Airport Commission of the City and County of San Francisco

Airport Commission of the City and County of San Francisco Request for Qualifications No. 8933 For Design-Build Services For As-Needed Baggage Handling Systems Improvements At The San Francisco International Airport AUGUST 24, 2009 Date issued: AUGUST 24, 2009 Pre-SOQ Conference Call: SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 SOQ due: SEPTEMBER 21, 2009

Table of Contents Page I. Introduction and Schedule... 3 II. Potential Scope of Services... 4 III. Submission Requirements... 4 IV. Minimum Qualifications and Selection Criteria... 7 V. Consultant Selection... 8 VI. Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Qualifications... 9 VII. City and Airport Contract Requirements... 15 VIII. Protest Procedures... 17 Appendices: A. Minimum Qualifications Application B. Standard Forms: Listing and Internet addresses of Forms related to B-1 Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, to Business Tax Declaration, and to Chapters 12B and 12C, and 14B of the San Francisco Administrative Code. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 2 of 26 August 24, 2009

I. Introduction and Schedule A. Introduction 1. The City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission ( Commission ), is soliciting Statements of Qualifications ( SOQs ) from qualified firms, teams, joint ventures, joint associations, or LLCs (hereinafter firm or firms ) to provide design-build services on an as-needed basis for Baggage Handling System (BHS) Improvements at the San Francisco International Airport ( SFO" or the "Airport ) to replace or upgrade BHS equipment to support terminal operations and to maintain efficient baggage screening for both the International and Domestic Terminal systems. Firms with relevant experience and qualifications for the scope of services set forth in Section II of this RFQ and meeting the minimum qualifications set forth in Section IV and Appendix A of this RFQ are encouraged to submit a Statement of Qualifications. 2. The San Francisco International Airport s baggage handling systems are comprised of ten inline Explosives Detection System (EDS) matrixes, forty two CTX9000 s, and inbound and outbound baggage conveyance systems. BHS equipment includes programmable logic controls (PLC), sortation systems, tracking and diagnostic equipment, motor controls, electrical equipment, baggage conveyors and carousels. The Airport retains ownership of most of the Domestic and International Terminal baggage handling systems, with the exception of United Airlines Domestic; however the airlines are responsible for maintenance. The Airport provides for High Tech Maintenance under a separate contract, including PLC, sortation control and diagnostic equipment. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) transferred ownership of all the in-line EDS matrixes, excluding screening equipment, to the Airport. A new BHS and in-line EDS matrix is currently under construction at Terminal 2 with four additional CTX9400 s. 3. Based upon qualifications and experience, the Commission seeks to establish a list of prequalified firms that will be invited to respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide design-build services for As-Needed Baggage Handling System Improvements as described in the scope of services listed in Part II of this RFQ. The Proposer shall have a current California A or B Contractor s License. The Proposer s construction team shall include California licensed Millwright, Electrical, and Fire Protection Contractors. The Proposer s design team shall include the following engineering disciplines: (1) BHS Mechanical, (2) Electrical, (3) Structural, (4) Fire Protection, and (5) PLC Controls. Engineering drawings must be stamped by a California licensed Engineer and approved by the Airport Bureau of Inspection and Code Enforcement. 4. Selection by the Commission for placement on the list of pre-qualified consultants under the RFQ process does not guarantee a future contract award, and the Commission retains the right to terminate the list at any time. The list may be used by the Commission at its sole and absolute discretion. The firm selected as a result of the subsequent RFP process will enter into a contract that will include on-call design and construction of the BHS systems over a two year period. The scope of services is undetermined and will depend on the assignment of tasks by the Airport as the need arises. 5. As used in this RFQ, the term Respondent refers to any entity submitting a response to this Request for Qualifications to be considered for inclusion on the list of pre-qualified firms to be invited to respond to an RFP for As-Needed Baggage Handling System Improvements. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 3 of 26 August 24, 2009

