Final Evaluation Committee Meeting: RFP No. PNC2131324P1 Airport Safety Assessment - North Perry Airport (HWO) - Apr 06, 2026

Colleen can we get a mic check please? Nancy can we get a mic check? Can you hear me? Yes perfect

thank you. Okay there we go. Good morning everyone. Good morning. Good morning. We're going to get

started in just a moment. We're just loading up the QR code for our sign-in sheet and then we're going to get started. Thanks for your patience. Good morning. I'm Christine Shorey Senior Purchasing Manager and the Meeting Facilitator. I'd like to call to order the final evaluation committee meeting for request for proposals RFP number PNC 213-1324-P1 Airport Safety Assessment North Perry Airport HWO for the Broward County Aviation Department. The time is 10.05 a.m. on April 6, 2026. This meeting is being held through Microsoft Teams. Representatives from the county are physically here in room GC430 of the Governmental Center Building East located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida or virtually through Teams. Attendees if you could please mute the microphones on your devices to limit background noise. This is a public meeting and is being recorded by Broward County. The video recording will act as the official recording of the meeting. The recording will be made available on the Purchasing Division website under the RLI RFP repository. Information reviewed by the evaluation committee as part of the evaluation process will also be posted on the repository. This meeting has been publicly noticed. The purpose of this meeting is for the evaluation committee to hear presentations, score, and rank the responsive, responsible vendors. At the initial evaluation committee meeting held on March 24, 2026, the evaluation committee determined two vendors to be both responsive and responsible. The following vendors advance to final evaluation and ranking taking place today. American Infrastructure Development Inc. and Faith Group LLC. Meeting attendance will be recorded in the following ways. The Purchasing Division will record the attendance of county staff physically here in room GC430. All virtual attendees, including county staff, if you could please click on the link or scan the QR code that is currently listed in the Teams chat section to complete that sign-in sheet. For attendees that cannot access the link or the QR code in the Teams chat, you could please email the purchasing agent Johanna DeFrancisco at YDFrancisco at Broward.org with the subject EC meeting attendance and provide your name, your title, and the company that you represent in the email body. We do have a quorum present with the following evaluation committee members. Committee members, if you could please say present after your name is called. Michael Nonamaker, Deputy Director, Aviation, Aviation Department. Present. Thank you. Gasser Dujay, Engineering Unit Supervisor, Capital Projects Division, Aviation Department. Present. Thank you. And Gia Bean, Assistant General Manager, Transportation Department. Present. Thank you. It is the evaluation committee's responsibility to review the vendor submittals to ensure solicitation requirements are met and to evaluate the submittals and make a recommendation to award a contract. Each evaluation committee member was appointed by the county administrator to serve on this committee based on their experience. The evaluation committee members are responsible for following the county's established committee procedures to select vendors which provide the services that are in the best interest of the county. At the discretion of the board, the evaluation committee members may be requested to substantiate their recommendation and discuss their submittal reviews. The cone of silence has been in effect since the solicitation's advertisement. Vendors are prohibited from discussing this solicitation with the commissioner's office, county staff, or a member of the evaluation committee. The cone of silence terminates when the awarding authority takes action which ends the solicitation. During the cone of silence, inquiries regarding this solicitation should be directed to the project manager or to the director of purchasing and or his designee. Also, vendors may communicate with designated representatives from the Office of Economic and Small Business Development at any time regarding the solicitation small business enterprise or county business enterprise participation. The summary of vendor rights regarding Broward County competitive solicitations was issued in the solicitation. The initial evaluation committee meeting minutes have been distributed to the evaluation committee members. Evaluation committee members, is there any discussion regarding the minutes? Hearing none, may I have a motion to approve the minutes from the initial evaluation committee meeting?

I'm Michael Notemaker. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from the initial evaluation committee meeting held on March 24, 2026.

Thank you. May I have a second?

Yes. I second the motion.

Thank you. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Thank you. That motion passes unanimously. As stated previously at the initial evaluation committee meeting, the solicitation required vendors to state whether they accept Broward County standard terms and conditions or if they do not accept them to identify the agreement provisions and vendors' proposed changes. Two of the two vendors, both vendors, accepted the county standard terms and conditions. The next order of business are the vendor presentations. In accordance with Section 286.0113 of the Florida Statute's presentations and questions and answers are closed to the public. Only committee members, county staff, the presenting vendor, and their team will be in the closed portion of the meeting. Other vendors, their teams, and members of the public will be excused from the meeting to permit the start of the closed presentation sessions. Sub-consultants partnering with multiple prime vendors are allowed only to participate in one vendor's closed presentation session. Presentations will be limited to 20 minutes followed by an unlimited question and answer period. The presenter will have up to five minutes for their setup and the timekeeper will be our purchasing agent, Johanna DeFrancisco. As the meeting progresses, the purchasing division will provide email updates to vendors ensuring that each upcoming presenter is informed when it's their time to join. Once all presentations and Q&A sessions have concluded, vendors and members of the public will be invited to return back to the public portion of the meeting, during which the evaluation committee will score and rank the vendors. Members of the public may provide an email address in the chat to be notified when to return to the public portion of the meeting. Vendors were asked to provide an electronic copy of their presentation to the purchasing division prior to this meeting. Those presentations that were received have been distributed to the evaluation committee members. The presentation topics, length, and order were identified during the initial evaluation committee meeting and were distributed to the presenting vendors. Each vendor has 20 minutes for their presentation followed by an unlimited question and answer session. And the vendor presentations will be in the following order. The first presenter will be American Infrastructure Development, Inc. and the second presenter will be Faith Group, LLC. At this time, we're going to transition to the closed portion of the meeting. So the first vendor presenting, American Infrastructure Development, if you could please remain in the meeting, and all other presenting vendors, their accompanying teams and members of the public are requested to leave the virtual meeting room. As a reminder, please continue to monitor your emails for when to rejoin the public portion of the meeting. This meeting is now closed. I'm going to wait just a minute to our representatives from American Infrastructure Development, Inc. While we transition and people leave, I'm going to draw your attention to the participant panel of teams, and we're going to load a spreadsheet onto the screen so that you can compare the participant panel to that list of Broward County staff. If you just wait one minute, we're going to have that on. We just want to make sure that from the participant panel, you recognize everyone there, and they're either with your team or their Broward County staff members. So those are the county staff members. You can take a look at that. Once you've had a chance to compare, I'm going to need, for the record, to please affirm that there are no other individuals in the meeting other than your team and the county staff. For the people from American Infrastructure Development that are in that conference room, I think you were just trying to talk, but we couldn't hear you.

Yes, good morning. Yes, we affirm that this is correct. It's county staff and our team.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. And who do I have the pleasure of speaking with?

Good morning. I'm Sabina Chaudhry, the President and CEO of American Infrastructure Development.

Thank you. Who is it from your team that we need to give the presentation rights and teams?

To Almeida Martinez-Razal. We weren't sure how this was going to be set up, so we did pull it up ourselves. We thought we were going to be screen sharing.

Yeah, you will be.

Okay.

Is Almeida on the call? She's sitting right here. Oh, so we need to give the presentation rights to the team's name, Aid Floater?

The AID, yes. Aid Floater.

Yes. I knew that was an abbreviation. Okay. So we're going to do that, and we have your affirmation there's nobody else on the call. So we took down our spreadsheet. You should have the rights now to try to load the presentation. If you want to do audio-visual checks, we have a couple of people that have their cameras on. So we're going to set a five-minute timer, and this will be your setup time.

Okay.

Maximize that.

Okay. We see the deck.

Great.

All right. Is anyone else going to be speaking? Because you may want to do a mic check with them.

Yeah. Do you have the jabber on? The jabber is on. Yeah. Are we going to say? Okay. No, we're ready, actually. Thank you.

