Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
97 The APM system has been properly defined (Chapter 8), and a final check on feasibility has been performed (Chapter 9). The resulting project is now ready to be procured (see step 6 of the chart in Figure 10-1). In this chapter, post-planning pro- curement activities are described. For each of these steps there are decisions to be made by the airport regarding options within the procurement, implementation, and operations phases of the project. This chapter defines the typical airport APM procurement contracting approaches and procurement processes. The con- tracting approach is the way the work is divided into packages (contracts) that best suit the nature of the project and the par- ties expected to carry it out. The procurement methodology is the procedure used to select the team that will do the work defined in the contract approach. TCRP Report 131: A Guide- book for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods is an excel- lent resource on this topic. 10.1 Contracting Approach The contracting approach is the way the work is packaged in contracts that best suit the nature of the project and the parties expected to carry it out. The work of an APM project can best be divided into two general areas: Operating systemâThe operating system includes all of the mechanical and electrical equipment that make up the APM system (vehicles, automatic train control system, communications systems, power distribution system, station equipment, guideway equipment, safety equip- ment, other equipment, and the maintenance equip- ment and tools). Fixed facilitiesâFixed facilities are the buildings, spaces within buildings, building mechanical and electrical sys- tems, guideway structures, stations, power substations, and other structures and civil works associated with and in support of the APM. Assigning the work should be based on âwho does what the bestâ and âwho can best control the risksâ of that part of the project. The operating systems of APMs are typically propri- etary, often with patented designs, and are usually available only as unique complete packages. Therefore, it is best that at least the operating system be delivered through a single contract with a qualified supplier. Minimizing interfaces, conflicts, and contractor dependen- cies should be among the deciding factors in assigning the work of the fixed facilities. Facility work that is not involved with other construction (such as concourses and other airside facil- ities) and that is related only to the APM can be packaged with the operating system or designed and built separately. Hav- ing different contractors working in the same spaces can create conflicts. Where there are interfaces between the work of sep- arate contractors, they will be dependent on each other for the correctness of the interfaces and the schedule. Such conflicts, disagreements over interfaces, and schedule delays can lead to claims being filed by the contractors and an increase in costs. More contracts mean more airport coordination and manage- ment effort and increased risks associated with managing and controlling the interfaces. Typically the APM system supplier is not familiar with or qualified to design and construct the APM facilities, although the supplier must provide systemâfacility interface informa- tion during both the design and construction phases. Many air- port APMs are integrated into terminal buildings and other facilities. Further, the airport management typically wants to control the design and construction of the system to fit into the overall plan and design of the airport/facilities and not inter- fere with airport operations. This will affect the approach taken to procure and implement the APM. Often the APM project is separated into two or more contracts: one for the operating APM system and one or more for the facilities (which are often part of a larger facility project). The airport rarely wants to operate and maintain an actual train system. An APM, like other airport electromechanical C H A P T E R 1 0 APM System Procurement
Level-of-Service Decision-Making Flow Key: Process Data Output Start/ End Planning Process Decision-Making Flow APM Benefits Alignment Stations Guideway/ROW Capital Costs Operations & Maintenance Costs CostâBenefit Analysis Financial Strategies Power Distribution Command, Control, and Communications Ridership System Capacity NEED System Level of Service Evaluate System Level of Service Evaluate System Level-of-Service Measures Environmental Final Design Procurement Defined APM System Functions Served Service Reqâts. Maintenance Facility Walk & Time Thresholds Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 10-1. General APM planning process.
