Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning (2022)

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.

A-1   Administrative Resources A.1 Introduction Section 1 of the guide addresses setting the foundation of your system plan project by devel- oping a comprehensive and well-prepared scope that will set your system plan up for success. While the guide provides a host of considerations that should be accounted for, it can be helpful to reference actual examples of scopes, consultant procurement documents, and other adminis- trative resources. State aviation agencies that were willing and able to share their own examples were asked to provide them for reference here. It is important to note that the examples provided in this appendix are for reference only, and while they can be used to aid in the development of your own scope, request for proposal (RFP), request for qualifications (RFQ), or other procurement documentation, be sure to account for your own unique state contracting and selection processes and any federal requirements if you are using FAA Airport Improvement Program funds. Section 1.4.2 of the guide provides addi- tional information on developing a solicitation for consultants, and Section 1.5 details the scoping process. The example documents in this appendix include • RFQs, • RFPs, and • Stand-alone scopes of work for advertisements. A.2 Example Request for Qualifications: New Hampshire Generally, using an RFQ allows a state to select a consultant on the basis of his or her quali- fications and then develop a detailed scope and budget with that consultant after selection. A high-level overview of the general project scope may be included in the RFQ but is often refined later with the consultant. The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) provided the example RFQ on the following pages. The New Hampshire DOT provided an example of its Request for Qualifications for New Hampshire Statewide Aviation System Planning & Engineering Services, shown in Figures A-1 through A-4 (New Hampshire DOT 2013). This RFQ differs slightly from a traditional RFQ for a state aviation system plan (SASP), in that it is a request for a 5-year on-call system-planning and engineering services consultant. On-call contracts can be a great way for states to support continuous system planning efforts if follow-on studies or update efforts are desired after a system plan is complete. More information about continuous system planning efforts can be found in Section 3.3 of the guide. A P P E N D I X A

A-2 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-1. New Hampshire DOT RFQ for on-call Aviation System Planning and Engineering Services, 2013, page 1.

Administrative Resources A-3   Figure A-2. New Hampshire DOT RFQ for on-call Aviation System Planning and Engineering Services, 2013, page 2.

A-4 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-3. New Hampshire DOT RFQ for on-call Aviation System Planning and Engineering Services, 2013, page 3.

Administrative Resources A-5   Figure A-4. New Hampshire DOT RFQ for on-call Aviation System Planning and Engineering Services, 2013, page 4.

A-6 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning A.3 Example Requests for Proposals When RFPs are used, consultants submit proposals that detail their experience, as well as their approach and, potentially, a preliminary scope of work based on the RFP and their own under- standing of a state’s needs and challenges. Some details of the scope or approach may change after selection of a consultant, but often the core remains the same. New Mexico, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Utah provided the example RFPs on the following pages. General terms and conditions are removed in some instances in an effort to focus on the most useful information in these examples. A.3.1 RFP Example: New Mexico The New Mexico DOT provided the following traditional RFP example from its New Mexico Airport System Plan Update 2014 (New Mexico DOT 2014). The complete RFP is 50 pages long. Figures A-5 through A-17 include the most pertinent sections from the RFP for reference: • Part I: Advertisement, • Part II: Introduction, • Part IV: Response Format and Organization, • Part V: Specifications, and • Part VI: Evaluation.

Administrative Resources A-7   Figure A-5. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part I.

A-8 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-6. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part II.

Administrative Resources A-9   Figure A-7. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part II (continued).

A-10 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-8. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part II (continued).

Administrative Resources A-11   Figure A-9. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part II (continued).

A-12 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-10. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part II (continued).

Administrative Resources A-13   Figure A-11. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part II (continued).

A-14 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-12. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part II (continued).

Administrative Resources A-15   Figure A-13. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part IV.

A-16 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-14. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part IV (continued).

Administrative Resources A-17   Figure A-15. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part V.

A-18 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-16. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part V (continued).

Administrative Resources A-19   Figure A-17. RFP for New Mexico Airport System Plan Update, 2014, Part VI.

A-20 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning A.3.2 RFP Example: Minnesota The Minnesota DOT provided the following RFP example from the first phase of its Continu- ous State Aviation System Plan (CSASP), advertised in 2017 (Minnesota DOT 2017). This RFP is unique, as the Minnesota DOT separated its system plan into two separate phases/projects. A separate RFP was developed for the second phase of the project after the first phase was completed. Figures A-18 through A-22 include the most pertinent sections from the RFP for reference: • Project-Specific Information, • Questions, • Proposal Content, and • Proposal Evaluation.

Administrative Resources A-21   Figure A-18. Minnesota DOT 2017 RFP for Continuous State Aviation System Plan, Phase I, page 1.

A-22 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-19. Minnesota DOT 2017 RFP for Continuous State Aviation System Plan, Phase I, page 2.

Administrative Resources A-23   Figure A-20. Minnesota DOT 2017 RFP for Continuous State Aviation System Plan, Phase I, page 3.

A-24 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-21. Minnesota DOT 2017 RFP for Continuous State Aviation System Plan, Phase I, page 4.