Well, that's fantastic Monday morning, then. Let's go. We're going to reset the timer for 20 minutes, and you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good morning, distinguished members of the selection committee. My name is Sabina Chaudhry. I'm the founder, president, and CEO of American Infrastructure Development, also known as AID. It is truly a pleasure to be with you today, and we appreciate the opportunity to share how our team can support this important safety assessment project. Joining me in the room are Mike Thompson, our designated project manager, and Almeida Martinez-Rozal, our business manager, who is supporting today's presentation, and we also have Mike Cummings, who heads our construction management division. We're also joined virtually by Kyle Holley, PE, our engineer of record. In addition, we're pleased to have our partner, Garth Solutions, with us. We have Denise Williams, Evan Henderson, and Noel G. Garcia, who will lead our community outreach efforts, building on the strong foundation established during the town hall meeting. As the prime consultant, AID has a local downtown office at 110 East Broward Boulevard, and importantly, our entire team is locally based. Our team includes four CVEs and two women-owned DBE firms, that's AID and Garth Solutions, and ensuring that this project is delivered by a team that's deeply connected to the community and committed to supporting Broward County's local economy. We are genuinely excited about the opportunity to partner with you on this critical initiative and to deliver a thoughtful, thorough, and community-focused safety assessment. Thank you again for your time and consideration. I'll now turn it over to Mike Thompson, who will address the seven key questions outlined in the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Sabina. It's good to be here with you. Thank you for the opportunity to present our answers to our questions that are tied directly to our detailed scope of work. At HWO, our firm recognizes that the complexity of the airfield, the interaction with nearby airports, the high level of general aviation activity, which is about 70% training, poses a variety of different operational challenges. And we recognize that over time, because of the World War II legacy layout of your airport, there's a high concentration of air communication and ground communication and a very high level of scrutiny on how aircraft come and go from the taxiway to runway, runway to taxiway system. If there are any risks involved, it starts with the ground operation inherent with your airport. We recognize that this airport is unique to all others and that over time, the authority has identified ways to mitigate and ameliorate inherent risk. We also know that FAA has identified a series of hotspots over the years, one of which you've already mitigated it, maybe two more through this and future studies may take place. The question was, why did AID offer a variety of technical expertise, which included certainly airport planning, civil engineers, and construction management experts? It's all for the reasons I just mentioned. To know how an airport operates, you have to have a knowledgeable base from an airspace, which I handle, airport design, again, which I handle, airspace and runway interaction through air traffic control, which is my level of expertise. But when it comes to the redesign or the layout or improvement of airport geometries, we rely heavily on a concerted effort between planning, design, and construction. To that end, AID offers experts in civil engineering and construction management to certainly be part of the triad of services you will need to identify and ameliorate risk. Without this, the recommendations may be only academic and non-implementable. With our team, we recognize that working in concert, we deliver not only the assessment of potential risk, but the ability to identify how those risks might be designed, constructed to your CIP budget availability. These are things that we specialize in, and we welcome those team members as part of our team for you. Next slide, please, which we just missed the first one. I'm going to put the first slide up here, and it addresses everything I just said. This was the first question, and I've answered each one of those bullets. I would also invite you to recognize that we answered every technical question or every requested action that would be part of this safety study very carefully. We took no shortcuts. Anything in any one of these slides is part of the Q&A that you want to talk about. We ask you to also bring up any questions you may have as to how we would get it done. Next slide, please. Okay. We recognize that in 2021, Dr. David Byers presented to you at your request under contract a safety assessment for your airport. Now, I want to recognize at this time that this was a one-of-a-kind safety analysis, as it should be, because I said earlier each airport is unique. But in that light, Dr. Byers took at your direction, I'm sure, and upon his own license to identify areas within that report that came up as either need to look at, you should look at, perhaps in the future, and have this as a living document. We recognize that. We also understand, purely based on the scope of work you presented, that we need to complete, that this would serve as the initial study upon which we would validate, review what study mitigations were put into place and perhaps those that were not put into place and why, and we would let this study build on the shoulders of that. One of the things we would do in this study that Dr. Byers did not have an opportunity to do is develop a very structured approach to the questions that you have presented as part of the development of your scope of work. We also recognize that there's other avenues of technical analysis that were not available in 2021 that we will apply working with air traffic control. We believe that these new tools and our initiative to use them will serve as a great basis for going forward with recommendations of either known risk hazards or those that may be considered safety gaps that we would address through other measures. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. There are references to the safety management system that were questioned as part of this interview process, and we recognize that this is a very valid question. Why are we talking about runway safety management systems as part of this study? Well, there's a real simple answer in the fact that we recognize that during certain construction or development opportunities that are undertaken by airport sponsors, primarily at 139 airports, such as Fort Lauderdale International, that those programs are required. They're mandated, they're structured, and they're all for the good of safety to make sure that everybody knows what's going on as part of the project and protocols are set in place. But AID recognizes that some of those elements of any SMS program or a runway safety plan should be reviewed and incorporated as needed and appropriate for this type of study. So make no mistake about it, we are not proposing an SMS program. We only want to take the salient and pertinent elements of this and runway safety practices going forward. We recognize that this is a valuable tool because we've looked at other airports that have had successful safety programs. And again, they fall back on known and proven methodologies of either a runway safety program or an SMS program. So we do not plan to do an SMS. Lastly, we recognize that because of the complexity of either one of those programs that we will work with BCAD to make sure that as we go forward, you can appreciate what we suggest and we will implement them together. Next slide, please. What other airports were selected for benchmarking? Another excellent question. As I mentioned earlier, the previous 2021 safety assessment is what I personally consider your starting document. Other airports that I'm listing here are only just a handful, if you will, of Florida airports and nationally recognized airports of similar size that have towers, that have dense urban environments, high levels of general aviation activity, and more importantly, high levels of training activity, which you have about 75 to 80% of activity at any one time. This is just our start of identifying those airports that have nationally or locally recognized safety programs from which we would review with you and perhaps recommend that we adopt the best practices of each one of those programs. And this number may double, but it's a great resource for you and an easy resource for us to gather to get salient points to develop, enhance what you've already done in 2021, following your detailed scope that you placed in the RFQ. Next slide, please. What processes or processes or activity will be used to promote community involvement? Well, we're very pleased, and you see it on your screen as a participant today, Garth. They have a proven record working with you and identifying the ability to outreach and communicate programs to the lay public concerning your airport. We were very impressed with the previous home meeting on the public town hall. What we really appreciated was the fact that you and Garth developed metrics that allow you to weigh or value what you did through reporting techniques. We recognize that a lot of the safety elements that we're going to be looking at are understood by the airport, understood by the management of the airport, understood by pilots and air traffic control and your key stakeholders. But that type of information as to how it's operated, what oversight is put in place and what programs go forward need to be transmitted to the lay public. The communities that surround your airport and those stakeholders that want questions as to how you safely and effectively operate your airport. We feel very confident that with your collaboration, AID and Garth will just knock it out of the ballpark. And I can't say enough about if this portion of the study is not conducted properly, we can't get what we found through the technical aspects out to the community that wants to know. On that, we are glad to have Garth on here. We're glad to work with you and the community leaders that surround your airport. And we look forward to working to effectively bring this to fruition. Next slide, please. Describe the approach for providing services for the expansive scope of this solicitation. And it was expansive. I carefully read and carefully responded to every issue that you brought up. And as I read through them, I understood the complexity and the need for what the study is to do. With that, we have to have a very structured program. We have to have the three deliverables. They have to be coordinated between AID, our level of expertise, working with the tower, all the stakeholders, the specialty tenants and airport management to bring this forward. It has to be done in an ordered manner. We have to complete our own checklist to make sure that we don't have to look at things twice. At the end of the day, we want to make sure that we deliver to you a complete inventory of what you have on paper, if you will. Talk, be able to talk about the interaction between all participants, all management, your participation in management and that of air traffic control. We recognize that it's a very, very complex airport and that to make sure that it operates on a safe and efficient manner today as it has. But going forward, we want to make sure that you have the confidence to bring out any request, either by the FDOT or FAA, if they so choose to ask, and demonstrate perhaps to other peer airports that you have a structured, forward-looking plan for safety. Next slide, please. Lastly, we want to identify any successful or innovative tools to get this job done. As I show on the screen here, there are public documents that demonstrate right on the top your legacy airfield environment, much of which has been abandoned. But right out of the gate, you see we have two sets of parallels closely spaced. And as wind dictates, air traffic control has to handle that ballet of operations. We also recognize that that means for traffic patterns, potentially, and that wind dependent, you're going to interject larger GA aircraft of heavier gauge. We've looked at your fleet mix. We recognize your level of activity by aircraft that have higher approach speeds and wider wingspans. And we know that those same seasoned aircraft pilots are now interacting with pilots that may be soloing on that same day. On top of that, we recognize that air traffic control has ground and air, eyes in the air, and eyes on the ground operations, and that their highly skilled activity must be in balance with what I just described. What we plan to do is not only use what Dr. Byers used in the past, but we have opportunities today to use published information by Florida's third-party aggregator of ADS-B data. Now, this data is broadcast automatically by aircraft, and it is collected and put into a database, if you will, which we will access to identify what aircraft by end number, what altitude, what speed, if they're on the ground, in the air, and the interactions. As you can see. As you can see. No, that's fine. Thank you. Perfect. This is just one example of what Vertauer is developing for all Florida airports. And although this is not your airport today, it shows that graphically, and this may go a long way to talk with the lay public, it graphically shows traffic patterns. We can identify anywhere along any one of those paths, the altitude, the aircraft, and as I mentioned before, if there's an interaction between heavier gauge aircraft that have higher approach speeds, we recognize that air traffic control may have to extend downwinds, or extend base crossovers, or whatever is necessary to make sure you can integrate those types of operations. Likewise, we see dots on the ground of this airport system to the right, we would use the same data to perhaps show graphically how these interactions occur. It's a great tool that was not available in 2021. We plan on using that. Lastly, we plan to use all data that's available, integrate it, sort it, parse it, and publish it in such a way that it's not only useful for us, but will be useful for you to convey information that came out of this study. So as you can see, and we're very anxious to answer any questions you may have based on our response to the RFP, we are very aware of what you need, we realize what you're looking for, and we see the value of what you're doing, but most importantly, we recognize the need to share this information with the public at large. And through AID and Garth, and with your help, we will certainly get it done. And with that, I open it up for questions regarding these slide answers, or anything in the proposed scope of work. Thank you. Thank you. Lastly, sorry, I didn't realize this went up. Lastly, again, I want to say that we are subject matter experts. We have interdisciplinary firm that can answer any question you may have, and we're a locally base. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson and Ms. Chaudry, and to the team from American Infrastructure Development, Inc. That concludes their presentation. We're going to open it up for our committee members and our project manager to pose any questions.

