PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 On TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018, the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority met at the GOAA Annex Building, 1 st Floor Conference Rooms (Apollo/Gemini/Taurus), 5855 Cargo Road, Orlando, FL Chair Thornton called the meeting to order at 9:21 a.m. The meeting was posted in accordance with Florida Statutes and a quorum was present. Committee Members present: Stan Thornton, Chair Pam L Heureux, Director of Finance Mike Patterson, Director of Construction Gary Hunt, Director of Maintenance Also present: Edward Philpot, Legal Counsel (Broad & Cassel) Karen Ryan, Legal Counsel (Broad & Cassel) Meredith Hammock, Legal Counsel (Marchena & Graham) Robert Alfert, Jr., Legal Counsel (Broad & Cassel) Yovannie Rodriguez, Legal Counsel (Marchena & Graham) Mark Birkebak, Engineering Debbie McKeown, Project Controls Arlene Grant, Planning, Engineering, and Construction Randy Nunley, Internal Audit Tracy Harris, Concessions Vendla Davermann, Finance Venus Hinds, Construction Finance Jihyun Park, Executive Administration Tara Ciaglia, WSP USA Joanne Regidor, Recording Secretary Other present: Bryan Mehaffey, Burns Engineering, Inc. Charles Sukanek, Page One Consultants, Inc. Ejaz Ahmad, CMTS/Hanson JV John Guirges, Geotech Consultants International, Inc. dba GCI, Inc. Rob Sweat, Archis, Inc. Ryan Allen, R.W. Block Consulting, Inc. LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE Parties present were reminded that for individuals who conduct lobbying activities with Aviation Authority employees or Board members, registration with the Aviation Authority is required each year prior to conducting any lobbying activities. A statement of expenditures incurred in connection with those lobbying instances should also be filed prior to April 1st of each year for the preceding year. As of January 16, 2013, lobbying any Aviation Authority Staff who are members of any committee responsible for ranking Proposals, Letters of Interest, Statements of Qualifications or Bids and thereafter forwarding those recommendations to the Board and/or Board Members is prohibited from the time that a Request for Proposals, Request for Letters of Interests, Request for Qualifications or Request for Bids is released to the time that the Board makes an award. As adopted by the Board on September 19, 2012, lobbyists are now required to sign-in at the Aviation Authority offices prior to any meetings with Staff or Board members. In the event a lobbyist meets with or otherwise communicates with Staff or a Board member at a location other than the Aviation Authority offices, the lobbyist shall file a Notice of Lobbying (Form 4) detailing each instance of lobbying to the Aviation Authority within 7 calendar days of such lobbying. As of January 16, 2013, lobbyists will also provide a notice to the Aviation Authority when meeting with the Mayor of the City of Orlando or the Mayor of Orange

2 2 of 7 County at their offices. The policy, forms, and instructions are available in the Aviation Authority s offices and the web site. Please contact the Director of Board Services with questions at (407) ANNOUNCEMENT Any appeals of decisions made by the Professional Services Committee (PSC) must be filed with the Chief Executive Officer within five business days (no later than 4:00 p.m. on the fifth business day) of the rendering of that decision. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 11, [Item Nos. 1 through 6 were considered in one motion.] Upon motion of Mr. meeting on November 11, 2015, with inclusion of the corrections provided by Legal Counsel. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 12, [Item Nos. 1 through 6 were considered in one motion.] Upon motion of Mr. meeting on November 12, 2015, with inclusion of the corrections provided by Legal Counsel. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 13, [Item Nos. 1 through 6 were considered in one motion.] Upon motion of Mr. meeting on November 13, CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 6, [Item Nos. 1 through 6 were considered in one motion.] Upon motion of Mr. meeting on February 6, CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 22, [Item Nos. 1 through 6 were considered in one motion.] Upon motion of Mr. meeting on May 22, 2018, with inclusion of the corrections provided by Legal Counsel. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 31, [Item Nos. 1 through 6 were considered in one motion.] Upon motion of Mr. meeting on May 31, 2018, with inclusion of the corrections provided by Legal Counsel. CONTRACT HOLDER PLANNING AND ENGINEERING REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE CONCESSIONS PLANNING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AIRPROJECTS, INC. (VA) FOR A REDUCTION OF SCOPE FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE INTERMODAL TERMINAL FACILITY, AT THE ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 7. Ms. Harris presented the memorandum, dated, to request an Amendment to Addendum No. 2, which provides a credit to the above-referenced agreement for the reduction of scope. On December 12, 2017, the Professional Services Committee recommended approval of an addendum to the Concessions Planning Services Agreement with AirProjects,Inc. (VA) for South Terminal/ITF and North Terminal Concession Plans at Orlando International Airport, in the not-to-exceed fee amount of $403, Due to the delay of concession requirements in the Intermodal Terminal Facility (ITF), this addendum needed to be amended to reduce both the scope of work and fees associated with the ITF.

