No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC10-070 BNP AssociatesS4.. AGREEMENT BETWEEN EAGLE COUNTY AIR TERMINAL CORPORATION AND BNP ASSOCIATES, INC This Consulting Agreement ("Agreement") dated as of this ]�L day of March, 2010, is between the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation, a nonprofit corporation of the State of Colorado ("Corporation"), and BNP Associates, Inc., an engineering design firm with a principal place of business in Denver, Colorado, with a mailing address of 12075 East 45`s Avenue, Suite 205, Denver, Colorado 80239 ("Consultant'). WHEREAS, the Corporation is in need of a company to provide the services outlined in Section 1.1 hereunder; and WHEREAS, Consultant has represented that it has the experience and knowledge in the subject matter necessary to carry out the services outlined in Section 1.1 hereunder; and WHEREAS, Corporation wishes to hire Consultant to perform the tasks associated with such services outlined in Section 1.1 hereunder; and WHEREAS, Corporation and Consultant intend by this Agreement to set forth the scope of the responsibilities of the Consultant in connection with the services and related terms and conditions to govern the relationship between Consultant and Corporation in connection with the services. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the representations by Consultant set forth in the foregoing recitals, for good and valuable consideration, including the promises set forth herein, the parties agree to the following: 1. Services Provided: 1.1 The Consultant will provide the consulting services as more particularly set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter called "Consulting Services"). The Consulting Services are generally described as providing services as outlined in Exhibit A, which includes the Invitation for Letters of Interest for In -line Baggage System Design and Funding Application Submission and its Addendum I, and Consultants response under the aforementioned Invitation for Letters of Interest, dated December 3, 2009. To the extent the terms and conditions of this agreement may conflict with Exhibit "A" the terms and conditions of this agreement shall control. 1.2 The Consultant agrees that Consultant will not enter into any consulting arrangements with third parties that will conflict in any manner with the Consulting Services. 1.3 Consultant has given the Corporation a proposal for performing the Consulting Services and represented that it has the expertise and personnel necessary to properly and timely perform the Consulting Services. 2. Term of Agreement: 2.1 This Agreement shall commence on the effective date of this Agreement _-, 2010, and, subject to the provisions of Section 2.2 hereof, shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the Consulting Services, which shall be no later than 90 days from the commencement of the Consulting Services. This Agreement may be extended beyond the time referred to in this Section 2.1 on terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed between the parties hereto. 2.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any other reason at any time, with or without cause. 2.3 In the event of any termination of this Agreements Consultant shall be compensated for all hours of work then satisfactorily completed, plus pre -approved expenses. 3. Independent Contractor: 3.1 With respect to the provision of the Consulting Services hereunder, Consultant acknowledges that Consultant is an independent contractor providing Consulting Services to the Corporation. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to make Consultant or its agents, employees and consultants an agent, employee, partner or representative of Corporation, 3.2 The Consultant shall not have the authority to, and will not make any commitments or enter into any agreement with any party on behalf of Corporation without the written consent of the Corporation. 3.3 The Consultant will maintain general liability, unemployment and workman's compensation insurance on his/her behalf, as necessary. 4. Remuneration: 4.1 For the Consulting Services provided hereunder, Corporation shall pay to the Consultant according to the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "A." Fees for Consulting Services satisfactorily performed will be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of a proper and accurate invoice from Consultant respecting Consulting Services. The invoice shall include a description of services performed. Upon request, Consultant shall provide Corporation with such other supporting information as Corporation may request. 4.2 Corporation will not withhold any taxes from monies paid to the Consultant hereunder and Consultant agrees to be solely responsible for the accurate reporting and payment of any taxes related to payments made pursuant to the terms of this Agreement 5. Ownership of Documents: Documents (including electronic files) which are obtained during or prepared for approval of the Corporation during the performance of the Consulting Services (such as the preliminary schematic design, the design development documents, and construction documents) shall remain 2 �%� the property of the Corporation and are to be delivered to Corporation upon request, before final payment is made to Consultant, or upon earlier termination of this Agreement. Corporation acknowledges that use of the documents prepared under this agreement should be used for the project for which they were prepared only. Consultant may use ideas and drawings prepared during the performance of Consulting Services for other projects, as appropriate. Corporation further acknowledges that use of documents which are not stamped "final construction documents" will be at Corporation's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Furthermore, reuse or modification of any such documents by Corporation, without Consultant's written permission, shall be at Corporation's sole risk. 6. Indemnification: Within the limits allowed by law, Consultant shall indemnify Corporation for, and hold the Corporation and its officials, boards, officers, principals and employees harmless from, all costs, claims and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from claims or in connection with the negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant in performing the Consulting Services. This indemnification shall not apply to claims by third parties against the Corporation to the extent that the Corporation is liable to such third party for such claim without regard to the involvement of the Consultant. 7. Consultant's Professional Level of Care: Consultant shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the Consulting Services, including all supporting data and other documents prepared or compiled in performance of the Consulting Services, and shall correct, at its sole expense, all significant errors and omissions therein. The fact that the Corporation has accepted or approved the Consulting Services shall not relieve Consultant of any of its responsibilities. Consultant shall perform the Consulting Services in a skillful, professional and competent manner and in accordance with the standard of care, skill and diligence applicable to consultants, with respect to similar services, in this area at this time. 8. No Assignment: The parties to this Agreement recognize that the Consulting Services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement are professional in nature and that in entering into this Agreement Corporation is relying upon the professional services and reputation of Consultant and its approved subcontractors. Therefore, neither Consultant nor its subcontractors may assign its interest in this Agreement or in its subcontract, including the assignment of any rights or delegation of any obligations provided therein, without the prior written consent of Corporation, which consent Corporation may withhold in its sole discretion. Except as so provided, this Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns, and shall not be deemed to be for the benefit of or enforceable by any third party. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Agreement. 3 �4 J 9. Notices: 9.1 Any notice and all written communications required under this Agreement shall be given in writing by personal delivery, facsimile ground shipping, or U.S. Mail to the other party at the following addresses: (a) Chris Anderson Eagle County Airport Terminal Manager (970) 328-2649 (p) (970) 328-2687(f) U.S. Mail to: P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Ground Shipping to: 219 Eldon Wilson Drive Gypsum, CO 81637 (b) Cal Trudeau Project Director, BNP Associates, Inc. 12075 East 45t' Avenue Suite 205 Denver, CO 8239 (720) 374-4930 (p) (720) 374-4929 (f) 9.2 Notices shall be deemed given on the date of delivery; on the date the facsimile is transmitted and confirmed received or, if transmitted after normal business hours, on the next business day after transmission, provided that a paper copy is mailed the same date; or three days after the date of deposit, first class postage prepaid, in an official depository of the U.S. Postal Service. 10. Jurisdiction and Confidentiality: 10.1 This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the Iaws of the State of Colorado and the parties hereby agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts thereof. Venue shall be in the Fifth Judicial District for the State of Colorado. 10.2 The Consultant and Corporation acknowledge that, during the term of this Agreement and in the course of the Consultant rendering the Consulting Services, the Consultant may acquire knowledge of the business operations of Corporation to the point that the general method of doing business, the pricing of products the lists of customers and other aspects of the business affairs of Corporation will become generally known and the Consultant shall not disclose, use. publish or otherwise reveal, either directly or through another, to any person, firm or corporation, any knowledge, information or facts concerning any of the past or then business operations, pricing or sales data of Corporation and shall retain all knowledge and information which he has 4 ... acquired as the result of this Agreement in trust in a fiduciary capacity for the sole benefit of Corporation, its successors and assigns during the term of this Agreement and for a period of five (5) years following the termination of this Agreement. 12. Miscellaneous: 12.1 This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties related to its subject manor. It supersedes all prior proposals, agreements and understandings. IN WI ERR the parties hereto have signed this Agreement in triplicate on thi6 day ofT)braery, 2010. One counterpart each has been delivered to Corporation, Contractor and Project Manager. All portions of the Contract Documents have been signed or identified by Corporation and Contractor, or by Project Manager on their behalf. CORPORATION EAGLE COUNTY AIR TERMINAL CORPORATION By: Afla_C a / Sara J. Fisher President Col itz EXI3IBIT A EAGLE COUNTY AIRPORT Letter of Interest for In -line Baggage System Design and Funding Application Submission Eagle County Regional Airport Gypsum, CO EAGLE CCG6iV acG'AN4t alE^.OaT December 3, 2009 BNP Associates Inc. 12075 E. 45th Ave Suite 205 Denver, CO 80239 USA FIMI iZ+P3MMMM rQw 1. COMPANY INFORMATION BNP Associates, Inc. (Headquarters) 101 East Ridge Office Park Suite 103 Danbury, CT 06810 Phone:203-792-3000 Denver Office: 12075 East 45th Avenue Suite 205 Denver, CO 80239 Phone:720-374-4930 Fax:720-374-4929 Contact Person: Cal Trudeau Project Director Denver Location ctrudeau@bnpassociates:com 2. PROJECT DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATES. INC. ■ Assist the Eagle County Airport with the submission of the current TSA Funding Application Process (FAP) application form to their Federal Security Director (FSD). o Facilitate the coordination with local and HQ TSA via Regional Deployment Managers on the EDS project being considered and conceptually planned. Develop the Design package as outlined in the TSA Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (PGDS), Section 3.2, Version 2, published January 30, 2009. • Assist the FSDs with the submission of a completed application form as an attachment to a Project Request via the current TSA ReMAG process. Upon receipt, respond to any TSA Headquarters staff review comments on the application and contact the Airport POC listed on the application to verify content and to review required supporting documentation before the project application can proceed to detailed review and consideration. o FAP information and documentation: ■ Provide Supporting documentation for review, update and post to http://www.tsa.gov/research/cheeked_baggage_material.shtm including: ■ Current In -line Support Application Form Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DC C 1"� ASSOCIATES, INC. ■ Technical Documentation • Basis of Design Report • Required Concept Drawings • Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report • Preferred Alternative Analysis Report • TSA Cost Estimate • Preliminary Milestone Project Schedule • Phasing and Constructability Technical Memoranda • Provide the Eagle County Regional Airport with a 30% Design package that will include the following documents: o Updated Basis of Design Report. o A Mini-inline Checked Baggage Inspection System Statistical Analysis Report based on an excel spread sheet with a static simulation statistical inputs and outputs Operational Standards Assessment. Please note: A dynamic simulation analysis provided as an AVI format for visual output and comma -delimited is not required by the TSA for simple Mini-inline system. o Preliminary Plans for all disciplines, including demolition and phased (as applicable) construction plans. o Cross Sections showing the vertical dimensions of the CBIS. o Outline Specifications, including reference to the TSA-furnished screening equipment to be used in the CBIS. o Screening Equipment Installation Guidelines, documenting the satisfactory accommodation of the selected screening equipment in compliance with the manufacturer's site -installation guide. o Outline of Reporting Capabilities to be provided by the CBIS. o Documentation of Stakeholder Review and Approval. o 30% Estimate of Probable Construction and O&M Costs. Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC 2 ..wl o A list of EDS equipment by make, model, and serial number that will be decommissioned after the proposed in -line system is operational. 3. COST ANALYSIS Eagle County Regional Airport Terminal - Mini-inline EDS Baggage Handling & EDS Design Services BNP Associates, Inc ASSOCIATES. INC. 30% Schematic Design Rate Hours Fee $180.00 5 $900 -Principal Project Director $150.00 15 $2,250 Sr. Engineer $100.00 10 $1,000 Project Engineer $75.00 15 $1,125 $100.00 40 $4,000 -Designer Drafter $60.00 40 $21400 Totals $11,675 Estimated Expenses $1,000 Totals $12,675 Note: The above costs are for the submission requirements outline in the Project Deliverables described earlier in this document. Additive Alternate: Electrical investigation by Beaudin Ganze Consulting Engineers, Inc., necessary to confirm the availability of the existing electrical power to support the BHS/EDS design intent electrical demand: $2,500.00 4. DETAILED PROJECT APPROACH BNP will ensure consideration of, and coordination among, all project stakeholders including the Airport, TSA, airlines, and others as deemed necessary in all phases of the project. BNP will ensure local, regional, and national TSA design concurrence through all phases of the design and Funding Application Process (FAP). BNP's design approach will maximize the simplicity and efficiency of a Mini in -line design. Design elements used will incorporate system flexibility as it relates to the addition or the reduction of airlines based on expansion and contraction of flight schedules, as well as, future expansion capabilities to accommodate greater capacity and equipment additions. Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC %me N%.