Great article - and links. Apparently Propeller's formal proposal was as bad as the noise, property value, flight schedule, and jobs "data" that they were trying to pass off at their website. Hopefully the County is learning some lessons here and puts this particular issue aside - forever...

The PDF is fair size but here is the letter I can't capture the image but you can now find the needle for yourself a little easier. Seems we sent our RFP out to 19 firms with only 1 response.
Gwinnett PDF package starts page 504 of 551
page 505 NUMBER OF BIDS/PROPOSALS MAILED: 19 Responses 1

MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Martin K. Conroy, P.E., Director
Department of Transportation
Subject: Request for Proposal RP039-11: Requests for proposals for
a public-private partnership for the lease, operation, and
improvement of the Gwinnett County Airport
Date: May 31, 2012

In December 2011, Gwinnett County issued Request for Proposal RP039-11 for the
potential privatization of Briscoe Field at the direction of the Board after the previously issued RFQ was rejected. Gwinnett County only received one response to RP039-11from Propeller Airports Briscoe Field, Inc. (Propeller). In accordance with Gwinnett County purchasing polices, the Propeller proposal was reviewed, evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee based on the response submitted and the RFP issued. The evaluation committee also received input from Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. (IMG), a technical consultant, and Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM), a financial consultant.

Cont

IMG reviewed the Technical Proposal and PFM reviewed the Financial Proposal. Both firms provided input to the evaluation committee, but did not participate in the scoring of the Proposal.

After evaluation and scoring, the Propeller Proposal received a final score of 51% out of 100%.

The evaluation committee noted that while the Proposal included a sufficient team
of subcontractors, primarily through Aéroports de Paris Management (ADPM), it provided only minimal detail for the operation, development, and planning for Briscoe Field. Emphasis was placed on the concept of and justification for air carrier service at Briscoe.

Both IMG and PFM also expressed concern that the portions of the Proposal they each reviewed were lacking in detail. Propeller’s Proposal provided minimal responses to key technical proposal elements including:

The transition plan
Community relations plan
Operations and maintenance plan
Short term airport development
Long term airport development

The evaluation committee and consultant noted the Proposal’s financial elements also only provided minimal detail and lacked supporting information to adequately assess the validity of the financial projections including:
No pro forma or even high level financial plan to show how anticipated revenues
would support the financing.

Cont

Limited information on the major capital improvements of the planned facilities
including location, acquisition of current leases, timing, and sources of funding.
Lack of supporting information on expected traffic volumes (enplanements) and
timing of anticipated traffic levels.
Lack of supporting information on anticipated revenues (amounts for parking, car
rental, food sales, retail sales, fuel sales, etc…).

Additional potential issues with the Proposal:
The County would not see any direct revenue based on the Proposal for 4 years
(paid in arrears beginning after 3 years).

The “minimum gross revenue sharing guarantee” of $500,000 is approximately one half of the current Airport revenue, excluding ad valorem taxes from based aircraft many of which may be displaced due to improvements. In addition, this minimum guarantee remains at $500,000 per year throughout the remaining 46 years of the proposed lease and is not adjusted to account for inflation.

The forecasted Sales Tax revenue to the County calculates to 2%. The direct
revenue benefit to Gwinnett County Government would only be 1%. Further it
appears to make the assumption that SPLOST Programs would be in place for the
entire 50 year lease term.

The County would be expected to waive ad valorem taxes on any buildings, grounds or airport work vehicles and equipment owned or acquired by Propeller.

cont

It is difficult to estimate the infrastructure improvement cost due to lack of information regarding the proposed terminal location and access points.

Although RP039-11 requested proposals for a project that differs significantly from most other projects for which the Department of Transportation has recently issued any requests for proposals, the evaluation committee with assistance from our technical and financial experts provided a well-considered and thorough evaluation of the Propeller Proposal.

As noted previously, this evaluation resulted in Propeller’s Proposal receiving only 51% of the possible available points. In my experience with requests for proposals on behalf of the Department of Transportation, this is a significantly low score for a proposal. Based upon the minimal detail provided in the technical and financial portions of the Propeller Proposal as well as the concerns noted previously, the Department recommends rejection of the Proposal.

Cont

Why the long post?

Because the scoring of 51 out of a possible 100 data was available for a short timer on GDP and then removed for some reason.

