Conducting Airport Peer Reviews (2013)

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.

18 CASE ONE—EXECUTIVE PEER ADVISORY TEAM AND SITE VISITS Sacramento International Airport (SMF) embarked on a $1 billion airport terminal construction project in 1999 that concluded with the terminal’s grand opening in September 2011. Over the life of the project, the airport embraced peer reviews as a key tool for avoiding project delays and maintain- ing project support. The airport used a variety of peer review formats, including an executive peer advisory team, small host-focused reviews, an industry tour, and site visits on specific topics or with experts who could help. Airport Director Hardy Acree handpicked the executive peer advisory team at the start of the master planning process to provide advice and feedback on project progress during pro- gramming, design, construction, and preoperational analysis. “It has to be based on the premise that the advisory team will give you sound and sage advice, and they should have no stake in the outcome other than serving the needs of the client,” said Acree. The team included a retired airport director with experi- ence on mega projects, a consultant with experience in air- line relations, a county transportation department head with expertise in roadway construction, and an airline representa- tive. These individuals were integrally involved throughout the programming, design, and construction phases of the project, periodically attending meetings with the airport staff and con- sultants, providing candid advice to Acree, and even voicing opinions to the project team on Acree’s behalf. They also attended multiple host-focused reviews related to the new ter- minal and participated in the industry tour. “My approach was to identify individuals inside and outside of the industry whose opinions I valued and were subject matter experts, and I paid them for it,” said Acree. The airport signed the participants to multi-year contracts that covered their hourly rates and travel expenses. “The advisory team costs were a miniscule fraction of the program expense,” said Acree. “You get what you pay for, and you need to pay for objectivity and candid advice.” Acree also initiated an industry best practices tour to help the airport gain consensus from key stakeholders and avoid backtracking during the planning process. The airport assem- bled a voluntary team of community stakeholders, including county executives, Chamber of Commerce members, planning consultants, and media representatives, to tour airports in North America and Canada. SMF staff and executives and members of the executive peer advisory team also partici- pated. The group completed four multi-airport tours during the programming and design phases of the project to see what worked, what didn’t work, and what they wanted for their own terminal. These one-day visits gave the team an opportunity to talk to senior airport staff, consultants, and stakeholders at the host airports about a wide range of topics, including concessions, baggage handling systems, TSA screening facilities, art in pub- lic places, governance, and roles and responsibilities. The visits provided an independent perspective on what approaches are most effective, which helped SMF gain consensus and build support among stakeholders for the new terminal. Acree contacted his counterparts at the destination airports to develop a detailed schedule of activities. The host airports made staff available to lead tours and answer questions, so costs were limited to travel expenses for the team, all of whom donated their time. SMF also organized multiple meetings with peers to get input about specific aspects of the terminal development and construction. With the help of the program management team, the airport contacted an experienced construction firm to help with reviewing the design and construction RFPs and the statements of qualifications received. These services were paid for using the design contract, covering the time of four staff (a project manager, a superintendent, an estimator, and a scheduler) during the review process. “This activity prevented a lot of debate (time and energy) about what was in and out of the Guaranteed Maximum Price. [It] saved millions of dollars and avoided delay costs” (Big Build Program 2012). SMF also sought peer input on the development of RFPs for baggage handling, operations and maintenance, and the automated people-mover system, among others. In some cases, staff at SMF visited the peer airports to discuss what worked and see their operations firsthand; in other cases, SMF invited the peer airport staff to Sacramento. Even at the very end of the project, SMF executives sought advice from the Indianapolis International Airport related to operational readiness for the new terminal opening. In short, SMF made peer reviews an integral part of the entire project, looking for every opportunity to learn from the experiences of others and chapter four CASE EXAMPLES