✓ ASSOCIATES. INC. BNP will employ effective management and coordination through all phases of the project and maximize TSA/DHS funding opportunities for the design and construction of a Mini -in -line baggage screening system at EGE. The methodology BNP will employ for the execution of the EGE project is as summarized below: A. System Analysis and Design Criteria — In this phase BNP will develop baggage system processing requirements by extrapolating the gate mix and flight schedule (supplied by EGE) B. Concept Design — In this phase, BNP will develop basic concepts based on both the System Analysis and Design Criteria and comments from the EGE and TSA; plus it's own internal review of the concept designs. C. Schematic Design Development — Final refinement of the selected system and dimensional definition. Detailed coordination of the facility interfaces including structural, mechanical, and electrical / control systems. D. Contract Documents — Includes a detailed specification drawing package as well as the procurement, mechanical, electrical and controls systems specifications. E. Bidding Services — Issuance of bid documents, pre -qualification, clarification of contractor questions, bid review and contract award. F. Construction Administration and on -site supervision - provide those services necessary for the administration and monitoring of the construction contract as set forth in the Contract for Construction A. System Analysis and Design Criteria Phase In this phase BNP will develop a baggage system and security screening processing requirements by extrapolating the gate mix, flight schedule (supplied by the EGE) with Date of Beneficial Use + 5 years. The design criteria to be established include: 1. Check-in/curbside counter requirements 2. Transport processing requirements 3. Sortation Rates to include: a. Originating b. EDS and ETD system requirements C. Make-up presentation requirements 4. Oddsize baggage requirements A report will be presented to EGE detailing the system analysis results and recommendations. B. Concept Design Phase Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC 4 �%W N%.. ASSOCIATES. INC. The objective of this phase of the project is to develop the alternate concept configuration(s) of the Outbound Baggage Handling System with associated integrated Mini -In -line 100% Checked Baggage EDS Security Screening and to determine the scope of any required building interface work. • BNP believes the objectives established by the design concepts are as follows: 1. Centralized versus de -centralized CBRA 2. Capability to accept baggage from any check -in location and allow sortation to any make-up point. 3. Provisions of systems that meet the customer service processing time restrictions for originating baggage. 4. Integrate various alternatives for 100% Mini -in -line checked baggage EDS security screening. 5. Capability to implement the selected system with a minimum of disruption to on -going operations. 6. Utilization of proven state-of-the-art technology. 7. Provision of equipment so as to maximize labor productivity and operating efficiency. 8. Provision of equipment that is readily maintainable with minimal operating costs. • Finalize planning criteria and baggage processing requirements including: 1. Processing Rates (originating) 2. Cart/Container unit presentation 3. EDS Security screening requirements • Finalize the system configuration considering the conceptual design layout and possible alternatives. 1. Define BHS support facilities and develop space program 2. Define preliminary structural systems 3. Define preliminary electrical requirements and distribution 4. Develop a concept evaluation matrix of the alternatives with recommendations • Develop the Project Schedule • Establish detailed cost criteria to include the following as a minimum: 1. Capitol Cost of the equipment 2. Cost of operation both monthly and yearly 3. Cost of preventative maintenance program 4. Cost of fault rectification, emergency response and repairs 5. Identify monthly and yearly fully loaded labor costs Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC . 5 r.w. ASSOCIATES, INC. • Prepare Basis for Design Manual, which documents all pertinent planning criteria The design of the baggage system will necessarily involve coordination with numerous parties including the TSA, EGE and all the individual tenant carriers. C. Schematic Design Development Phase • In the Schematic Design Development Phase, the overall baggage distribution system will be refined as required to fimily define right-of-way paths and dimensional definition. • BNP will complete a thorough site survey of the existing terminal to determine as -built conditions. • BNP will develop and coordinate with the tenant airlines and EGE, BHS phasing plans that will minimize the impact on concurrent airline operations during the installation of the 100% in -line EDS system and the Outbound BHS. • The Architectural/Engineering drawing packages will define the critical facility interfaces including: 1. System and facility general arrangement drawings and sections 2. Structural interfaces 3. Floor loadings 4. Ceiling loadings 5. Attachment details 6. Floor openings 7. Concrete curbs 8. Security/Fire Door Placement and Details 9. Electrical power • BNP will determine the number and capacity of all new Motor Control Panels and the power distribution required for the new BHS. •, BNP will survey and verify any existing as -built conditions for power distribution and MCP locations. Determine which panels will no longer be required. Determine which panels may be partially used. Determine if these should be left in place and re -used or be consolidated with new panels. • The BHS system electrical power requirements analysis will include the following: 1. Connected HP requirements 2. Demand HP requirements 3. Power distribution schematics and locations Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC 6 ASSOCIATES. INC. 4. Motor control panel locations 5. Equipment right-of-ways for utility/HVAC/building service coordination • The other items to be completed in design development are the schedule and capital cost estimate updates. D. Contract/Specifications Documents Phase (30% Sub Design) In this phase BNP will define at a 30% design level all the information and requirements pertinent to the individual conveyor/sortation equipment and the facility as a whole; to the general conditions and responsibilities involved; and to the Request for Bid package as a whole. • System/Component Specifications: 1. Overall System Description 2. Facility description 3. System description 4. System operation 5. System Integration with other Airport Systems 6. Operation and maintenance training • General 1. Design Requirements 2. Mechanical Standards 3. Electrical Standards 4. Control Standards 5. Interface Requirements to include: a. Functional Description b. Environment C. Security/Integrity Requirements d. Definition and Format e. Information and Processing Requirements 6. Quality, workmanship and finish standards 7. Reliability, life, and maintainability standards 8. Environmental Requirements 9. Testing standards and procedures 10. Regulatory Agency approvals 11. Operation and Maintenance Manuals • A 30% design level Detail Subsystem and Item Design Control Drawings 1. Subsequent to finalization of each temminal's system definition and layout, prepare Detail Subsystem and Item Design Control Drawings defining dimensional envelopes and relationships between subsystems, items and Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC 7 \"W� ASSOCIATES. INC. components. Also define the processing and control functions to be provided and acceptable method of accomplishing these functions. These include: a. Mechanized Sortation Lines b. EDS Systems C. Load/Unload Conveyors d. Elevating Devices -Inclines, Declines, Slides, Chutes e. Pushers/Diverts f. Make-up Units/Laterals • Control Specifications 1. The Control System and each of its hardware and software components will be contractually defined in a functional specification format. This will include the following considerations: a. Design Philosophy b. Centralized versus de -centralized C. Compatibility with existing Central Terminal IT systems d. Integration with Airport Systems such as: 1.) CUTE (Common User Terminal Equipment) 2.) FIDS (Flight Information Departure Systems) 3.) BIDS (Baggage Information System) 4.) BRS (Baggage Reconciliation System) 5.) EDS (Explosive Detection System) 6.) Fire and Security monitoring systems 7.) Airport Operations e. Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) f. Automatic Tag Reader (ATR) g. Machine Readable Baggage Tags h. Back-up and Redundancy capabilities and requirements E. Bidding And Negotiating Phase In the Bidding and Negotiations Phase, BNP shall provide those services as necessary to assist EGE in obtaining competitive bids and in negotiating, preparing, and awarding contracts for system procurement and implementation. • Bidding Materials services consist of organizing and handling Bidding Documents for: 1. Coordination 2. Draft Submittal Reproduction 3. Completeness review Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC 8 .. ASSOCIATES. INC. 4. Draft Submittal Distribution 5. Draft Submission Distribution records 6. Retrieval 7. Receipt and return of document deposits • Addenda services consisting of preparation and distribution of Addenda as may be required during bidding or negotiation and including supplementary drawings, specifications, instructions and notice(s) of changes in the bidding schedule and procedure. • Bidding and Negotiations services consisting of- 1. Assistance to EGE in establishing a list of Bidders or Proposer 2. Pre -qualification of Bidders or Proposers 3. Participation in pre -bid conferences 4. Responses to questions from Bidders or Proposers and clarifications or interpretations of the Bidding Documents 5. Attendance at bid opening(s) 6. Documentation and distribution of bidding results 7. Notification of bidding results to Proposers • Analysis of Alternates/Substitutions services consisting of consideration, analyses, comparisons, and recommendations relative to alternates or substitutions proposed by Bidders or Proposers either prior or subsequent to receipt of bids or proposals. • Special Bidding Services consisting of: 1. Attendance at bid openings, participation in negotiations, and documentation of decisions for multiple contracts or phased construction 2. Technical evaluation of proposals • Bid Evaluation services consisting of 1. Validation of Bids or Proposals 2. Participation in reviews of Bids or Proposals 3. Evaluation of Bids or Proposals 4. Recommendation on award of Contract(s) 5. Participation in negotiations prior to or following decisions on award of the Contract(s) for Construction • Construction Contract Agreements services consisting of: 1. Notification of Contract Award(s) 2. Assistance in preparation of construction Contract Agreement forms for approval by EGE 3. Assist in the preparation and distribution of sets of Contract Documents for execution by parties to the Contract(s) Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC 9 No.. ASSOCIATES. INC. 4. Receipt, distribution and processing, for EGE approval, of required certificates of insurance, bonds and similar documents 5. Preparation and distribution of Contractor(s) on behalf of EGE, of notice(s) to proceed with the work. F. Construction Administration and On -site supervision 1. Project Administration services consisting of construction contract administrative functions including: a. Consultation b. Research c. Conferences d. Communications e. Travel time f Progress Reports g. Coordination of out -of -normal -sequence construction operations h. Coordination of multiple -prime construction contracts i. Coordination of work with the Project Team j. Coordination with Project Architects/Engineering k. Contractor progress payment approvals. 1. Coordination of delivery, construction, and installation efforts of EDS machines and other work applicable to the program. Coordination with TSA, EDS machine manufacturer, and installers (among others) will be required. 2. Processing of submittals, including receipt, review of, and appropriate action on Shop drawings, Product Data, Samples and other submittals required by the Contract Documents 3. Distribution of submittals to Consultants, Construction Managers, Contractors and BNP field representative 4. Maintenance of master file of submittals 5. Related communications 6. BNP's site supervisor's responsibilities will include: a. Scheduling and coordination of baggage system installation with the general construction b. Assistance in coordinating Building Services with Baggage Systems C. Identification of right-of-way interferences d. Quality Control of Installation Work and any On -site Fabrication e. Specification/Contract Document Compliance f. Coordination with Program Managers/Prime Contractors g. Change Order Initiation h. Conduct Baggage System Contractor Meetings. i. Prepare Progress/Status Reports. j. Participate with BNP Home Office Staff and Contractor Staff in: 1.) Operational Training Dm. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC 10 ASSOCIATES, INC. 2.) Maintenance Training 3.) Acceptance Testing 4.) Running in Operation 5. BNP TEAM PROFILE & PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS BNP Associates, Ina has since 1971 been providing specialized consulting services to the air transportation industry on a worldwide basis. These services are specifically directed at apron, air cargo, air express/mail and luggage handling systems and operations. In our 38 years of professional experience, BNP has been involved in hundreds of projects throughout the world. The scale of projects has ranged from the renovation of small manual systems to some of the largest mechanized material handling systems in the world. In terms of security screening projects, our continuous industry exposure keeps us fully apprised of current and planned TSA requirements. We have been designing integrated baggage security screening equipment in airports for the past 15 years having been involved in the first installations in Europe. Most recently, BNP have facilitated and assist numerous airports, e.g., Jackson Hole Airport (JAC) and Portland International Jetport (PWM) seeking preliminary concept approval for the EDS screening concepts and to secure a funding commitment from the TSA to relocate and reconfigure existing CT-80 machines as required supporting the new screening system. BNP has also assisted the following airports with submission of the TSA EDS Funding Application Process (FAP): • Honolulu International Airport (HNL) • Kona International Airport (KOA) • Kahului Airport (OGG) • Amarillo International Airport (AMA) • Dayton International Airport (DAY) Our solutions are geared towards creating operational reliability, efficiency and effectiveness. The consulting services offered include master planning, analysis and programming of current and projected system requirements, conceptual design, design development where the architectural and engineering interfaces are defined, contract documents, bidding services, construction administration and construction management. BNP's client list is composed of airlines, airports, government agencies, express companies and Architects/Engineers who specialize in airports. The majority of BNP clients are repeat customers who retain BNP to develop all of their material handling system designs. We work as an extension of our clients' staff, offering an unparalleled wealth of knowledge and experience. Doc. Ref. SNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC 11 on .00 ASSOCIATES. INC. BNP typically takes a project from its inception through to operational support. The process includes analyzing the future needs of the system using numerous computer models developed by BNP engineers. Conceptual designs are developed considering various levels of automation, which are then measured against the economic and operational benefits, The design is coordinated with the A&E teams to ensure the system is an integral component of the facility. Functional detailed specifications are prepared based on the system configuration, the design objectives and BNP's practical real world history of mechanical, electrical and controls components and products. Assistance in bid evaluation process is especially beneficial to our clients given BNP's knowledge of the vendors, market pricing and contract requirements. BNP participation in the construction process includes submittal reviews, program management, and site supervision; scheduling, punch listing, acceptance testing and assistance in the operational start up period. Considering our extensive background and experience with baggage handling and security screening system design projects in general, BNP is uniquely qualified to design the in -line baggage system for Eagle County. TEAM STRUCTURE An important aspect of our strategy for this project is the composition of our team. Similarly, our extensive experience with planning and designing checked baggage screening systems and working with the TSA in this regard also provides a valuable familiarity with the requirements for the Eagle County In -Line Baggage System. BNP KEY PERSONNEL A summary of key personnel who will be assigned to the project is shown below. Name / Title Project Role Location 101 East Ridge Office Park David Mecartney, President Principal in Charge Suite 103 Danb CT 06810 12075 East 45th Avenue Cal Trudeau Project Director Suite 205 Denver, CO 80239 Lead Engineer / Project 12075 East 45th Avenue Owen Ballou Manager Suite 205 Denver, CO 80239 For detailed resumes please refer to the following pages. Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County (2).DOC 12 S.. ADDENDUM 1 TO: Invitation for Letters of Interest for In -line Baggage System Design and Funding Application Submission Eagle County Regional Airport Gypsum, CO 1. Is this a contract for professional services? If so, does the Brooks Act apply? a. Upon award of project, awarded parry would enter into a contract for professional services with the airport. The Brooks Act does not apply for this project. If airport is awarded federal funds to further the in -line design beyond 30% the Brooks Act may apply to those future projects. 2. If the Brook's Act does apply then could you please clarify Section 7.1.3 in Submittal Requirements? a. Please see question 1. 3. Can you send a sample of a Professional Services Agreement Terms and Conditions? a. A professional services agreement will be provided to the top ranked short-list party for review at the time they are notified of their position. 4. Your RFP specifically states the anticipated deliverable you are looking for includes "30% design" in addition to fulfillment of application elements required for TSA funding approval. However, as noted in TSA's Funding Application FAQ's, the required supporting documentation includes "Schematic Design Plans" which mayor may not necessarily equate to 30% design drawings. Since the RFP asks for pricing, I want to make sure everyone is pricing based on the same info. So are you looking for a firm to provide 30% design drawings or are you looking for a firm to provide Schematic Design Drawings that are sufficient for the TSA Funding Application? a. 30% design is a required element among many other requirements under the PGDS. Any contract awarded under this Invitation shall ensure that all required design and application elements of the Funding Application Process are met as described in the PGDS. 5. Under Submittal Requirements, Section 7.1.2 Project Deliverables specifically refers back to Section 5. Could you please provide some clarification on what your looking for in the proposal for this section since you're obviously not looking for firms to provide the these actual deliverables until they receive the award to perform the work? a. Submitting parties shall list the project deliverables they intend to provide to the airport under their proposal. 6. Section 7.1.6 requests a signed statement indicating we have read and agree to the "terms and conditions" set forth in this Invitation for Letters of Interest; however, there does not appear to be any section that states/identifies what those terms and conditions are. Can you please provide further clarification on this matter? a. Please refer to Sections I I and 12 of the Invitation. 7. Is there a page limitation for a Letter of Interest submission? a. There is not a page limit, but we do ask that the Letter of Interest be concise and limited only to relevant and pertinent information. 8. We understand that the package should be delivered to you by UPS and/FedEx---- NO POST OFFICE mail a. Correct — tIS Mail delivery is not available directly to the airport offices. 9. 3 copies of the Letter if interest is to be submitted? a. Correct 10. Should the LOI be "bound" spiral or otherwise or loose leaf binder? a. This shall be left up to the submitting party 11. The question is the desired deliverable for this LOI. Are we providing just a Letter of Interest discussing how we intend to approach this project along with our company information and qualifications or are we to provide all the items listed in section 7. Submittal Requirements especially section 7.1.2 (Section 5)? a. Please see question 5. 12. Item 5. Deliverables notes that "deliverables shall consist of 30% design..." All design elements identified under 5.2 are required for pre -design and schematic design only by PGDS. Is the intent to include the design work necessary to provide the TSA 30% Detailed design? If so, the 30% work would also include a dynamic simulation (unless this is considered a simple mini-inline design), cross sections, Outline specifications, screening equipment installation guidelines and Outline of CBIS reporting capabilities. a. Please see question 4. .. 13. Item 7.1.6 states asks that we agree to the terms and conditions in the Letter of Interest. I do not see the terms and conditions. Can you please provide. a. Please see Question 6. 14. Receipt of this Addendum 1 shall be acknowledged by any submitting parties through inclusion of an initialed Addendum 1 in the submitting party's Letter of 6 Interest. i s Addendum 1 received November 25th, 2009 3 i I I I 3 asp �■�✓ DAVID L. MECARTNEY Mr. Mecartney, who has been with BNP since 1982, has been involved as PRESIDENT project manager on some of the world's largest automated baggage and cargo systems. He has also been instrumental in establishing the apron systems group as well as the checked baggage screening disciplines. He is responsible for the development of BNP's analysis methodology with particular PROJECT ROLE emphasis on computer modeling and subsequent development of system and PRINCIPAL -IN -CHARGE program requirements. Mr. Mecartney's primary project management client base is North America CURRENT/PAST EXPERIENCE EMPLOYMENT BNP, SINCE 1982 Seattle/Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA EDUCATION North Terminal Explosive Detection System Solution (Task 9) B.S., AVIATION Computer and Controls Replacement Project (For, United Airlines) MANAGEMENT/TECHNOLOGY FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF Bradley International Airport, Windsor Lock, CT TECHNOLOGY, 1981. Baggage Handling System Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, PA CERTIFICATIONS/ Baggage Handling System with 100% screening for US Airways MEMBERSHIPS COMMERCIAL PILOT Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, Pittsburgh, PA CERTIFICATE Baggage Handling System for US Airways and all other carriers PUBLICATIONS NEW MOVES FOR PHL", Greater Cincinnati International Airport, Cincinnati, OH AIRPORTS INTERNATIONAL, Baggage Handling System for Delta Airlines JANUARY 1987. New Denver Airport, Denver, CO "LUGGAGE VS. BAGGAGE", PASSENGER TERMINAL � Baggage Handling Systems for Continental and United Airlines • WORLD, JULY 1999. Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada Baggage Handling System for Greater Toronto Airports Authority 100% Hold Baggage Screening Detroit Metro Wayne County Airport, Detroit, MI Baggage Handling System for Northwest Airlines Integrated Baggage Screening Orlando International Airport, Orlando, FL Baggage Handling System for Greater Orlando Airports Authority JFK International Airport, New York, NY Baggage Handling Systems for various tenants " O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, IL t Baggage Handling System for United Airlines San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, CA Baggage Handling System for San Francisco Intemational Airport Commission 100% Hold Baggage Screening Miami International Airport, Miami, FL Baggage Handling System for South Terminal Expansion Project nn 100% Hold Baggage Screening ASSOCIATES. INC. j i 3 Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County 13 t CALVIN TRUDEAU Mr. Trudeau, has utilized his education and employment background for the PROJECT DIRECTOR development of electrical/mechanical integration of baggage handling systems. p He has overall office responsibility for maintaining quality control of specifications, cost projections and electrical components. His assignments R have included project management, existing system surveys, system PROJECT ROLE commissioning, phased implementations, and construction monitoring. He has PROJECT DIRECTOR been with BNP Associates, Inc. since March 1999. CURRENT/PAST EMPLOYMENT BNP SINCE 1999 UNITED AIRLINES (1994-1999) AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL (1993-1995) WESCO Inc. (1992-1993) United States Air Force (1972- 1992) EDUCATION MASTER OF ARTS, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, WEBSTER UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS, MO, (1991). BACHELOR OF SCIENCE, I APPLIED MANAGEMENT. SUMMA CUM LAUDE. NATIONAL COLLEGE, RAPID CITY, SD ASSOCIATE OF APPLIED SCIENCE — RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. CCAF — COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF THE AIR FORCE � WWI i t ASSOCIHZES. INC. EXPERIENCE Security Screening Installation Program (FAA), Multiple Sites; For Raytheon Service Company: • Honolulu Intemational Airport: Delta Airlines, All Nippon Airways, Aloha Airlines, and Hawaiian Airlines. • George Bush Intercontinental Airport: Continental • Los Angeles Intemational Airport: Delta Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines. • Sky Harbor Intemational Airport: United Airlines • Salt Lake City Intemational Airport: Delta Airlines • Hilo Intemational Airport: Aloha Airlines • Portland Intemational Airport: Delta Airlines • Denver Intemational Airport: United Airlines and American Airlines • O'Hare Intemational Airport: United Airlines. Honolulu Intemational Airport, Honolulu, HI Baggage Handling System with inline Explosive System Austin - Bergstrorm Intemational Airport, Austin, TX Baggage Handling System with inline Explosive Detection System Raleigh — Durham Intemational Airport, Raleigh, NC Terminal C Modernization and Renovation for the Airport Authority Spokane Intemational Airport, Spokane, WA Baggage Handling System with inline Explosive Detection System Denver Intemational Airport, Denver, CO Baggage Handling System for United Airlines Houston Intemational Airport, Houston, TX Baggage Handling System for Continental Airlines O'Hare Intemational Airport, Chicago, IL Baggage Handling System for United Airlines Orlando Intemational Airport, Orlando, FL Baggage Handling System Controls for Delta Airlines Sky Harbor Intemational Airport, Phoenix, AZ Baggage Handling System, for Northwest Airlines Sky Harbor Intemational Airport, Phoenix, AZ Baggage Handling System, for United Airlines Salt Lake City Intemational Airport, Salt Lake City, UT Baggage Handling System Controls, for Delta Airlines Aeroporto G. Marconi di Bologna, Italy Baggage Handling System with inline Explosive Detection Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County 14 1 CALVIN TRUDEAU Logan International Airport, Boston, MA PROJECT DIRECTOR Baggage Handling System with inline Explosive Detection, for Massport Indianapolis International Airport, Indianapolis, Indiana Baggage Handling System with inline Explosive Detection, for Indianapolis Airport Authority Manchester Airport, Manchester, NH Baggage Handling System with inline Explosive Detection, for Manchester Airport Authority San Jose International Airport, San Jose, CA Terminal Area Improvement Program for Terminals A and B Jackson Hole Airport, Jackson WY Baggage Handling System with inline Explosive Detection, for JAC Airport Authority I � ASSOCIATES. INC. j Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County 15 OWEN BALLOU, P.E. Mr. Ballou's responsibilities include design documentation, cost estimating, SR. PROJECT MANAGER development of system requirements and system specifications. In addition, Mr. Ballou has extensive field experience with baggage system testing, statistical reporting and site surveys. Mr. Ballou has been with BNP since October 1999. PROJECT ROLE PROJECT MANAGER EXPERIENCE CURRENT/PAST Seattle/Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA EMPLOYMENT North Terminal Explosive Detection System Solution (Task 9) BNP SINCE 1999 Computer and Controls Replacement Project (For United Airlines) ELECTRONIC Houston International Airport, Houston, TX MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS (1998-1989) TSA OSR Baggage System Expansion, Terminal C Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, PA EDUCATION Outbound Baggage Handling System for United Airlines B.S. MECHANICAL ENGINEERING COLORADO STATE Denver International Airport, Denver, CO UNIVERSITY, 1999 Baggage Handling System CERTIFICATES Tampa International Airport, Tampa, FL PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Baggage Handling System Testing, Statistical Reporting and Site Surveys (ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLODA, H CON, MICHI UTFLOR, Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, IL OHIO, PE NSYLV, NICHIGAN, oHlo, PENNSYLVANIA, Baggage Handling System Controls and Replacement VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON) Explosive Detection System, Terminal 1, United Airlines Honolulu International Airport, Honolulu, HI Baggage Handling System Controls and Replacement Boston Logan International Airport, Boston, MA Hold Baggage Screening System Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, CA Baggage Handling System Controls and Replacement San Jose International Airport, San Jose, CA Terminal Area Improvement Program for Terminals A and B Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, Minneapolis, MN Baggage Handling System Audit, Evaluation, and Value Estimate John Wayne Airport, Orange County, CA Maintenance Audit Detroit McNamara Terminal at the Northwest World Gateway, Detroit, MI Security Expansion Luggage Handling System Luggage Handling System Project Pittsburgh International Airport, Pittsburgh, PA Explosive Detection System Project Baggage Handling System Computer and Controls Replacement Project Qwi Dm. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County 16 u ASSOCIATES, INC. 9 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE BNP's expertise and services are specifically related to airports and airport systems. BNP has been involved in hundreds of projects throughout the world in our 38 years of professional experience in the industry and over 15 years of designing integrated luggage security screening systems. Representative samples are included in the following section. CAPACITY BNP Associates, Inc. is a privately held company with a staff of approximately 60 people, including 3 Principals and approximately 17 Project Directors and Managers that handle the day- to-day management of our projects, client communications and supervision of all of the related design, engineering and construction administration processes performed by our design, engineering and construction staff. Our design and engineering staff is responsible for the development of drawing and specification packages, cost estimating, electrical interfaces and development of systems analyses. Our construction staff is responsible for construction administration services, construction management services, shop drawing reviews, manual reviews, punch listing, acceptance testing and after start-up assistance. PAST PERFORMANCE BNP understands the importance of accomplishing quality work in the required time to suit the often time -critical operational needs of the airport and we will utilize our staff of approximately 60 as required to do so. Scheduling resources will not be a bottleneck. BNP have an excess of experienced and qualified personnel to respond to the most aggressive schedule demands. In our efforts to control cost to the extent possible, BNP always strives for efficiency in its designs, thorough documentation and coordination. We also provide BHS specifications that are primarily performance -based and functional in nature and thereby allow a flexibility to prospective contractors that helps facilitate competitive bidding. Our approximately 38 years in the business and our repeat customers who consistently retain BNP to develop all of their material handling system designs speak best to the quality of our work and stability as a company. Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County 17 OWNER. STATE OF HAWAIH DOT - AIRPORTS DIVISION PHONE: (808) 838-8831 OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE KYA DESIGN GROUP BNP PROJECT MANAGER: CAL TRUDEAU LOCATION: HONOLULU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMPLETION DATE: 1212008 - 03/2011 BHS CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT: $31.5 MILLION TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT: $65.4 MILLION REFERENCE: KAZI SIRAZUL KYA DESIGN GROUP 934 PUMEHANA STREET HONOLULU, HI 96826 PHONE: (808) 949-7770 SCOPE OF SERVICES: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DYNAMIC SIMULATION DESIGN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The Honolulu International Airport Oversee Terminal consists of five (5) independent passenger check -in lobbies. Four of the five lobbies 4, 5, 7, and 8 Outbound Baggage Handling Systems are being retrofitted with in - line EDS Security screening devices based on an approved TSA concept(s). These concepts were developed using current TSA protocols, certified EDS equipments, State of Hawaii Design & Development Guidelines, State of Hawaii Building and Fire Code requirements for the design of the system and construction criteria. The new screening matrix for each Lobby contains four (4) inline eXaminer 6000 explosive detection system device(s) manufactured and supplied by L3 Communications. All "Out of Gauge" bags and odd size will be manually transported from the lobby by elevator directly into the ETD area for screening. All "in gauge" bags will be diverted off the mainline by a high-speed diverter (HSD) to an available EDS device operating In the automatic mode for level 1 screening (minimum of 3 queue belts are provided prior to each EDS device to maintain a balanced throughput of the system per the TSA design criteria for a medium throughput system of 400 bags per hour per EDS device). After level 1 EDS screening all bags will merge back onto the mainline. A high-speed diverter (HSD) will allow "Clear" bags to continue on the mainline that will transport the bags to an automated sortation system. Level 1 "suspect" bags will merge back on the respective mainline unfit the "decision point", white the TSA agent viewing the alarmed image using Threat Resolution Tools (TRT) makes a determination if the bag is "Clear" or requires level 3 trace screening (minimum of 45 seconds of On -Screen Resolution (OSR) decision time will be provided as required by the TSA). If "Cleared" the bag will continue on the mainline and onto the automated sortation system. If the OSR operator determines no decision or further screening, the bag will be diverted to the ETD area by the HSD. RELEVANCE: ETD "Cleared" Level 3 bags will be inducted back onto the clear bag CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING mainlines from the ETD area on the CB line and transported to the SYSTEM respective make-up device. Failed Level 3 bags will be treated per the local EOD protocol. I' J�' I' This is a typical project that we have completed in the Hawaiian Islands I' + BNP has designed all the EDS projects for all the major airports in Hawaii. OWNER: Jackson Hole Airport OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: Ray Bishop Airport Director 1250 East Airport Road Jackson, WY 83001 Phone: (3071733-7695 BNP PROJECT MANAGER: David Mecartney LOCATION: Jackson Hole, WY COMPLETION DATE: Phase 1 — CBIS Certification May, 2010 BHS CONSTRUCTION AMOUNI $4.5 Million TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AMOUNI $28 Million REFERENCE: Gensler Brad Van Arsdale, AIA, LEED AP 1625 Broadway Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.595-8585 SCOPE OF SERVICES: Design of Mini-Inline EDS Construction Project Management Contract Administration of ARRA/OTA funding RELEVANCE: Checked Baggage Screening System The Mini-Inline EDS Project (as part of the overall Terminal Expansion Project) was designed to comply with PGDS Version 2.0. The Checked Baggage Inspection System utilizes 4 Reveal CT-80DR EDS machines and 2 Reveal CT- 80XL EDS machines. In addition to the Checked Baggage Inspection System, ticket counter conveyor and sloped plate make-up device subsystems comprise the balance of the baggage handling and security screening system, which replaces the existing system in its entirety. Unique system functionality includes design considerations for a significant amount of long baggage being processed by both the CBIS and baggage make-up areas, as well as accommodations for significant fluctuations in passenger traffic on a daily and seasonal basis. Statistics 50,000 gsf new; 48,000 gsf remodel CBIS from 1500 gsf to 15,000 Ticket Hall from 7500 to 15,000 Hold room from 5700 to 13,300 Ticket stations from 21 sf to 36sf ASSOCIATES, INC. OWNER: BNP Associates, Inc. has been retained by Gensler as part of the Design PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL Services Project for the design of the Terminal Expansion at the Portland JETPORT International Jetport (PWM) including the Outbound Baggage Handling OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: Systems (BHS) with medium volume in -line 100% checked baggage MR. PAUL BRADBURY screening for the Terminal Expansion at Portland International Jetport AIRPORT DIRECTOR (Terminal). BNP PROJECT MANAGER: Portland International Jetport services eleven airlines and serves as a STEVEN LAPORTA destination for both domestic and international flights. The Jetport is undergoing a 140,000 square foot expansion and renovation of the main LOCATION: terminal building. The project includes five new passenger gates, a new PORTLAND, MAINE security screening checkpoint, an EDS outbound baggage handling system, COMPLETION DATE: revised inbound/outbound passenger circulation, a bridged connection to the EXPECTED COMPLETION 2011 OR parking garage over the terminal roadway, a food court and retail space and EARLY 2012 renovations in multiple areas of the existing terminal. BHS CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT: The new BHS is to be configured to include a automated In -line outbound NOT YET BID sortation system with four (4) baggage make up carousels and automated TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT: 100% in -line EDS checked baggage security screening system all controlled NOT YET BID by a centralized fully redundant BHS computer and PLC system. REFERENCE: PORTLAND INT'L JETPORT 1001 WESTBROOK STREET PORTLAND, ME 04102 SCOPE OF SERVICES: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DYNAMIC SIMULATION DESIGN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS RELEVANCE: NEW AUTOMATED BAGGAGE HANDLING SYSTEM INCLUDING 100% HOLD BAGGAGE SCREENING FIR. ASSOCIATES, INC. � I IATES, INC. 101 EAST RIDGE OFFICE PARK JJITE 103 ANBURY, CT 06810 USA TEL: 203.792.3000 FAX: 203.792.4900 BNPH9 @ AOL.COM u 2 December 2009 Eagle County Airport Eldon Wilson Road Gypsum, CO 81637 Re: Letter of Interest Disclaimer In -line Baggage System Design Eagle County Regional Airport Please accept this letter as our Letter of Interest Disclaimer for the In -line Baggage System Design and Funding Application Submission for Eagle County Regional Airport. Having reviewed the Letter of Interest information, BNP Associates, Inc. hereby acknowledges that we have read and agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in the Invitation for Letter of Interest. Respectfully submitted, BNP ASSOCIATES, INC. Cal Trudeau Project Director Doc. Ref. BNP Response to Eagle County 12.3.09 21 EAGLE COUNTY AIRPORT Invitation for Letters of Interest for In -line Baggage System Design and Funding Application Submission Eagle County Regional Airport Gypsum, CO November 2, 2009 Eagle County Regional Airport P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81637 (970)328-2680 www.ea leg county.us/airport En Table of Contents Section Page 1. Intent of Invitation.............................................................3 2. Eagle County Airport Background.........................................3 3. Current Bag Screening Conditions ......................................... 3 4. In -line Screening Area.........................................................4 5. Deliverables.....................................................................4 6. Project Approach...............................................................5 7. Submittal Requirements......................................................5 8. Evaluation Criteria............................................................ 6 9. Estimated Timeline............................................................ 6 10. Pre -submission Conference...................................................6 11. Future Correspondence.......................................................7 12. Disclaimers.......................................................................7 Exhibits A. Enplanement Data B. Drawing — Current Conveyor Layout C. Drawing — Current Terminal and Screening Equipment Layout D. TSA Statistical Data E. Drawing — Mezzanine Architectural 2 1. Intent of Invitation The intent of this Invitation for Letters of Interest (Invitation) is to select a firm to construct a complete submittal package on behalf of the Eagle County Airport to obtain continuation funding for design and construction of an in -line baggage system under the TSA Funding Application Process (FAP). Invitation responses will be accepted until 4:00 PM MST on December 3, 2009. 2. Eagle County Airport Background 2.1. Eagle County Airport Commercial Service Eagle County Airport (EGE) commercial service began in 1989 with seasonal commercial service from Phoenix and Los Angeles and has since grown its commercial service program to include four major airlines with non -stops from 13 airports, in 12 major cities. EGE's commercial traffic is driven primarily by the surrounding resorts of Vail, Beaver Creek, and Aspen. 75% of EGE's passenger traffic occurs between the months of December and March, and over 420,000 passengers used EGE in 2008. Historical passenger enplanement information can be seen in Exhibit A. 3. Current Bag Screening Conditions 3.1. Screening Operations Bag screening operations at EGE are performed by the TSA and currently occur in the terminal lobby and in the curbside check -in area. The terminal lobby presently cross -utilizes three Reveal CT-80 Explosive Detection System (EDS) machines and a number of Electronic Trace Detection (ETD) machines. The curbside check -in area employs ETD bag screening equipment for all bags checked at the curb. Screened bags from the ticket lobby and curbside screening areas are placed on one of three appropriate conveyors by which the bags are conveyed to a bag make-up room where they are loaded and delivered to the appropriate aircraft. The current conveyor layout can be seen in Exhibit B. In fall of 2009 the aforementioned terminal lobby equipment will be removed and upgraded to include three Reveal CT80-DR's machines and one Reveal CT80-XL machine, which will greatly reduce the quantity of ETD machines presently in use in the terminal lobby. An illustration of the ticket lobby and curbside check -in baggage screening areas can be seen in Exhibit C. Please note that Exhibit C shows the terminal lobby EDS configuration with the planned fall 2009 equipment upgrade. 3.2. Bag Screening Data The local TSA has collected baggage and passenger information which will be 3 helpful with designing an in -line system to meet current demand needs. A sample of this information compiled in March 2009 is available for viewing in Exhibit D. Additional information collected by the TSA will be made available to an awarded respondent. 4. In -line Screening Area In 2007 EGE expanded its terminal by constructing a roof over the outbound baggage/baggage make-up area. The project intent was to remove the baggage make- up operations from the seasonal alpine mountain weather elements inherent to our geography, as well as to create a location that will accommodate future in -line screening operations. The project cost totaled $3.5 million. As part of this terminal/roof expansion, a 4,800 square foot mezzanine was designed and constructed with the sole intent of housing in -line operations. Many elements were carefully considered while constructing the in -line operations mezzanine, including locating the mezzanine in the best possible area for bag movement and conveyor installation, use of existing conveyor systems, and structural reinforcement to carry the loads of the heavy in -line equipment and screening operations. It is envisioned that the conveyors currently delivering bags for all airlines will all be routed to the in -line bag screening area on the mezzanine and sorted to the appropriate airline belt once screened. Architectural drawings of the mezzanine can be seen in Exhibit E. Complete as -built drawings of this area will be made available to any selected design firm. 5. Deliverables Deliverables shall consist of 30% design and fulfillment of application elements required for approval of TSA in -line funding support, as outlined in the most recent version of the Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Systems (PGDS) and its Attachment A, In -line Application Form Instruction and Sample Application. The PGDS guidance document and FAQ's can be viewed in Exhibits F and G, or downloaded at: hiW://www.tsa.jzov/assets/pdf/inline supportaRn guidance pdf - and - httv://www.tsa.gov/assets­/­v-df/rolling application fags pdf 5.1. Application Package 5.2. Design elements include at a minimum: 5.2.1. ROM Construction and O&M Cost Estimate 5.2.2. Detailed Program Requirements document --- a Basis of Design Report 5.2.3. High Level Flow based modeling assumptions and results (Static Model) 5.2.4. Schematic Design Plans 5.2.5. A Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report 4 V9 140 / 5.2.6. Preferred Alternative Analysis Report 5.2.7. Preliminary Milestone Project Schedule 5.2.8. Phasing and Constructability Technical Memoranda 5.3. Estimated construction costs at 30% design 6. Project Approach The project approach shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements: 6.1. Consideration of, and coordination among, all project stakeholders including the airport, TSA, airlines, and others as deemed necessary 6.2. Ensure local, regional, and national TSA design concurrence through all phases of design and application completion 6.3. Thoughtful design approach that will maximize the simplicity and efficiency of the in -line design 6.4. Design elements should consider system flexibility as it relates to the addition or subtraction of airlines and expansion and contraction of flight schedules, as well as future expansion capabilities to accommodate greater capacity and equipment additions 6.5. Effective management and coordination through all phases of the project 6.6. Maximize TSA/DHS funding opportunities for the design and construction of an in -line baggage screening system at EGE 7. Submittal Requirements 7.1. Instructions for Submitting a Letter of Interest Letters of Interest will be received via ground shipping methods only (no US Mail), at: Eagle County Airport, Attn: Letter of Interest, 0219, Eldon Wilson Road, Gypsum, CO 81637 no later than December 3, 2009, 4:00 P.M. MST. Letters received after this time will be considered non -responsive and will be returned. Please submit 3 Letter of Interest copies and include at a minimum, the following information: 7.1.1. Company information 7.1.1.1. Name of company 7.1.1.2. Point of contact name 7.1.1.3. Physical and mailing address 7.1.1.4. Phone and fax number 7.1.1.5. E-mail address 7.1.2 Project Deliverables (see Section 5) 7.1.3 Cost analysis 7.1.3.1 Hourly rates 7.1.3.2 Itemization of hours and other costs estimated to complete project 5 7.1.3.3 Explanation of costs (If not explained in fulfillment of Section 7.1.3.2 submission requirement) 7.1.4 Project Approach 7.1.4.1 Outline of firm's approach to this project 7.1.4.2 Proposed design and application development schedule 7.1.5 Qualifications Summary of projects of similar scope which the interested party has successfully participated in, as well as any licenses, certifications, etc. as relevant to project. Special consideration will be given to firms .that have successfully attained in -line funding for an airport or airports under the TSA In -line FAP process. 7.1.6 Letter of Interest Disclaimer A signed statement indicating that the company has read and agrees to the terms and conditions set forth in this Invitation for Letters of Interest. 7.2. Follow-up information requests Following application submittal, the selected design contractor may be needed to answer technical questions from the TSA and their contractors which extend beyond the expertise of airport personnel. Submitters should consider this while preparing their submittal for the services required under this Invitation. 8. Evaluation Criteria (Not in order of priority) 8.1. Ability and commitment to meet all required project deliverables 8.2. Hourly rates and total cost estimate 8.3. Project approach 8.4. Qualifications 8.5. Demonstrated ability to complete project deliverables and secure same or similar project funding, especially under the TSA In -line FAP. 9. Estimated Invitation Timeline Ob'ective Estmaed� Dane Invitation Advertising November 2-12, 2009 Pre -submission Meetin alk thru November 12, 200910:00 A.M. MST Question Submission Deadline November 19, 2009 5:00 P.M. MST Addendum Posting November 26, 2009 5:00 P.M. MST Submission Deadline December 3, 2009 4:00 P.M. MST Presentations/Interviews Upon Request — TBD Status Notification February 1, 2009 V�M 10. Pre -submission Conference A non -mandatory pre -submission conference will be held on November 12, 2009 at 10:00 A.M MST starting inside the main terminal entrance of the Eagle County Airport Commercial Passenger Terminal at 217 Eldon Wilson Road, Gypsum, CO 81637. Interested parties should bring any questions they may have. All questions shall be submitted in writing and will be answered through web -posted addendum. RSVP requested at: chris.andersonna eaglecountv.us 11. Future Correspondence All future correspondence regarding this Invitation will be distributed via e-mail only. Individuals wishing to receive future e-mail communications regarding this Invitation may register an e-mail address with Chris Anderson, at the e-mail above. 