And if you thought this issue has died PLEASE read on:

http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/plan-for-second-metro-1450912.html
Plan for second metro commercial airport likely grounded

Local airport advocacy group Fly Gwinnett Forward said it will push commissioners to consider an airport referendum in November.

"Commissioner Lasseter's troubles have greatly affected the credibility of the commission to vote on this issue, pro or con," said Mike Royal of Fly Gwinnett Forward. "That’s why the best way to resolve it is to put it on the ballot."

And Now

“I think it would give us the ability to attract even more high-level professionals and companies to the area,” said Raymond Cobb, a former board member of the Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce and Gwinnett County Planning Commission. “If [the proposal] falls apart, we’ll have to think about another way to do the same thing.”

All this for a proposal that ranks 51 out of 100...

Its truly a WTF moment ... (Winning The Future)

Charlie Sheen would be so proud

To steal a couple of lines from WarGames Take us to Defcon 2 we have go through this thing after all...

Because we can't see to understand that sometimes;

"the winning move is NOT to PLAY"

Here is a related article about the Fly Gwinnett Forward move: http://dacula.patch.com/articles/fly-gwinnett-forward-seeks-referendum-for-briscoe-field-31ef3b5f

Hopefully now the Airport authority can address the complaints I heard about the Airport in 2010; late night engine testing, landings and take offs at 2 AM. Just because the privatization question will be settled doesn’t mean there are no more issues with the Airport. I would hope the anti-privatization group will stay engaged in the process and work to make the airport better for all of us.

It has always concerned me that there was only one proposal to consider. Really, I'd be concerned with just two but with one can one really feel like we have the best deal? I don't know we could know for certain. That combined with Lasseter's apparent willingness to sell her vote on the issue and the resulting lack of public confidence means, at least imho, rejection of the proposal...4-0 I would hope.

I think that Fly "Forward?" Gwinnett and Propeller, Inc. should be investigated. This is an example of greed run amuck.

If it goes on the ballot I think it should be worded.."should the County close Briscoe Field" since it doesn't make money for the county, according to the reports, privatizing will cost the county money with little return and this subject keeps coming up for commercial flights which is rejected by the residents most affected.........

Tim Sullivan & Dave M, you are the very people that make me nuts with your lack of knowledge about airports & federal regulations. Regarding noise, airports that receive federal funding never close. They are public access facilities all day & night-one of the reasons for opposition to airliners coming in to Briscoe. The FAA will not federally mandate a curfew except in extreme circumstances, & for those few airports that have legally binding curfews, those have resulted from lawsuits. Secondly, you cannot restrict interstate commerce at any time, day or night. If you have a business flying checks for the Fed. Reserve, a medical buisness that requires night flying or any other business that might have night operations, you cannot restrict them or THEY can sue the airport. It can become quite a sticky wicket when you try to legislate who can fly when as it can & will get you into trouble with the Feds, so stop expecting anyone to do anything about the noise at odd hours. A voluntary curfew can be posted, but it's voluntary. Take a look at the Peachtree DeKalb web site as it explains this noise stuff in very good, easy to understand detail for those of you who have trouble understanding this principle.

About the airport NOT making money-a Bannister lie. It's operating in the black & generates ~$1.2M in ad valorem tax on aircraft based there. Even the FAA does not require that airports be money makers as they usually are not-only that they try to be self-sustaining.

Dave - as to the expansion, he’s apparently on YOUR side.

But the noise issue at night appears to be one that will be with us UNLESS we pay back all the monies the FED has invested. So he's letting us know the reason the airport can't “close” NOR should it - HOSPITAL flights, as rare as they are, would be another.

What it appeared we were about to be asked to do, for practical purposes, was split that 1.2 million ad valorem 20/80 or there abouts with Propeller getting the lions share, while we supported development as the laughing hyenas…

Clem can correct me if I’m off base.

I stand corrected.... thanks R. Clem- I am sorry my ignorance makes you crazy-- my post had nothing about airport ops. I'm opposed to the expansion because it has not been sold to the local communities. If they rated the PR on this they should get an "F". They haven't even tried to get local support perhaps because they know they will create quality of life and property problems... they have proposed nothing to give back to the local communities for this so they care little about us. As for the corruption etc I am waiting for it to play out. I don't trust anyones figures at this point because the process seems to be corrupt to the point where we are constantly saying goodbye to commissioners. Something this big needs to be rejected until we get the process cleaned up. Its up to us as voters to do this.

:-) :-) :-)