B. Schedule The Contractor refers to the Respondent(s) that may be placed on the list of pre-qualified firms. The anticipated schedule for selecting a list of pre-qualified consultants is as follows: Request for Qualifications Phase Date RFQ is issued by the City: August 24, 2009 Pre-SOQ Conference Call: September 4, 2009 Deadline for submission of written questions or requests for clarification: September 8, 2009 Statements of Qualifications due: September 21, 2009 A Pre-Proposal Conference Call will be held on Friday, September 4, 2009, starting at 1PM (PST) to answer questions or requests for clarification on any items in the RFQ. Firms interested in responding to this RFQ and wishing to participate in the conference call shall call Geri Rayca (650) 821-5317 or send an email to geri.rayca@flysfo.com in order to obtain the dial-in number for the conference call no later than Thursday, September 3, 2009. Participation in this conference call is not mandatory. Written questions must be received by Tuesday, September 8, 2009, and written responses given by Tuesday, September 15, 2009, will be available as an addendum to the RFQ at the Airport s website http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/about/b2b/pro-serv/. II. Scope of Services The following Scope of Services is to be used as a general guide, but it is not intended to be a complete list of all possible design-build services that could be assigned to the Contractor. The Airport may also elect to assign the work described to other contractors. A. The Proposer shall provide all services in accordance with documented procedures that meet or exceed industry standards, to include good business practices, quality of work performed, project management, construction and engineering practices. B. The Proposer shall maintain all records generated in performance of this Scope of Work and transfer them to the Airport in accordance with documented plans and procedures and a records transfer schedule. C. The As-Needed Baggage Handling System Improvements scope of services may include the following assignments: 1. Programmable logic controls, sortation system, tracking and diagnostic systems: The Airport maintains the existing systems under a separate High Tech Maintenance agreement. However, improvements to these systems may be assigned to the Contractor. The Contractor shall be required to have VPN access and on-call 24/7 accessibility until the work is finally accepted by the Airport. The Contractor shall be required to perform all work without impact to operations, which may substantially limit available working hours. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 4 of 26 August 24, 2009

2. The common use sortation control system was installed by Brock Solutions. Sortation control system work associated with Airport Contract 8933 shall be sole sourced to Brock Solutions. Proposer is not obligated to include Brock Solutions as a consultant or subcontractor. 3. The common use human machine interface (HMI) monitoring and reporting system (hardware and software), including servers, VersaView 1500P workstations, and software management head-in is located at the ITB Central Control Room. 4. Local PanelView 300 Micro devices: a) Common use Simplex remote reset system, interfaced with all CTX machines at SFO. The control panel is located at IT Central Control Room. b) Allen Bradley Control Logix 5555 Programmable logic controls (PLC) and CTX machine interfaces (hardware and software). Assigned tasks may include PLC code improvements to optimize tracking and throughput. The Airport developed some of the earliest in-line EDS matrixes, predating TSA standards. The International Terminal is the first in-line EDS systems in the US and may require significant PLC improvements to optimize performance. The International Terminal PLC computer servers are near the end of their useful life, and they lack redundancy. The Contractor will be expected to provide a team of highly qualified engineers for PLC-related task assignments. c) Install ControlNet network and Ethernet network and switches. d) Install connected devices to PLC (motor control panels, photo eyes, tracking encoders etc.). 5. Baggage Conveyor Systems: The Airport may assign the Contractor with tasks for the replacement of Airport-owned, airline maintained, baggage conveyor system components that are obsolete or near the end of their useful lives. The Airport may also assign the Contractor with tasks for modifications and improvements caused by airline relocations. The work is typically performed in coordination with live BHS operations and must not impact airline operations or TSA baggage screening. Construction mitigation is normally required, including 24/7 construction activities and bag portering. The Contractor will work closely and directly with Airport, airline and TSA representatives on a constant basis during these potential assignments. 6. High speed/capacity diverters: Replace existing bag pushers with high speed/capacity diverters at the International Terminal. 7. Power turns: Replace worn power turns at the International Terminal. 8. Wiring deficiencies and damage: Correct power and communications wiring deficiencies and the widespread damage to the wiring at the International Terminal BHS areas. 9. Conveyor corrosion: Treat and refinish BHS conveyors and supports at the International Terminal that have widespread, pre-mature corrosion. 10. Baggage inspection room (BIR) improvements: Expand BIRs and make minor conveyor modifications at the International Terminal. Improvements to EDS matrix fail safe tracking zones with stack lights. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 5 of 26 August 24, 2009

11. Modifications to EDS matrix conveyor routing: Re-route International Terminal inline EDS matrix conveyors to shorten the post CTX conveyor lines to increase tracking accuracy and to reduce the percentage of unknown bags at the BIRs. This assignment would require the Contractor to coordinate with the TSA certification process according to the TSA Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (PGDS.) 12. Modifications to reduce electrical power usage: Provide low friction conveyor belts and adjust conveyor time out programming to reduce electrical power usage at the International Terminal. 13. Improvements for airline relocations at Boarding Area E: Convert the Boarding Area E BHS to accommodate three airlines. This may include revised tug/cart access to outbound makeup devices, additional conveyor lines for redundancy, and a possible oversize conveyor line. The Contractor may be required to provide a simulation report and video to determine available baggage throughput based on peak flight schedules. 14. Unanticipated work: Unanticipated design-build BHS assignments may occur on short notice. The Contractor shall be prepared to mobilize for short notice assignments and shall create a written response plan to the Airport s satisfaction. An explanation will be required under the Request for Proposal (RFP), when issued, as to how the Contractor will mobilize for an unanticipated task assignment. D. Deliverables. 1. The Contractor shall provide daily written reports of construction activities, in a format approved by the Airport, which must be submitted to the Airport on a monthly basis as a condition of monthly payment. The Contractor shall provide a detailed critical path schedule, updated on a monthly basis as a condition of monthly payment. The Contractor shall participate in daily Airport briefings with Terminal Operations and airline representatives and provide a detailed weekly look ahead schedule for approval during the meetings. 2. With each monthly progress payment request, the Contractor shall provide an updated manpower loaded schedule of values spreadsheet. This spreadsheet shall include: (1) monthly costs for each employee, to include cost loaded labor time sheets, (2) forecast of all costs through the end of the contract, (3) updated summary of Airport controlled allowances including expenses to date and forecast of expenses to include costs to date and forecast costs for travel and per diem expenses, overhead, subcontracts and all other project costs, and (4) Projects, material and equipment receipts, and travel and per diem expense receipts. 3. All requirements shall flow down to subcontractors. 4. The Proposer shall provide written meeting notes for all project related meetings in a format approved by the Airport, distributed no later than three working days after the meeting. The schedule and frequency of regular and special purpose meetings shall be at the Airport s discretion. 5. The Contractor shall be responsible for engineering, estimating, scheduling, reporting, creating construction documents, specifications, building permits, as-built documents, operations and maintenance manuals, training, and written punch lists and to coordinate TSA acceptance and certification if applicable. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 6 of 26 August 24, 2009