Hi. Good morning. This is Mike Nonamaker. Thank you guys for your presentation. I have a number of questions that I'd like to go through. So, and some of them I'm just going to be, you know, candid. This, you mentioned the Dr. Byers report. The Dr. Byers report was done following public outcry about North Perry and North Perry. The stereotype that North Perry has as being an unsafe airport. And in the Dr. Byers report, it said that North Perry is generally a safe airport. But here's some things that you can do. In last year, you know, we had an accident that took place nonfatal. The probable cause was fuel starvation and pilot overloading the aircraft by gross weight. The probable cause for the accident that prompted the 2021 study, but that was a fatal accident, was that the aircraft was improperly maintained. The aircraft was witnessed to be struggling mechanically prior to takeoff, yet the pilots chose to take off anyway. So in your discussion and in your presentation, you talk a lot about, you know, airport geometry, construction, construction safety. You know, you all have a lot of experience in master planning, and you do have experience at smaller airports, GA airports. What I didn't hear in your discussion is how, in those two accidents, and just bear with me for a second. In those two accidents, the probable cause was determined to be the fault of somebody else, not the airport. Yet the airport is tagged with being unsafe. Who on your team is going to address things that are the responsibility of pilots, mechanics, aircraft owners, the Federal Aviation Administration, and others for things that North Perry Airport Management really doesn't have direct control over? How are you going to address that part of the safety study?

That's a tough question, and I'm sure it's affecting the entire aviation system that we have, regardless of who's asking the question. Airplanes fall out of the sky sometimes. We know that, and it's unfortunate. What compounds that, sir, is that the FAA certainly is transparent. When we have an incident, not only at your airport, at any airport, if it's newsworthy, the lay public's going to see it. What I would say is that this study, first of all, to answer the questions that you really want to answer, is your airport safe and why is it safe? Well, let's take it into two bites. Number one, you and I or the selection committee know that the operators, especially operators, call it mechanics, call it part 145, whatever. Even 141 schools have a protocol that they must follow, okay? Air traffic control has the same thing. You as an owner have the same thing. So one of the messages is this is how it's supposed to operate, and it does operate in that fashion. I think you have to answer the question locally first to say in recognition that there are some things that you can and can't do or be responsible for. You've taken care of your side of the equation. Now, I don't know if anybody has the ability to say why things fall out of the sky when they do. The NTSB will certainly do an investigation, and as you know, they will identify any causal factors, and there's always more than one. In fact, this incident you just talked about was a weight and balance and everything else that pilots should have known. And if you look at part 91, it says that the pilots will avail themselves of all good information. What we're going to have to do in this study is, as I said, identify how the airport operates and to make sure that you get a grade A, if you will, on what you're supposed to do and how you do it. And then what you want to do is say that, to the best of our ability, airport operations that are generated at this airport, call it a flight school or a touch and go pattern or even an itinerant that comes in. You want to make sure that you've got the information through, let's say, FBO handouts as to how to communicate. I mean, you may be preaching to the choir, but the point is you've done your due diligence to say, I'm going to have placards at the counter. I'm going to make sure that any itinerant comes in, knows how to operate at my airport. And then once that aircraft leaves the ground, I don't know how BCAD or any airport owner can take responsibility after that. And we're we're on good faith, if you will. I'm a pilot. You may be a pilot. Any pilot has their due responsibility. And all you can do in this study is identify how best to operate the airport. And through your air traffic control, we can de-conflict the air, both in the approach and departures and on the ground. But for this one incident you talked about, I think the responsibility really falls on the NTSB. It's certainly not your responsibility. It's no responsibility of anybody but the FAA to say whether it's safe or not. And even the NTSB goes so far to say they make recommendations only. And then that's what's born on the rest of us to make sure that you, the operator and the pilot, because they read them too. They want to know what happened and how it happened. LaGuardia is just a latest example, you know, of things that can go wrong. So how do you mitigate and ameliorate those things? Well, you've taken the first step. And through proper communication and answering questions in a public setting, you're going to have people looking at you with arms crossed and frowns on their face at the end of it. Hopefully they will walk away with the information that we put out there properly and try to do our best to convince them that you, the airport owner of HWO, have saluted that flag and done the best you can do. Beyond that, sir, I can't answer the question of how other pilots when they originate that flight or look at the directory for what your airport has, how they're going to operate. It's an unfortunate situation, but this study can only go so far. And I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that only FAA can say whether it's safe or not. And only the NTSB can make those recommendations to the public.

Excuse me, Mr. Nanamaker. Also, if I may, I believe Garth has also worked and done a significant amount of a public education on the roles and responsibilities regarding safety. Would you all like to also contribute to this conversation?

Yes. If I could also just add, as Mr. Nanamaker mentioned with the past previous North Perry town airport town hall, one of the things that we contributed to that was education. Uh oh.

Mr. Henderson, your mic went off.

You lost the feed.

Okay. I think we're back. Can you hear us? Okay. One minute. We can't hear you. So let me just do one more thing with the audio. Sorry. Can we try again? Can I get a mic check? Can you hear me? Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. We apologize for that. So, Mr. Henderson, you were just starting to add on to what Mr. Thompson. Go right ahead.

Yes. And so, in addition to, you know, supporting what Mr. Thompson said, I think to answer Mr. Nanamaker's question, you know, we've already done a significant amount of outreach when going, you know, looking back to the North Perry airport town hall. And some of those same instances of education of roles and responsibility for the safety of the airport, it takes a community, right? It's not just the airport. It's not just the pilot. It's also involving the NTSB and the FAA and several different partners to be able to make an airfield safe and secure. And so, you really have a strong opportunity within the safety assessment by bringing Garth along to communicate some of those roles and responsibilities, you know, when you do public outreach. So, whether that is the proposed workshops or outreach events, you have opportunity to educate the, you know, people that attend those with materials. You also have the opportunity to share your story and share your messaging with the community at large when it comes to the outreach places that you already have. I know that the North Perry airport created a social media page and has a website available to it. And so, by, you know, bringing us along, we would be able to help support and some of that messaging to, you know, really give the airport a fair shot and a story that really resonates with the community. So that people understand that this is not, you know, solely the fault of the airport or any in any way, you know, the fault of the airport, but just tragic kind of circumstances that have unfolded. And so, that's what we hope to do by supporting you. And this is to, you know, help tailor the messaging to the community and to educate the public on, you know, the roles and responsibilities that everyone shares when it comes to safety.

I appreciate the answer. Thank you very much. Also, you answered the other one, which just you have pilots on your staff, and I guess the answer is yes on that one. I think the only other question I had was, no, I think you guys actually did cover just about everything. So, I'm good. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Bean, did you have any questions for them?

I have just the one question to the PM. Can you be a little bit more specific on the safety assessment related experience that you have for airport safety?

