Midc
coast Re
egional Redevel
R
lopment
t Author
rity
Reques
st for Qualifica
Q
ations From
F
F
Fixed
Ba
ase Oper
rators
Bruns
swick, Maine
M
Introd
duction an
nd Backg
ground
dcoast Reggional Redeevelopment Authority (“MRRA”) is solicitin
ng submitttal of The Mid
qualificattions from Fixed Base Operators (FBO) in concert with MRRA’s misssion to develop, operate, maintain and a promotee for the pu
ublic benefit, airport users and th
he communities it he airport cu
urrently opeerated by thee Naval Air SStation Brun
nswick (NASB). The airffield is serves th
located in Brunswickk, Maine. Naval Airr Station Bru
unswick is the last activee duty militarry airfield in New Englan
nd. The main base is situateed on 3,157 acres in thee Town of B
Brunswick, w
which is in th
he Midcoastt Region of Maine, thirty‐five miles north of Portland,, Maine. The airfield is adjacent to US Route 1 and five milees from Inte
erstate 295 that linkss Portland to t Augusta. Like mosst military installations, NASB is i
a multi‐purpose “campus” that has been built nged over many m
years and chan
to serve a variety off purposes. First and
d foremostt, it is an airport and a has bee
en since its initial deevelopment in the late 1930s on o
the site of a municipaal airfield. Itt served as a major military pilot training and operations base b
from World War W II onward. More recently, its primarry mission has been
n to house aand maintain
n various recconnaissancce patrol airccraft (curren
ntly five squadrons of P‐3 “O
Orion” patro
ol and a squ
uadron of C‐‐130 transport aircraft) and other Navy aviatio
on and non‐aviation activitie
es. The 2005
5 the Base Realignment And Closuree (BRAC) Com
mmission recommended
d NASB for cclosure, which was w accepted
d by the President an
nd forwardeed to Congrress in Septtember 200
05. The recommeendations became law on Novemb
ber 9, 2005. The base is scheduled
d to finally close c
in Septemb
ber 2011. W
With the decission to closee NASB, the Brunswick Local Redeveelopment Au
uthority (BLRA) w
was formed iin late 2005
5 with technical and finaancial assistaance from tthe DoD’s Offfice of Economic Adjustment (OEA). The BLRA was w the ageency responsible for preparing the Reuse Plan for the base. The Midcoast Reegional Redevelopmentt Authority w
was created by the Master P
State of Maine to im
mplement the t Reuse Master M
Planss for NASB and the Topsham Annex and Page 2 of 17
charged with the responsibility to redevelop the base. As a municipal corporation and based on the statute that created MRRA, it has the authority to become an airport “sponsoring agency”. Because the airfield is such a prominent feature of NASB it was decided that an aviation feasibility study would be conducted. The feasibility study used a multi‐phased screening process to identify and evaluate potential civilian aviation activities, the likelihood that they could occur at NASB, the economic impact of those activities, the potential regional benefits and the environmental impacts of civil aviation activity. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. (now Jacobs Engineering Group) was selected by the study sponsors to prepare the aviation feasibility study. A copy of the Feasibility Study is available at our website, www.mrra.us . The feasibility study identified the most promising civilian aviation activities as: ‰ General and Corporate Aviation. General and corporate aviation activities could include flight training, charter and air taxi service, corporate headquarters/flight department and fly‐in communities. ‰ Aircraft Manufacturing and Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO). Aircraft manufacturing and MRO activities, particularly those building upon the strengths of the marine composite industry in Midcoast Maine. Both general aviation and air carrier aircraft and very light jets are increasingly made with composite materials and could be manufactured and/or maintained at Brunswick building on the strengths of the composite industry already present in the Midcoast region. ‰ Government Agencies. Government agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, NOAA, NASA, FAA and the Department of Interior operate and maintain large fleets of aircraft. Department of Defense (DoD) contractors range from small local firms to international corporations, and large contractors such as General Dynamics and Pratt & Whitney have existing operations in Maine. ‰ Aerospace Research and Development (R&D). Both small firms and large defense contractors conduct significant amounts of advanced aerospace R&D. The U.S. Government is one