III. Submission Requirements A. Time and Place for Submission of Statements of Qualifications Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) must be received by 4:00 PM (PST), on Monday, September 21, 2009, at the following address: Tom Rodrigues Project Manager San Francisco International Airport Delta/Singapore Building Bureau of Design and Construction 710 North McDonnell Road, 2 nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94128 Please be advised that U.S. Mail does not make deliveries to the above address. AND, POSTMARKS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED IN JUDGING TIMELINESS OF SUBMISSIONS. While not advised, SOQs could be mailed to the following P.O. Box address for general deliveries to the Airport: Tom Rodrigues Project Manager San Francisco International Airport Bureau of Design and Construction P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128 RESPONDENTS ARE ADVISED THAT DELIVERY OF SOQs MAILED TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS MAY BE DELAYED BY INTERNAL HANDLING OF INCOMING MAIL AT SFO. SOQs MAILED, THEREFORE, MAY NOT REACH THE PROJECT MANAGER BEFORE THE STIPULATED DEADLINE EVEN IF POSTMARKED WELL IN ADVANCE. NEITHER POSTMARKS NOR ARRIVAL AT THE AIRPORT WILL BE CONSIDERED IN JUDGING TIMELINESS. SOQ s MUST REACH THE PROJECT MANAGER AT THE AIRPORT BY 4:00 PM (PST), on Monday, September 21, 2009. B. Format 1. Firms shall submit, in total, five (5) unbound copies of the complete Statement of Qualifications. The Commission will place the SOQs in three-ring binders for the review panel. Please use three-hole-punched, recycled paper, printed double-sided to the maximum extent practical. You may use tabs or other separators within the document. For word processing documents, the Commission prefers that text be unjustified (i.e., with a raggedright margin) and use a serif font (e.g., Times New Roman, and not Arial), and that pages have margins of at least 1 on all sides (excluding headers and footers). If your response is lengthy, please include a Table of Contents. You must also submit an electronic version of the SOQs on CD or USB flash drive. 2. Firms shall also submit one (1) copy; three-hole-punched, unbound but separately clamped, of the required HRC forms in sealed envelopes clearly marked "HRC DOCUMENTS for AIR-590 (11-07) Page 7 of 26 August 24, 2009

Statement of Qualifications for RFQ No. 8933, Design-Build Services for As-Needed Baggage Handling System Improvements" to the same location and person identified in Section III.A above. 3. The envelope(s) or the box in which the SOQs are delivered shall be clearly labeled on the outside with "Statement of Qualifications for RFQ No. 8933, Design-Build Services for As- Needed Baggage Handling System Improvements" and the firm s name. 4. Pages shall be no larger than letter size (8 ½ by 11 inches) or, if folded to that dimension, twice letter size (11 by 17 inches). Attachment pages shall also be no larger than letter size (8 ½ by 11 inches) or, if folded to that dimension, twice letter size (11 by 17 inches). 5. SOQs shall include your firm name, business address, and the name, title and business address of the responsible individual representing the principals of the firm, team, joint association or joint venture, with his/her telephone, telecopy (fax) number and e-mail address, who may be contacted during the qualification evaluation period and for receiving notices from the City. In the event the SOQs are submitted by teams, joint associations, joint ventures or LLCs, include the names and addresses of the individual firms comprising the team, joint association or joint venture. C. Content of the Statement of Qualifications Firms interested in responding to this RFQ must submit the following information, in the order specified below: 1. Introduction and Executive Summary (up to 2 pages) Submit a letter containing an introduction and executive summary of the SOQ. The letter must be signed by a person authorized by your firm to obligate your firm to perform the commitments contained in the SOQ. Submission of the letter will constitute a representation by your firm that your firm is willing and able to perform the commitments contained in the SOQ. 2. Statement of Minimum Qualifications (up to 3 of pages) Describe how the firm(s) meets the minimum qualifications for the scope of services set forth in Section II of this RFQ. 3. Statement of Conceptual Approach (up to 10 of pages) Briefly describe your understanding of the major issues involved in replacing and/or upgrading BHS equipment and your conceptual approach to providing design-build asneeded services for this Project. 4. Firm/Team Experience (up to 10 of pages) Provide information on your firm s background and qualifications which addresses the following: a) Name, address, and telephone number of a contact person(s); and AIR-590 (11-07) Page 8 of 26 August 24, 2009