Well, thank you for that question. As I mentioned earlier and Mr. Warmecker picked up on, we come at it from not only a technical civil engineering and construction aspect, we're also pilots and users. I have been involved primarily first as a pilot and then a user in working with airport sponsors for the last 40 years. And as I mentioned, every airport is different. The situations were challenging, but they present themselves in different ways. And unfortunately, I can't go back 40 years to remember what I've done. But what we can do in those situations is make recommendations to the owners working with those that interface with the pilot, air traffic control, ground controllers, and certainly the people that are operating flight schools. But to perhaps answer a question that you just posed for more recent experience in our backyard here at St. Pete Clearwater International Airport, we made some taxiway improvements. And this team was part of it to facilitate the use of larger air carrier aircraft at that airport that had to be done to expedite their operations from a ground handling situation where the larger gauge had to interface with the smaller gauge aircraft. And that was a successful project. And that was a successful project. That's just one example of not only did it address safety, it addressed the air traffic controls need to expedite and balance their workload and to move aircraft accordingly. That was a success. Then later we find that because of this long taxiway alpha, which the smaller training aircraft weren't used to, they were making mistakes as pilots. They would either misunderstand what the tower would say or they make turns off of taxiway alpha onto another connector. And so we looked at that from a human perspective, human performance perspective. So we introduced ground painted guidance as necessary, additional placard signs and other procedures such as notifying FBOs as to how to best inform either transient pilots or new pilots through the training on how to listen, how to act and look around as pilots are supposed to do. That same activity relative to safety included the construction of a new taxiway connector, anticipation of additional training traffic and itinerant traffic that was to be introduced and is underway now by another FBO. So as I said, we, as a pilot, I've lived with safety, I've availed myself to every story and every NTSB recommendation I can deal with, with safety as it's appropriate. So as users and as professional subject matter experts on airport layout design, we follow the FAs guidance and we work with air traffic control to make sure that we appreciate what their needs are. And in many cases air traffic control comes in and says, that's fine, but if you could do this, it would expedite our services and perhaps eliminate or ameliate risk that they identify from their end. I hope that answers your question.

Thank you. Yes.

Mr. DeJay.

Hi. Good morning. So, in hearing you and hearing Mike Nanomaker, what he has mentioned regarding the incidents, it seems to be even though there are roles and responsibility, there is to be also a review of compliance by the, for the stakeholder. And how often that review needs to take place so that everybody is doing their responsibilities as outlined in whatever guidance that the airport may provide. So, would you be focusing also on compliance review of the stakeholders?

I think that's an excellent question. As part of your scope of work that was requested in the RFP, we look for different vehicles or organs, you know, internal to your organization that might lend themselves to enhance what you just mentioned. One example might be the minimum standards. Now, I can tell you as a consultant that minimum standards for one airport are not necessarily going to agree with the minimum standards at the next airport. So, let's just call them unicorns, but they're developed organically from the ground up to suit the needs and safety of the airport at question. But at HWO, there are opportunities, number one, through revision or enhancement of your existing minimum standards as a line item or as a requisite box to check, if you will. So, that periodic inspections of the minimum standards per specialty operator, whether it be an FBO, whether it be a flight school or you name it. Each one are going to be different, but there's a way to enhance those such that safety is the primary check. And to your point, it may be that once a year, HWO management and BCAD will inspect your operation. You're not operating, you're not inspecting on behalf of the FAA or perhaps the state of Florida through the 1460 process, but you're saying, look, we know that this is what you do. We want to make sure that your pilots that come out of your FBO or your students that come out of the 141 flight school or whatever have some type of guidance mostly written down, codified, if you will, but presented to the users of their services. They're there, let's just say it's a mechanic school that they know how to operate aircraft on the ground for fairing across the field or handling as they do test flights. You need some type of a mechanism that says each one of my stakeholders operates to our standards that we've developed for our airport. And that's something that we're going to recommend in a study for you to to work with. Now, we can't do it alone. We would have to work with you, the owner. We would have to work with each operator to make sure it's pertinent and salient for that type of operation. But you're exactly right. Stakeholders need some type of a checklist somehow that's appropriate for their operation. Does that answer your question, sir?

It does, even though I think some of those recommendations were included in the previous safety assessment report. The issue is how often we have to check on compliance. Are they following the rules? How do we, the mechanism, how do we check for those? How do we implement compliance, basically? To me, that's one of the bigger issues. A couple of other questions that I have is, how do you see your schedule in handling the scope of work? I know there is data collection, stakeholder interviews, airfield review. Are there going to be parallel tasks? What's the timeline you are looking at to do all these things if you were to be the selected vendor?

Well, as a high-level look, you have already prescribed those. You have three deliverable phases, and each one had, starting at the top, a 30-day review of scope. And then there were so many days to undertake those and work with BCAD as deliverables. Obviously, it has to take a stepwise fashion. We've got to agree between the consultant and the owner as to, obviously, what's in the scope and what's not. If there's any embellishment or refining of that scope, that has to be up front. I'm thinking that's the first 30 days. And if I'm not mistaken, the second deliverable is something like 115 days or maybe 180 days. But at the end, there's a 365 cutoff, and that's it. It should be printed and polished.

And you don't have any issue maintaining schedule, right?

No, sir. Thank you. It looks like it was pretty well thought out on your end, and we don't have any objection to that. Thank you. That's all I have.

Go right ahead, Mr. Nonamaker.

Yeah, this is Mike Nonamaker again. I do have one quick follow-up. Work was done previously, you know, in your original proposal, you put a sample of notable projects. It says manage various projects, including airfield safety projects at Albert Whitted. Can you just tell me what the safety projects were at Albert Whitted?

Kyle Holley of our group is going to answer that for you.

Yeah, I can take that. Albert Whitted had a similar hotspot. It wasn't a published hotspot, but it was a perceived, what you call like a perceived hotspot, where it wasn't actually published on the ALP, but there had been certain situations there near misses, if you will, due to airport geometry. So we didn't take that on as a standalone project, but we did incorporate it into other ongoing FAA projects, mainly the relocation of 1836. There was a separation issue. That runway shifted over by about 40 feet, and then in doing that, we took the opportunity to correct some of that nonstandard geometry. This is pretty common on really all of our airfield projects at GA airports because we do look at it from, you know, a safety standpoint, a planning standpoint, engineering and construction. Every project involves every one of those aspects. If there's an opportunity to fix nonstandard geometry, you know, we take the approach of every project of, you know, a pilot, when he flies into any airport, it should look at least familiar no matter where he lands. So anything nonstandard, such as angled connectors, is the situation at Albert Whitted, very close to a runway intersection. We removed that as part of their overall safety update. We are the general consultant there, so we're afforded the opportunity to, you know, address projects over the life of the general consulting, you know, contracts. So it may be identifying a safety deficiency or perceived safety deficiency in one project and then implementing it in another project based on funding. Interesting. I hope that answers your question.

Yeah, it did. Thank you.

Okay. Did our project manager have any questions?

Yes. Luckily, the committee members over here already asked a few of the questions that I had in mind. But one of the questions that I had that I wanted to have an idea of how you guys would address it would be for the community outreach. How in the past have you guys addressed it and what are the indicators that you guys used to determine whether or not the outreach was successful?

I would ask Garth to help me on that with their past experience, please.

Yes. So we tailored a customized strategy and able to, you know, do outreach for the airport. And really, we start with who is the audience and recognizing who is it that we're speaking to and what are we looking to accomplish? So whether we're, you know, working with important stakeholders through the municipalities that are nearby or the local residents, we might determine that an outreach event is needed. And then we gauge the, you know, metrics by one, qualitative and quantitative data. So different sentiment that we're gathering from survey results. We can look to standardize that so that, you know, on a scale of one to 10 or one to five, we can put some sort of number to it in addition to receiving, you know, different sort of fill in the blank data back. We also look at it from the perspective of media sentiment and what people are speaking about online or in the media. And we're able to engage that way by, excuse me, I'm coming down with a little bit of a cold. So, and so in addition to that, through the media sentiment, we're able to analyze what people are talking about online and incorporate that into any messaging that's taken place further down the line that we can push out and communicate so that people understand, you know, what exactly is the airport doing and how they will accomplish any safety related incidents. Does that, does that answer your question?

Yes.

Thank you. No further questions.

Okay. Any follow-up questions from the committee?

No, thank you.

Okay. All right. Well, from all of the representatives from American Infrastructure Development, Inc., we appreciate your attendance and participation in the presentation today and question and answer period and your proposal as well. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you for this opportunity. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. If you can continue to monitor your emails, we'll let you know when the next presentation concludes. And thanks for your patience while we had that little blip.

It's fine. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. American Infrastructure Development, Inc. has completed their presentation and answered all questions. Would purchasing staff please invite the second presenter, Faith Group, LLC, to join the closed portion of the meeting for their presentation? Good morning to the members for Faith Group. If you can just be patient with us a minute. We'll be right back. Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to Faith Group, LLC. We're going to be right with you. We're just waiting for some members to come back. Quick bio break. Be right back with you. Not a problem. Not a problem.

Thank you, Mr. Fleet.

Thank you for joining. As your team members join, and you may have everyone already, we're going to put on the screen the list of county staff members who are also on the call because we want to make sure that in this meeting, it's only your team members and the county staff. So if you can take a look at that list and compare that to the team's participant panel, let me know if you don't recognize anybody or if you're waiting on any members of your team, and then I'm going to read a statement for you. Not a problem.

No, I've got Bob and Cheryl both here, so we're good.

Okay. And, Mr. Fleet, who's going to need the presentation ability for the slide deck? Me, myself.

All right.

We'll give you that. So, at this point, we're in the five-minute setup. If you want to load up the slide deck, do any AV checks with your team.

