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