b) A brief description of your firm, as well as how any joint venture or association would be structured; and c) For the scope of services set forth in Section II of this RFQ, provide a description of at least three (3) but not more than four (4) relevant, on-going or completed projects in which your firm provided similar services within the last five (5) years of the issuance of this RFQ. Project descriptions should indicate the scope of services provided and a description of how these services were provided (as-needed or complete BHS etc.) d) Project descriptions should include client reference and telephone numbers, list of firm s staff members who worked on each project, budget, schedule, and project summary. Project descriptions should be limited to one page for each example project. e) If joint consultants, sub-consultants or subcontractors are proposed, provide the above information for each member of the team. 5. Firm/Team Qualifications (up to 10 of pages) a) For the scope of services set forth in Section II of this RFQ, provide a list identifying: (i) staff with expertise in each scope area, and (ii) potential services each staff / team member would provide. b) Provide a description of the experience and qualifications for each proposed project team member, including brief resumes if necessary. Resumes will not be counted in the page count limitation. 6. References (up to 2 of pages) Provide references for the lead consulting firm and all sub consultants, including the name, address, and telephone number of at least three (3) but no more than six (6) recent clients (preferably other public agencies). For joint venture partners, provide at least two (2) references for each partner. IV. Minimum Qualifications and Selection Criteria A. Minimum Qualifications A Respondent is comprised of any combination of a prime firm, joint venture, and/or subcontractors. Qualifications shall be determined based on the combined qualifications of the respondent team. No one member of the Respondent s team must be qualified in all areas of expertise. Respondent s must meet the following minimum qualifications to be eligible for further consideration in the selection process: (i) Respondents must receive a passing score on the Minimum Qualifications Application (Appendix A) to be eligible for further consideration and (ii) Respondents must meet the minimum project experience requirements as stated below. 1. Minimum Qualifications Application (MQA) Respondents shall complete and submit with their SOQ the MQA document. The MQA has two (2) parts, one for contractor-related information and experience, and another for engineering-related information and experience. The MQA contains instructions for completing the MQA documents. Each contractor entity and each engineering entity comprising the Respondent team must achieve a passing score on the MQA in order for the Respondent to be eligible for further consideration. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 9 of 26 August 24, 2009

2. The contractor is required to possess a California contractor s class A or B license to be awarded this Contract as a result of the RFP process to be conducted following this RFQ process. 3. Any SOQ that does not demonstrate that the Respondent meets these minimum requirements by the deadline for submittal of SOQ s will be considered non-responsive and will not be eligible for further consideration in the process. B. Minimum Project Experience: 1. For all projects submitted as part of Section III.C.4.c above, Respondents description of these projects should include name of the project, project value, and firm or team member submitting the referenced project, firm s contract value, and firm s scope of services including: (i) engineering/design, (ii) construction, (iii) integration, and (iv) testing and startup responsibilities as they relate to the scope of services identified in Section II of this RFQ. 2. If the Respondent is a joint venture, then at least one (1) of the joint venture partners must have held these responsibilities. 3. The Proposed Project Manager must have successfully managed a Project of a similar size, scope, and complexity. 4. Proposers or at least one (1) member of a team or joint venture shall have completed a minimum of one (1) project with the following characteristics: a) The project must have been for engineering/design and construction services. b) The project must have been completed within the last five (5) years. c) The project must have been similar in type, size, scope, and complexity. 5. Proposers or at least one (1) member of a team or joint venture shall have also completed a minimum of one (1) project with the following characteristics: a) The project must have been for engineering/design or construction services, or both. b) The project must have been completed within the last five (5) years. c) The project must have been similar in type, size, scope, and complexity. C. Selection Criteria 1. The purpose of this RFQ is to identify highly qualified firms that are capable of providing design-build services for the scope of services described in Section II of this RFQ. Airport staff will screen the SOQs to ensure that the firms meet the minimum qualifications as required in Section IV.A and Section IV.B above. SOQs that meet the minimum qualification requirements will be further evaluated by an independent selection committee; SOQs that do not meet the minimum qualifications requirements will be rejected and will not be considered for further evaluation. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 10 of 26 August 24, 2009