of the largest sponsors of aeronautical research and development in the world, and has been rapidly increasing its investment in new technologies, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). In December 2008, the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (MRRA), the successor organization to the Brunswick Local Redevelopment Authority, began work on the development of an Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan. MRRA retained Hoyle Tanner & Associates of Manchester, New Hampshire, to undertake this work. The Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan will be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in September as part of a Public Benefit Conveyance request for the airfield and related aviation facilities at NASB. Page 3 of 17
1.0 The
T
Asset
ts at NASB
B
Naval Airr Station Bru
unswick (NASSB) is the ho
ome of a world‐class aviaation complex and is part of a broader higgh‐tech busiiness campu
us that includes the develo
opment of o an advanced compositess cluster and a
a renewable energy cen
nter. With several state‐of‐thee‐art facilitties, three large hangars, tw
wo 8,000 foo
ot runways and a variety off maintenaance shopss and administrattive offices, the former NASB will be a world‐class w
a
aviation com
mplex. The aviation complex in
ncludes: Air Oper
rations / Fire
F
Station
n
Building 200 housess air operatiions for thee base. With
h approximaately 20,759
9 square feeet, the facility is loccated at the intersection of Seeahawk Avenue and Orion, on the north en
nd of the aviation com
mplex. The facility f
ho
ouses the passenger p
teerminal area and fo
ormer air co
ontrol towerr. A new control to
ower, which has replaced the functions of Bu
uilding 200, is located on the west sside of th
he airfield. A
Adjacent to B
Building 200 is the baase Fire Department Building B
292
2. This 10
0,665 squaree foot proviides direct access a
to
o the airfield as well as a access to
o local ro
oadways. The T
Fire Departmen
nt is reesponsible for respon
nding to airfield a
em
mergencies, as well as stru
ucture em
mergencies. This area is also the site s of ure used for hazardous w
waste storagge and Building 45, a 3,000 ssquare foot warehouse‐‐type structu
0 is shown aabove. transfer. Building 200
Page 4 of 17
Hangar 6
Located on Pegasus Street (exteended), Han
ngar 6 is the newest of the base’s haangar facilities. Construccted in 20
004, this state‐of‐the‐
s
‐art hangar h
has a total of 174,217 sq
quare feet, aand contains hangar, maintenancce shop, and a
e. The hangar deck has six administration space
bays cap
pable of handling both the P‐3 aircrraft, and the 737‐800 airrcraft, propo
osed to replace W
mainttenance sho
ops the P‐3 platform. While are locatted on the gground floor, adm
ministrative space is provided on the second s
hicular floor; 294 veh
are parking spaces included on the nortthwest t buildingg, with side of the side the s
southeast dedicated to airplane access associated a
main‐
tenance activities. Hangar 4 / Buildin
ng 250
These tw
wo structure
es on Orion Street weree constructeed in the 194
40s with dirrect access to t the fligh
ht‐line as part of th
he original base development. TThey contain
n a combined
d total 1
squ
uare feet of o space wh
hich is of 178,963 used
d to serve as a hangar and administtrative spacce as well as mainten
nance shopss. The hangar deck, estimated at a approxim
mately 90,0
000 square feet, contains enough room for two aircrafft. On the second floo
or lies ministrative space, and next do
oor in adm
Building 250 is the 90,000 square foott base headquarters, which w
is mo
ostly comprissed of adm
ministrative sspace and sh
hops. Page 5 of 17
Hangar 5
This 163,,454 square foot hangar dates from
m 1982 and is also locatted on Orion
n Street. It iss used for aircraaft maintenance and corrosion contro
ol, and has seven aircraft bayys with direct access to the flight‐
line. Thee ground flo
oor of the hanggar containss the maintenan
nce shops, while the secon
nd floor contains some adm
ministrative space. Building
g 86
Building 86, totalingg 31,980 squ
uare feet, is accesssible only byy the airfielld, and is located within the
e flight lin
ne. It is primarilyy used for the mainteenance of ground support s
equ
uipment forr aircraft, includingg aircraft tugs t
and stairs s
for aircraft access. a
A se
eparate stru
ucture of 18,000 sq
quare feet cconstructed in 2004 is also locaated within the flight lin
ne, but is accessible from Orio
on Street as well as the airfieeld. It storess equipment used to keep thee airfield clear, c
such as snow removal vehicles. Page 6 of 17