19 gain support and guidance. The reviews helped SMF bring in a $1 billion project four months ahead of schedule and $70 million under budget. Refer to Appendix C for the agendas used during the industry tour of airports. CASE TWO—HOST-FOCUSED REVIEW AND ONLINE FORUMS Wichita Mid-Continent Airport (ICT) is in the midst of a new terminal construction project with a target opening date of early 2015 (“Project Overview” 2012). The new terminal will replace the existing terminal, expanding passenger capacity with a state-of-the-art facility while allowing room for future growth. Victor White, director of airports at the Wichita Air- port Authority, used a traditional host-focused peer review in the planning stages and has tapped into the peer advisory group listserv many times since then. The idea of a peer review came from William Fife, the long- time airport professional and consultant who helped many airports organize peer reviews over the years. The goal was to assemble a diverse group of experienced airport profession- als who could offer feedback to White and his staff about a range of topics related to the terminal construction. The peer team included a dozen representatives from airports around the country of varying size and approach. “It wouldn’t have been [of] as much value if everyone who came was the same airport size,” said White. “It’s good to get a flavor of different airport sizes and project complexity. The concepts are the same no matter what you’re spending.” The peer review lasted a few days and used a structured agenda that Fife developed with Wichita’s program manager and architect. The group spent much of the visit in roundtable discussions talking about what works and what ICT needs to consider. “We learned a whole bunch from those folks and made quite a few changes based on their input,” said White. “Our final terminal design and construction reflect many of those changes.” Members of the peer panel volunteered their time, but ICT covered their travel expenses. White said that there’s a big payoff for such an investment. “We couldn’t have paid consultants to give us this type of advice. [The peers] aren’t selling anything and are honest and candid about what they like and don’t like.” It was White’s first experience with a large peer review conference, and he found it extremely valuable. “It sold me on the concept.” In the years since holding the peer review, White has called on the expertise of his peers in the industry using a much less formal mechanism: a peer advisory group listserv. He sought feedback on how best to negotiate contracts with construc- tion management firms, and then turned to the group again when a bid dispute arose. In each case, nearly 30 airports responded by e-mail or phone to offer lessons learned in han- dling similar situations. White said, “The speed of response was outstanding. The best part is that it’s free.” The feedback was just what White needed to gain support from the airport authority and city council on the next steps his team was recommending. Refer to Appendix C for the agenda used during the peer review conference. CASE THREE—SITE VISITS In late 2010, Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC) was in the midst of acquiring the Passur Field Condition Reporting platform to track and communicate field conditions, primarily in the winter but also in the summer when there are closures. The Seattle–Tacoma International Airport (SEA–TAC) had recently implemented the same system and had run into some challenges. With the support of Alvin Stuart, SLC’s super- intendent of airport operations, SLC airport operations man- agers Bryce Royle and Matt Bengtzen made a trip to Seattle to learn from SEA–TAC’s experiences. During the two-day trip, Royle and Bengtzen had the opportunity to work through the Passur program with Sarah Demory, SEA–TAC’s program administrator; get a daytime airfield tour to see the program in action; and take a nighttime tour of the airfield to see its different functionality in the dark. They also attended SEA–TAC’s users group meeting to see how coordination and updating among their airport users is different than SLC’s; toured the training department; and met with SEA–TAC information technology and operations staff. Planning for the trip started about a month in advance. SLC worked with SEA–TAC to develop an informal agenda that was structured enough to schedule specific interactions with functional areas at SEA–TAC but informal enough to allow for added activities, such as attending the users group meeting. SEA–TAC staff volunteered their time, so the cost of the trip was limited to the travel expenses for Royle and Bengtzen. Royle said the trip was well worth the investment. “Knowing of the Seattle experience helped us immensely in having [the Passur system implementation] go smoothly,” he said. “Without what we learned out there, we would have recreated the wheel.” The trip made an impact beyond SLC as well. Portland International Airport began its own acquisition of the Passur system soon after SLC, and sent staff to Salt Lake City to learn from its successes. SLC isn’t new to the use of site visit peer reviews. Stuart makes it a priority to build relationships with other airports and leverage those relationships for mutual information shar- ing. “For specific issues, I think this kind of experience can be better than sending someone to a conference,” said Stuart. “At a manager level you can’t beat it. They talk to their counter- parts all the time as a result.”