2. The Airport Commission requires that the respondent firms, teams, or joint ventures demonstrate expertise in all of the scope areas identified in this document. 3. Evaluation Factors for Selection to be placed on the list of pre-qualified proposers who will be asked to submit an RFP include the following. An independent selection committee will evaluate the submissions of the written SOQ s. The selection committee will evaluate the firms written submissions based on the selection criteria below. a) Past Performance (40%) The Respondent's past performance (within five (5) years of the issuance of this RFQ) will be evaluated based on the information provided in the SOQ, telephone interviews with identified clients on the projects submitted in the SOQ, and associated references and project descriptions. The projects identified by the project team in the SOQ may not serve as the sole basis of evaluation of past performance. 1) Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Airport's confidence in the Respondent's ability to successfully perform a proposed project of this type, based on demonstrated quality of relevant and past performance. In evaluating past performance evaluators will assess the following: (a) As demonstrated in the SOQ, past engineering/design, integration, construction, testing and start-up experience in the engineering/design and installation of BHS equipment; (b) Results of reference checks including: i) quality of past performance; ii) ability to control cost and schedule; and iii) ability to resolve unforeseen problems. (c) The evaluation team will assign one of the following confidence ratings to the past performance factor: 1) 5 Points = High confidence: Project team s past performance record provides virtually no doubt that the project team will successfully perform the required effort. Little or no Airport intervention is expected to be required to meet the contract requirements. 2) 3 Points = Significant confidence: Project team s past performance records provides little doubt that the project team will successfully perform the required effort. Little Airport intervention is expected to be required to meet the contract requirements. 3) 1 Point = Confidence: Project team s past performance record indicates that the project team will successfully perform the required effort. Some Airport intervention may be required to meet the contract requirement. 4) 1/2 Point = Little confidence: Project team s past performance record provides substantial doubt that the project team will successfully perform the required effort. Substantial Airport intervention is expected to be required to meet the contract requirements. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 11 of 26 August 24, 2009

5) 0 Points = No confidence: Project team s past performance record provides extreme doubt that the project team will successfully perform the required effort. Regardless of the degree of Airport intervention, successful performance is doubtful. 2) Relevance: The Airport will evaluate the projects identified by the Respondents in the relevant project summaries to assess the relevance of each project. "Relevant" projects are defined as those engineering/design, integration, construction, testing and start-up contracts ongoing or completed within the last 5 (five) years, of the issuance of this RFQ, with comparable levels of size and complexity to BHS equipment systems. Aspects include: (a) Projects involving engineering/design, integration, construction, testing and startup relating to the installation or upgrade of BHS equipment and related infrastructure; (b) Projects involving engineering/design, integration, construction, testing and startup in an occupied operational facility; (c) Projects with significant site constraints (e.g., lay-down and access); (d) Projects involving renovation of an existing facility; (e) Projects performed on a highly regulated site (e.g., security); (f) Projects performed under a cost plus fixed fee contract format. (g) Evaluators will assign one of the following relevance ratings to each project evaluated. Projects with highly relevant scores will be given more consideration in the evaluation of the quality of the Respondents relevant performance than projects with lower relevance scores. 1) 5 Points = Highly Relevant: Recent projects meeting at least five (5) of the six (6) project complexity aspects. 2) 3 Points = Relevant: Recent projects meeting at least three (3) of the six (6) project complexity aspects. 3) 0 Points = Not Relevant: Projects meeting fewer than two (2) of the six (6) project complexity aspects. b) Conceptual Management Approach (40%) 1) Organizational Structure: The evaluation will assess: (a) Understanding of the scope of services required for replacement and/or upgrading of BHS equipment and proposed conceptual approach to providing these services; (b) Approach for accomplishing the tasks defined in Section II of this RFQ on an asneeded basis; AIR-590 (11-07) Page 12 of 26 August 24, 2009

(c) Approach for identifying problems and methods for taking corrective action. (d) The evaluation team will assign one of the following ratings to each of the management approach sub-factors: 1) 5 Points = High Confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that virtually no doubt exists that the project team can successfully complete the required effort within the budget and schedule, and will probably significantly exceed the threshold performance requirements. 2) 3 Points = Significant confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that little doubt exists that the project team can successfully complete the required effort within the budget and schedule, and will probably exceed the threshold performance requirements. 3) 2 Points = Confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that the project team can successfully complete the project at the threshold level within the budget and schedule. 4) 1/2 Point = Little confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that substantial doubt exists that the project team can successfully complete the project at the threshold level within the budget or within the schedule. Changes to the project team s existing approach may be necessary in order to achieve project requirements within the budget. 5) 0 Points = No confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that extreme doubt exists that the project team can successfully complete the project at the threshold level within the budget or within the schedule. The project team understanding of, and approach to, managing their role in this project is such that successful performance is doubtful. 2) Key Staff - The evaluation will assess: (a) Relevant and recent project experience; (b) Professional qualifications and education; (c) Demonstrated ability to effectively manage the Work of subconsultants and subcontractors and multi-disciplinary teams and provide direction on complex technical issues that will arise during the course of the Project; (d) Demonstrated ability to successfully manage scope, schedule, and budget and stakeholder involvement; (e) Results of reference checks. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 13 of 26 August 24, 2009