3 3 of 7 The Office of Small Business Development reviewed the qualifications of the subject contract's MWBE/LDB/VBE specifications and determined that AirProjects, Inc. (VA) proposes a reduction of 11.7% MWBE participation on this Amendment. Upon motion of Ms. L Heureux, second by Mr. Patterson, vote carried to approve an Amendment to Addendum No. 2 to the Concessions Planning Services Agreement with AirProjects, Inc. (VA) for a reduction in scope of services related to the ITF, for a total not-to-exceed fee credit amount of ($78,752.00), with funding credited to FDOT Grants, and the Operations and Maintenance Fund to the extent eligible. PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PERSONNEL FOR W-S00111 SOUTH TERMINAL C, PHASE 1, PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (OAR) - PROJECT MANAGER AND ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER. 8. Mr. Guirges presented the memorandum, dated, for approval of personnel for W-S00111, South Terminal C, Phase 1, Program and Project Management Services (OAR). The following list is the professional services personnel for Construction Management Support Services for W-S00111, South Terminal C, Phase 1, Program and Project Management Services (OAR). Name: Position: Company: Name: Position: Company: Torie Burke STC Project Manager I GCI, Inc. James Wheeler STC Assistant Project Manager GCI, Inc. Upon motion of Mr. Patterson, second by Mr. Hunt, vote carried to approve Construction Management Support Services for W-S00111, South Terminal C, Phase 1, Program and Project Management Services, at the Orlando International Airport; there is no fiscal impact. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PERSONNEL FOR W-S00111 SOUTH TERMINAL C, PHASE 1, PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (OAR) - ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER. 9. Mr. Guirges presented the memorandum, dated, for approval of personnel for W-S00111, South Terminal C, Phase 1, Program and Project Management Services (OAR). The following list is of professional services personnel for Construction Management Support Services for W-S00111, South Terminal C, Phase 1, Program and Project Management Services (OAR). Name: Position: Company: Ivan Lojo-Gonzalez STC Document Control II Page One Consultants, Inc. Upon motion of Mr. Hunt, second by Mr. Patterson, vote carried to approve Construction Management Support Services for W-S00111, South Terminal C, Phase 1, Program and Project Management Services, at the Orlando International Airport; there is no fiscal impact.

4 4 of 7 PRE-QUALIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CM@R) SUBCONTRACTORS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TURNER-KIEWIT JOINT VENTURE'S LIST OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUBCONTRACTORS/SUPPLIERS (REFERENCE SOQ NO. 9) FOR THE SOUTH TERMINAL C, PHASE 1, PROGRAM, AT THE ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 10. Mr. Guirges presented the memorandum, dated July 3, 2018, along with the proposal from Turner-Kiewit Joint Venture (T-K), requesting approval of T-K s list of prequalified subcontractors/suppliers for major trade packages (Reference SOQ No. 9) for the South Terminal C, Phase 1, Program. The Request for Qualifications for SOQ No. 9 is part of T-K s open advertisement to solicit qualifications from interested subcontractors/suppliers for work associated with T-K s Guaranteed Maximum Prices (GMP) packages. T-K evaluated each GMP to determine which pre-qualified companies to solicit pricing from, based on the size and scope of each bid package. T-K s recommendation is to pre-qualify the following two firms: Aleut Management Services Electrical United Visual Branding Signage The addition of the firms listed above will result in a total of 490 pre-qualified subcontractors for T-K. All firms that met the minimum qualifications set forth by T-K will remain prequalified for future GMP packages. Upon motion of Mr. Hunt, second by Mr. Patterson, vote carried to approve Turner- Kiewit Joint Venture s list of pre-qualified subcontractors/suppliers for the South Airport Terminal C, Phase 1 Program; there is no fiscal impact. NEW ITEM REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION S AND TURNER-KIEWIT JOINT VENTURE'S PROPOSED SHORTLIST OF QUALIFIED FIRMS TO BE INVITED TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS IN THE ONGOING PROCUREMENT FOR SUBCONTRACTORS FOR LOW VOLTAGE SYSTEMS AIRSIDE/LANDSIDE FOR THE SOUTH TERMINAL C, PHASE 1, PROGRAM, AT THE ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 11. Mr. Guirges presented the memorandum, dated, for approval of Hensel Phelps Construction s and Turner-Kiewit Joint Venture's Proposed Shortlist of Qualified Firms to be invited to submit Proposals in the Ongoing Procurement for Subcontractors for Low Voltage Systems Airside/Landside for the South Terminal C, Phase 1, Program, at the Orlando International Airport. Turner-Kiewit Joint Venture (T-K) and Hensel Phelps Construction (HPC), the Construction Management at Risk (CMAR) contractors, seek to jointly procure a single firm to provide and install Low Voltage Systems for the Airside and Landside Terminals for South Terminal C. The Low Voltage Systems scope includes premise distribution, communications cabling, the building managements system, a passive optical network, the integrated airport management system, security/audio visual, and the fire alarm system. In light of the systems involved in this work scope, the technical focus, and the need for seamless management and quality control across the Landside and Airside Terminals, the CMARs are conducting a two-step best value procurement. In Step 1, submitted Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) are evaluated to select a shortlist of three or more firms. In Step 2, the shortlisted firms are invited to submit proposals addressing technical suitability and pricing, which, after interviews are conducted and scored, the proposer with the highest score from Step 2 will be recommended for

