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 13
13 select, the most appropriate procurement methodology for its be tailored to the legal, contractual, and operational environ- next-generation O&M contract. Although the results obtained ment of that particular airport APM system. for that one particular airport cannot be assumed to be universally applicable, there is again industry experience that 3.3.1 Measurement Factor: Cost indicates such results can at least be deemed typical. Thus, an abbreviated version of that approach is presented in this As previously stated, cost, or more specifically, the quest chapter without any specifics applicable to that airport. for the lowest cost, is the apparent primary reason for airport The intent is to offer a general outline of an analysis that can authorities recently departing from the historic contractual be usefully adapted and emulated by other airports in their model of sole sourcing ongoing O&M services. Thus, in com- quest to objectively evaluate procurement methodologies for paring the four contractual procurement options, cost is an ongoing O&M services. important measurement factor. See Figure 2 for rankings for In this section, each of the three main measurement factors, the cost measurement factor. cost, risk, and other, are defined and discussed along with the sub-factors applicable to each. Ranking of the three measure- 22.214.171.124 Implementation Cost ment factors along with their associated sub-factors is shown in tabular format with a figure dedicated to each of the three The first cost to be incurred by the airport authority is the main factors. Ranking is defined as "positive," "neutral" or cost of implementing the new, ongoing O&M contract, which "negative." If ranking does not apply, "N/A" is shown. Lastly, will include the following sub-factors: a summary figure is presented and discussed. The particular rankings presented are based on industry experience to date. In-House Costs (Initial Costs). These costs include the Specifically, the rankings are an assemblage of the results from administrative time spent by in-house airport staff in set- the procurement efforts of the large airport previously men- ting up or soliciting the contract. A competitive solicitation tioned as well as the five examples outlined in Chapter 11 of includes many unknowns and will likely involve iterative ACRP Report 37. The rankings may be considered representa- questions and answers with proposers, resulting in addenda. tive based upon industry experience to date but should not be The option involving supplementary contracts for techni- considered absolute because such experience is limited. When cal support and proprietary parts, by its nature, involves the applying the methodology of the case studies to other airport administration of multiple contracts, which increases the APM systems, the ranking of the measurement factors should administrative burden. Figure 2. Rankings for cost measurement factor.