V. Selection (f) The evaluation team will assign one of the following ratings to each of the key staff sub-factors: 1) 5 Points = High Confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that virtually no doubt exists that the project teams key staff can successfully complete the required effort within the budget and schedule, and will probably significantly exceed the threshold performance requirements. 2) 3 Points = Significant Confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that little doubt exists that the project teams key staff can successfully complete the required effort within the budget and schedule, and will probably exceed the threshold performance requirements. 3) 2 Points = Confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that the project teams key staff can successfully complete the project at the threshold level within the budget and schedule. 4) 1 Point = Little confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that substantial doubt exists that the project teams key staff can successfully complete the project at the threshold level within the budget or within the schedule. Changes to the project team s key staff may be necessary in order to achieve project requirements within the budget. 5) 0 Points = No confidence: The Project team s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that extreme doubt exists that the project teams key staff can successfully complete the project at the threshold level within the budget or within the schedule. The project team s key staff and understanding of and approach to managing their role in this project is such that successful performance is doubtful. Following the completion of the RFQ evaluation process, Airport staff will submit to the Commission for approval the selection of firms that are pre-qualified to perform Baggage Handling System Improvements and who will be invited to respond to a RFP. VI. Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Qualifications A. Errors and Omissions in RFQ Proposers are responsible for reviewing all portions of this RFQ. Proposers are to promptly notify the Department, in writing, if the proposer discovers any ambiguity, discrepancy, omission, or other error in the RFQ. Any such notification should be directed to the Department promptly after discovery, but in no event later than five working days prior to the date for receipt of proposals. Modifications and clarifications will be made by addenda as provided below. B. Inquiries Regarding RFQ AIR-590 (11-07) Page 14 of 26 August 24, 2009

Inquiries regarding the RFQ and all oral notifications of the intent to request written modifications or clarifications of the RFQ, must be directed to: Tom Rodrigues Project Manager San Francisco International Airport Delta/Singapore Building Bureau of Design and Construction 710 North McDonnell Road, 2 nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94128 Email: tom.rodrigues@flysfo.com Telephone: 650-821-7718 FAX: 650-821-7799 C. Objections to RFQ Terms Should a proposer object on any ground to any provision or legal requirement set forth in this RFQ, the proposer must, not more than ten calendar days after the RFQ is issued, provide written notice to the Department setting forth with specificity the grounds for the objection. The failure of a proposer to object in the manner set forth in this paragraph shall constitute a complete and irrevocable waiver of any such objection. D. Addenda to RFQ Commission staff may modify the RFQ, prior to the response due date, by issuing written addenda, which will be posted on the San Francisco International Airport website http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/about/b2b/pro-serv/. The Respondent shall be responsible for ensuring that its SOQ reflects any and all addenda issued by the Commission prior to the response due date regardless of when the response is submitted. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the firm check the San Francisco International website http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/about/b2b/pro-serv/ before submitting its response to determine if the firm has downloaded all addenda. E. Term of Statement of Qualifications Submission of an SOQ signifies that the proposed services are valid for 120 calendar days from the SOQ due date and that the quoted experience and services are genuine and not the result of collusion or any other anti-competitive activity. F. Revision of Response 1. Respondents may revise a response on Respondent s own initiative at any time before the deadline for submission of responses. The firm must submit the revised response in the same manner as the original. A revised response must be received on or before the response due date. 2. In no case will a statement of intent to submit a revised response, or commencement of a revision process, extend the response due date for any Respondent. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 15 of 26 August 24, 2009

3. At any time during the RFQ evaluation process, the Commission may require a firm to provide oral or written clarification of its response. The Commission reserves the right to make an award without further clarifications of responses received. G. Errors and Omissions in Responses Failure by the City to object to an error, omission, or deviation in the responses will in no way modify the RFQ or excuse the firm from full compliance with the specifications of the RFQ. H. Financial Responsibility The City accepts no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by a firm in responding to this RFQ. Submissions of the responses will become the property of the City and may be used by the City in any way deemed appropriate. I. Firm s Obligations under the Campaign Reform Ordinance Firms must comply with Section 1.126 of the S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, which states: 1. No person who contracts with the City and County of San Francisco for the rendition of personal services, for the furnishing of any material, supplies or equipment to the City, or for selling any land or building to the City, whenever such transaction would require approval by a City elective officer, or the board on which that City elective officer serves, shall make any contribution to such an officer, or candidates for such an office, or committee controlled by such officer or candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations and the later of either (i) the termination of negotiations for such contract, or (ii) three months have elapsed from the date the contract is approved by the City elective officer or the board on which that City elective officer serves. 2. If a firm is negotiating for a contract that must be approved by an elected local officer or the board on which that officer serves, during the negotiation period the firm is prohibited from making contributions to: a. The officer s re-election campaign b. A candidate for that officer s office c. A committee controlled by the officer or candidate. 3. The negotiation period begins with the first point of contact, either by telephone, in person, or in writing, when a contractor approaches any city officer or employee about a particular contract, or a city officer or employee initiates communication with a potential contractor about a contract. The negotiation period ends when a contract is awarded or not awarded to the contractor. Examples of initial contacts include: (i) a firm contacts a city officer or employee to promote himself or herself as a candidate for a contract; and (ii) a city officer or employee contacts a contractor to propose that the contractor apply for a contract. Inquiries for information about a particular contract, requests for documents relating to a Request for Qualifications or Request for Proposal, and requests to be placed on a mailing list do not constitute negotiations. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 16 of 26 August 24, 2009