20 Stuart budgets about $1,500 every year for potential site visits and uses it whenever he can. The amount can cover the cost to send several people to a nearby airport or one person to an airport farther away. Stuart said he doesn’t always have topics in mind when setting aside the funds, but there are always operational issues worth exploring. He asks his program managers what they would like to learn from peer airports when the opportunity arises. Stuart hosts peer airports, including international groups, on a regular basis as well. The SLC wildlife program has become known for its effectiveness, and SLC acts as a host site for training other airport staff. Stuart’s goal is to set up regular site visit exchanges among similarly-sized airports for the purpose of completing mock FAR Part 139 inspections before the FAA certification inspections. CASE FOUR—EXECUTIVE PEER ADVISORY TEAMS In 2004, the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) was in the initial stages of planning an airport-wide improvement program that included enhancements to runway safety areas; a runway extension; terminal improvements; and improve- ments to cargo, parking, and other facilities. Because of the size and potential environmental and community impacts of the proposed changes, the FAA determined that an environ- mental impact study (EIS) would be required. To prepare for the anticipated public controversy surrounding the proposed airport improvements, the selected EIS contractor, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB), convened an advisory group made up of three senior airport executives to provide advice to the contractors, the sponsor, RIAC, and the FAA during the EIS preparation. VHB EIS Project Manager Carol Lurie acted as facilitator. VHB also subcontracted with a trio of airport officials, each of whom had experience in dealing with controversial projects, to provide advice during the EIS process. The peers were carefully chosen senior members of the airport commu- nity who had handled significant issues on their own projects, from noise pollution to community relocation. The peer team participated in three strategic meetings during the EIS develop- ment and reviewed major deliverables. According to Lurie, its role was “limited but strategic,” providing feedback related to stakeholder outreach, regulatory interactions, EIS alternatives development, and mitigation. Members were under contract for several years, with requirements for attending meetings and providing comments by e-mail. They were compensated at an hourly rate and for any travel expenses. Lurie said that the use of a peer team on the EIS was so suc- cessful that VHB has recommended executive peer advisory groups on other projects. “[Peer team members] provided us with lessons learned from which we could develop workable solutions to various issues. They were an open resource to the airport and acted as a sounding board,” she said. Former RIAC Executive Vice President Laurie Cullen echoed this sentiment: “As an airport executive, it was valu- able to sit with these three industry leaders and have them at my disposal.” A key lesson learned from the peer team was how to handle agency coordination. The group recommended engaging fed- eral, state, and local entities as early in the process as possible. The EIS team established an agency working group made up of representatives from key governmental agencies, including a representative of the local tribal authority, which met regu- larly throughout the preparation of the draft and final EIS, and provided valuable guidance. This coordination among agencies facilitated the project’s permitting and implementation process. Lurie recommended keeping the size of the peer team small, suggesting that more than six team members would be unwieldy. She also emphasized the need for good communi- cation about roles and responsibilities, especially concerning the peer team’s participation: Peers don’t make recommenda- tions, only share experiences. To elicit the most helpful feed- back, VHB provided the peer team with background on the project before the first meeting so that they could come pre- pared. The peers also received regular news updates to keep them apprised of what was happening in the community. CASE FIVE—PERFORMANCE AUDIT About five years ago, the Columbus Regional Airport Author- ity (CRAA) began conducting internal peer reviews between Rickenbacker International Airport and Port Columbus Inter- national Airport. The two airports had become part of the same airport system in 2003, along with Bolton Field Airport (“Our History” 2012). To help build relationships among the airports and strengthen the organization as a whole, CRAA created an exchange program in which maintenance and operations personnel at one airport would visit the other air- port to complete FAR Part 139 pre-inspections in advance of the official FAA inspections. The FAA inspections take place annually, but the exchange program involves conducting the pre-inspections three times a year at each location. There are two key goals for this program: meeting or exceeding regulatory compliance, and support- ing professional development for staff. Conducting multiple reviews before each official inspection provides the airports the opportunity to catch any problems and correct them. In addition, airfield operators, electricians, and maintenance personnel have the opportunity to learn from their peers and see a different airport in action. The exchange program covers two distinct areas: records inspections (lasting three or four hours) and airfield infrastruc- ture inspections (lasting five hours). The two inspections are scheduled on different days to allow sufficient time for each and to accommodate scheduling issues for the participants.

21 The inspection teams may consist of staff entirely from the visiting airport or a mixed team from both airports. Charles Goodwin, director of operations at CRAA, cited multiple benefits of this peer review program. As desired, the pre-inspections help both airports maintain top condi- tions in the airfields. The peer inspectors provide a fresh set of eyes to see problems that can be missed by host staff when observing the same conditions all of the time. The program also provides a great learning opportunity for staff, who become intimately familiar with the inspection require- ments and what it takes to maintain compliance. Goodwin also reported that the program has forged a stronger rela- tionship between the maintenance and operations depart- ments at the two airports. The peer participants understand and appreciate the responsibilities of the other airport and give each other credit for the work involved. By embracing a common set of standards, airports improve communication, conflict decreases, and morale improves. “The fun part is that both airports and departments have a great deal of pride in maintaining their airports,” said Goodwin. “It’s motiva- tional when your colleagues come to inspect. You want to do well.” Goodwin noted that carrying out these peer reviews requires a lot of work. It can be challenging to schedule staff to partici- pate, and to close the airfield during pre-inspections. Undertak- ing the inspections and completing the paperwork afterward can be a burden to staff. However, Goodwin remains very committed to the program. “We’ll continue to find ways to accomplish the reviews with the same goals in mind—people development and regulatory compliance,” he said. “It will need to continue to evolve to be efficient, but it’s worth the effort. We get a lot of feedback from staff that it’s valuable.”