Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 19

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
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 18
18 xpanding the APM system could involve a plethora of pos- e versus the possibility of increased risk. Possible cost savings sibilities, and again, the original supplier would have a sub- are a worthy goal for any public entity and, if realized, are stantial advantage. Although it is possible that some of this a tangible and measurable advantage. On the other hand, type of work could be performed under an O&M contract, it the possibility of various kinds of increased risk is a subjec- is far more likely that such major work would be performed tive and elusive factor--at least until something negative under a separate contract. This highlights a possible scenario actually occurs as a result of the increased risk. Real-world where a physical expansion or extension to an existing APM experience is currently not substantial enough and does not system is performed by the original APM supplier while the contain enough specific examples to predict the outcome existing system is being operated and maintained by a third of the cost-versus-risk aspect for the procurement types party. This scenario actually occurred at a major international that allow a third-party O&M provider. There are positive airport and required careful coordination between the two real-world examples of a third-party O&M provider pro- entities. A disadvantage from the owner's perspective was that viding the owner with increased availability percentages the owner did not have a single point of responsibility for for APM systems. There are also negative real-world exam- the expansion work, which would not have been the case if the ples of accidents involving APM systems, sometimes with original supplier had held the O&M contract. personal injury to passengers, while the system was under contract to a third-party O&M provider. The real-world 3.3.4Summary experience of original suppliers providing ongoing O&M services has a much longer history, and despite this much The summary in Figure 5 indicates that in terms of the longer time frame for the possibility of negative incidents, measurement factors, the sole-source procurement option it is comparatively devoid of accidents and personal injury has the most positive score, while the procurement options to passengers. allowing a third-party O&M provider have the lowest score. Despite the sole-source procurement option having the While not intending to diminish the impact of the other highest score, the purpose of this summary is not to make a measurement factors, these results indicate that an airport definitive recommendation, particularly in light of the fact authority's preference in choosing an ongoing O&M pro- that some owners will not have the legal flexibility to even curement option can be primarily distilled to an issue of consider all of the procurement options. Rather, as previ- cost versus risk--specifically, the possibility of cost savings ously stated at the beginning of this section, the intent is Figure 5. Measurement factor summary.