systems, is seen as another tool that provides the requisite level of service to airport users. The APM system supplier is per- ceived as the organization that best knows the system, includ- ing its O&M. Additionally, the airport usually wants to ensure that the system operates as required for a significant period of time, particularly as it is proprietary and the detailed design and implementation is usually done by the supplier, with any problems being solved by the supplier. Finally, if the procure- ment process includes pricing an O&M period, the airport can receive a competitive package for the system and its O&M. Thus, most airports have opted to have the system supplier perform all O&M services for at least several years. Three to 5 years is typical, and usually the contract is renewable for at least one more term at the airportâs option. Subsequent peri- ods are often negotiated, but occasionally they are competed among the supplier and third parties. Variations on this include the airport staff overseeing the operations and the supplier performing maintenance. A few airports do both or have con- tracted with a third party for both or for maintenance, usually after an initial period undertaken by the supplier. 10.2 Procurement Methodology A number of different procurement methodologies have been used for airport-related APM systems since 1971. Typi- cal procurement alternatives include: â¢ Design-bid-build â¢ Limited design-build â¢ Split design-build â¢ Design build â¢ Design-build-operate-maintain These broad categories are discussed in the subsequent sub- sections. There can be variations to each approach; only the basic procurement concept is discussed in these subsections. 10.2.1 Conventional Design-Bid-Build DBB is the conventional project procurement approach under which the airport contracts separately with a designer(s) and construction contractor(s). The design entity provides detailed, prescriptive design (plans and specifications) docu- ments. The airport subsequently solicits fixed price bids from construction contractors to perform the work provided in the design documents. The contractor is usually selected on the basis of lowest price. The airport and design entities may sep- arate the project design documents into multiple specialty con- tracts. Figure 10.2.1 depicts this approach with each aspect of the system and facilities undertaken by a separate contractor. This approach requires the airport to award and administer separate contracts to each contractor. This alternative allows the airport to retain maximum design control, but the airport also has the responsibility and risk for designs, contractor coor- dination, integration, and scheduling. The airport would need a large staff or set of consultants for detailed design, contract administration, and project/construction management to assume the responsibility for these multiple contracts. It would 99 Vehicle ATC Comm. PDS Other Guideway Stations Maint. Other PLAN / PROCURE / PROJ MGMT / OVERSEE DESIGN MFGR / INSTALL / CONSTRUCT Contract A Contract B Contract C Contract D Contract E Contract F Contract G Contract H Contract I TEST AND COMMISSION OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ACTIVITY OPERATING SYSTEM FIXED FACILITIES OWNER CONSULTANTS OWNER ASSISTED BY CONSULTANTS SUBSYSTEMS Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 10.2.1-1. Design-bid-build project approach.
be responsible for the cost, schedule, and technical risks of the project as well as the integration and interfaces among the many contracts. With such a separation of project aspects, the airport usually undertakes the O&M functions as well. This approach is often followed for urban rail transit projects, but rarely, if ever, is used for airport APMs. 10.2.2 Limited Design-Build With a limited design-build (sometimes called limited turnkey) project approach, the airport and its system consult- ant develop performance specifications for the system elements, usually as a complete system. The airport and its architectural and engineering consultants develop detailed design plans and specifications for the facilities. The airport then contracts with a single entity to perform all APM operating system design, manufacture, implementation, and tests under a single design- build