Okay. This is Cheryl Dickey. I wanted to point out I don't know why I don't have camera accessibility. It's saying the administrator. Video sharing is disabled by the administrator.

Okay. Let's see if we can take care of that.

Thank you.

Yeah. I don't know, Ms. Dickey, why that would be. We don't have any restrictions on your access, so I don't know which administrator it means.

Okay. It must be me, but I do believe most people know what I look like. I'm sorry that I cannot.

We will visualize your memorable face. Yes. Thank you.

Perfect. Thanks, Cheryl. Right. Can you see the opening slide?

Yes.

All right. Let me make sure I've got up my right. Let me know when you're ready and we can get started.

Okay. We're done. Reset the clock for 20 minutes, and you're welcome to start. Thank you.

Okay. First of all, thanks. Thanks for your time. I'm Dave Fleet with Faith Group. I'll be acting as the principal in charge, principal investigator, if you will, for this project. We also have Bob Ory and Sherry Dickel, part of our team, Dickey, excuse me, part of our team, and they will have portions of the presentation that we'll get to at that point. So, if you don't mind, I will get started here, hopefully. The agenda is set up to follow really the set of questions and the topic, subject matter that you asked us to cover in the initial assessment meeting that the committee had. So, we'll go over what skills are really transferable from previous work. We'll talk about how we're going to build on the assessment that was done five years ago. How we're going to tailor this just for GA airports. We'll talk about benchmarking some additional airports we've got in mind and why. Cheryl will talk about promoting the community and user involvement. How we're going to deal with the expansive scope of this project. And then Bob will talk about the innovative tools and how we'll incorporate those. And then, of course, as you know, we've got the QA at the end. So, transferable skills. We talked about in our materials that we presented in the proposal, the work that we've done with CSPP reviews, master planning, safety risk assessments, major operational changes, and how those impact safety. And then, of course, FA required. I think the key that is really transferable is the proactiveness of assessing a system. In the context of CSPP reviews, you're looking at how a major construction project might impact not only airfield operation, but airspace operations, including the surrounding community of airports, such as hall routes, lay down areas for construction, things like that. And it's all done in a proactive manner. So, it's not just about the construction in the hole itself and the safety associated with it. But it's also how that work and those projects impact the entire community. Which, as you can see, is extremely important and transferable in this case, given the impact to the local community that the airport has. Master planning is really about data analysis, data collection, data analysis, data assessment, and applying it to current facilities. I think this assessment really screams that, frankly. This airport's extremely busy, as you all know. And there's a lot of data that we ought to be looking at, not only on the airfield, but also surrounding community. And how incidents and accidents can and do impact surrounding communities. Safety risk assessments are really the structured process to do that proactively. I think that is extremely important. Major operational changes, putting those changes through the SRA process is equally important. And then, FAA required safety assessments are really associated with capital project funding and things like that. And it's not only the introduction of hazardous conditions or potential operational changes on airports, but again, the surrounding community, including the airspace. So, I think the transferability is really pretty obvious. And we'll be talking about that in a little more detail. This is really just what I spoke about just a minute ago. But I think it's important that we really look at data and apply that through these orchestrated processes that we have, these structured processes that we have to assess safety. There are a lot of operations at this airport in the context of general aviation, as we all know. And you can start to forecast incidents and accidents and things that can occur into the future and what mitigations and things are already in place. And we can really take a look at it in the context of not if, but when things happen and what can be put in place to help mitigate those further going forward. This then leads us straight into how are we going to do things differently from what was done five years ago. What was done five years ago, I think, really set a good baseline for the operations on the airfield. It talked about the hotspots that we know that are there. It was a data-driven analysis, but it was always looking backwards in history. And it compared data to the relative national airspace system data for general aviation airports, which was positive. What came out of that was, you know, positive outcomes in that the accident and incident rate associated with North Perry beats or is better than, if you will, the national average for similar airports. But it again, it was focused on aircraft operations right on the airfield. And so we want to take a look at that and broaden that out to operations around and in the community. Obviously, those concerns have been raised for safety, noise, operational land use, et cetera. The airport capacity and operational demand. This airport is getting close to a good 75, 80% of the capacity for the airfield. That's not going to change anytime soon. And so we want to take that into consideration. At some point, it becomes a saturated situation. When is that going to happen? And what can happen to help mitigate that prior to us getting to that point, right? The enhanced safety analysis, especially accident data off airport property. Unfortunately, as we all know, incidents and accidents don't always happen on airfield. So we need to look in a broader context, which is part of the community's concern, rightly so. Integration of environmental considerations, the emissions transparency. I think that goes without saying. And then focused outcomes. Focused outcomes. I think one of the things that was good about the 21 assessment was that it gave a to do list, but it was really all to do with cleaning up the existing airfield. And I think that road mapping, not just a to do list, but also road mapping and in the context of prioritization and associated with the surrounding community is where we're going to come from. Right. So we're going to build upon that, get more specific. It was five years ago that was in the height of COVID, obviously, and things have changed. So what can we do to broaden it and take a really roadmap approach to our recommendations going forward? Okay. Applying those principles to GA airports. So a couple of different things here. The principles for applying formal safety assessments and things such as that for general aviation airports, it's leveraging. We really want to look at leveraging existing SMS programs, safety management system programs. Air traffic has them. The FBOs and some of the operators also have them. So we're going to look at what data they're collecting and how they're incorporating that into their operations and they're forecasting ahead of potential incidents and accidents. It's a scaled approach insofar as the principles of SMS and safety don't change. But the application of which instead of commercial aircraft, it's general aviation aircraft. Instead of sophisticated instrument landing systems, it's really more line of sight and GPS approaches and things such as that. It's a different set of a system, but the approach to analyzing that system is the same. So in the context of identifying hazards such as hotspots, trees and the approaches, we looked at the FDOT study. I'll come onto that later. We looked at the FDOT study and they identified seven or eight different areas where trees were impinging on approaches and things such as that. Well, those can be dealt with and should be dealt with. How they get dealt with, we'll figure that out and we'll take a look at that. Risk assessments are really a structured way to take the entire system apart, look at the hazards, look at all the mitigations that are already in place, and then put it back together and see if there's improved mitigations that we can provide. So we want to take a look, again, in a very structured way. And it's not is it applicable, but it's how it's applicable, because it is. Mitigations, there's three simple forms of mitigation. The best one is always engineering something away. If you can mitigate a hazard by removing it entirely, great, that's the best way to do it. If you can provide additional controls in place, separation, things such as that, changing an approach surface so that it's higher to give you more space over obstructions. That's kind of the second best way. And then the last is it's mitigation, but it's the last one you want to count on. And that's asking people to do things differently because you're relying on a human being to do something differently. So there's mitigations or there's kind of a rank order to the way to look at them and the best way to apply them. So, again, we'll apply all that approach when we take a look at this. And in monitoring, you want to monitor mitigations. You want to monitor things that you put in place, frankly, to make sure they're working. Okay. So we'll look at that as well. This is kind of a lead in into the next section, which is benchmarking. In addition to the 21 survey, they did look at airports. They looked at a good set of airports. We're proposing at least these four airports. We've done work in some shape, manner, capacity at all of these airports. Concord is just outside. And I'll go ahead and switch over to the benchmarking list here. But Concord Airport is just outside of Charlotte, North Carolina. It's an extremely busy general aviation airport. A lot of larger business aircraft going in and out of there for NASCAR, frankly. But it is an extremely busy airport. And they have SMS already in place. San Bernardino is a very interesting operation. We've done work there. We did their SMS program for them. It's kind of a one-way in, one-way out airport. And they don't have a lot insofar as ILS. It's a very interesting airport. And there's a lot of different kinds of operations, a lot of fire service operations, forestry service operations use that airport. Peachtree Airport is inside the city limits of, probably this is the closest one to this situation here at North Perry. Peachtree is inside the city limits of Atlanta. It's the second busiest airport in the state of Georgia. And it's all general aviation to support Atlanta, which, as you can imagine, they also have an interesting airfield set up in that they have jet air traffic, but they also have a considerable amount of general aviation air traffic. And it's almost two airfields in one, if you will. And in Boca Raton, just up the road, they do have international clearance there. They do have an SMS in place. We did some work there on their initial existing conditions and gap analysis, if you will, for SMS. So we're very familiar with that airport as well. So benchmarking in and of itself, what are we going to look at? We'll look at the safety records of these airports. We'll look at how they collect data in the data analysis, what they're looking at in their programs. Again, they have SMS programs already in place. We'll look at their existing conditions versus North Perry's. We'll ID best practices, their reporting functions, things such as that, their community outreach, which we'll talk about here in a minute. And then coordination with FDOT, how future projects are prioritized, things such as that, and addressing how are they addressing those deficiencies in the case of Boca Raton anyway. But we'll look at how that's applicable to North Perry. And again, we did take a look at the FDOT analysis that occurred recently, and we'll share that with you here coming up. But now I'm going to ask Cheryl to come on and talk about promoting community involvement.