2.0 The
T
Oppor
rtunity
This Req
quest for Qu
ualifications (“RFQ”) provides an outstanding o
development opportun
nity in Midcoastt Maine for fixed base o
operators. C
Creative and capable FBO
O providers or FBO team
ms are invited to t submit sufficient s
information regarding r
th
heir fixed operator o
expertise (including approach
hes to deve
elopment, fiinancial cap
pability, and
d other releevant inform
mation) to enable e
MRRA Airport Comm
mittee to seleect a list of ccandidates that will be aasked to sub
bmit a response to a Requesst for Propossal. Our initiaal thinking iss that a fixeed based opeerator may consider esttablishing itss general avviation terminal in either a a portion off Hangar 6 or in building 200. In this way, maintenance and operational cost of aairport would
d be limited to the north
heast portion of the aviaation compleex. As aviation activities expand the geeneral aviatio
on terminal could move out of Hanggar 6 into Bu
uilding 200 and consider the
e constructio
on of new haangar facilitiies or T‐hanggers adjacen
nt to Buildingg 200. These paarticular buildings may b
be of use for a fixed baseed operator: Hangar 6: 6 The wesstern half of Hangar 6, consisting of appro
oximately half h
of the 174,217 square foo
ot hangar facility and office bu
uilding, alon
ng with approximatelyy 13.7 acrres of apro
on space. Hangar H
6 iss located o
on Pegasus SStreet and is the newestt of the baase’s hangar facilities. Constructed
C
in 2004, this state‐‐of‐the‐art hangar h
also
o contains a main
ntenance shop and e. The hangar deck hass administration space
oth the P‐3 six bays capable of handling bo
7
airccraft. Theree aircraft, as well as 737‐800 ehicular parrking spacess are a tottal of 294 ve
included on the northwest n
s
side of the building, with the so
outheast side dedicated to airplane access associated a
m
maintenance
e activitiess. Page 7 of 17
Build
ding 200: Cu
urrent Navyy terminal building b
with approxim
mately 15.46
6 of apron space. s
Building 200 hou
uses Air Operations for the base. With approxim
mately 20,759 square feeet, the facility is lo
ocated at th
he intersection of Seahawk Avenue an
nd Orion on the north end
d of the aviattion compleex. The facility co
ontains the former air traffic control to
ower and paassenger terrminal area. Both sitess are at the north end of the aviation complex. Your Suggestion
ns: MRRA will w also entertain other proposals or suggesttions by FBO
Os on possible locations and opporrtunities for a general avviation termiinal facility. 3.0 The
e Challen
nge
omplement, NASB was the home to five activee duty and two t
reservee squadrons flying At full co
Lockheed
d P‐3 “Orion
n” long‐rangge maritime patrol aircraft tasked b
by Patrol and Reconnaisssance Wing Fivve. The lastt flying squaadron will leave Brunsw
wick in Deccember of 2009. 2
The NAVY airfield iss scheduled to close on JJanuary 29, 2010. MRR
RA will subm
mit a public b
benefit requeest for the entirre airfield and related aviation buildings, facillities and asssets, along with the Airport A
Master P
Plan and Airp
port Layout Plan, to the Federal Aviaation Admin
nistration (FA
AA) in Septeember. It is expeected that a lease in will be granted by the Navyy to MRRA in
n the spring o
of 2010 whicch will allow MR
RRA to begiin leasing th
he facilities. Final public conveyan
nce of the airport propeerty is expected
d in the fall o
of 2010. Aviation related development att the Airportt must be in
n accordancee with MRRA
A’s objectivees and Federal A
Aviation Adm
ministration requiremen
nts. The Airp
port land usees are goverrned by the Reuse Master Plan, P
the Airport Master Plan and
d the zoning ordinancee of the To
own of Brun
nswick (anticipated to be adopted in
n July 2009
9). The MRRA has ultimate authority ovver all Page 8 of 17
development proposals. Examples of development include, but are not limited to, general aviation terminal facilities, airplane hangars and tie down areas, aviation support services, aircraft maintenance, overhaul and repair facilities, airframe and power plant maintenance and/or development and testing, refueling, U.S. Customs facilities or other aviation related operations. 4.0 Reuse Master Plan
NASB is situated on approximately 3,200 acres, with state‐of‐the‐art facilities, over 2 million square feet of commercial and industrial space, and a world class aviation complex. The NASB Reuse Master Plan calls for business centers of excellence in advanced technologies for composites, IT, aerospace and renewable energy, top notch educational facilities, a variety of housing options and plenty of open space and outdoor recreation. Go to www.mrra.us to view the Reuse Master Plan. 5.0 Scope of Work for FBO