contract. The facilities are each designed, procured, and built separately using the conventional design-bid-build method. See Figure 10.2.2-1. This alternative allows the airport to retain facility design control, but transfers most of the system integration responsibility to the APM contractor, except possi- bly for the interfaces among the operating system and facilities. Interfaces can be led by the airport and its system and project management consultants, or this responsibility can be assigned contractually to the APM contractor. This is the approach taken by most U.S. airports for their APM projects. Usually the APM contractor is also given an extendable 5-year O&M contract to prove the system, as discussed earlier. 10.2.3 Split Design-Build The split design-build (sometimes called split turnkey) approach is the same as the limited turnkey alternative with respect to the operating system. However, with this approach, all the APM facilities are contracted to a single entity that will perform all final design and construction under a second design-build contract. This consolidates all facilitiesâ design and construction into a single point of contact. This is shown in Figure 10.2.3-1. This approach is often taken when the APM is entirely within a terminal project and the APM facilities are undertaken by the terminal construction contractor. This alternative transfers most of the integration to the contractors and limits much of the airportâs risk. The airport can retain the responsibility for integration of the operating system and facil- ities, which are usually done with the assistance of its system and project management consultants, or the responsibility can be assigned to the system or facilities contractor. 10.2.4 Design-Build The DB approach, sometimes called a turnkey approach, allows the airport the maximum opportunity to reduce costs and schedule risks by contracting with a single entity for design and construction of the entire project, for both sys- tem and facilities. With this alternative, the contractor assumes responsibility for all the detailed design, construc- tion, integration, schedule, and cost risks, and the airport has one organization to go to, as shown in Figure 10.2.4-1. 100 VEHICLE ATC COMM PDS OTHER GUIDEWAY STATIONS MAINT. OTHER PLAN / PROCURE / PROG DIR / OVERSEE PRELIMINARY DESIGN FINAL DESIGN MANUFACTURE / INSTALL / CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT A CONTRACT B CONTRACT C CONTRACT D TEST AND COMMISSION CONSULTANT OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ACTIVITY OWNER OR OPERATING SYSTEM CONTRACTOR FIXED FACILITIESOPERATING SYSTEM OWNER ASSISTED BY CONSULTANTS OPERATING SYSTEM CONTRACTOR SUBSYSTEMS Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 10.2.2-1. Limited design-build approach.
101 Vehicle ATC Comm. PDS Other Guideway Stations Maint. Other PLAN / PROCURE / PROG DIR / OVERSEE PRELIMINARY DESIGN FINAL DESIGN MFGR / INSTALL / CONSTRUCT TEST AND COMMISSION OPERATE AND MAINTAIN OWNER ASSISTED BY CONSULTANTS ACTIVITY SUBSYSTEMS OPERATING SYSTEM FIXED FACILITIES OWNER OR CONTRACTOR A CONTRACTOR A CONTRACTOR B Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 10.2.3-1. Split design-build approach. Vehicle ATC Comm. PDS Other Guideway Stations Maint. Other PLAN / PROCURE / PROG DIR / OVERSEE PRELIMINARY DESIGN FINAL DESIGN MFGR / INSTALL / CONSTRUCT TEST AND COMMISSION OPERATE AND MAINTAIN OWNER OWNER ASSISTED BY CONSULTANTS CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY SUBSYSTEMS OPERATING SYSTEM FIXED FACILITIES Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 10.2.4-1. Design-build approach. The single procurement and internalized project integra- tion can result in a shorter overall schedule. The airport has a large, consolidated package for procurement. The airport and its system and facility design team take the design to about the 30% level, enough to define the project thor- oughly and obtain valid prices. The airport subsequently loses some control of the detailed design and construction packaging and implementation. It will want to retain some design and schedule control over the project due to airport operational needs; this is possible with proper use of design reviews and payment milestones and the use of an overall project management team.