Certainly. Thanks so much. So, of course, we looked at the question that was posed at the town hall report, final report, which was, what ideas do you have for improving communication between the airport and the community? And, of course, two that bubbled up the highest were, of course, community engagement and events and communication channels and accessibility. So, promoting community involvement from our perspective was to look at it from a two-tiered engagement. And so, we'd look at forming stakeholder working groups with the flight school, the tenants, and with ATC. And in addition to that, our community interface would really look at doing public workshops, going to community events in the community, perhaps looking at some youth educational programs, all these being suggested, and certainly good ideas. And perhaps tours so people can understand what's going on at the airport as we would communicate to them, you know, clear reporting on the airport safety assessment as we progress with it. And the ongoing communication tools would be such as a dashboard, a website, where those reports that are more public-faced information, where we're giving them the data about the assessment report, and ultimately the final report. We'd also want to include some sort of feedback, so a portal that would allow the community to provide feedback and their concerns. And, of course, we'd want FDOT to know what we were doing in terms of community outreach, so we would keep them in the loop as well. On the next slide, it's really just an opportunity to show you a palm card and a fact sheet that we did for, in conjunction with the prime for the Broward County Transportation Program called PRIMO. Such documents can be done for this project as well as we communicate the information to the homeowner groups, civic groups, and to opportunities to look at one-on-one opportunities to talk to the business and deal with communicating to the public. We do actually maintain a database of surrounding community residents, HOAs, and the business community, so we would do that with this project, too, so that we could distribute this type of information, perhaps door to door, if necessary. On the next slide, we are recalling with the town hall meeting what some of the next steps were for perhaps looking at reenacting the community advisory committee in conduction with the airport staff, so that then we're reengaging on a continuous basis what's necessary to keep the public involved. Next, we'll have the scope.

So, our approach to providing services in this expansive scope, obviously, you're asking us to do a lot of things, so how are we going to organize ourselves to be able to do that? I think, first of all, simple project management practices, professional P&P work is the way that we approach all of our projects, really, at Faith Group. We'll set up a RACI matrix for responsibility, accountability, consultation, and who needs to be informed. Simple approach to make sure we're all on the same page, and we know who's doing what. We'll have a phased approach, but that's not to say that it's a linear approach. There are several activities, particularly with data collection and data analysis, that can be conducted at the same time that we're conducting community outreach and community involvement. Which brings us into having a detailed communication plan. We're proposing we at least have weekly updates, even if it's an email form, back to yourselves, back to the county, on how we're doing. We want to have a clear escalation process for decision making. We want to be integrated across all the disciplines. We've got a holistic team, right? We've got everything covered. We've got our community outreach. We've got our data analysis and our tools approach, toolbox approach that Bob will talk about here in a minute. And we've got our internal staff that covers everything from federal aviation, runway safety, airspace safety, aircraft operations, our planners. We've got a full set, a kit, if you will, of civic matter experts that we can apply to this. So across all the disciplines, we'll all be on the same page and be working together in the same form of, in really the same communication plan, excuse me. And as the principal in charge for that, I guarantee that will happen. We'll always be on the same page. Purposeful execution in our scope and our outcomes. We will rigidly follow what, if we say we're going to do it at a certain date and time, we will do it at a certain date and time. You will be able to count on that. I guarantee it. I give you my word. We will work the process. We will keep you informed and there will be no surprises. We'll always be ahead. Again, safety needs to be looked at proactively. And that's the way we intend to really run this project. Just a couple of things. I stuck this in here. This was one of the, this was the recent FDOT assessment and some of their findings. It really, in this case, a lot of it has to do with approaches. Some of your approach minimums into the airfield itself have had to, had to change to provide more space. I talked about that being a mitigation earlier. How can the airport deal with those? How should the airport be dealing with those? Because there are a lot of obstructions that are frankly off airport property. So how can we look at that? And that's through community involvement and education that Cheryl talked about. So I put this up here just to say that we've reviewed this. We intend to continue to communicate with FDOT and make this part of our planning going forward. So I'll turn it over to Bob to talk about use of innovative tools.

Good afternoon, Bob Ory, PTI. Quickly, we've got a lot of tools out there already that we've been working with BCAD. We also work with Florida DOT Aviation Office doing the J-SIP program. J-SIP is going to be in the future. J-SIP is going to be looking at safety components to projects being funded by FDOT, whether it be District 4 or Central Office. But our key here is putting these tools together to have a sustainable process for now and in the future. And next slide. Looking at incident reporting, looking at inspection programs, integrating with the FDOT's inspection program by Dave Smith at Central Office that inspects North Perry every year. So we're looking at also scalable actions for AAMs in the future. We want this to grow and be scalable so that everybody has use. We already have the ILP running at HWO that does all the airspace analysis. So basically, we're looking at all these pieces of tools, putting it together to do an accurate, sustainable, consistent, and process that integrates with FAA and FDOT. So that data being shared can be shared with not only the BCAD organization, but also FDOT and FAA. Next slide. And the incident reporting, we actually created these two with FDOT bunnies in Melbourne. These two are now available for the incident reporting for tracking incidents on and off the airport. People, tenants can log in and put what type of incident happened, what date, date stamped. Keep it simple and sustainable. Next slide. All right. That takes us to Q&A.

Thank you, Mr. Fleet. Right on the buzzer. Thank you very much for the presentation. Perfect. Yes. Thanks for your presentation and availability now to answer questions from our committee members and project manager. Mr. Nonamaker.

Hi. Good morning. This is Mike Nonamaker of some questions for y'all. The first one is this assessment or the, you know, this procurement and the previous safety assessment, both were born out of public outcry about North Perry Airport, whether it's a safe airport or not. The reason being is in 2021, there was a fatal accident that took place and it didn't candidly involved a four year old child in a car. The NTSB probable cause was the pilot decided to depart, even though the engine was not performing as it should. Then last year, another aircraft came up just short of the runway. A probable cause pilot operated the aircraft overweight and experienced fuel starvation. So North Perry Airport gets a stereotype of being an unsafe airport. And there have been other incidents and accidents that have happened throughout the years. Discuss for us how, what your, your thought is on how the safety assessment would differentiate North Perry Airport and Broward County's responsibilities from the responsibilities of others.

Got it. Good, good question. Going back to what I talked about conducting a safety, a safety assessment in the context of looking at the airport as a holistic system. So you, you touched on a couple of different things in the two examples you touched on there. The root cause really comes back to the operating of the aircraft, whether it was trying to depart with a stuttering engine or operating the aircraft overweight and then starving in a fuel. So in, in any case, both of those should have been mitigated proactively. Um, that being said, looking at, um, the surrounding community and its proximity, uh, to the airport certainly, uh, brings in different aspects into the system. In other words, it, you don't have clear farm fields around this airport. You've got, you've got, um, homes, you've got people interacting, you know, you've got people conducting their daily lives. So the, the concern is justified in that you've got a lot of general aviation traffic flying close and right overhead. Um, so the community concern is, is justified and understood. That being said, what does the operators or what do the operators, I should say, have in place? Uh, what do the flight schools have in place to ensure and to help minimize those kinds of accidents occurring in the future? Well, this study needs to peel all that onion back and figure that out. Um, root cause analysis is something that we do with all of our clients and kind of getting down to the bottom of it. And it's, it's a simple process of asking why, why, why, why did this happen? How did this happen until you, until you're comfortable that you've kind of gotten to the bottom of it. So I think when we take apart this whole system and we look at where, um, the hazards are and what mitigations are in place to deal with those hazards, what can still be applied to help improve it? What can, uh, be changed? And from a communication aspect that Cheryl talked about and, uh, Cheryl, if you want to expand on that, please do. How do we incorporate the community and their opinion? And because from their perspective, we want to know how they see, uh, the airport and how they see the operations. So we're going to want to have that engagement so that everyone's on the same page and comfortable that, um, that the county is doing everything it can to make this airport operate as safely as possible. Cheryl, I rambled there. I rambled there. Yeah. And so, yes, absolutely.

And so with the educational program that would deal with, um, what Barrett County's responsibilities are and flight schools responsibilities are, and quite frankly, you know, tightening up on the flight schools responsibility of what they should be doing with their pilots. And, um, letting, you know, letting, you know, letting the rules and regs govern that you can't take off under these circumstances and have some sort of a, um, a quality control, uh, at those schools, uh, that they must adhere to, to even be on, um, Perry airport, uh, or, or they can't be, if they don't put those quality controls in place for pilots and their responsibility. But also educating the public about the, the two different, um, issues of Barrett County's responsibilities and the flight school's responsibilities. Yeah.

