On January 5, the Cleveland–Cuyahoga County Port Authority (“Port of Cleveland” or the “Port”) invited qualified consulting firms to submit proposals to lead a comprehensive strategic planning process that will chart the Port’s direction for the next three to five years.

Since that announcement, more than a dozen organizations have expressed interest in the opportunity. A list of those firms can be found below. Click here to download the list.

FIRM	CONTACT	EMAIL
22nd Century Communications	Isha Sharma	Sledbids@tscti.com
3rd Space	Evelyn Burnett	evelyn@3rdspaceactionlab.co
Aegir	Franc Pigna	pigna@aegirports.com
Cambridge Systematics	Christopher Lamm	chris.lamm@gmail.com
Compass Consulting	Tameka Taylor	tameka@compassconsultingservices.com
Creative Solutions	Mohamed Abdul	Info@creativesolutionsllc.us
Delivery Associates	Sonya Suter	sonya.suter@deliveryassociates.com
Deloitte Services LP	Jeremy Jackson	jerjackson@deloitte.com
DNV	Paul Gorin	Paul.Gorin@dnv.com
Foth Infrastructure & Environment LLC	Joe Liebau, Jr.	Joe.LiebauJr@foth.com
HDR Inc.	Matt Selhorst	matt.selhorst@hdrinc.com
Jacobs Engineering Group	Duncan Kopp	Duncan.Kopp@jacobs.com
Kirtland Consulting	Caroline Taich	caroline.taich@kirtlandconsulting.com
Littoral Services LLC	Nicholas LaPointe	nlapointe@littoralservicesllc.com
M. Hansen Advisory	Maia Hansen	maiaahansen@gmail.com
Parthenon/EY	Andrew Kleine	Andrew.Kleine@parthenon.ey.com
Pueblo Strategies	Mariely Luengo	mariely@pueblostrategies.com
Ramboll	Adam Tindall-Schlicht	TindallSchlicht@Ramboll.com
Shark & Minnow	Hallie Bram Kogleschatz	hallie@sharkandminnow.com
Strategy Group	Anthony Massa	Anthony.Massa@mmstratgroup.com

Submission of an expression of interest was not mandatory; however, firms open to collaboration were encouraged to submit their firm name and contact information. The window to express interest has now closed.

Following the Port of Cleveland’s announcement that it is accepting RFPs, more than a dozen agencies expressed interest in the opportunity. As a result, several questions were submitted. We have compiled and documented those questions and provided responses below. The full set of questions and answers can also be downloaded here.

1. Who conducted the Port of Cleveland’s previous strategic planning process and created the strategic plan?

The Bridges Group International LLC

2. What kind of timeline is the Port of Cleveland envisioning for this project?

Please refer to page 7 of the RFP. The Port views this as a substantive, multi-phase effort and is prioritizing quality and rigor of work over speed alone.

3. What is the Port of Cleveland’s budget for the strategic planning process?

The Port does not have a specific budget number. We believe we have sufficient funds to retain a high-quality, top-tier team capable of delivering a rigorous, implementable strategy. The Port will be looking to balance value, quality, and depth of work in the selection of the planning consultant, not simply lowest cost.

4. What maritime qualifications, services, experience or operations does the Port of Cleveland expect submitting firms to have?

Proposing teams should demonstrate strong expertise in port and terminal operations, logistics industry trends, relevant lines of business, and growth opportunities. The Port will not require the lead consultant to personally have maritime experience, but does expect the team as a whole to bring deep, credible maritime expertise, whether through subconsultants or key team members. The Port values strategic integration and systems thinking alongside domain depth.

5. Please kindly clarify if Port of Cleveland will retain their own Municipal Advisor to support debt capacity and balance sheet-type analysis associated with this Scope of Work. Exhibit B – Performance Requirements-REQ ID #1- includes requirements such as ‘expertise in tax – exempt financing’ that may require contracting with registered Municipal Financial Advisors given recent SEC guidance. Please kindly confirm whether Port of Cleveland requires (does not require) the services of a registered Municipal Financial Advisor as part of this RFP.

The Port has a registered municipal financial advisor who can be engaged to support the strategic planning process as needed. The selected consultant is expected to coordinate appropriately with the Port’s advisor where specialized financial or regulatory expertise is required.

