate the
proposals, attend finalist interviews, and select the best operator. The
selection committee is usually comprised of people involved in overseeing the
facility, but sometimes may include people engaged in the parking business that
are employed elsewhere.
The owner’s parking
consultant assists the selection committee with the evaluation process by
preparing an objective analysis of the proposals and answering questions the
selection committee may have when it performs its own analysis. Though usually
attending the interviews, most consultants prefer, or even demand, to be a
nonvoting committee member. In the public process, the consultant generally
participates in the presentation to the final decision-making body such as a
city council or airport commission.
For owners or property
managers, the RFP can be an important tool. Whether the owner or manager feels
the operator provides great service or whether there’s speculation that a replacement
can provide similar service for less cost, issuing an RFP can be an eye-opening
experience. It can often get the owner and property manager back on track when
it comes to managing their parking asset to its fullest potential and also help
to achieve the maximum bottom-line profitability for the owner.
Phill Schragal is director
of the Parking Operations Consultant Group at Walker Parking Consultants.
Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org.