Because no single contractor has all the needed expertise in APM systems and facilities, the airport selects a team with all of the requisite capabilities. Particularly if a low-bid process is used, the winning team might not include the best APM tech- nology, the best designers, and the best construction con- tractors. To obtain the best of each category, the airport could procure each major contractor separately and then require that the separate winning contractors form a team. This approach has the potential problem of contractors that are not com- patible, and thus increases the airportâs risks and integration responsibilities, partly negating the possible advantages of having a single team. With this approach, the contractor team leader is often the construction contractor because it has the bonding and management capabilities. The airport or a third party would have O&M responsibilities. Construction and design contractors typically want to do their work, be paid, and move on; they do not want to retain longer-term responsibili- ties such as for O&M. If the system is supplied by an APM sup- plier, it could be retained to provide O&M services. 10.2.5 Design-Build-Operate-Maintain The DBOM (sometimes called super turnkey) approach transfers the operations and maintenance of the system to the contractor in addition to the design and construction of the operating system and facilities. See Figure 10.2.5-1. The advan- tage to the airport is that the contractor will be responsible for all aspects of the APM design and construction, as well as the operations and maintenance of the system. Typically, however, the O&M contract will be with the system supplier and not the entire contractor team. See the discussion in the previous section. A possible advantage of this approach is that the sched- ule for procurement and construction might be reduced. The airport gives up considerable control of all aspects of the project. This makes the contractual and procurement doc- uments and phases critical to the success of the project. A variation of the DBOM approach is where the airport oper- ates the APM system while the contractor maintains the system. This approach is abbreviated as DB-M. 10.2.6 Public-Private Partnership In the past several years, this approach, also called P3 (or in FTA parlance, Penta-P), has become more prevalent in the United States. At least one airport-related APM project, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Oakland Airport Connector, considered this approach. This is an airport access project with an APM connecting the BART rapid rail Coliseum Station with the terminals at the Oakland International Airport. BART was the lead agency, although the airport had a major role. This approach was similar to the DBOM/super turnkey approach but with a mix of public and private funding. The public agen- cies control the project in terms of procurement, general design (approximately 30%), environmental clearances, juris- dictional coordination, project oversight, and approximately half of the construction cost. Because some of the capital fund- ing was from the FTA, its rules and processes governed over- all. However, because of the airport aspects, FAA and other requirements typical of an airport project also were applicable. The P3 team was led by a financial organization and included an APM supplier, facilities designer, project manager, and con- struction contractor. The financial organization would pro- 102 Vehicle ATC Comm. PDS Other Guideway Stations Maint. Other PLAN / PROCURE / PROG DIR / OVERSEE PROJ MGMT AND DESIGN MFGR / INSTALL / CONSTRUCT TEST AND COMMISSION OPERATE AND MAINTAIN OWNER ASSISTED BY CONSULTANTS CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY SUBSYSTEMS OPERATING SYSTEM FIXED FACILITIES Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 10.2.5-1. Design-build-operate-maintain approach.
vide the other part of the capital funding. It would be repaid, including interest, through the O&M payments of the airport over a 35-year concession period. Ultimately this approach was abandoned in favor of the full DBOM approach for many reasons, including problems in the financial markets in 2009 and lack of competing P3 teams. This approach may be considered for other airport APM projects if the required funding is not initially available and other conditions are conducive. It is, however, only an alter- nate funding mechanism. 10.3 Airport APM Procurement Approaches Procurement approaches used by U.S. airports for APM projects are summarized in this section to help the reader understand what has been done elsewhere. Table 10.3-1 lists APM projects undertaken since 1971 and the procurement approach used for each. The majority used a limited design- build or limited design-build-operate-maintain approach for the APM operating system. These approaches are favored 103 PROJECT YEAR OPEN CONTRACTING METHOD COMMENT System Facilities Tampa 1971 DB-M DBB Airport does O (operations) Seattle 1973 DB DBB Airport does O&M D/FW Airtrans 1974 DBOM DB Changed to airport does O&M Atlanta 1980 DBOM DBB Miami 1980 DB-M DBB Airport does O; Changed to 3rd party Houston â Tunnel 1981 DBOM DBB Changed to 3rd party Orlando 1981 DB-M DBB Airport does