And if I can too, sorry, I'll just add one more thing to that. And that is, we, we looked at, um, you know, the rules and regs and bolstering those and taking those apart and seeing if there's anything that can be added to that is going to be an important part of this. I know the 21 study looked at those as well, and I should have mentioned that, right? The, those are controls management controls that by virtue of operating at the airport, we want to make sure are in place.

Okay. Thank you for that. Um, next question. A lot, a lot of what you put as past performance in your original proposal is very heavy at commercial service airports. Um, the benchmark airports that you just showcased, uh, Concord, San Bernardino, uh, both, uh, you know, commercial service, peach tree, uh, and Boca, uh, you know, pure GA. But those also are very heavy in corporate aircraft. North Perry barely has a jet. So how do, how do you, how are you going to use those help us understand how you're going to use those to apply safety principles to the market that North Perry airport.

Now that's, that's fair. And it's important to, we, we've worked at those airports before and they have safety systems in place. And the reason that we chose those airports, um, as a minimum, there are other airports that we can certainly explore and we will. Um, there are several general aviation airports around the state of Florida that are very similar to North Perry in that, um, they only have GA, small GA aircraft operating there. But the point of using those airports is to identify what kind of data they're collecting, uh, and how they're analyzing that data. Because if it's jet aircraft and the performance of jet aircraft versus 172s, smaller training aircraft, the process to collect data and analyze, it's the same. Um, it's just applied in a slightly different system. So it's, it's, it's important that we have, um, what I would say trusted partners and the way that they're analyzing data and the way that they apply it and look at, and look for best practices so that we can then take that and transport it or apply it to North Perry. Um, the type of aircraft operations, whether it's a landing speed of 180 versus a landing speed of 60, um, that, that will get captured in the data and the mitigations applied will be slightly different. But the, but the important thing that I guess I'm, I'm mostly concerned about is well-established processes for collecting data, taking the system apart and understanding it and then applying it. So all of those processes to do that are really portable and transportable. Um, and that, that's why we, we chose those airports, frankly, they, they do have, in the case of, of Peach Street, uh, and Boca, they do have a lot of prop aircraft. As you point out though, they also have a lot of business aircraft, a lot of heavy iron, as we might say. But, um, it's the process to collect data and have community outreach that in combining those two that we want to leverage and learn from so that we can help apply that to North Perry. And again, when we look at a broad data collection, there's a lot of airports that we will turn to outside of those four. We just proposed on top of the 21 study. Hope that helps.

Okay. Thank you. Um, now, yeah, you're, you're talking about data. Um, does your, your, and you showcased at the end, there are some of the methodologies that you're going to use or tracking systems. Does that system, those systems track what, you know, exactly what aircraft are doing, what the pilot is doing in the aircraft, um, in relation to following rules and regulations?

Um, Bob, do you want to touch on that first and then I can follow up?

Well, it will have the rules and regulations there. Then following it besides the, you know, we, I think North Perry's got the ADS-B tracking right from, um, from that perspective. I think the state put it in there, but, um, that will have to be monitored via, you know, teaching the pilots, the incident reporting, teaching them how the mobile or phone application works and teaching them to report when they need to report. Um, that's basically, you know, there's no automated method to do that. Okay. It's just a matter of people being honest.

Yeah. The, um, the other thing that I would add to that is given that it's, you have a tower in place, um, during, uh, when the tower is staffed, if aircraft deviate from their approach, required approach surfaces, approach, um, patterns, if they deviate from, uh, departing and entering the pattern, things like that. Those deviations, if, uh, I hesitate to use the word severe, but if they're, uh, large enough deviations, the tower should be capturing that. And we need to have conversations with the tower, but that should be logged. Um, and then of course, any close calls or anything like that should be logged up there as well. So there's a, there's a whole host of data that the control tower ought to be collecting. And certainly we want to take advantage of that and see if there's patterns, if one flight school is different or, or one set of students are different than another.

And we could, uh, we could look at solutions like Bartow did with the digital tower, especially when the tower is not there. Yeah. So having the cameras and digital towers set up that, uh, FDOT funded at Bartow would be a good, would be, I think you guys are on the list, HW is on the list anyway, to put that in eventually. Should be, that's a good point, Bob.

Okay. Um, so just as a follow up, because you used a key word in your response there, and this is, this is the tough part, but this is how we, we understand your thought process of how you're going to do this assessment. When you say that pilots need to be honest and people just need to do things honestly, that strikes a nerve with a lot of people. Because we know that the way rules and regulations in aviation, it is something that you do have to trust people to do. Now, since you said that help us understand. And if you're the selected company to come in and do this assessment, how are you going to translate that into something that eventually the public will see?

Very, very, very good question. And, uh, you're spot on in identifying the key problem. Trust is, um, is always something that's hard to quantify, right? And it, you know, trust, but verify, right? That's a term we've heard for a long time now. Um, I think education with the flight schools is going to be, um, really important. I think talking to them in a very frank way, uh, about the community's concerns and their obligation to operate responsibly at this airport. Because if they can't prove that they're doing that and they can't prove that that's part of their curriculum and that pilots are following that. Then that's an, that's another issue that, um, Broward County may have to deal with the flight schools on an individual basis. Just being very honest here, they need to demonstrate that their curriculum holds safety as their number one concern. And the operating of those aircraft in and around this community is of the utmost importance. And if they can't demonstrate that, then they need to be able to change to do that. And our, um, our approach is going to have them involved all along the way. But again, it's very frank and honest communications because if, if they don't demonstrate that it is part of their day to day approach to operating at this airport, then it can be dealt with through other means. And they probably won't like those other means. Um, just being very honest and frank about it. They, they have to step up and, uh, and we will educate them on the importance of it.

Including the banner towers. And I do think this digital tower and the camera system that we're talking about integrating that uniquely into this operation at North Perry. Because I've, I've stayed out there and I've seen what you're talking about, Mike, about them not following rules and regulations. And we need some accountability, if you put it out like that, of what the pilots are actually doing.

Okay. Thank you guys. I might have a follow up depending on what my colleagues ask.

Thank you. No problem. Ms. Bean.

Yes. I have a question, uh, for the PM. Um, can you give me, uh, some specific examples of the safety assessment study that you had done, um, yourself? And, uh, what's the outcome? Have you, have those, uh, recommendations been implemented successfully?

Oh, um, sure. We've had, um, we've conducted safety assessments on everything from major operational changes that impact. And I'll, I'll, I'll keep it focused on general aviation, um, construction projects and how they've impinged upon, um, FBO operations, flight school operations, how they've limited access to and from the ramp areas, how, um, changes in, in airfield configuration have required, uh, operating aircraft to be, um, to be relocated. And, and even, you know, ramps have been taken out of service, so they've had to move elsewhere. Um, those mitigations are planned in throughout the course of a construction project. And then in, in a larger context, um, operations where you have, um, general aviation aircraft that have, um, taxied, worked on it, you know, operated on an airfield that frankly slows down the operation. Or, uh, uh, we've had cases where, um, aircraft have held in position that, um, requires the approaches to be, uh, classified differently so that, um, they can't operate during ILS conditions. So we've had to relocate hold lines, uh, move them back away from, um, you know, the end of runways to help provide that space. So simple things like that, but it's done in a proactive manner or it's done in a reactive manner in the context of looking at a system. So where have we done that and have those mitigations been successful? We've done it. We've done it. I've, I've lost track. I've done, worked at over 40 some airports and done well over a hundred safety risk assessments, uh, for projects and operational changes. And, um, I think it's fair to say that when we put mitigations in place, we make sure that they're monitored and tracked for their effectiveness. And if they're not effective, then we change them. And, and that's all part of the process. Uh, so maybe I didn't get specific enough for you, but, but in, in general context, that's what we've done. Yeah. You name it at an airport. I think I've, I'm safe to say we've looked at it and assessed it from a safety aspect.

Thank you. Mr.

Hey. Yes. Uh, Gasser Duget. Um, based on what I've heard and, um, the discussion, it seems to be, um, how are we going to be able to monitor compliance? Mm-hmm. Because if I'm hearing, um, there are rules and regulations. There are, uh, basically guidance. How do we monitor compliance from the stakeholders, from the flight school, from the helicopters, um, group, and from all other stakeholders on, um, um, at the airport. So that's something that, uh, probably I would recommend we, we looked into because I think there's a bunch of recommendations from the previous study that outlines, um, a bunch of recommendations. But how do we monitor compliance of these?