The MRRA is interested in having a FBO with or without partners to provide the following aviation services: 1. Operation of a terminal facility 2. Corporate and general aviation flight services 3. Charter services 4. Maintenance and management of ramp and tie down area 5. Fueling services 6. Flight school 7. Corporate and general aviation hangar facilities 8. Ground service 9. Aircraft maintenance Page 9 of 17
6.0 FBO Responsibilities
As an existing airfield, NASB has many strengths in terms of runway length and quality, with well maintained aprons, hangars and a general aviation terminal. However, the facility currently lacks a civilian general and corporate aviation customer base. The MRRA will be looking for qualifications that will reflect the bidder’s ability to develop, grow and sustain the FBO as the airport develops and grows. The MRRA is particularly interested in determining whether any of the respondents have experience in a “start‐up” operation at a new facility (without commercial air service) as compared to managing an ongoing business. 7.0 Fixed Base Operator Selection Process
7.1 Process
The MRRA Board of Trustees established an Airport Master Plan Advisory Committee to oversee the development of an Airport Master Plan. This Committee is comprised of the four members of MRRA’s Board of Trustees, as well as the Executive Director, Deputy Director of MRRA, a representative from the FAA and a representative from the Maine Department of Transportation. The ultimate goal of the Committee is to conduct a fix based operator competitive selection process and present a recommendation for a FBO to the MRRA Board of Trustees for an award of bid. The Committee has designed a two step process to select a recommended firm to the Board. The first step is to qualify candidates through a Request for Qualifications process. MRRA staff, its consultants and the Airport Committee will review and evaluate all responses to this RFQ. Staff, consultants or the Airport Committee will seek additional information from the FBO, conduct site visits and reference checks as appropriate, and may request that teams make presentations to Airport Committee. The Airport Committee will then invite selected qualified firms to submit responses to a Request for Proposals (RFP). MRRA staff, its consultants and the Airport Committee will review and evaluate all responses to the RFP. Staff, consultants or the Airport Committee will seek additional information from the FBO, conduct site visits and reference checks as appropriate, and may request that teams make presentations to Airport Committee. Following interviews and a due diligence review, the Airport Committee will present a recommendation to the Board of Trustees for an award of bid. Page 10 of 17
7.2
RFQ Selection Criteria
The MRRA’s Airport Committee intends to select qualified fixed based operators to invite to the RFP round based on the following criteria: demonstration of expertise and experience needed to develop a full service FBO business, professional qualifications, strong financial resources and quality of information submitted in response to this RFQ, evaluation of past projects and performance, and other pertinent factors. The FBO teams that demonstrate the experience and resources needed to design and develop a successful full service FBO and/or other aviation uses will be invited by the Airport Committee to submit responses to a RFP A concise, professional, and complete response to this RFQ will help the MRRA identify the most qualified FBO operator or team and will be indicative of the level of the respondent’s commitment to the project. The following is a guide to the criteria that will be used in evaluating responses: 7.21
Statement of Qualifications and FBO Team Characteristics Include:
‰ Experience in developing, marketing, and operating high quality FBOs and/or other aviation uses; ‰ Experience in the design, construction and management of hangar facilities; ‰ Demonstrated ability to operate a FBO which is an asset and a “current fit” with the MRRA’s goals for the airport; ‰ Ability and experience in growing general and corporate aviation market share; ‰ Ability to provide local resources, experience or capability to assure timely implementation of the proposed development; and ‰ Appropriateness of the business transaction proposed by the FBO or team. 7.22
Financial Resources and Project Financing Include:
