Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 13


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
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 12
12 one large airport with a large APM has a split of O&M services, cal services and/or parts being requested and paid for only with in-house staff handling the system's operation while when needed. Legal precedent in most states is more likely the original APM supplier is under contract to provide the to allow these small on-call contracts to be sole sourced due maintenance services. This arrangement was possible because to their highly proprietary nature as opposed to the primary this particular airport already had a ready pool of employees O&M contract. versed in APM O&M functions from a previous-generation APM on the airport. Most of the supplier's employees versed 3.3Measurement of O&M in the O&M of this previous APM had joined the airport's Procurement Methodology staff via mutually agreeable contractual arrangements among Criteria all parties. A more common variation of in-sourcing APM O&M services involves only a partial in-sourcing. In these The four O&M procurement options presented in Sec- examples, the higher-level management functions are handled tion 3.2 differ significantly in contractual content as well as by a relatively few airport staff, with the majority of the physical their practical application to the daily operation and main work being performed by a contracted O&M provider. Another tenance of an APM system. Differences in an APM system's fairly rare variation involves a reversal of this example. In this size, complexity, and legal and contractual environment, as case, the majority of the physical work is accomplished by well as many other factors of the APM system, can have a in-house staff with the added resource provided by retaining substantial influence on which of the aforementioned pro- a few on-site staff members of the original APM supplier. This curement options is most applicable to a particular system. on-site presence of the original supplier may involve only a Nevertheless, there are certain criteria that can appropriately single staff member. be applied to each of the four procurement methods in an effort to quantify and measure the advantages and disadvan- tages of each. These "measurement factors," as they will be 3.2.4Option 4: Competitive Procurement referred to hereafter, are cost, risk, and a collection of other with Technical and Parts Support factors. These three major categories of measurement factors Sole Source Contract can be further subdivided into more specific measurement Once the decision has been made by an airport author- "sub-factors," as they will be referred to hereafter. All of these ity to put the ongoing O&M services for their APM out for factors can be ranked for each of the four O&M procure- competition, the outcome cannot be predicted and may ment methodologies. Although such ranking will obviously result in either the original APM supplier being selected be somewhat subjective in nature, actual industry experience or a third-party O&M provider being selected. There is with the different methodologies has revealed some con- not yet enough case history to offer odds on which entity sistent and repeatable aspects of each. A large international is more likely to be successful. However, there is enough airport with a large airside APM system recently used the case history to suggest that when a third party is selected analysis described in this chapter to evaluate, and ultimately to provide O&M services, the original APM suppliers have been disinclined to provide technical support and propri- etary parts to their competitors. This is an understandable business model when considering the original supplier's desire to retain its position of providing O&M services for its own systems. A contractual means for the owner to deal with this issue of technical support and proprietary parts is to supplement the primary contract with the third-party O&M provider with a smaller, secondary sole-source con- tract with the original APM supplier exclusively for tech- nical support and proprietary parts. This approach could include a single contract or separate contracts for the technical support and proprietary parts, respectively. Most typically, these supplementary contracts with the original suppliers are set up as time and materials contracts with a not-to-exceed value over the same duration of the primary Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. O&M provider's contract. The supplementary contracts are On-Grade Maintenance Facility at Phoenix Sky typically administered as on-call contracts, with the techni- Harbor International Airport