O (operations) Las Vegas 1985 DBOM DBB D/FW Tr A Am 1991 DBB DBB Tampa Extension 1991 DB-M DBB Airport does O (operations) Tampa Garage 1991 DBOM DBB Pittsburgh 1992 DBOM DBB Chicago OâHare 1993 DBOM DB/DBB APM supplier responsible for guideway & MSF; O&M changed to 3rd party Cincinnati 1994 DBOM DBB Denver 1995 DBOM DBB Newark 1996 DBOM DB/DBB APM supplier responsible for guideway; airport for stations & MSF Houston â Elevated 1999 DBOM DBB O&M changed to 3rd party Newark Extension 2000 DBOM DB/DBB APM supplier responsible for guideway; airport for station Minneapolis RAC 2001 DBOM DBB O&M changed to 3rd party Detroit 2001 DBOM DBB Minneapolis Green 2002 DBOM DB/DBB APM supplier responsible for guideway; airport for stations & MSF; O&M changed to 3rd party San Francisco 2002 DBOM DBB New York JFK 2002 DBOM DB APM supplier responsible for guideway; airport for stations & MSF Tampa Airside E 2002 DB-M DBB Airport does O (operations) D/FW Skylink 2005 DB-M DBB Airport does O (operations) Houston Extension 2004 & 2010 DBOM O&M changed to 3rd party Miami North Terminal 2005 DBOM Atlanta CONRAC 2009 DBOM DB/DBB Construction contractor leads DB team (with APM supplier) responsible for guideway & MSF; airport for stations Dulles 2010 DBOM DBB Las Vegas Terminal 3 2011 DBOM DBB Miami â MIAMover 2011 est. DBOM DB Full DBOM; construction contractor leads DB team (with APM supplier) facilities Sacramento 2012 est. DBOM DBB Oakland Airport Connector 2013 est. DBOM DB DBOM to P3 to DBOM; full DBOM; contractor responsible for system & facilities Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Table 10.3-1. U.S. airport procurement approaches.
because they give the airport control over the design and con- struction of projects in or near the terminals and airport air- side while continuing airport operations. It is usually more efficient and cost-effective to have the system supplier operate and maintain the APM, particularly at the high reliability and service levels necessary for an airport APM. In a few cases, the airport has assumed the operation and maintenance after the supplier quit the job or performed an initial operate-maintain term to verify the design through operation. While Section 10.2 described four different pro- curement approaches, there are in fact a number of additional approaches that are possible given the different entities and areas of responsibility. 10.4 Procurement Process Alternatives This section discusses two procurement process alterna- tives: sole source and competitive. 10.4.1 Sole Source Procurement In a non-competitive, sole-source procurement, the air- port determines that only one supplier is capable of or is strongly preferred for the delivery of the APM system. State and local statutes/ordinances usually permit agencies to make this determination if they can demonstrate that a sole- source procurement is in the best interest of the project (due to existing conditions, budget, and/or schedule) and that a competitive procurement process would not yield any greater benefits. In such a case, the airport enters into negotiations with the selected supplier, and when the contractual terms, scope of work, and price are agreed, a contract is awarded. Usually this is used for an extension to an existing system that the selected APM supplier installed initially, and due to the proprietary nature of the APM, no other supplier can do the work. In almost all cases when the APM will be newly built and is not an expansion or addition to an existing system, there are multiple technologies that can provide the required service. Thus a sole-source procurement is not justified, and a compet- itive procurement approach should be pursued. 10.4.2 Competitive Procurement Many different competitive procurement processes have been used successfully for public procurements of APM sys- tems. Three basic types are: â¢ Competitive one-step â¢ Competitive two-step (low bid) â¢ Competitive negotiated procurement (best value) These types are explained in the following subsections. There are many variations involving these approaches. The exact procedure should be developed in compliance with the airportâs customary contracting and procurement procedures and applicable laws and regulations. In all of these, an airport can first use a request for information/interest (RFI) to determine the potential APM suppliers that might participate in the procurement. Typically the RFI will include a summary description of the project (ini- tial and ultimate), and a list of information requested, such as general information about the supplierâs technology(ies), spe- cific technical solutions with the supplierâs technology for the project, experience with similar projects, financial capabili- ties and strengths, project management approaches and tools, and the like. This can be the initial formal step of a procure- ment or an informal seeking of information. As part of the formal process, there will also be information about screening criteria to select a shorter list for the next step in the process. In this case, some suppliers that express interest might be removed from consideration, either because they and/or their technology did not meet project requirements or they did not respond