‰ Demonstrated ability to provide project funding, including current relationships with major lenders and past funding experience with large scale FBO projects and/or other aviation uses; ‰ Ability to provide sufficient project equity to demonstrate commitment to the success of the project and to satisfy conventional lender requirements; and ‰ Ability to generate development concepts for the project that will create a high quality, successful project, meeting both the MRRA’s and the respondent’s objectives. Page 11 of 17
8.0
Anticipated Timeline for FBO Selection Process
The anticipated time line for the solicitation, receipt and evaluation of the statement of qualifications and proposals is: First Stage: Request for Qualifications Submittal July 31, 2009 Second Stage: Complete evaluation of submittals by MRRA staff, consultants and Airport Committee to prepare a short list of qualified respondents August 31, 2009 Third Stage: Invite qualified FBO teams to respond to a Request for Proposals Fourth Stage: Responses to RFP due Fifth Stage: MRRA Board of Trustees Approval of Agreement. September 4, 2009 October 9, 2009 November 17, 2009 There will be no pre‐submittal meeting. Questions must be submitted in writing no later than the close of business on July 10, 2009. The questions and responses will be posted on our website at www.mrra.us no later than July 16, 2009. 9.0
RFQ Submittal Requirements
Responses to the RFQ must include, and only include, the following information: ¾
Statement of Qualifications
Provide a statement of qualifications and financial responsibility for your team. Information may include a general statement of qualifications, an audited financial statement, company credit rating, financial references or information on method of financing your business operation. Not more than 8 pages. ¾
Identify Team Members
Identification of the FBO team consultants and all other members of the development team who will be responsible for implementing the establishment of a fixed based operator service at NASB. Please include the name, firm address, e‐mail address, and telephone numbers of team members. Provide a very concise narrative addressing the availability of local resources, experience or capability to assure timely implementation of the proposed project development. Not more than 3 pages. Page 12 of 17
¾
Fixed Base Operator Experience
A very concise description of relevant general and corporate aviation experiences at other airports. Include details of the FBO relationship with airport operators and/or other aviation project(s), project location, and completed value. Not more than 12 pages. ¾
Envisioned Operations and Facilities
Provide an overview of your experience and view of opportunities for the following envisioned operational components of a new FBO and/or other aviation uses at NASB: 1. Operation of a terminal facility 2. Corporate and general aviation flight services 3. Charter services 4. Maintenance and management of ramp and tie down area 5. Fueling services 6. Flight school 7. Hangar facilities 8. Ground service 9. Aircraft maintenance, testing and design Not more than 12 pages. ¾
Fixed Base Operator Team References
A very concise schedule listing the FBO team, including consultant references. Each member should include three professional references (lenders, investors, major accounts, etc.), with full names, relationship to the team member, address, e‐mail address, and telephone number. Not more than 3 pages. 10.0 RFQ Submittal Format
Responses to the RFQ must be organized and tabbed consistent with the order of the submittal requirements outlined above. Submittals must consist of 8 ½” x 11” sheets and 11” x 17” foldouts, as necessary. Respondents must undertake thorough due diligence in preparing responses. The MRRA reserves the right to request additional information during the evaluation of responses and to reject any or all responses. Please submit fifteen (15) copies and one unbound “original” (suitable for reproduction) of the response along with a signed copy of Exhibit “B”. Reponses must be delivered no later than 2:00 p.m. on July 31, 2009. Page 13 of 17
11.0
Due Diligence
The information provided in this RFQ is to assist respondents with information that MRRA has assembled as of this preliminary stage in the process. Any respondent which is selected will be expected to conduct its own due diligence in these matters prior to commencement of its development. MRRA make no representations or warranties with respect to these matters. 12.0
Registration of Interest