4. Violation of Section 1.126 may result in the following criminal, civil, or administrative penalties: a. Criminal: Any person who knowingly or willfully violates section 1.126 is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and a jail term of not more than six months, or both. b. Civil: Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in a civil action brought by the civil prosecutor for an amount up to $5,000. c. Administrative: Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in an administrative proceeding before the Ethics Commission held pursuant to the Charter for an amount up to $5,000 for each violation. For further information, firms should contact the San Francisco Ethics Commission at (415) 581-2300. J. Sunshine Ordinance In accordance with S.F. Administrative Code Section 67.24(e), contractors bids, responses to RFQs and all other records of communications between the City and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded. Nothing in this provision requires the disclosure of a private person s or organization s net worth or other proprietary financial data submitted for qualification for a contract or other benefits until and unless that person or organization is awarded the contract or benefit. Information provided which is covered by this paragraph will be made available to the public upon request. K. Public Access to Meetings and Records If a firm is a non-profit entity that receives a cumulative total per year of at least $250,000 in City funds or City-administered funds and is a non-profit organization as defined in Chapter 12L of the S.F. Administrative Code, the firm must comply with Chapter 12L. The firm must include in its SOQ (i) a statement describing its efforts to comply with the Chapter 12L provisions regarding public access to firm s meetings and records, and (ii) a summary of all complaints concerning the firm s compliance with Chapter 12L that were filed with the City in the last two years and deemed by the City to be substantiated. The summary shall also describe the disposition of each complaint. If no such complaints were filed, the firm shall include a statement to that effect. Failure to comply with the reporting requirements of Chapter 12L or material misrepresentation in firm s Chapter 12L submissions shall be grounds for rejection of the SOQ and/or termination of any subsequent Agreement reached on the basis of the SOQ. L. Reservations of Rights by the City The issuance of this RFQ does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will actually be entered into by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to do any or all of the following: 1. Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, SOQ, proposal, or proposal procedure; 2. Reject any or all SOQ s; AIR-590 (11-07) Page 17 of 26 August 24, 2009

3. Reissue a Request for Qualifications; 4. Prior to submission deadline for SOQ s, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFQ, or the requirements for contents or format of the SOQs; 5. Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFQ by any other means; or 6. Determine that no project will be pursued or that no pre-qualified list will be established. M. No Waiver No waiver by the City of any provision of this RFQ shall be implied from any failure by the City to recognize or take action on account of any failure by a firm to observe any provision of this RFQ. N. Local Business Enterprise Goals and Outreach The requirements of the Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination in Contracting Ordinance set forth in Chapter 14B of the San Francisco Administrative Code as it now exists or as it may be amended in the future (collectively the LBE Ordinance ) shall apply to this RFQ. 1. LBE Sub Consultant Participation Goals At this stage of the process, there are no sub-consultant goal requirements. LBE subcontracting requirements may be applied to the subsequent RFP. 2. LBE Participation The City strongly encourages statements of qualification from qualified LBEs. Pursuant to Chapter 14B, the following rating discount (i.e. bonus points) will be applied to the selection criteria listed in Section IV.B for any firms who are certified by HRC as a LBE, or joint ventures where the joint venture partners are in the same discipline and have the specific levels of participation as identified below. Certification applications may be obtained by calling HRC at (415) 252-2500. The rating bonus applies at each phase of the selection process. The application of the rating bonus is as follows: a. A 10% bonus to an LBE; or a joint venture between or among LBEs; or b. A 5% bonus to a joint venture with LBE participation that equals or exceeds 35%, but is under 40%; or c. A 7.5% bonus to a joint venture with LBE participation that equals or exceeds 40%; or d. A 10% bonus to a certified non-profit entity. If applying for a rating bonus as a joint venture, the LBE must be an active partner in the joint venture and perform work, manage the job and take financial risks in proportion to the required level of participation stated in the proposal, and must be responsible for a clearly defined portion of the work to be performed and share in the ownership, control, management AIR-590 (11-07) Page 18 of 26 August 24, 2009