5 5 of 7 the award of subcontracts. It is noted that the evaluation in Step 1 does not carry forward into Step 2. On June 29, 2018, the CMARs released a solicitation seeking SOQs from interested firms. The CMARs advertised this solicitation in the Orlando Sentinel on July 8, The deadline for submission of SOQs was noon, July 16, Outside of the requirements touching on licensure, bonding capacity, insurance, and similar items, the submission requirements, among other things, requested firms to identify professional qualifications of proposed project management employees, and the firm's experience on projects with similar size, function, and complexity. The following firms (in alphabetical order) timely submitted SOQs: General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. Johnson Controls, Inc. M.C. Dean, Inc. On July 16, 2018, after the SOQ submission deadline passed, the CMARs jointly reviewed the SOQs submitted by each of the three above-listed firms. Each of the SOQs submitted provided substantial information and documentation addressing prompts set out in the solicitation. The CMARs jointly determined that each of the three above-listed firms substantially complied with the minimum qualifications set out in the solicitation, and that each of the firms were sufficiently qualified to submit proposals for the work scope in Step Two of this best-value procurement. Accordingly, the CMARs proposed the following shortlist of firms (in alphabetical order) to be invited to submit proposals in the Step Two of this procurement: General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. Johnson Controls, Inc. M.C. Dean, Inc. Following approval of the proposed shortlist, the shortlisted firms will be provided notice of same, and will thereby be invited to submit technical proposals, which will address, among other things, issues such as approaches to management of this work scope, and quality assurance, on or before August 17, 2018, and cost proposals on or before August 22, The CMARs will jointly interview each proposer, and will jointly score the technical proposals and cost proposals. Ms. Sharman asked if the funding has been verified by R.W. Block Consulting, Inc., and if the eligibility is affected by the method of procurement being used. Mr. Block responded yes, that as long as this is a legal procurement for the Aviation Authority, then it will be eligible for Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) funding. Chair Thornton elaborated that T-K and HPC followed the same process as the Aviation Authority when selecting and ranking professional services. Chair Thornton then asked Legal Counsel to elaborate further. Legal Counsel stated that the process is directly in accordance with Florida Statutes and the Aviation Authority policy, and additionally noted that the CMARs used a very similar process for the selection of specialty trades, best value type procurement, and product demo/testing procurement processes. Mr. Patterson stated that on previous procurements, the PSC was the entity that would conduct both Steps 1 and 2. Legal Counsel responded that Mr. Patterson s statement is correct, and that the Aviation Authority authorized the CMARs to handle the procurement of the trades, and stated which procurement process to follow. Legal Counsel commented that this model of procurement is a more protective process, and further stated that

6 6 of 7 it is still important for the process to be interactive, as where the Aviation Authority has some say with the outcome. Mr. Block stated that eligibility will not be driven solely by procurement, but also depends on the percentage eligible with the scopes involved. Mr. Patterson stated that the shortlisting does not require approval by the Aviation Authority Board. Legal Counsel confirmed this. Mr. Hunt asked when the protest period would start. Chair Thornton stated that, per Aviation Authority policy, a protest of the decision made by the PSC would need to be filed with the Chief Executive Office within five business days and no later than 4:00 p.m. of the fifth business day. Thus, a protest of the decision made today would need to be filed no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24, Mr. Patterson inquired about Step 2 not being a price-based recommendation. Legal Counsel deferred the question to the presenting team. Mr. Mehaffey stated that when this process started, the marketplace was researched to see what resources were available, followed by collaborations with HPC and T-K, to determine the availability in the local area, of firms that have the experience, manpower, financial standing, and the wherewithal to be able to handle a complex project. Several outreach events were conducted to explain the project in order to entice