Exhibit “A”, a Registration of Interest Form, must be completed and returned prior to submittal of a statement of qualifications in response to this RFQ. Complete and accurate registration will enable staff to inform registrants of any addendums to this RFQ or to provide any additional information of interest prior to the deadline for submission of statement so of qualifications. 13.0 Non Binding
MRRA reserves the right to reject any or all statement of qualifications or proposals. The submission of any information or participation in the selection process is not an implied or expressed agreement to accept any future proposal by the submitters. No agreement can be created or implied with the MRRA until an express agreement is approved by the MRRA’s Board of Trustees. All submitters must sign Exhibit “B” acknowledging that the MRRA shall not be held responsible or liable for any costs the submitters incurred during the process leading up to and including potential Board of Trustees’ approval. This includes, but is not limited to, costs incurred in preparing their submissions; for the selected submitter’s costs during the RFQ process; or any costs deriving from any future lease negotiation period, up to approval of the proposed project by the Board of Trustees. Page 14 of 17
INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD DIRECT INQUIRIES AND SUBMISSION TO: Jeffrey K. Jordan, Deputy Director Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority 5450 Fitch Avenue Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 798‐6512; FAX (207) 798‐6510 email: jeffreyj@mrra.us Page 15 of 17
EXHIBIT “A”
REGISTRATION OF INTEREST FORM
Prospective respondents to this Request for Qualifications are requested to complete the following information and return the form. Registrants will be informed of any addenda to this RFQ or provided with any additional information of interest prior to the deadline for submission of responses. NAME:_________________________________________________________________________ FIRM:__________________________________________________________________________ ADDRESS:______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ TELEPHONE:________________________________FAX:________________________________ E‐MAIL:________________________________________________________________________ SIGNATURE:____________________________________________________________________ Return this form to: Jeffrey K. Jordan, Deputy Director Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority 5450 Fitch Avenue Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 798‐6512; FAX (207) 798‐6510 email: jeffreyj@mrra.us Page 16 of 17
EXHIBIT “B”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY SUBMITTERS RESPONDING TO
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS BY MRRA
The undersigned wish to respond to the request for qualifications issued by MRRA and hereby acknowledge that: 1. The MRRA reserves the right to reject any or all submissions at any time at its sole discretion. 2. The act of submitting a response does not obligate the MRRA in any way to approve, in whole or in part, including without limitation, as in the case of a sale of any property, matters pertaining to land use entitlements or approvals, permits, waivers or reduction of fees, development or financing of the site or any other matters to be acted on by the MRRA, as applicable; that all such matters shall be considered and processed by the MRRA in accordance with all otherwise applicable MRRA requirements and procedures and that the MRRA reserves all rights to approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions all such matters in its sole discretion. 3. None of the matters described in any future draft leases, if any, or discussed during any future negotiations as a purported commitment or obligation of the MRRA shall have any effect unless and only to the extent such matters are expressly set forth in a lease or other written agreement duly authorized and approved by Steven H. Levesque as required and approved by the MRRA Board of Trustees. 4. It is further specifically acknowledged that the MRRA shall not be responsible or held liable for any costs incurred by the undersigned in relation to the undersigned’s submission to the MRRA, regardless of the type or amount of costs incurred. SIGNED:______________________________________DATE________________________, 2009 SIGNED:______________________________________DATE________________________, 2009 SIGNED:______________________________________DATE________________________, 2009 SIGNED:______________________________________DATE________________________, 2009
Page 17 of 17