responsibilities, risks, and profits of the joint venture. The portion of the LBE joint venture s work shall be set forth in detail separately from the work to be performed by the non-lbe joint venture partner. The LBE joint venture s portion of the contract must be assigned a commercially useful function. In order to apply for the joint venture rating discount, the proposer must submit Form 4: HRC Joint Venture Form. Please contact Preston Tom at (650) 821-7796 to obtain a copy of Form 4. 3. HRC Forms to be submitted with Statements of Qualification a. All SOQ s submitted must include the following HRC Forms contained in the HRC Attachment 2 (Appendix C of this RFQ): 1) HRC Non-Discrimination Affidavit Form 3, 2) HRC Joint Venture Form 4 (only submit if firm is applying for LBE rating bonus), and 3) HRC Employment Form 5. If these forms are not returned with the SOQ, the SOQ may be determined to be non-responsive and may be rejected. b. Please submit one copy of the above forms with your SOQ. The forms should be placed in a separate, sealed envelope labeled HRC Forms. Airport Commission staff will deliver them to the attention of: San Francisco Human Rights Commission If you have any questions concerning the HRC Forms, you may call Preston Tom, the Human Rights Commission Contract Compliance Officer for the Airport Commission at (650) 821-7796 or via email at Preston.Tom@flysfo.com. O. Conditions and Disclaimers 1. The Commission reserves the right to reject any or all RFQ responses and to waive any technical defect in a response which does not affect or alter the substantive provisions thereof. Failure by the Commission to object to an error, omission, or deviation in a response will in no way modify the RFQ or excuse the firm(s) from full compliance with the requirements of the RFQ or the contract. 2. The information presented in this RFQ is provided solely for the convenience of firm(s) and other interested parties. It is the responsibility of the firm(s) and interested parties to assure themselves that the information contained in these documents is accurate and complete. The Commission or its advisors provide no assurances pertaining to the accuracy of the information in these documents. 3. Pre-qualification to receive an RFP does not preclude the Airport Director ( Director ) from subsequently concluding, based upon analysis of additional information which may come to his attention or upon further analysis of the information upon which his approval was based, that an interested firm(s) is not qualified to perform the required services of those responding to this RFQ. Further, no approval shall limit or impair the reservation by the Commission of the unqualified right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to reject all proposals, or to accept that proposal, if any, which in its judgment will under all circumstances best serve the public interest. 4. The Commission reserves the right to withhold from the firm(s) and anyone else until the selection process is completed, all information which might undermine the competitive selection process utilized by this RFQ, including the number of statements received, and the names of the other respondents, and the scoring of any initial rounds of selection. AIR-590 (11-07) Page 19 of 26 August 24, 2009

P. Services Provided by Attorneys Any services to be provided by a law firm or attorney must be reviewed and approved in writing in advance by the City Attorney. No invoices for services provided by law firms or attorneys, including, without limitation, as subcontractors of firm(s), will be paid unless the provider received advance written approval from the City Attorney. Q. Release of Liability The Respondent hereby releases all individuals, entities and firms from all claims and losses that may arise from said individuals, entities or firms providing information, comments, or conclusions to inquiries that the City and County of San Francisco may make regarding the qualifications of any individual or firm seeking to be selected as a consultant or sub consultant in connection with this RFQ. This release is freely given and will be applicable whether or not the responses by said individuals, entities or firms are accurate or not, or made willfully or negligently. VII. City and Airport Contract Requirements A. Standard Contract Provisions 1. The successful firm selected during the RFP process will be required to enter into a contract substantially in the form of the Agreement issued by the Commission. Failure to timely execute the contract, or to furnish any and all insurance certificates and policy endorsement, surety bonds or other materials required in the contract, shall be deemed an abandonment of a contract offer. The City, in its sole discretion, may select another firm and may proceed against the original selectee for damages. 2. Firms are urged to pay special attention to the requirements of Administrative Code Chapters 12B and 12C, Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits; the Minimum Compensation Ordinance; the Health Care Accountability Ordinance; the CityBuild/First Source Referral Program; and applicable conflict of interest laws, as set forth in paragraphs B, C, D, E and F below. B. Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits The successful firm selected during the RFP process will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of Chapters 12B and 12C of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Generally, Chapter 12B prohibits the City and County of San Francisco from entering into contracts or leases with any entity that discriminates in the provision of benefits between employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between the domestic partners and spouses of employees. The Chapter 12C requires nondiscrimination in contracts in public accommodation. Additional information on Chapters 12B and 12C is available on the HRC s website at http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfhumanrights_index.asp?id=4584. C. Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO) 1. The successful firm selected during the RFP process will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO), as set forth in San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12P. Generally, this Ordinance requires contractors to provide employees covered by the Ordinance who do work funded AIR-590 (11-07) Page 20 of 26 August 24, 2009