Administrative Resources A-25   Figure A-22. Minnesota DOT 2017 RFP for Continuous State Aviation System Plan, Phase I, page 5. A.3.3 RFP Example: Mississippi e Mississippi DOT provided the following RFP example from its 1997 Statewide Airports Study (Mississippi DOT 1997). Although over 20 years old, this example still includes relevant information. e complete RFP is 18 pages long, but only a selection of pages was identied as relevant to the example. Figures A-23 through A-34 include the most pertinent sections from the RFP for reference: • Part 1: General Information for Consultants, • Part 2: Information Required from Consultants, • Part 3: Criteria for Selection, and • Part 4: Scope of Work.

A-26 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-23. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 1.

Administrative Resources A-27   Figure A-24. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 1 (continued).

A-28 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-25. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 1 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-29   Figure A-26. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 2.

A-30 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-27. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 2 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-31   Figure A-28. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 3.

A-32 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-29. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 4.

Administrative Resources A-33   Figure A-30. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 4 (continued).

A-34 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-31. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 4 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-35   Figure A-32. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 4 (continued).

A-36 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-33. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 4 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-37   Figure A-34. Mississippi DOT RFP for 1997 Statewide Airports Study, Part 4 (continued).

A-38 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning A.3.4 RFP Example: Utah The Utah DOT provided the following RFQ example from its 2018 Utah Continuous Aviation System Plan (UCASP) and Economic Impact Study (Utah DOT 2018). Although the title of this example calls it an RFQ, the solicitation aligns more with an RFP, in that it has a detailed scope and requests firms to provide their approach to achieve the project goals and scope of work. Figures A-35 through A-52 include the most pertinent sections from the RFP for reference: • Part 2: Solicitation Method and Requirements and • Part 3: Project Information and Evaluation Criteria.

Administrative Resources A-39   Figure A-35. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 2.

A-40 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-36. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 2 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-41   Figure A-37. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 2 (continued).

A-42 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-38. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 2 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-43   Figure A-39. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3.

A-44 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-40. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-45   Figure A-41. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

A-46 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-42. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-47   Figure A-43. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

A-48 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-44. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-49   Figure A-45. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

A-50 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-46. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-51   Figure A-47. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

A-52 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-48. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-53   Figure A-49. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

A-54 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-50. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-55   Figure A-51. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

A-56 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-52. Utah DOT RFP for 2018 Continuous Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study of Airports in Utah, Part 3 (continued).

Administrative Resources A-57   A.4 Example Stand-Alone Scopes of Work for Advertisements Some states provided standalone scopes of work that were incorporated into their consultant advertisements. Louisiana and Minnesota provided scopes for their system plan advertisements. A.4.1 Scope of Work Example: Louisiana The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) provided the fol- lowing scope of work example from the 2019 advertisement for its Statewide Aviation Pro- gram Update (Louisiana DOTD 2019). The scope features several tasks that are required to be addressed in the program update. These tasks are referred to as “elements” in the scope, as shown in Figures A-53 through A-62. This scope of work is unique, as it includes a number of tasks in addition to the traditional system plan scope, such as the following: • Airport Safety Assessment and Inspection Plan, • Wildlife Hazard Assessment and Mitigation Plan, • Obstruction Removal Assessment Plan, • Obstruction Removal Mitigation Plan, • General Aviation Airport Operations and Emergency Manual and Plan, • Airport and Aerospace Economic Impact Study, • Airport Safety and Development Program, • Update Airport Manager Handbook, and • Impacts of Rotorcraft Industry in Louisiana.

A-58 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-53. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 1.

Administrative Resources A-59   Figure A-54. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 2.

A-60 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-55. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 3.

Administrative Resources A-61   Figure A-56. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 4.

A-62 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-57. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 5.

Administrative Resources A-63   Figure A-58. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 6.

A-64 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-59. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 7.

Administrative Resources A-65   Figure A-60. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 8.

A-66 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-61. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 9.

Administrative Resources A-67   Figure A-62. Louisiana DOTD 2019 scope of work for Statewide Aviation Program Update, page 10. A.4.2 Scope of Work Example: Minnesota e Minnesota DOT provided the following scope of work example from the Minnesota State Aviation System Plan, Phase II: Request for Qualications and Scope of Work (Minnesota DOT 2019a). e RFQ for Phase I can be found in Section A.3.2. e Phase II tasks are shown in Figures A-63 through A-67. is scope of work is unique, in that it accounts for the system plan being conducted in two phases, emphasizes several policy issues to be addressed, and accounts for an electronic system plan tool/dashboard. Following are some of the elements included in the scope: • Validating Recommendations and Deliverables from Phase I, • Policy Issues to Analyze, • Navigational Aids (NavAids) Plan, • Acquire Data, and • Database System and Display Dashboard.

A-68 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-63. Minnesota DOT 2019 scope of work for SASP, Phase II, page 1.

Administrative Resources A-69   Figure A-64. Minnesota DOT 2019 scope of work for SASP, Phase II, page 2.

A-70 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-65. Minnesota DOT 2019 scope of work for SASP, Phase II, page 3.

Administrative Resources A-71   Figure A-66. Minnesota DOT 2019 scope of work for SASP, Phase II, page 4.

A-72 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Figure A-67. Minnesota DOT 2019 scope of work for SASP, Phase II, page 5.