Some of the airport procurement practices appear very strange to those familiar with aircraft purchasing and government purchasing.

As an example: Commission Agenda Item 6b Letter on the February 22, 2011 agenda.

The staff appears to have very little respect for the intelligence and time available to the elected commissioners. The wording of the letter is cumbersome and filled with a high degree of fuzzy wording almost as if it was intended to be left unread by the commissioners.

These are some questionable issues:

Why is $14,850,000 million in taxpayer earnings being spent by the Port on only 15 aircraft passenger loading ramps?

Where is the profit to taxpayer earnings as a result of this apparent gift?

Liability falls heavily on the Port and Commission for any errors under this kind of ownership agreement!
General practice is that the airlines pay for this kind of equipment. The airline must build to Port minimum standards and sell the completed ramp to the Port for $1.00.

Why is the Port buying back the old ramps at taxpayer expense? Cost of those old ramps is part of the airline business risk.

Why is John Bean Technologies (JPT) being specified as the sole source?

These ramps are low-tech, off-the-shelf items, which are used all over this planet. To specify a sole source for a low-tech, high-cost item is considered a very poor buying practice.

The average cost of these ramps approaches $1,000,000 each, which is outrageous. The letter suggests other expenses. However, these expenses are not identified --- could business lunches and campaign contributions be some of these expenses?

The Lifecycle Cost and Savings section of the proposal letter states: "The Airport will efficiently centralize the work to OPTIMIZE COSTS and will report the CPE cost shift when communicating with the airlines." Shouldn't the correct phrase be " MINIMIZE COSTS"?

Dan Caldwell
Des Moines