to the RFI. The RFI should be sent to all known APM suppliers and advertised in trade journals and other media that will reach the widest audience. Typically this is a two- to three-month-long step, depending on the administrative and legal requirements of the airport. The next step (or possibly first step) in the process can be a request for qualifications (RFQ). This is always a part of the for- mal procurement process. It is used to pre-screen potential pro- posers and technologies to focus the list to a set of well-qualified ones. The RFQ contains the same sort of information and response requirements as an RFI. This formal pre-qualification process can save the airport the time and expense of evaluat- ing proposals from unqualified proposers/technologies, as well as saving prospective proposers who are not qualified the cost of preparing a proposal. Because the RFQ is an addi- tional step, it normally extends the length of the procurement process by several months. Alternately, the airport can go directly to the proposal stage without any such screening. If an RFI or RFQ is not used, then the airport should notify all known APM suppliers and give the RFP extensive advertising/publicity. Competitive One-Step The competitive one-step procurement approach is char- acterized by a solicitation by the airport to which potential contractors submit their qualifications (if no RFQ) and tech- nical, management, commercial, and price proposals all at one time. The RFP is developed in detail by the airport and its consultant. This package includes everything the proposers need to submit a complete and responsive proposal: 104
1. The instructions to proposers (which includes summary evaluation criteria as well as a list of everything required to be included in the proposal); 2. A detailed description of the project (plans and drawings to the 30% design level); 3. The contract; 4. General terms and conditions [often standard for the air- port, but modified for a design-build type (DB, DB-M, DBOM, etc.) contract]; 5. Special (management) provisions; 6. Technical provisions (performance specifications); 7. O&M provisions (often a separate O&M contract); and 8. Project reference drawings. The RFP specifies precisely the information required in the proposal. Typically these instructions and the format are detailed so that the airport can clearly compare and evaluate each proposal against the criteria and against other proposals. The airport evaluates the responses using a detailed evalua- tion plan, which is important in order to avoid or defend against challenges to the selection. The evaluation plan includes detailed evaluation criteria (and weightings as appropriate) and is established in advance. The criteria normally include such items as demonstrated successful experience in designing, implementing, and operating systems similar to the project; evi- dence that equipment is technically mature and capable of sat- isfying the availability and other performance requirements; compliance with provisions in the contract; corporate resources sufficient to back up performance guarantees and warranties; demonstrated ability to complete projects of similar size and complexity on time and within budget; experience and capabil- ities of key personnel; aesthetic compatibility and physical and structural fit of the system in the provided facilities; and ability to accomplish future expansion. Based on the evaluation and comparison of proposals, the airport makes a determination on responsibility and respon- siveness and then selects the lowest price or best value (rare; see subsequent discussion) proposer for contract award. This approach is best suited for a clearly defined project with a set of prescriptive design specifications. This approach is appro- priate for APM facilities. However, given that APM systems are proprietary and designed by the supplier to meet perform- ance specifications, it is less applicable to APM systems. At any point in any of these processes, the airport may decide to award the contract, cancel the procurement, or re- advertise the procurement. Competitive Two-Step The competitive two-step procurement approach can be used when the potential suppliers or their products or serv- ices being solicited might not be considered equal in terms of technical merit, quality, or price. Step one. This step consists of a partial RFP being sent to the list of potential proposers. The partial RFP includes all aspects of a full RFP except for pricing. (Any pricing data will typically disqualify a proposal in step one.) The technical, management, and qualifications information are then evalu- ated in accordance with the evaluation plan to determine the acceptability and ranking of the proposers. There can be one or more iterations for clarification questions, with updated proposals being submitted by each proposer. Addendums to the RFP can be issued; final, conformed proposals are sub- mitted and evaluated. The final, complete proposal must be in conformance with the RFP, including all clarifications and addenda. Final non-priced proposals are categorized as either qualified or not qualified for price proposals. At the end of this (single or iterative) step, proposers deemed by