bidders and to increase competition for the project. Mr. Mehaffey stated that the three submitted SOQs from General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., and M.C. Dean, Inc., were evaluated based on the qualifications, history, reputation in the industry, as well as previous experience with the proposers. With the specific criteria evaluated, it was the consensus of the evaluation team that all three proposers should be shortlisted as qualified bidders for the technology package. Mr. Patterson asked how the services were advertised. Mr. Mehaffey replied that, in addition to the Orlando Sentinel, both HPC and T-K advertised through their standard legal processes, such as on their websites, when selecting subcontractors for their projects. Legal Counsel further confirmed that the Aviation Authority s normal processes were followed. Legal Counsel asked Mr. Patterson if his question regarding how they were evaluating price in Step Two was addressed. Mr. Patterson replied no. Mr. Mehaffey responded that it is a weighted process based on a set of criteria related to the qualifications from Step One of the process. After the proposers are shortlisted, the proposers will be issued a notice to submit their actual bids. These bids will be evaluated, and assigned points regarding the bidders safety plan, logistics plan, and a supplychain strategy to guarantee they can actually deliver the project, with price having the heaviest weight, in regards to evaluation. Legal Counsel elaborated that any points from Step 1, the SOQ stage, do not move forward into Step 2 of the evaluation, with Step 2 including a technical proposal and price proposal which will be scored by T-K and HPC, to ultimately determine who the best proposer is. Legal Counsel continued that the CM@Rs will release the evaluation criteria for the technical and price proposals when the shortlisted proposers are requested to submit their bids. Ms. Sharman asked, since price is a consideration, if there is any effect on eligibility with the procurement. Mr. Block responded that this is a legal procurement and is eligible for PFC funding. Mr. Patterson added that the selection criteria must be clearly spelled out as to what is eligible. Ms. Sharman concurred with Mr.

7 1 of 1 Patterson. Legal Counsel added that it is comparable to the Aviation Authority's typical Design/Build procurement, which also has two-step process, with the first step being qualifications-based to determine a shortlist of proposers, and a second step in which the proposers are evaluated on design, technical, and price. Legal Counsel continued that in the design criteria package, which is issued to the shortlisted proposers, it details the evaluative criteria, scoring, and ultimate methodology for selection. Legal Counsel stated that as long as these points are clearly stated, that this is a completely legal process, and it is a process that the Aviation Authority has used routinely. Mr. Patterson asked about the process in the event of a tie amongst the shortlisted proposers. Legal Counsel responded that there are rules for how to break a tie based on the number of points the proposer receives on their technical proposal. Legal Counsel stated that, with regards to Mr. Patterson's and Ms. Sharman's questions, the RFP will clearly spell out what is expected for the next submission, and exactly how to address the resolution of a tie. Legal Counsel then stated that the recently completed Baggage Handling System (BHS) procurement process was used as a comparison of how to go about the procurement of the low voltage services and delineating a very clear process on the resolution of ties. Legal Counsel asked the evaluation team to confirm that they were satisfied that all three proposers will be able to handle the work. Mr. Mehaffey confirmed yes. Mr. Patterson inquired if the price submitted by the proposer in Step 2 will be the price used when the CMAR's Guaranteed Maximum Prices (GMP) goes to the Aviation Authority for approval. Mr. Mehaffey confirmed yes. Ms. L'Heureux asked for further clarification regarding the viability of one of the firms being able to handle the whole project, and asked how that was determined. Mr. Guirges responded that this procurement process was used because of the significant scope of work and the availability of firms in the marketplace, and that there was not a large selection that would be able to handle this scope of work. Mr. Guirges continued to state that the proposers were given defined general terms, and asked to respond on how they would approach and execute the work. This aspect was critical during the selection to ensure the proposers were capable and could handle the size of this project. Upon motion of Mr. Patterson, second by Mr. Hunt, vote carried to approve Turner- Kiewit Joint Venture's and Hensel Phelps Construction's recommendation to shortlist the qualified firms, listed below in alphabetical order, to be invited to submit proposals in the ongoing procurement for subcontracts for Low Voltage Systems - Airside/Landside for South Terminal C, Phase 1; there is no fiscal impact. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. Johnson Controls, Inc. M.C. Dean, Inc. ADJOURNMENT 12. There being no further business for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 a.m. Stqffiley J. Thorntoft, Chair Professional Services Committee Chief Operating Officer