I, I think, um, and I'll, I'll turn it over to Bob here in just a second, but I think it's going to be important to, uh, as I said earlier, to get with the flight schools, get with the banner towers, like Bob mentioned, um, and also get with the tower. I think it's going to look at what they already have in place because if, if we're not getting the information that we need so that the community and Briar County, frankly, you folks, um, as the owner and operator can be comfortable that the environment is being operated within, in the context of, as well as it can be, if you're not comfortable, then things need to be changed. And the monitoring and the reporting are what's going to be most important. So is it monitored? Can it be monitored better? And is it being reported and analyzed, um, to the satisfaction of, of the county? And if the answer is no, then what can we do to change it? So, um, that's where we come in, where we come in to make recommendations and put solutions in place so that the comfort level for not only the county, but the community go up. And the people that are going to have to generate that information are the tower and the operators. Bob, do you want to add anything to that?

Uh, no, just by, you know, I think VRT tower is in there, right? So we have ADSB monitoring in North Perry already. So I think utilizing the digital tower, which FDOT identified 19 airports. If we get all the FDOT and say, we need to push HWO up, right? For the virtual or digital tower that we can start recording. We get the data and then do trends or do comparisons to what's happening at the airport. Even if we have to look at it visually versus regulation and the policies that are established at the airport to see if the enforcement is gone. Cause all this is a key is enforcement, right? Identifying the deficiency and then going back with them and saying, Hey, you do this again. What are the implications of you screwing up? You know, is there a fine? Is there a warning? You know, we, we have to look at that and establish that. And I do think we have the tools, especially with FDOT, what they're doing now that can be funded by FDOT, as long as we show to them the level of safety is being elevated.

My next question was going to be the use of VRTOW, which is already installed at North Perry. So how does that fit into your analysis or as a tool for you?

Go ahead, Bob, you can expand on that.

Well, VRTOW will just take the data from the VRTOW group and actually DOT has the feeds for the data. We incorporate that in, but then we relate it. If we're going to go to a digital tower scenario, if we need to go to that level of safety, which needs to be publicized that we are doing, that we would be doing that. I don't know if you looked at the BARTA operation, what's going on with that digital tower and how much data they're collecting, which is significant. We may need a simpler version of that just to focus in on the areas that are of concern or the areas that people aren't following policy and procedures. And then we can just cross reference the data that's actual versus the data that visual we're seeing or visual we're tracking. So the integration is not the big deals. It's at the end of the day. I know VRTOW is very proprietary. They don't allow a lot of interface with it, but we can actually capture that data from VRTOW since we also work with Florida DOT on the data side. So, and then extract that and do a comparison to what we actually see. And then the incident tracking for any incidents that go on. And we can, we never have done this, open it up to the public. But the public, you know, if you want data from the public where they capture something on a phone with a picture and date stamp it, we can tie it back to what actually went on. That's a possibility, too, if you guys want to go that route.

Yeah, that's well said. And that also gives us the ability, not only the public, but the VRTOW is, we need to be looking at close calls, right? When it comes to safety, we all know Heinrich's triangle, you know, for every 10,000 close calls, they end up in an accident or an incident. And so that helps get us into the forecasting mechanism. So we need to be capturing as much of that as we possibly can.

My next question is, based on the scope of work and the schedule, and your team is going to be able to maintain the schedule and deliver as required? Yes.

Yes, sir. Yeah. The team in our submittal, you saw the other team members within faith group. That group is entirely dedicated to our safety effort and our safety consulting group, and this would be one of our primary large projects. I would have that team dedicated. They'd be with this project throughout the course of executing it. They'd stay on it.

Are you local as the PM? Are you here in Florida?

No. I'm physically located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Faith group's headquartered in St. Louis. But Cheryl's local, and Bob's just across the state. So we will be there. I'm a two-hour plane ride away. It's not a problem for me to get down there. I've got direct flights into that area.

Thank you.

Mr. Nonamaker has a follow-up question.

Just one follow-up. Bob, in your proposed group of subject matter experts, is anyone a certified pilot?

Me.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Me. Me too. Bob.

Yeah, Bob. Okay. Thank you.

From our project manager. Yes. I was going to have one quick question for you guys. You mentioned community outreach and education. I just want to understand a little bit better how is your approach to the community outreach and how do you determine when your outreach is successful and the type of education that you provide for the community for them to better understand the situation within the airport?

Good question. Cheryl, do you want to tackle that?

Certainly. Well, obviously we would be doing feedback surveys to get the input back from the public as to what they have been given as a report and the fact that we're going to be in the community. We will be doing surveys in the community. We kind of do community outreach that way as well on some digital tablets. We will create a questionnaire.

Cheryl, you went on mute.

Gee, I'm talking up a storm. I'm sorry. So, we do use digital iPads to formulate a questionnaire. We use SurveyMonkey. And after providing information and doing the public outreach, providing some information and getting feedback from them, we actually use a questionnaire to get the feedback from them to see if they are satisfied as to what has been imparted to them. So, you know, obviously we're going to have to be given a few months of providing the data to them and making sure the outreach is there, establishing with you all at the airport whether that community advisory committee could be established. It would be a way of saying we're moving forward with what we heard you say you would like to do. So, putting in place some of the actual tools and collateral materials that they had requested for better communication, put that in place, and then go back through with some surveys throughout the community regarding whether they, you know, are pleased. What is their thoughts about what has been done today?

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Okay. The second presenter, Faith Group LLC, has now completed their presentation and answered all questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Fleet, and for your team. This concludes the vendor presentations. Committee members, before we move into scoring, I want to just check with you. Do you want me to recess for a little bit or do we want to proceed right in? Keep going? Okay. We're going to skip the recess. So, if purchasing could please invite all vendors and members of the public back to the open portion of the meeting. Mr. Fleet, you're welcome to stay where you are, because we're going to proceed into scoring. Thank you. I'm just going to pause for a minute to let them come back in. They're starting to come in. I'm just going to give them another minute. Welcome back, everyone. You could please keep yourselves on mute. We're going to proceed into the scoring portion of the meeting. The score sheets that have been distributed to the evaluation committee members include the assigned points for location, which are applied based on specific criteria that was stated in the solicitation. The score sheets also include points for price, which was calculated based on the formula identified in the solicitation. When all committee members have completed and submitted their score sheets, I will recess the meeting to provide time to tabulate the results. Committee members, are there any questions?

When did you all send the score sheets?

We can resend them, but we sent them on Friday. Yeah, I thought so.

But it was in the same...

In the same email with the presentations, Joby? Maybe Thursday. We can resend it. Sure.

Yeah, if you don't mind. No problem.

We'll rise it up to the top. Thank you. All right. Let's just wait until we confirm that they have their score sheets. Yeah, you can reply. You can reply back. She's going to have a colleague assisting with the scoring. They came individually, so this will take just a minute while she regenerates all three of them. Gasser or Gia, did you get yours? We'll resend it. Okay. Okay, so committee members are going to begin scoring, and we're just going to put a note up on the screen that we're in scoring. If everybody can stay on mute, please. Thank you for your patience. All of the score sheets have been turned in, so we will now take a recess. The time is 12.14. Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. I'd like to reconvene the meeting. The time is 12.22 p.m. Before we announce the results, I'd like to thank all vendors for their participation in the solicitation process. We appreciate your interest with Broward County, your proposal, as well as your team's responsibility today for this presentation and the question and answer. I also appreciate the EC members and our project manager. Let's move on now to announce the scoring. Thank you.

I'm going to read the total score for American Infrastructure Development, Inc. total points 257.43. I'm going to share it.

So on the screen now are the EC member scores, total score, and then the ranking. The number one ranked firm is American Infrastructure Development, Inc., and the number two ranked firm is Faith Group, LLC. The next order of business is acceptance of the scoring and the ranking. May I have a motion to accept the Evaluation Committee's results and the recommendation of ranking for approval?

Hi, this is Mike Nanamaker, and I'd like to make a motion to accept the Evaluation Committee's results. Thank you.

May I have a second? This is GABN.

I second.

Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. That motion passes unanimously. The Evaluation Committee recommendation will be posted on the Purchasing Division's website for three business days as a proposed recommendation of ranking. Following this three-day period, if no objections to the proposed ranking have been received in writing by the Director of Purchasing, a final recommendation of ranking will be posted for five business days. If no vendor timely objects or protests, that ranking shall be final, provided that no county commissioner objects within five business days after receiving notice from the Purchasing Division of the final ranking. Once a ranking is deemed final, the county shall commence contract negotiations with the number one ranked vendor. As a reminder, all information reviewed by the Evaluation Committee is posted on the Purchasing Division website repository, including the closed portions of the meeting. Committee members, is there any other business that needs to be discussed today? No, thank you.

Thank you.

Again, I would like to thank all the vendors that responded in their presentations today. Mr. Duje, did you have a question? No. Okay. And also thank you to the Evaluation Committee for their participation. The final Evaluation Committee meeting is adjourned, and the time is 1225 p.m. Thank you, everyone.