12. Disclaimers Eagle County does not represent that any proposed project will be constructed or implemented, or that any individual submitter will be the party contracted with in the event of construction or implementation. Any construction or implementation will be through separate written agreement. Eagle County reserves the right to reject any and all Letters of Interest, to waive any informalities and/or irregularities in the Letter of Interest, to negotiate with any party for identified services, to put identified or other services out to bid, or to otherwise proceed to provide any identified or other services in the best interest of Eagle County in its sole discretion. Letters of Interest and all ideas contained therein shall not be deemed proprietary to the submitter and may be used by Eagle County in any manner deemed in its best interest. We look forward to your participation in this process to identify a creative solution to design and obtain funding for an in -line bag screening system at the Eagle County Airport. For questions regarding this Invitation for Letters of Interest please contact Chris Anderson at chris.andersonna,eaelecountv.us. Eagle -County Regional Airport En lanements 2009 American Mesa/ Skywest Airlines United Delta Northwest Continental us Airways Total by Month Same Month Prior Year (2008) % Change I Prior Yr Total Current YTD 2009 January 23,929 2,111 50016 4,939 3,736 6,972 0 46 702 47,851 -2.5% 46,702 February 21,858 2,433 4,768 49771 3,684 6,296 0 43,800 45,101 -3.0% 90,602 March 26,364 2501 4534 5,679 4459 7 311 0 50,848 50,864 0.0% 141,350 April 4,049 1392 0 0 690 619 0 6,749 81951 -32.6% 148,099 May 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,067 #DIV/0I 148,099 June 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,941 #DIV/0I 148,099 July 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,380 #DIV/OI 148,099 AuRust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,624 #DIV/01 148,099 September 2,130 2718 0 •0 0 0 0 4,848 5,247 -8.2% 152,947 October 0 3,788 #DIV/0I 152,947 November 0 4,143 #DIV/0I 152,947 December 0 20,758 #DIV/01 162,947 Year to Date 789329 110166 149307 159389 12,569 21,198 0 152,947 214,715 -28.77 Marketshare YTD 51.2% 7.3% & 7% 10.1 % 8 2% 13.9% 0.0% 97.3% x a Zoo g"c � mTcc 3 11 co ,� a° �cr 4v Cr N CD C v CD CD d! WNmOccooNO �) !V �1 �1 Cif Oi ! OICLMI Cif atvW ti! w W CD 0 a O406 a�y -� N-�NNNNNNNW WW OC~t ¢NCO CON w -401 ran -• A �► N W N .ice .A. Cis � &T WNOO�CoifOWO0AVN pN at Co fl. P CO ^I i �J1 -a► CD CA i �A W Cis O �' 4448cf0000o00w0 ccoo Z W-' Sb AW W c � co~ONDCOtIW •�N0000000 W ��ICD .��. O -• CNIN -��I�Cf � '' :�► N to m0000000Ulco0 ci oo 00) �i b & C co o CA C'f 000000000W0 �Opp�y W g AOA coMwa01 NNC�DON-4 �T�Ii�IIV�COA •� Cis .A OD .A WCOif 0at tifCDWaD�.D►Oi Vim► ii -n w A y � 1V W CA W i !V �I N Cif + V ~ AANAN�O)�N•-aCpp11..Npp rl 3 0 OCi� CiA-4 1 Z S -!-j i<WWfl�I:0.CoOCfi{Wo�- 4to tWif QD C, i1 0D Cif tD Cp Cai l oo Y fai�p N �► i CW�Or10 ...1 j i i i i i :DIW0V -IC0� MV WOD a �► �CAV.A wNtD N� •" C�iC�O�C�if Ay W • W W O O w p ipg� y iy V� i i i i O NNcotaw N CA N cm '-4 -4 GJ i OD tiff A C) p A Ci to A co 10 N QD -L �iCit tit -4 �t N OONOOO WiNtliNCi) � 0 ONN WCppi1CAW Nil-�t�tta i���0 WW O--*ONtOD Eagle -Coun Regional Airport En lanements 2007 American maw Skywest Airlines United I Delta Northwest Continental US Airways Total by Month Same Month Prior Year (2006) % Change! Prior Yr Total Current YTD Total YTD Prior Year 2007 January 21,065 3,5661 5,578 4,648 3,789 6,674 421 45.726 47,773 -4.28 45,726 47,773 February 18,880 3,629 5,071 4,181 3,418 6,198 569 41,846 45 681 -8.40 87,572 93,454 March 23,320 4,100 6.111 6,129 4,274 6.154 1,166 49,244 62,148 -5.57 136.816 145,602 A dl 6,664 3,780 3,746 1,515 432 379 0 16,608 7,044 134.33 153,322 152,646 May 0 5109 0 0 0 0 0 5,109 2,375 115.12 158.431 155,021 June 1695 2,888 2,533 146 0 0 0 7,262 6,451 12.57 165.693 161,472 Jul 4,642 2,554 4,955 0 0 0 0 12,151 10,574 14.91 177,844 172,046 August 4,622 2,708 4,286 0 0 0 0 11,616 9,789 18.66 189,460 181,835 September 3,556 3,228 647 0 0 0 0 7,430 3,859 92.64 196,89 185,694 October 3,444 2,982 0 0 0 0 0 6,426 3137 104.85 203.316 188.831 November 3.158 2,298 01 0 0 0 0 5.456 4170 30.84 208,772 193,001 Deoember 12.908, 3,048 1,926 1,284 1,125 3,072 116 23,478 25104 -6.48 232,250 218,105 Year to Date 1039943 39 776 33,862 16,903 13 038 22,477 2 262 232,260 218,105 6.49 1 956,092 218,105 MarkWshare YTD 44.6% 17.1 % 14.6% 7.3% 5.6% 9.7% 1.0% 10a 0% ** Projected n Eagle County Regional Airport En lanements 2006 American Mesa) SkyWest Airlines United 1 Delta Northwest Continental US Airways Total by Month Same Month Prior Year (2005) °% Change/ Prior Yr Total Current YTD Total YTO Prior Year Total Enplane Pass 1993 to Present monthly °% of Calendar Year 2006 Janua 22.870 4,208 6,257 4,443 3,809 5,714 372 47,773 45.552 4.88 47,773 45.552 1,764,658 22°% February 21626 4,050 5,582 4,299 3,488 5.900 837 45,681 44,743 2.10 93,464 90,295 1,810.339 21°% Mare 24.933 4,062 6.034 5,029 4,361 6,759 970 62.148 49,185 6.02 145.602 139,480 1,816 808 24% April 2,461 2,808 4261 432 334 309 274 7,044 7,551 -6.71 1621646 147 031 1,771,702 3°% May 0 2,375 0 0 0 0 0 2 375 1,876 26.60 165,021 148,907 1,767,033 1°% June 1,469 2,414 2,568 0 0 0 0 6,451 7,488 -13.85 161.472 156,395 1,771,109 3% July 3,961 1,892 4,721 0 0 0 0 10,574 11,640 -9.16 172,046 168,035 1,775,232 5% August 3 727 1,834 4,228 0 0 0 0 9,789 12,835 -23.73 181,835 180,870 1,774,447 4% September 522 2,912 426 0 0 0 0 3,859 4 883 20.97 186,694 185,753 1.768,617 2% October 0 3,137 0 0 0 0 0 3,137 2,790 12.44 188,831 188.643 1,767 795 1% November 1,672 2,498 0 0 0 0 0 4,170 3,269 27.56 193.001 191,812 1,768.828 2°% December 12,983 2,995 2,031 1,942 1,7991 3,042 312 25.104 23,652 6.14 218105 215,464 1,789.762 12°% Year to Date 96123 36,185 32,272 16,146 13,891 21J24 2 766 2189105 215,464 1.23 1 896 480 21614" 100°% Marketsham YT0 1 44.1% Ia 1% 14.8% 7.4% 6.4% 10.0% 1.3% 100.0% 7.307 m <aZ0cooT>C"x>KM C- 0 171 I'i7 C7 cr v CS 'CD O O v � C � a � A m0 .A�•N NNO� ^O.i. � /� �A0ww0�W� ONC37 0)-0 COONCW1s 4 3 N QCD 0• -• a ONNNWNNN-�NNNN v1W AyIVyW-+ODV ODIV-� ?� 0 ..r ta'v.WAooccoo0coo�o�i ZC."ww CD N O -. mW C11CNNi1N 0)W0 3 mCWDOO OCNfmOwm QD 06 W c CA QDt WWNW QWf M000000082 O ¢' d0000000-4 CnWWA ��fm o rOy. a o � 1 o N i coo Qi "m Oi aJ � V CAOOOOOOOV CfaNA 3 O co a`'0o20000001010v"i8o — a 0 �c N nAOOOOO000)s "v to Qj1W WN.A.N�►-4 0 ,,pp CC" � o C pIWVmOWCW31aC�OC~D�CW7IWN 'Q D) O 0 O co Q 3 CI � PW -W+A, �,p so �7 IVAIV�p W VOAOOmtO Wl!lO�CflGfJ�C3� WCi1NNC0 W SCR N W -h Cbww0)p1AtwOA -& -& J i C CJ co010W nao�mot" Q .A C~if~C11C07tV-IL cn +�NWWO �1 — — — — — J J J J - '� O -1 i -1 -A CD -A � CA � 'r1 1,0 � � tS� N � NP Cjw -1V—CflW woo�AOCA-I 0 � O 'o 0 si J O W O Q� C /Mb'1 /mb'1 Eagle County Regional Airport En lanements 2004 Mesa Air US Total by Same Mon Prior Year % Change/ Total Current Total YTD American Airlines United Delta Northwest Wisconsin Continental Airways Month (2003) Prior Yr YTD Prior Year 2004 January 17,666 671 0 4,399 3,708 8,530 3,668 1.161 39,997 39,065 2.39 39,997 39,065 February 19,615 1,067 0 4,257 3,623 8069 4,803 1,375 42,809 37,507 14.14 82,806 76,572 March 22,203 1,048 0 4,815 4,230 9,676 4,887 1,540 48,399 48,403 -0.01 131,205 124,975 A ril 2.525 2.237 •0 713 0 730 425 115 6,745 6,981 12.77 137.950 130 956 May 0 1,9741 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,974 1,173 68.29 139,924 132,129 June 1,673 1,906 2,107 0 0 0 0 0 51686 2,662 113.60 145,610 134,791 July 4,135 1,849 3,182 0 0 0 0 0 9,166 5,715 60.38 154,776 140.506 AuRust 4,190 1,786 2,257 0 0 0 0 0 8,233 6,136 34.18 163,009 146,642 September 424 2,492 693 0 0 0 0 0 3,609 2,069 74.43 166,618 148,711 October 0 2 561 0 0 Ol 0 0 0 2,561 1,386 84.91 169179 150 096 November 523 2,109 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,632 1,610 63.48 171,811 151706 December 9.411 2,377 2,707 1,323 1.603 1,421 3.042 22 21,906 18,895 15.94 193.71 170,601 Year to Data 82,669 220077 10 946 16,607 13,184 289426 16 828 4,213 1939717. 170,601 13.55 Marketshare rro 1 42.6%1 11.4x & 7% a 0% 6.8%1 14.7% 8:7% 22%1 100.0% r..r.x•- wausm JVIATION" 9. S. &4M AY - SIRE = - DERIOR. W IWQ WI03 PNONE: SI0-524- 6 - FAY: M-521-. l - xWNNNTON.Cm - RESTP RAN' CRPBYCO •EG1. ELEC. ¢EC BAGGAGE OFF-LOAD BRn¢ u waBEN BAGGAGE CLAIM GIGPflIC 9C.VE zsB q zsB soB - .oa aF uru CO AA AA E%15i. — • GGoupi 4'P , EouNGE BP n_R ..� / Y •w� r7�1� U. HEWS cF cascE D / u-tea W • sa TICKET Losev TII�OIIIR� EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT TERMINAL DATE: 09-02-09 SHEET 1 OF i �J U Exbibit C IIdtENEF1AL NOTES ' I� ,E4EUX", LLE-%l;a+,:ES I vE++T INTI; NI:(LJ:I%J:. •.. F�: — Fvlt,[LIi: II IB. ;;HE;uLE _ELIvE,r IIVE AIltl U,crLTA — --------------- -- — I -xC .THE 4P.PuRl ry krmwE. I _--- FlEI:' '.EI,'F'� tF' , rx =:'11'�:• , :%r mcx,'. rD REP4z D; RE=LA:E MEW, '.w:._ED =� I II �� I III I RS LIS l'%*J LL-TI*A -5 RGAZ-'.. BAGGAGE SCREENING - PROPOSED - OPTION 1 srALE I E HI iE NEVA L` --Ma :E:� II AE F':4: In -,- 'IFS. F. i RCADE r,Ev,4 =E::EFlr;,, LE F'+= —I Es::H t�.:, i:r+AF'UTEt :,TaT1r:r. G PROADE r+Eva ;Ef lk' 'LE Fr,(; EACH FLIK' CCOPUTP. CTAWN 11; NOTES BY SYMBOL '( M I) +;lay `T--3u ;, ,4vD av-'ILLWk E:o-F%'E,T OH �1-01410EMR IQR rr•�rnrir, I_T—Fr �tIG a p I T avvER1E:� i.T—Fy:xL AND .;ndlrt?r E:1uFvE%fT t;[H FLLT ENVY . )trvEw-:)R -flu FLAT P" r^tr�ErOn vcr'IFEn F?�la rx`'I1�� T-3O at4D Its :+,CLL„i E:I.IFn�E�T I W 14 GELD �T tT—�?L Au Wcr j r tY W I I � J is T r, Y � — (I.1 r! a m. C r:J o--rr t.n I:Yr Flersed [met, It rar .tpi rl':rlrcn:f- � 1. Y y •:lerhbri bi Am Re ,V E �sn r a.: ns tl - u:ua:v �' der. � W 11'R,Ihr.rl:l' dl'd 1F0s IY 1-1 (rsl--httlr tol 1br 1:47111•r I.'r 111s l.-Al' :I r"I 'iP! !Ila; •-1 oFhslol;. •11iI. t':b (:1" 1+41' � , K• r., r,. r � n frt: nt m-':q•:I fi,l r r Q% .1 I •' 1{' •'' I l)tl 7 I 'tv. d,c (Alwl K Am r'lpadelt +etlllc3tl:r :' rs. :I:tJ'U f � •' ed � � � tr' ii rtPllyerg r. :r srl pip::t- yPI , Exhibit-D Enplanements - Day of Week Airport Abbreviation: EGE Terminal Name: MAIN Experiment Name: EGE BHS Start Date: 03/15/2009 Comments: Sunday Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Airline Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax AMERICAN AIRLINES 8 1,504 0.710 1,069 1.000 1,069 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 DELTA AIRLINES 2 364 0.770 280 1.000 280 NORTHWEST AIRLINES 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 UNITED AIRLINES 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Daily Totals: 19 2,773 0.696 1,975 1.000 1,976 Average Load Factor (Total Pax / Total Seats): 0.712 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.001 Monday Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Airline Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax AMERICAN AIRLINES 5 940 0.704 663 1.000 663 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 DELTA AIRLINES 1 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 NORTHWEST AIRLINES 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 UNITED AIRLINES 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Daily Totals: 15 2,027 0.687 1,429 1.000 1,430 Average Load Factor (Total Pax / Total Seats): 0.705 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.001 Tuesday Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Airline Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax AMERICAN AIRLINES 5 940 0.704 663 1.000 663 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 DELTA AIRLINES 1 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 NORTHWEST AIRLINES 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 UNITED AIRLINES 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Daily Totals: 15 2,027 0.687 1,429 1.000 1,430 Average Load Factor (Total Pax / Total Seats): 0.705 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.001 TSA Staffing Model Page 1 of 3 Printed: 10/16/200 8:21:27AM Enplanements - Day of Week Airport Abbreviation: EGE Terminal Name: MAIN Experiment Name: EGE BHS Start Date: 03/15/2009 Comments: Wednesday Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Airline Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax AMERICAN AIRLINES 5 940 0.704 663 1.000 663 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 DELTA AIRLINES 1 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 NORTHWEST AIRLINES 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 UNITED AIRLINES 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Daily Totals: 15 2,027 0.687 1,429 1.000 1,430 Average Load Factor (Total Pax / Total Seats): 0.705 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.001 Thursday Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Airline Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax AMERICAN AIRLINES 5 940 0.704 663 1.000 663 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 DELTA AIRLINES 1 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 NORTHWEST AIRLINES 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 UNITED AIRLINES 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Daily Totals: 15 2,027 0.687 1,429 1.000 1,430 Average Load Factor (Total Pax / Total Seats): 0.705 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.001 Friday Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Airline Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax AMERICAN AIRLINES 6 1,128 0.693 783 1.000 783 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 DELTA AIRLINES 1 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 NORTHWEST AIRLINES 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 UNITED AIRLINES 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Daily Totals: 16 2,215 0.684 1,549 1.000 1,550 Average Load Factor (Total Pax / Total Seats): 0.699 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.001 TSA Staffing Model Page 2 of 3 Printed: 10/16/200 8:21:27AM Enplanements - Day of Wee Airport Abbreviation: EGE Terminal Name: MAIN Experiment Name: EGE BHS Start Date: 03/15/2009 Comments: Saturday Airline Flight Count Total Seats Avg. Load Factor Total Pax Avg. Orig. Factor Originating Pax AMERICAN AIRLINES 9 1,692 0.701 1,188 1.000 1,188 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 DELTA AIRLINES 2 364 0.725 264 1.000 264 NORTHWEST AIRLINES 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 UNITED AIRLINES 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Daily Totals: 20 2,961 0.689 2,078 1.000 2,079 Average Load Factor (Total Pax / Total Seats): 0.702 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.000 Week1V Totals Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Airline Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax AMERICAN AIRLINES 43 8,084 0.701 1,186 1.000 5,692 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 14 2,072 0.785 232 1.000 1,645 DELTA AIRLINES 9 1,638 0.770 140 1.000 1,244 NORTHWEST AIRLINES 7 1,295 0.670 124 1.000 868 UNITED AIRLINES 14 1,932 0.630 174 1.000 1,218 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER 28 1,036 0.628 93 1.000 658 115 16,057 0.688 11,289 Average Load Factor (Total Pax / Total Seats): Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.000 11,325 0.703 1.001 TSA Staffing Model Page 3 of 3 Printed: 10/16/200 8:21:27AM Enplanements - Airline Airport Abbreviation: EGE Terminal Name: MAIN Experiment Name: EGE BHS Start Date: 03/15/2009 Comments: AMERICAN AIRLINES Flight Total Avg.Lond Total Avg. Orig. Originating Day of Week Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax Sunday 8 1,504 0.710 1,069 1.000 1,069 Monday 5 940 0.704 663 1.000 663 Tuesday 5 940 0.704 663 1.000 663 Wednesday 5 940 0.704 663 1.000 663 Thursday 5 940 0.704 663 1.000 663 Friday 6 1,128 0.693 783 1.000 783 Saturday 9 1,692 0.701 1,188 1.000 1,188 43 8,084 0.703 5,692 1.000 5,692 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.001 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES Day of Week Flight Count Total Seats Avg. Load Factor Total Pax Avg. Orig. Factor Originating Pax Sunday 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 Monday 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 Tuesday 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 Wednesday 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 Thursday 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 Friday 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 Saturday 2 296 0.785 235 1.000 235 14 2,072 0.784 1,645 1.000 1,645 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.013 DELTA AIRLINES Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Day of Week Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax Sunday 2 364 0.770 280 1.000 280 Monday t 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 Tuesday 1 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 Wednesday 1 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 Thursday 1 