6. Lines of business: relative to the three primary lines of business ie, maritime operations, development finance and sustainability & public infrastructure, where it seems (according to the ‘Cleveland – Cuyahoga County Port Authority Single Audit Report for the Year ended December 31, 2023’ dated 06 January 2025, prepared by Ciuni & Panichi, Inc and signed by the Ohio Auditor of State, Keith Faber) that approximately 40 percent (pc) of your gross revenue results from marine related operations (although port related real estate and parking revenues represent 20 pc of Operating Revenues), 16 pc from financing fees and 39 pc from government-to government (ie dredging) fees, does the port have a strategy or focus to emphasize one line of business over the others at this time, or is the answer to this question expected to come from the work product of this undertaking.

This question is explicitly expected to be answered by the strategic planning process. The current mix reflects historical evolution, not a predetermined strategic target. The Port does not currently have a fixed point of view and is open to rebalancing its efforts and priorities to maximize regional economic impact.

7. Sole mission: It seems that the port’s sole mission is to ‘spur job creation and economic vitality in Cuyahoga County’, primarily as an entity providing ‘port services’ and the leasing of port related assets (eg, real estate and infrastructure). Is the port looking to further enhance and diversify its overall business efforts and focus in facilitating project financing and development services and in offering sustainability and public infrastructure projects?

The Port expects to revisit its mission statement as part of the strategic planning process. As stated in the RFP, the Port is seeking to elevate and potentially broaden its role as a regional economic catalyst, strengthen its position as a collaborative partner across public and private sectors, and ensure that its operations, investments, and partnerships drive Northeast Ohio’s long-term growth and competitiveness.

8. Phase A – Financial and asset review: In this phase, is the port looking for a high Level assessment as to how ‘balance sheet capacity, bond fund performance, real estate holdings, operating surplus deployment and the Community Impact Fund’ are performing from a balanced scorecard approach to see how these assets are meeting the goals of shareholders, stakeholders, environmental stewardship, entity financial requirements and possibly other factors?

The Port is looking for an assessment of how these tools are meeting a clearly articulated set of community and economic impact goals. The Port expects the consultant to work collaboratively to define what “community impact” means in a practical, measurable way for the Port. The Port has no shareholders.

9. Real estate as per question above: Relative to the aforementioned, is the port looking for the establishment of key performance indicators and to establish baseline benchmarks to measure the contribution to the overall for each individual asset relative to the overall goals of the to be developed strategic plan?

The Port does not necessarily expect KPIs or benchmarks for each individual asset, but does expect performance measurement that is meaningfully more granular than a single Port-wide rollup — for example by tool, portfolio, or business line.
10. Development Finance (page 4 and 5) as to ‘real estate ownership and development activity’: Is the port looking to measure the ‘risk tolerance, recommended guardrails and decision thresholds’ as stand alone real property assets and general real estate development activity or in conjunction as to how this might impact port operations?

Not as stand-alone real property assets, but as decision-making frameworks and guardrails that the Port can apply consistently and transparently in evaluating specific investments and projects.

11. What level of detail is expected in the implementation roadmap (program-level vs project-specific actions)?

The Port expects to discuss this with the selected consultant and come to agreement on the appropriate level of detail. The Port anticipates something more actionable than a purely high-level plan, but not a fully built project management schedule for every initiative.

12. To what extent are stakeholder engagement activities expected to be consultant-facilitated versus Port-led?

The Port expects to help identify stakeholder lists, but expects the consultant to lead, facilitate, and be accountable for the engagement process, including outreach strategy and scheduling. The Port is open to providing logistical and administrative support as needed.

13. What depth of organizational design recommendations is desired (role categories vs detailed staffing models)?

Based on the recommendations in the strategic plan, the Port expects to co-create an appropriate future-state organizational structure with the consultant, which will include an org chart, role groupings, and high-level descriptions of responsibilities and decision areas. This may also include consideration of governance, decision rights, and management structure as needed.

14. Will financial, Key Performance Indicator, and prior planning materials be provided in structured formats?

We can discuss this further with the selected team, but are generally willing to provide these materials in whatever format they currently exist and in a way that best supports efficient analysis.

15. Is the KPI dashboard deliverable expected to be a conceptual prototype or a functional, data-connected tool?

At minimum a conceptual prototype, but the Port strongly prefers a functional, data-connected tool that can realistically be used by management and the Board.

16. Who will schedule and recruit participants (PoC vs Consultant), especially for community listening sessions and external interviews?

The Port expects to help identify stakeholder lists, but expects the consultant to lead, facilitate, and coordinate schedules for engagement. The Port is open to providing some administrative support around logistics as needed.

17. Can you share the relative weighting (or rank order) of the evaluation criteria (understanding, approach, experience, team, cost/value)?

