Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
Literature Review and Definitions 9 in an airport's selection process of professional consultant services; compliance with laws pro- hibiting job discrimination, the Davis-Bacon Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act; and good faith efforts to include DBEs (Airports Council International-North America et al. 2006). In bond-funded financing, factors like project definition, cost analysis, budget commitment, and delivery schedule are critical because an airport authority wants to buy just the right number and amount of bonds at the right time. It should be noted that highly complex projects without a clear scope are not suitable for bond funding because of the inherent risk involved (Airports Council International-North America et al. 2006) and because in this approach investor confidence is of paramount importance. Another potential source of funds is airport cash and revenue funding; this source of funding gives airports that have consistent revenue streams the freedom to choose a delivery method with- out concern about outside restriction impacts such as those involved in other types of financing. Multiyear projects that need to have significant funding in place as the project commences cannot rely upon this type of funding. Revenue-Generating Projects Unlike other transportation projects, which have no potential for generating revenue, some air- port projects have the potential for generating revenue, such as those related to concessions, park- ing, and real estate activities. The revenue-generating potential of projects in these areas encourages airports to try to deliver these projects as fast as is reasonably possible [Tampa International Air- port, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport]. Therefore, for these types of projects, the delivery method that can expedite the execution of the project is preferred. The risks associated with com- pressing a project delivery schedule are offset by the early return on investment. Evolution of Current Alternative Delivery Methods in Airport Projects Public procurement law has historically limited public entities to using only DBB project deliv- ery. The current wide range of project delivery methods is a relatively recent development for pub- licly funded projects in the United States. The development of the public procurement laws limiting public entities to use of the DBB project delivery method can be traced in part to the Brooks Act. Enacted in 1972, the Brooks Act (Public Law 92-582) states that design services on federally funded projects in the United States should be procured on the basis of qualifications only. Alternatively, numerous laws and statutes throughout the United States have limited the procurement of con- structors to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder. The combination of these two procurement practices has helped solidify the proliferation of DBB in the public sector. DBB was the traditional project delivery method in transportation projects until 1996 when the Federal Acquisition Reform Act explicitly authorized the use of a design-build (DB) project deliv- ery method for federal projects. While experimentation with the DB delivery method on transit projects started as early as 1994, alternative delivery methods started to be considered for airport projects only after 2000. In 2000, Congress established a pilot program for federally funded air- port improvement projects that allowed the FAA to test DB contracting and other alternative delivery methods (FAA 2005, Loulakis 2003).1 Title 49 of the United States Code was amended to 1 The Wendell H. Ford Aviation and Investment Reform Act for the 21st century.