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 Friday I 182 0.770 140 1.000 140 Saturday 2 364 0.725 264 1.000 264 9 1,638 0.759 1,244 1.000 1,244 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.000 NORTHWEST AIRLINES Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Day of Week Count Seats Factor Pax Factor Pax TSA Staffing Model Page 1 of 3 Printed: 10/16/200 8:22:34AM Enplanements - Airline". Airport Abbreviation: EGE Experiment Name: EGE BHS Comments: NORTHWEST AIRLINES Terminal Name: MAIN Start Date: 03/15/2009 Day of Week Flight Count Total Seats Avg. Load Factor Total Pax Avg. Orig. Factor Originating Pax Sunday I 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 Monday 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 Tuesday 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 Wednesday 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 Thursday 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 Friday 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 Saturday 1 185 0.670 124 1.000 124 7 1,295 0.670 868 1.000 868 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.000 UNITED AIRLINES Day of Week Flight Count Total Seats Avg. Load Factor Total Pax Avg. Orig. Factor Originating Pax Sunday 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 Monday 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 Tuesday 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 Wednesday 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 Thursday 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 Friday 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 Saturday 2 276 0.630 174 1.000 174 14 1,932 0.630 1,218 1.000 1,218 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.000 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER - Day of Week Flight Count Total Seats Avg. Load Factor Total Pax Avg. Orig. Factor Originating Pax Sunday 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Monday 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Tuesday 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Wednesday 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Thursday 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Friday 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 Saturday 4 148 0.628 93 1.000 94 28 1,036 0.628 651 1.000 658 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.011 TSA Staffing Model Page 2 of 3 Printed: 10/16200 8:22:34AM Enplanements - Airline Airport Abbreviation: EGE Experiment Name: EGE BHS Comments: Weekly Totals Terminal Name: MAIN Start Date: 03/15/2009 Flight Total Avg. Load Total Avg. Orig. Originating Airline Count Seats Factor pax Factor Pay AMERICAN AIRLINES 43 8,084 0.701 1,186 1.000 5,692 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 14 2,072 0.785 232 1.000 1,645 DELTA AIRLINES 9 1,638 0.770 140 1.000 1,244 NORTHWEST AIRLINES 7 1,295 0.670 124 1.000 868 UNITED AIRLINES 14 1,932 0.630 174 1.000 1,218 UNITED AIRLINES COMMUTER 28 1,036 0.628 93 1.000 658 115 16,057 0.696 11,289 1.000 11,325 Actual Originating Factor when executing experiment (rounds pax to nearest whole number for each flight): 1.001 TSA Staffing Model Page 3 of 3 Printed: 10/16/200 8:22:34AM Bags Per Bag Zone Airport Abbreviation: EGE Terminal Name: MAIN Experiment Name: EGE BHS Start Date: 03/15/2009 Comments: Bags Bags EGE Curbside Entered Processed Sunday 974 974 Monday 697 697 Tuesday 733 730 Wednesday 731 728 Thursday 768 767 Friday 810 805 Saturday 1,107 1,107 Weekly Total: 5,820 5,808 Bags Bags EGE Lobbv Entered Processed Sunday 1,813 1,813 Monday 1,294 1,294 Tuesday 1,290 1,290 Wednesday 1,297 1,294 Thursday 1,262 1,264 Friday 1,348 1,349 Saturday 1,865 1,865 Weekly Total: 10,169 10,169 Weekly Total for all Bag Zones: 15,989 15,977 TSA Staffing Model Page 1 of 1 Printed: 10/16/2009 8:19:03AM v u Exhibit E GENERAL SHEET NOTES 4✓IULL 11 N4 10 9((r MII rIi IN /Y'llµ yHDl,1 NOTES BY SYMBOL nO I UC R rED.wE /M('J9f fist WMJn 161IR0 �W 111 RYnR ]/A1p. 1 K/IrWL N4Rf O1W SiR �1 ✓�Illmnllf CHIW {NYt IOIn rC 1/ALI CMv n r W W MiW RL f8i 1 blO rflY RT n0 RWI-VMI 4 WR1Ql 1r9AlTD [fV.E ilQl [GT 4 (/ PNlitl rR KLL/1C L i/Aq.' [pOlrt RtR TIT >W .latt 4 'HC' I.n 1 v[V:M1FRilFI. [(UY,S IC SAI:t l SOV]➢1Li2fYl Y44IiWnr]LMTr :'AIM RfIMI l% 1 SAl Mf LutM4 Ipl/I n.Mf T. ;WSiPR.I, C'J,RU u f rqn 410 vxlmry W.. I: W: CiRnT� ri NII{E pTrFIRY I: Y1 ws glNl -.w •..41m+ n can[rt an •em RVYr Orltyw4l II LeUU]I I" MIMI AIV Wn LEGEND M-.- 0 CororBulgus W^ V 'Q^ V Q m pp a oZa° oc w o l ass M� ai.n0r n OISEEZUSIME PLAN PLAN DETAIL /N DETAIL M pp101 C3l11 L _.ram-Llr UfPLA�T'�� Exhibit F �e+ary Transportation Security =f4.an 4E�°e Administration Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP) Funding Application Process (FAP) In -line Support Application Form (Version 2.0) Completion Guidance June 17, 2009 Transportation In -line Support Funding Application Guidance Security Administration INTRODUCTION The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) In -Line Support Application for the Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP) is the basis for TSA's internal planning and budgeting process. Beginning with Federal Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11), TSA must review and concur with the Basis of Design Report (BDR), as defined in the Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (PGDS) for Checked Baggage Inspection Systems (CBIS), in order to be considered for facility modification funding. Section 3.3 of the PGDS requires submission of the BDR at the 30% design phase, with updates at the 70% and 100% design phases. The most current version of the PGDS can be found at: http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/pgds v2.0 013009.pdf These instructions and all detailed application information including an example BDR are also available at: http://www.tsa.gov/research/checked baggage material.shtm The application form consists of eight (8) sections, with Section 5 having an additional five (5) subsections and Section 8 having an additional three (3) subsections. Grey sections of the application form are strictly reserved for only TSA HQ use. Airports seeking funding, equipment or other support are expected to complete the fields in the blue shaded portion of the application form. Airports should provide as much detail as possible regarding each proposed effort with separate applications being filed for each project. Airports with multiple terminals, nodes, concourses or installing multiple separate CBIS for each, must provide a separate application for each CBIS matrix. Similarly, airports only requesting equipment or funding to support CBIS design efforts at multiple locations within an airport must provide a separate application for each. Single applications covering more than one (1) project will not be accepted or reviewed for consideration. SECT/ONBYSECT/ON GU/DANCE The following provides section by section guidance for each field within the In -Line Support Application form. APPLICATION NUMBER The application number will be provided to the Federal Security Director (FSD) or Assistant Federal Security Director (AFSD) when the application is entered into TSA's requirements tracking database. The application process has been streamlined and is detailed on Slidell 0 of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Transportation In -line Support Funding Application Guidance '01 Security .�` Administration Please include this Application Number, also known as the Requirements Management (ReMAG) number, in all correspondence between the Airport, TSA and/or TSA's contractor support in order to precisely identify the project under discussion. SECTION I: AIRPORT WHERE PROJECT IS L OCATED Airport Name This field should contain the complete name for the airport as registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Airport Three Letter Code Provide the airport code for the airport name listed. Similar to the airport name field, only FAA or IATA registered three (3) letter airport identification codes (sometimes referred to as airport code location indicators or LocID) should be used in this field. SECTION2.• AIRPORT SPONSOR CONTACT INFORMATION The Title, Department, Organization, Telephone Number and E-mail Address are required for both the Airport Executive and Airport Project Point of Contact. Airport Executive Contact This field must identify an individual capable of financially committing the airport to execute the proposed project. Typically this individual will be the airport director or the chief financial officer for the airport. Airport Project Point of Contact This field must identify the individual(s) responsible for managing or overseeing the actual design, construction and implementation of the project proposed in the In -Line Support Application. TSA recognizes that for larger projects an entire team of individuals may hold responsibility for managing the program. However, where possible a single individual should be identified who will facilitate addressing technical queries, collect and provide additional information, and make agreements on technical aspects of the project that should be identified. This individual is anticipated to be the person TSA would contact to coordinate technical review meeting or other technical meetings related to the project. Telephone Number Provide the telephone number at which the identified individual(s) can be reached. Do not list general department numbers or general offices numbers. Transports[ion In -line Support Funding Application Guidance Security `- Administration Airport Information In this section provide the address to which all financial and other project related correspondence should be submitted. This may differ from the address of the Airport Executive, or the Project point of contact. Once established, the airport should ensure that TSA is informed of any changes to the address to ensure correspondence is accurately relayed. Tax Identification Number The Tax Identification Number (TIN) should be specific to the organization, whether state, city, municipal or other entity requesting equipment or funding from TSA. SECT/ON 3. REQUEST This section provides a general scope of the project under consideration, identifying whether the airport is only requesting equipment, funding for facility modifications, or funding for design of a CBIS. Each is explained in further detail below. Equipment This box should be checked for: Projects seeking equipment only for In -Line systems. This includes Explosive Detection Systems (EDS), Explosive Trace Detectors (ETD), Search Work Stations, or other equipment regardless of the configuration in which the equipment will be utilized (e.g. stand alone, fully automated) or Projects seeking to implement a new CBIS, which will require both equipment and Facility Modification and/or Design funds. If the required screening equipment necessary to support the proposed project is already on -site, is included in another In -Line Support Application, or an approved request already filed with TSA HQ, DO NOT check this box. However, do provide a reference to the other request (including the Application or ReMAG Number) in the Project Description (see Section 5). Facility Modification Funding This box should be checked for CBIS projects requiring construction, including: • Construction of new terminals (of which TSA will only fund the reimbursable portion, reference FAQ). • Demolition or renovation of existing spaces • Expansion of existing terminals ... 14.. k Transporcation In Support Funding Application Guidance 4 .�AaSecurity Administration Design This box should be checked for airports seeking funds to: • Initiate a CBIS design • Complete or finalize an on -going CBIS design Airports marking the Design box should identify any existing applications or ReMAG request numbers that are associated with the project in the Project Description (see Section 5). System Redesign If the airport already has an existing in -line OBIS, and is seeking to upgrade, modify or replace the system, this box should be checked. Additionally, the LOI, OTA or any funding agreement used to initially construct this project should be identified in the project description. SECTION4.• PROJECT TIME This field should include the name and, if applicable, internal project number the airport has assigned to the project for which funds or equipment is being requested. This should be the name that appeared on the Basis of Design Report and will show on all designs, specifications, plans or other project related documentation going forward. Once established, the airport must ensure that any changes to the project name or project number are clearly communicated to TSA to avoid potential confusion regarding which specific project funding requests, correspondence or other information is related to. SECTION5- PROJECTINFORMATION Sub -Section A: Project Description The airport should provide an executive summary of the effort for which support is being requested from TSA. For projects requesting equipment only this should include a description of any equipment being replaced, the proposed configuration the equipment will be installed in and the exact locations where the equipment is proposed to be utilized. Projects seeking funding and support for construction of entirely new CBIS, or upgrades to existing systems, should provide a succinct narrative of the overall goal of the project. Further, the description should identify any necessary construction of new facilities, or renovation or expansion of existing facilities. If the project is an upgrade, a description of the existing system and a statement regarding the rationale for upgrading the system should be provided. Other pertinent information, such as the number of bags, anticipated growth in service, number and type of EDS or other equipment being requested should be included. Security a Transportation In -line Support Funding Application Guidance Adminitration Projects seeking to upgrade or replace existing systems, which may have been constructed using TSA or other federal funding sources, must identify any existing, open or closed, agreements related to the system being replaced or upgraded. The concurrence letter from TSA HQ on the Basis of Design Report must be attached as well. Sub -Section B: Nature of Project This section requests the airport to identify whether the project is related to: • Construction of a new terminal • Retrofit of an existing terminal • Expansion of an existing terminal • Upgrade of an existing baggage handling system (BHS) Sub -Section C: Design Criteria, Assumptions and Anticipated Equipment Requirements Design Year As indicated in Section 6.3.1 of the PGDS, the design year for equipment requirements is assumed to be 5 years after the opening year for a given baggage screening system (i.e., Date of Beneficial Use + 5 years). This assumption is based on current TSA policy for system approval. Thus, if a system is scheduled to become operational in 2010, the design year for that system will be 2015. Design for Peak Bags/Hour This information should coincide with the Flight Schedule Analysis (FSA) or static model developed as part of the projects basis of design and should identify the number of bags, including surge, being used to determine the quantity and type of EDS needed in the system's design year. Screening Matrix Name The specific name for the CBIS proposed. For example, Central East Matrix or West Patio or other unique designation which the airport has assigned to the proposed screening area. This name must be unique to avoid confusion with other security related projects that airport may have proposed, that may be on -going or may have been recently completed. Further, some airports have multiple CBIS within a single terminal, node or concourse and establishing an agreed to naming convention ensures all parties understand the scope of the project being submitted. 