The Port will evaluate each proposal in its totality and move forward with the team that best meets our evaluation criteria across the board.

18. Are there any “must-haves” that are pass/fail (e.g., Great Lakes port experience, PPI. development finance expertise etc.)?

No.

19. Do you prefer in-person, virtual, or hybrid for each engagement type (Board workshops, community sessions, partner interviews)?

We generally prefer all meetings to be in person, but are open to virtual or hybrid arrangements where logistics and cost (if an out of town firm is selected) necessitate it.

20. How does the Port envision balancing transparency with confidentiality during stakeholder engagement, particularly for sensitive waterfront, land-use, governance, or partnership topics?

The Port expects stakeholder interviews to be treated as confidential at the individual level unless otherwise approved, with themes and patterns synthesized and reported in aggregate. Sensitive matters will be handled thoughtfully and on a case-by-case basis.

21. Are there specific peer ports, development authorities, or public finance entities the Port considers most relevant for benchmarking, or should the consultant define that peer set independently based on the Port’s lines of business and regional context?

Not necessarily — the consultant should define these independently based on the Port’s business lines, regional context, best practices, and strategic questions.

22. When articulating the Port’s future economic role, how should proposers think about balancing and integrating (a) maritime growth, (b) development finance impact, and (c) community engagement and stakeholder partnerships, particularly where these priorities may reinforce or compete with one another?

The Port seeks to maximize its positive impact on Northeast Ohio overall and is open to pursuing strategies that rebalance its efforts and activities to do so. The strategic plan is expected to confront tradeoffs directly rather than avoid them.

23. What degree of organizational change, such as staffing levels, governance structure, decision-making authority, and/or role clarity, is the Board prepared to consider enabling successful strategy implementation?

The Port is open to any and all recommendations that come out of the strategic plan and will evaluate them based on impact and complexity, including potentially difficult or disruptive changes if they are necessary to achieve strategic goals.

24. Does the Port anticipate that elements of this Strategic Plan will directly inform near-term federal or state funding pursuits, and if so, which programs, agencies, or time horizons should consultants be most mindful of?

Yes. The Port expects the plan to support both near-term and medium-term funding pursuits, building on prior success with programs such as the Ohio Maritime Assistance Program, Ohio capital budget, PIDP, EPA Clean Ports, earmarks, and other DOT, EPA, and Commerce programs.

25. With respect to proposal structure, does the Port consider a cover letter to be included within the Executive Summary page limit, or should it be submitted as a separate, non-counting component of the proposal?

A cover letter is not included within the executive summary page limit.

26. What level of emphasis does the Port expect the Strategic Plan to place on workforce considerations, including unionized employees, tenants, and the broader Port-related workforce ecosystem, across both maritime operations and development finance activities? For example, port staff, union leadership, terminal operators, and/or regional workforce partners. Additionally, what level of workforce or labor stakeholder involvement does the Port anticipate during the planning process?

The Port is a union facility and will continue to be one. Workforce development has not been a major focus for the Port historically, but the Port is open to looking at roles it can play that may come out of the planning process.

27. How important is it for the Strategic Plan to explicitly address federal participation and federal assets or programs, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (navigation system performance, dredging, and beneficial use), trade policy, tariffs, or broader geopolitical conditions, affecting the Port and Great Lakes commerce overall?

The strategic plan should include strategies and tactics that explicitly take into account current trends and uncertainties in these areas and stress-test major strategic directions against them.

28. Are there defined geographic boundaries, focus areas, or limitations the Port expects the Strategic Plan to consider with respect to future waterfront projects, site development, or new opportunities in Cleveland, including whether areas or communities adjacent to Port-controlled assets and affected by Port activity are expected to be within the Strategic Plan? Alternatively, should proposers assess and recommend an appropriate geographic scope as part of the submission?
The Port operates within Cuyahoga County and does not currently contemplate expanding its geographic footprint. The Port does expect to play a role in future lakefront development to its east as well as in any future closure and change of use at Burke Lakefront Airport, and expects the strategic plan to help clearly define its role, priorities, and boundaries in these efforts.

Remaining Procurement Milestones

• Deadline for questions: January 19, 2026

• Question responses posted: January 23, 2026

• Proposals due: February 2, 2026

• Finalist interviews: Week of February 16, 2026

• Selection & contract negotiation: Week of February 23, 2026

• Project start: Mid-March 2026

• Draft plan presented to the Board: Q4 2026

For full details on the request for proposals, click [here].