the airport to be qualified for the project are invited to par- ticipate in step two. Those proposers found to be not qualified will be notified of the reason(s) for this determination and will not be permitted to proceed further. Step two. Upon successful completion of step one, an invi- tation to submit price proposals will be issued to those firms whose step one proposals have been qualified (the competitive range). This could be all or a few of the step one proposals. Typically, two or three proposals are wanted in the competitive range. The airport then evaluates the price proposals, again based on the evaluation plan, which includes reasonableness. If a low-price approach is used and the competitive range has been judged in step one to be essentially equal, then the air- port selects the proposer submitting the lowest total fixed- price bid for the APM procurement and the APM O&M contract. If there are options included in the RFP, the prices for these options can also be included, but the selected options should be determined in advance. If a best-value approach is used, then the weighted scores from step one and the step two proposals are summed and the proposer with the highest score is selected. The best- value approach considers price and other factors to arrive at the proposer that offers the best overall value to the airport. The evaluation criteria must be clear, as must the process to arrive at the final score. There are multiple ways of doing this given in the literature. One that has been used successfully in several airport APM procurements is based on a numer- ical approach. Each evaluation criterion is disaggregated into a number of specific categories or requirements. Each is weighted. Numerical ratings are given to each proposer on each item (typically a 5-scale: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4), depending on whether and how well the item is met. The ratings and weightings are applied to technical, management, qualifi- cation, and price aspects of the proposal. The sum of these ratings and weightings is then used to select the best value proposal. 105
Again, at any point in the process, the airport may decide to award the contract, cancel the procurement, or re-advertise the procurement. Competitive Negotiated Procurement The competitive negotiated procurement approach is a method whereby the contract award is made on the basis of price and other evaluation factors that are considered to be in the best interest of the airport. The airport has the ability to negotiate with multiple proposers at the same time in strict confidence on all matters in the proposals. In the approach, the airport solicits proposals via the RFP process. The respondents are required to submit their qualifi- cations and technical, management, and price proposals at the same time but in separate envelopes. No cost, price, or financial information is to be included in the technical or management proposals. Initial evaluations of these proposals are completed without knowledge of price and financial data in order to ensure that such evaluations are objective and free from any low-price bias. Proposers and proposals are rated and ranked based on these non-price proposals, by either a quantitative or qualitative procedure. After opening the price proposals, in confidence, the airport evaluates them; then, in conjunction with the technical, man- agement, and qualifications parts of the proposals, it deter- mines the competitive range. The airport can then conduct separate negotiations on technical, management, pricing, and other matters, in strict confidence with each of the suppliers with proposals found to be in the competitive range. Upon completion of negotiations, the airport requests best and final offers (BAFOs). The BAFO follows the same format as the initial proposals and can include updates on any or all aspects of the proposal requested by the airport. BAFOs are evaluated in accordance with the same criteria and procedures as the initial proposal. The best-value award is made on the basis of price and other evaluation factors that are consid- ered to be in the best interest of the airport. As with the other approaches, at any point in the process, the airport may decide to award the contract, cancel the procurement, or re-advertise the procurement, including using a different approach. The term âbidâ is not used in the competitive negotiated procurement method. The acceptability and quality of a pro- posal is assessed in terms of a set of requirements and evalua- tion criteria. Most competitive negotiated procurements score the qualifications of the suppliers as part of the basis for the award. Even with a best-value approach, price is usually con- sidered the key evaluation factor because it is the determinant of project affordability and proposal value. Before soliciting proposals, the airport must determine whether to evaluate the responsive proposals on the basis of the lowest price or to score them using predetermined criteria to identify the best overall value to the airport. The best value may be based on a predetermined weighted combination of the price, technical merit, management, qualifications, and/or commercial scores or a ranking. 106