7}ansportation In -line Support Funding Application Guidance 6 Security Administration Terminal and Node or Concourse The specific designation of terminal, node or concourse associated with the project in the In -Line Support Application. For example, Terminal 1 South, Boarding Area D may be an entirely different matrix from Terminal 1 South. The terminal, node or concourse designation and the screening matrix name should constitute a unique identification for the proposed matrix, such that it cannot be confused with any other systems that may exist within the airport. Number of EDS and Type of EDS The number and type of EDS should be based on the projected Peak Bags per Hour and the number of bags per hour the proposed EDS type can screen as identified in the tables included in Chapter 5 of the latest version of the PGDS. For example, an 1-3-6000 can process 470 international bags or 540 domestic bags per hour. Therefore, if the system is projected to handle 2,160 bags per hour at peak, a minimum of four (4) EDS would be required. The number of and type of EDS must be coordinated, and should include redundancy as spelled out in the PGDS. Requested Delivery Date Specify the anticipated calendar month and year, based on the projected/planned construction schedule for the project, in which the EDS would need to be delivered for the project to be completed on-time/on-schedule. This date should be as realistic as possible based on the current design status, design review timeframes, contract bidding and award process, and projected construction schedule. The airport should keep TSA apprised of changes to the projected delivery dates to ensure TSA HQ can plan, procure and deliver the equipment as necessary to maintain the airport's project schedule. Airlines Served The airport should list all airlines that are proposed to be serviced by the proposed CBIS or screening equipment. If the proposed matrix serves all airlines within a terminal, then each airline within the terminal should be identified. For airports where each airline has, or possibly a few airlines have, joined together in establishing a separate CBIS, the specific airline(s) utilizing or projected to utilize the equipment should be identified. Airports constructing expansions or entirely new terminals should provide a list of the airlines projected to utilize the proposed system. The name of an airline consortium is not acceptable. Percentage of Airlines Bags Using Matrix Airports at which the proposed screening matrix will only screen a percentage of an airline's bags (i.e., the airline may span multiple terminals, concourses or nodes) should identify the percentage of the airline's bags that will be handled by r.. Vft. 7}ansportat on In -fine Support Funding Application Guidance 7 s«ority Administration implementation of the proposed project. This will aid TSA HQ in validating the number and type of equipment required for the project. Sub -Section D: Design Status The airport should identify any of the five (5) items (as included in Table 1 below), which have been or are being submitted for TSA HQ review and consideration. Airports already engaged in the design review process with TSA at greater than the schematic level, should identify their latest design package (30%, 70% or 100%) and other corroborating information (such as specifications, flight schedule, basis of design reports, cost estimates and/or modeling data) previously submitted in the Airport Operator Comments field along with the date provided. Regardless of the current design phase, airports are required to submit an Alternative and Preferred Alternative Analysis (separately or combined), as well as a cost estimate, basis of design and flight schedule analysis if they are seeking funding from TSA. Table 1: Sub -Section 5.1) Submittals Required 1. Has a schematic design or higher (30%, etc.) been previously submitted? 2. Has an Alternative Analysis been previously submitted? 3. Has a Preferred Alternative been previously identified? 4. Has a cost estimate for the current system design been submitted? 5. Has a Basis of Design and Flight Schedule Analysis been submitted? Sub -Section E: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) TSA is required to consider the potential impacts to the human and natural environment of projects proposed for TSA funding. TSA, through its Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EP&HP) Program, engages in a review process to ensure that TSA-funded activities comply with various Federal laws including: National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and Executive Orders on Floodplains (11988), Wetlands (11990) and Environmental Justice (12898). The goal of these compliance requirements is to protect our nation's water, air, coastal, wildlife, agricultural, historical, and cultural resources, as well as to minimize potential adverse effects to children and low- income and minority populations. The 3 questions on the In -Line Support Application were provided by EP&HP. Support documentation requested is a one page summary and design layout. The recipient (airport) shall provide any information requested by TSA to ensure compliance with applicable Federal EP&HP requirements. Any project with the potential to impact EP&HP resources cannot be initiated until TSA has completed its review. Recipient (airport) may be required to provide detailed information about the project, including the following: location (street address or map coordinates); description of the project including any associated ground disturbance work, extent ... '"j�„ Transportation In -line Support Funding Application Guidance 8 k, Administration of modification of existing structures, construction equipment to be used, staging areas, access roads, etc.; year the existing facility was built; natural, biological, and/or cultural resources present in the project vicinity; visual documentation such as site and facility photographs, project plans, maps, etc; and possible project alternatives. For certain types of projects, TSA may be required to consult with other Federal and State agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Historic Preservation Offices, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as other agencies and organizations responsible for protecting natural and cultural resources. For projects with the potential to have significant adverse effects on the environment and/or historic properties, TSA's EP&HP review and consultation may result in a substantive agreement between the involved parties outlining how the recipient will avoid the effects, minimize the effects, or, if necessary, compensate for the effects. Because of the potential for significant adverse effects to EP&HP resources or public controversy, some projects may require an additional assessment or report, such as an Environmental Assessment, Biological Assessment, archaeological survey, cultural resources report, wetlands delineation, or other document, as well as a public comment period. Recipients are responsible for the preparation of such documents, as well as for the implementation of any treatment or mitigation measures identified during the EP&HP review that are necessary to address potential adverse impacts. Recipients may use these funds toward the costs of preparing such documents and/or implementing treatment or mitigation measures. Failure of the recipient to meet Federal, State, and local EP&HP requirements, obtain applicable permits, and comply with any conditions that may be placed on the project as the result of TSA's EP&HP review may jeopardize continued Federal funding. Recipient shall not undertake any portion of the proposed project having the potential to impact EP&HP resources without the prior approval of TSA, including but not limited to communications towers, physical security enhancements, new construction, and modifications to buildings, structures and objects that are 50 years old or greater. Recipient must comply with all conditions placed on the project as the result of the EP&HP review. Any change to the approved project scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with these EP&HP requirements. If ground disturbing activities occur during project implementation, the recipient must ensure monitoring of ground disturbance, and if any potential archeological resources are discovered, the recipient will immediately cease construction in that area and notify TSA and the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. �--y. 7}ansportation In -line Support Funding Application Guidance ,;.I Security *` Administration No actions or portions of an action covered by a categorical exclusion that requires a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) will be taken until the REC is completed. SECT/ON 6. PROJECT OBJECTIVES/✓USTIF/CAT/ON The airport should provide a detailed narrative discussing the rationale for the proposed project, specifically addressing how the proposed system will improve baggage screening and airport security. Further, the airport should identify any projected cost savings based on the projected life -cycle cost analysis required under the Alternative and Preferred Alternative Analysis. Information provided in this section is not directly used for application scoring, but is helpful in providing overall understanding and context to TSA. SECTION 7. PROJECT SCHEDULE Estimated Start of Project Construction The airport must provide the projected calendar month and year when construction is anticipated to begin based on the current design status, design review timeframes, and bidding environment. Estimated System Operational Date Based on the project schedule the airport should provide the best available estimate of the calendar month and year when they anticipate receiving beneficial use from the CBIS and BHS (i.e., when the system is projected to be fully operational). SECTION B. FINANCING PLAN FOR PROJECT In general, TSA will fund a maximum of 90% of eligible project costs for in -line projects at large and medium hub airports, and 95% at small, non and no hub airports. Funding levels may vary from year-to-year dependent on language included in the agencies funding appropriation legislation. Projects indicating larger local contribution will receive a higher application score. All dollar entries in this section must be inputted in complete numerals. The form will automatically calculate the subtotal of the funding information in each section, as well as the percentage of the total project cost represented by each subtotal. SUB -SECTION A: TSA FUNDS Previous Funding/Previous Agreement If the airport has previously received funding for the project identified in the application, the airport must identify the Letter of Intent (LOI) or Other Transaction Transportation In -line Support Funding Application Guidance 10 Security ?, Administration Agreement (OTA), by contract/agreement number, under which the airport received the funding. Further, the airport must identify the amount of funding received. Current Funding Request The airport should identify the specific funding level being requested for the project identified in the application. The funding request should be the total dollar value the airport is seeking from TSA. SUB -SECTION B: PFC FUNDS Pay-As-You-Go/PFC Approval Number If the airport has received or implemented an authorization for a Pay -As -You -Go process using PFC funds to support this project, or general improvements which include this project, the airport must specify the PFC Approval Number in the appropriate PFC Approval # field. Specify the amount of Pay -As -You -Go PFC that will be collected for the CBIS project. Bond Capital/PFC Approval Number If the airport has been authorized to issue bonds backed by PFC funds for capital construction/improvements that include this project, the airport must specify the PFC Approval Number in the appropriate PFC Approval # field. Specify the amount of PFC bond revenue that will be available for the CBIS. SUBSECTION C: OTHER FUNDS State Grant The airport must identify any state grant funding that will be available for the CBIS project. Airport Funds The airport must identify any capital or project funds it will be providing in support of this project. Airport Revenue Bonds The airport must identify funds it will receive from revenue bonds issued to support this project or other capital projects, and specify the amount that will be made available to the CBIS project. 'hanssppoortation In -line Support Funding Application Guidance 11 Secur7ty Administration Other The airport shall identify any other sources of funding being used to support this specific project. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS The form will automatically sum all funding identified in Section 8. The Airport should verify that this amount correctly represents the CBIS costs. NEXT STEPS The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document posted on the Airport Checked Baggage Guidance Material webpage is a wealth of information and should be referenced to help answer your application questions. http://www.tsa.00v/research/checked baggage material.shtm Exhibit G i i' �: "V�► "Rolling" Funding Application Proce (FAP) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) June 17, 2009 SS I• Administration Projects Eligible for Consideration Projects not Eligible for Consideration Costs Eligible for TSA Funding Cost Recognition vs. Cost Incurred Electronic Applications Reapplication Requesting Additional Funding Submitting Multiple Projects Deadline for Applications Number of Copies Required Jacobs' Role in Application Process Table of Contents (Continued) ' Transportation -U ® �. Security �mi Administration f�'i A'D 50GJ Slide 3 Table of Contents (Continued) °ma's Transportation Security Administration Slide 4 ► 1 L .- W., Administration EPAR'r Transportation USecurity D'ND 5�Administration Slide 5 Projects Eligible for Consideration What types of baggage screening projects are eligible for funding through this application process? *Eligible in -line projects include: — Requests for: » Funding and Explosives Detection System (EDS) equipment for in -line systems requiring facility modification or construction » In -line systems also include Mini and Semi in -line systems » EDS equipment only for in -line systems — Airport wide baggage screening projects maybe partially or incrementally funded by TSA, if accepted — Costs eligibility of projects are addressed on slide 8 QAR'fM o Transportation O/�F.LT Security o���'�ND SE�'J� Administration I Slide 6 Projects not Eligible for Consideration What types of projects are not eligible for funding through this application process? • Non eligible projects include any airport request not related to an in -line baggage screening system including, but not limited to: » Stand-alone Baggage Screening Systems » Equipment decommission and/or removal » Equipment relocation » Ancillary and/or Safety equipment » Reimbursement of EDS projects that are already completed These types of requests must be evaluated through the current TSA checked baggage request system available via the TSA intranet at y PAR`M o Transportation /( Security F MD 5F�J Administration Slide 7 r A 9 o�7 ..� a Costs Eligible for TSA Funding What costs will be considered by TSA for funding? • Costs identified as Reimbursable/Non-Reimbursable will be part of the project funding negotiations between TSA and the Airport — TSA will conduct an analysis of the cost estimates submitted as part of each application in establishing its proposed share of the total project cost The Reimbursable/Non-Reimbursable white paper is a tool to identify allocable and allowable costs associated with awarded OTAs, which are potentially reimbursable by the TSA during the review of funding applications or requests submitted by airports or projects sponsors. The document is located on the Airport Checked Baggage Guidance Material webpage at v pAR'fM o Transportation OI�FN� U66Z Security Administration Slide 8 Cost Recognition vs. Cost Incurred Can funds be requested to cover costs already incurred? , • Costs associated with a Checked Baggage Inspection System (CBIS), incurred prior to the date the Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) is executed by both parties will not be recognized or reimbursed by TSA AaT M Transportation O�/1F�T Security ND SC`J0 Administration Slide 9 Electronic Applications What is the application process? • Interested Airport Operators MUST submit a completed application, using the current version of the form, to their FSD. A sample of this form is available via �I d l • The FSDs then access the ReMag Request site at to submit a ReMag project request and receive a tracking number to be include on the completed application prior to submission. • The FSDs MUST submit the completed application form as an attachment to the Project Request via the current TSA ReMAG process, • Upon receipt, TSA Headquarters staff will review the application and contact the Airport POC listed on the application to verify content and to review required supporting documentation before the project application can proceed to detailed review and consideration. Please note that the process has been revised and streamlined to provide Airports with better access to the most current information and to expedite application submissions. OfYA�\F o�Transportation x Security °<,N• Sera Administration Slide 10 .J Reapplication Will FYI Applicants have to reapply? • FYI Applicants who were deemed technically sufficient, but were not funded, will be considered under the "Rolling" Funding Application Process (FAP) • Additional information/data may be required/requested to meet the current FAP requirements — Please see the list of supporting documentation necessary to be considered for future funding The list of information/data requiredfor Funding Applications is included on the Airport Checked Baggage Guidance Material webpage at y °ART o Transportation O/1FMT Security Oa���AND SFGJ�m Administration Slide 11 W1, IL r 1.. � .�� � - t Requesting Additional Funding Can FY10 or previously funded projects request additional funds? Projects previously funded by TSA through • A Letter of Intent (LOI) • An Other Transaction Agreement (OTA), OR • Other TSA funding mechanism are not eligible for additional funds. QEPA�\F Transportation o� Security ���AND S�CJE Administration Slide 12 , Submitting Multiple Projects Can more than one project be submitted? • Airports may submit more than one (1) project • A separate application for each project is required — For status tracking — To avoid confusion regarding additional information requirements for a specific project submission — To resolve design review comments for specific projects, AND — To allow for resolution of issues regarding one project without jeopardizing the other projects r,° Transportation fi Security 040 4' Administration F�gkD 5�'�J Slide 13 Deadline for Applications What is the deadline for application submission? • Annual application timeframes have been eliminated. TSA will accept all project applications on a continuous (rolling) basis. • Please be aware that since federal budgets run on a specific schedule, an application should be submitted early enough to allow for evaluation prior to the start of a particular fiscal year's funding cycle. In general, completed applications should be submitted by the spring prior to federal fiscal year in which the funds are desired. • While evaluating the airport's long range plan, communication should { begin early with TSA. As much advance notice as possible helps TSA in developing its own project funding plans. Please provide clear information funding needs and anticipated timelines. pAR'fyF o Transportation a Security ,, Administration Slide 14 Number of Copies Required How many copies of each design document need to be submitted? • Electronic/softcopy submissions are strongly recommended/preferred, and will be reproduced for or re -transmitted as necessary • If hard copy documents are being submitted, two (2) copies of all plans and supporting documentation are required Additional information on document submittal is provided on slide 28. 'F�AkD 5EGJ Transportation Security Administration I -MAR Jacobs' Role in the Funding Application Process Who is Jacobs Engineering and why am I submitting information to them? • Jacobs Engineering (formerly Carter & Burgess, Inc.) has been contracted by TSA to provide Program Management Office (PMO) support to its Office of Security Technology (OST) • This support includes — Technical review of Baggage handling system/Checked Baggage Inspection system (BHS/CBIS) designs for conformance with TSA Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (PGDS) — Validation of submitted cost estimates per TSA guidelines • Therefore, design packages are submitted directly to Jacobs, to minimize potential delays to the airports BHS project Transportation it Security °A<gko 571F Administration Slide 16 Content °k°moo Transportation Security DI��gND SY�'J` Administration Slide 17 Supporting Documents for Funding Applications What supporting documentation is required? • The funding application process requires airports to submit at a minimum t the following: — Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Construction and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Estimate — Detailed Program Requirement Document — Basis of Design Report — High Level Flow Based Modeling (Static Model/Flight Schedule Analysis) — Schematic Design Plans — Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report — Preferred Alternative Analysis Report — Preliminary Milestone Project Schedule — Phasing and Constructability Technical Memorandum Refer to Chapter 3 of the latest published Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (PGDS) for definition of the above documents. h `W` o Transportation nl\fin. Security 4A'D SQG,Administration iFC Slide 18 'I More Developed Projects What information will be required for projects that are beyond the schematic design level? • For projects that have not already submitted designs for review to TSA, submit the documents identified on Slide 18, but in lieu of the schematic plans, submit the latest plans and specifications available • For projects that have already submitted project designs for review by TSA and are submitting an application in the FAP, the following documents must be submitted (if not previously included in the design package): — Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report — Preferred Alternative Analysis Report — Phasing and Constructability Technical Memorandum Transportation J�r Security o�F<qMp 54GV� Administration Slide 19 Basis of Design Report Content What is included in a "Basis of Design Report"? • The Basis of Design Report should — Provide a written narrative of the concept of operation for the system — Outline the proposed zoning schema for the BHS — Identify the proposed EDS equipment make and model — Estimate the design year the baggage system will become operational • The Basis of Design Report should include — All assumptions and calculations for determining the projected throughput requirements for the BHS — Calculations (see Static Model discussion in Slide 21) for projected growth in throughput requirements for five (5) years after the system becomes operational (date of beneficial use plus five (5) years) A Sample is included on the Airport Checked Baggage Guidance Material webpage. JEPA�`tti y �o Transportation Security 4 Administration F�AND SE�'J Slide 20 Modeling Required What type of modeling is required, if any? • At a minimum: J — A static model (calculations) in accordance with Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Inspections Systems (PGDS) demonstrating how the number of EDS required to achieve system throughput was determined The link.for the PGDS is included located on the Airport Checked Baggage Guidance Material webpage. y ppary o Transportation Z. Security 4ND SFGJAdministration I Slide 21 Drawings Required What Plans (Drawings) are included in a Schematic Design Package? • At a minimum: General Arrangement of CBIS Space Including: » Personal Access and Egress Path » Equipment Access and Egress » Maintenance Access to equipment » Locations of On -Screen Resolution (OSR) Room, Checked Baggage Resolution Area (CBRA), Over Size and Out -of -Gauge (OOG) areas » Connections to upstream and downstream BHS Portions Phasing Plans Sectional Views -showing vertical dimensions Large Scale View -Details for the CBRA Airfield Plan — airfield and ramp changes affecting the BHS Demolitions Plans — Building Modifications, identifying structures to be removed as part of the BHS project f.4ARi'y6 Transportation Security Administration Slide 22 Drawings Required (Continued) — System Configuration Plans » Existing systems » Checked Baggage Resolution Area(s) » Number of EDS » EDS Access » Queues before and after EDS » Clear Bag Route » Suspect Bag Route » On Screen Resolution (OSR) Decision Point » Out Of Gauge (OOG), Purge and Re -Insertion Lines — Elevations (vertical views) — Vertical Clearances — Outbound Isometric — showing configuration of the system A Sample is included on the Airport Checked Baggage Guidance Material webpage. �cnxrys °^ Transportation ( o(��g� Security 0.`ND 54G Administration Wirwic3 •- I ��� I ! ,"fit Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report What is in a Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report? • Identification of all alternatives considered including interior vs. exterior build -out considerations, and a short-list of the preliminary set of alternatives to be carried forward for analysis on a life -cycle cost basis • Documentation of the assumptions and methodology used to derive the design year baggage screening demand along with the process used to develop alternatives • Provision of the conceptual layouts of alternatives - Chapter 6 of the PGDS contains a detailed description of how to develop screening alternatives. - Chapter 7 of the PGDS provides methods for determining screening equipment requirements for various screening alternatives. - A Sample is included on the Airport Checked Baggage Guidance Material webpage. F•PARLyF Transportation x Security Administration FEND 5� I Slide 24 Preferred Alternative Analysis Report What is in a preferred alternative analysis report? • Documentation of the life -cycle cost analysis • Basis and/or the Criteria used for selection of the preferred alternative(s) - Chapter 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the PGDS, collectively provide an explanation of how to select a preferred alternative from a universe of screening alternatives. -A Sample is included on the Airport Checked Baggage Guidance Material webpage. DEQAI\F Transportation o� Security �`�taMD sFc°4-c�4 Administration I Slide 25 Process 5 ppR'fM o Transportation O/FAT o� Security 'F�gND Sp`J4 Administration Slide 26 Electronic Submission of Supporting Design Documentation Can submissions be made electronically, and what format should be used for an electronic submission? • Electronic submission is preferred for the supporting documentation and can be made through the TSA Document Control at TSADocuinentControl-FAP(a jacobs.com • Documents should be provided in Adobe Acrobat version 7.0 or later edition • Electronic files in excess of 15 Mbytes should be uploaded through the Jacobs File Transfer site http://ftp.c-b.com/ftt/ • Instructions are provided on screen — Veronica. Rileygjacobs.com should be the email used with a cc to the sender's email This should not be confused with instructions for the completed In -line Support Application Form — (see slide 10). 5 o Transportation �� Security Administration F a AD SF�J Slide 27 "I •r -4t Hard Copy Submission May hard copies or CDs/DVDs be submitted and who should receive them? • Documents may be submitted on Compact Disc (CD) or Digital Video Disc (DVD) • Hard copies (2) or CDs/DVDs (2) should be sent to: — Jacobs Engineering - TSA Document Control Attn: Veronica Riley 2231 Crystal Drive, Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22202 k9 a�.enR4Fti f ° Transportation Security ND SCGJ Administration Slide 28 Incomplete Submissions What happens if the application package is incomplete? If the application package is deemed incomplete (not in conformance), the airport or airport point of contact (POC) will be contacted directly in an attempt to obtain the missing information/data �EPA��FAT o Transportation Security Administration yf�AND 5``Jh a Slide 29 "I Review of Applications for Consideration What is the trigger for an application to proceed to detailed design review? • Applications will enter the detailed design review process and be evaluated only if all documents and plans requested as part of the application process are received • Applications failing to include all the required documentation will be considered incomplete and may not be evaluated for consideration in the current funding cycle Transportation t p Security 4� Administration D'��4 ND SEGJ Slide 30 Review Process What is the application review process? • Upon receipt of a funding application, each package is: — Logged into the funding application tracking form — Reviewed for compliance against submission information requirements • A letter stating the package is in conformance, not in conformance and requiring additional information or outside the scope of the program is transmitted to the airport/applicant — If the package was in conformance, an initial technical review is performed to ensure that all information necessary for a peer level design review is included — If after the initial technical review additional information is required, the airport or airport POC is contacted, and the additional information is requested If the package is non -conforming, the missing information/data is identified and requested QtipAY7,yEH Transportation Security Administration F Slide 31 Review Process (Continued) • Once enough information/data to support a peer level design review is available, the design is reviewed for BHS and technical requirements • Design comments are submitted to TSA for review and concurrence, prior to being submitted to the airport or airport POC • Upon request, the design review team will meet with TSA, the airport, the airport POC and/or the airport's BHS designer to review and resolve any comments or outstanding issues Upon completion of the review process, there is likely to be an extended delay before the next communication is made with the Airport. This is governed by many factors including project prioritization and the federal budget process. In the interim, if there are questions please contact the Regional Deployment Manager responsible for your region. 11 Transportation x Security Administration B��ND SQ Slide 32 Points of Contact for the FAP Who are the primary Points of Contact regarding application status and application requirements? • The Regional Deployment Managers will be the primary POC for any questions regarding applications • The Regional Deployment Managers are: — Northeast Terry Spradlin — Southeast/South Central John Reed — Northwest/North Central Khalid Haider — Southwest Greg Cypher • The Secondary Point of Contact will be Peter McVey, Acting Deployment Manager (571) 227-4108 (571) 227-1563 (571) 227-1350 (571) 227-2320 (571) 227-3842 Transportation Security o'��gk0 5``J4 Administration Slide 33 or Reference Materials Where can I reference the TSA materials for the FAP? • The funding application materials to be used are available on the TSA website and include: • The current In -Line Support Application form • The In -Line Support Application form completion guidance • An In -Line Support Application form sample • In -Line Support Application technical content and samples • The current version of the Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (PGDS) for Checked Baggage Inspection Systems AT Transportation �e Security ,.Yo 5E Administration Slide 34 *AW ASSOCIATES, INC. 101 EAST RIDGE OFFICE PARK SUITE 103 DANBURY, CT 06810 USA TEL.: 203.792.3000 FAX: 203,792.4900 BNPH9@BNPASSOCIATES.COM 01 December 2009 Eagle County Airport Attn: Letter of Interest, 0219 Eldon Wilson Road Gypsum, CO 81637 Re: Letter of Interest for In -line Baggage System Design and Funding Application Submission For Eagle County Regional Airport BNP Associates, Inc. is pleased to respond to the subject Letter of Interest. BNP brings an extensive background of experience with the planning, design and implementation of airport baggage handling systems and has been providing specialized consulting services to the air transportation industry on a worldwide basis since 1971. In our more than 38 years of experience, BNP has been involved in hundreds of projects throughout the world and our continuous industry exposure keeps us fully apprised of current and planned TSA requirements. Based upon our extensive depth of knowledge and broad experience with all phases of inbound, outbound, security screening and transfer baggage handling systems we feel especially capable to successfully accomplish this project. Therefore, we hereby indicate our interest and submit this Letter of Interest and accompanying appended information for your review and consideration. We would like to thank you in advance for your consideration of our submittal and we look forward to the opportunity to work with you on this exciting and challenging project. Very Truly Yours, BNP ASSOCIATES, INC. e�%!%� Davrd Mecartney President DM/kh Encl. Letter of Interest Initialed Addendum 1 NOW `., ECAT TERM SHEET 1) Requested hearing date: (First choice) (Second choice) March 9, 2010 March 16, 2010 2) For County Manager signature: N/A sROVED AS TO Eag` a County Attorney's Office 3) Reauesting department: Airport By: Eagle County Commissioners' Office 4) Title: Agreement between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and BNP Associates, Inc. 5) Check one: Consent: X On the Record: 6) Staff submitting: Chris Anderson 7) Purpose: Services agreement for in -line baggage system 30% design and funding application submittal to TSA to obtain financial assistance in the construction of an in -line baggage screening system in the EGE commercial passenger terminal. Contractor was selected through competitive bid process. Through the selection process it was learned that BNP is a reputable firm within the airport baggage conveyance industry, has a very healthy working relationship with TSA on these type of funding projects, and has demonstrated experience in helping airports obtain funding for in -line projects under the TSA funding application process in the exact manner that EGE is pursuing funding. BNP was also the lowest bidder for the services awarded under this agreement. 8) Schedule: 90 Days 9) Financial considerations: Budgeted in 2010 ECAT Capital plan Budgeted amount: $70,000 ,a Ce3V'F_V Actual contract amount: $12,675 �) BAR �}totzNty 10) Other: N/A EpO-e C.C)Uarr fc, cwt