Sie sind auf Seite 1von 25

Airlines’ Disclaimer Addendum – Submitted February 11, 2020

This document was prepared by Moelis & Company as an advisor to the City. The
airlines did not participate in the drafting or review of the document. The evaluations of
the bidders and graphic depictions of the scoring of the bidders are strictly those of
Moelis & Company. Any reference to the airline views in the document represent
interpretations by Moelis & Company of general verbal input solicited from, and
provided by, the airlines along with the multiple other stakeholders and advisors in the
interview process. The airlines did not review or approve any of the content of the
document, including the references to the views of the airlines. The airlines were not
asked to review, nor do they endorse, any of the content of the document.
 
Process and Next Steps Overview

Integrating RFQ and Interview Perspectives

December 5, 2019
Disclaimer

This presentation has been prepared by Moelis & Company LLC (“Moelis”) for exclusive use of the City Working Group (the “Working Group”)
in considering the transaction described herein based on information provided by the Working Group and publicly available information. Moelis
has not assumed any responsibility for independently verifying the information herein, Moelis makes no representation or warranty as to the
accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of the information herein and Moelis disclaims any liability with respect to the information herein. In
this presentation, Moelis, at the Working Group’s direction, has used certain projections, forecasts or other forward-looking statements with
respect to the parties involved in a potential transaction which were provided to Moelis by the Working Group and/or such other parties and
which Moelis has assumed, at the Working Group’s direction, were prepared based on the best available estimates and judgments of the
management of the Working Group and/or such other parties as to the future performance of the parties involved in a potential transaction.
This presentation speaks only as of its date and Moelis assumes no obligation to update it or to advise any person that its conclusions or advice
has changed.

This presentation is solely for informational purposes. This presentation is not intended to provide the sole basis for any decision on any
transaction and is not a recommendation with respect to any transaction. The recipient should make its own independent business decision
based on all other information, advice and the recipient’s own judgment. This presentation is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an indication
of interest to purchase any security, option, commodity, future, loan or currency. It is not a commitment to underwrite any security, to loan any
funds or to make any investment. Moelis does not offer tax, accounting or legal advice.

Moelis provides mergers and acquisitions, restructuring and other advisory services to clients and its affiliates manage private investment
partnerships. Its personnel may make statements or provide advice that is contrary to information contained in this material. Our proprietary
interests may conflict with your interests. Moelis may from time to time have positions in or effect transactions in securities described in this
presentation. Moelis may have advised, may seek to advise and may in the future advise or invest in companies mentioned in this presentation.

This presentation is confidential and may not be disclosed to any other person or relied upon without the prior written consent of Moelis.

[1]
Outline

 Process Overview

 Bidder Review

 Potential Groupings for Next Stage

 Developing Potential “RFP Stage 1” Criteria

 Near-Term Calendar and Necessary Approvals Prior to:

− Issuing RFP

− Opening Data Room

[2]
Observations from Respondent Meetings

1  View of the Airlines

 Generally positive, very positive of the process and most of the participants with two clear exceptions

 Airline perspective is important as it relates to, among other things, approval risk and collaboration going forward

 Eliminate future execution risk

2  Hold / Exit Period

 Protection in place based on precedent transactions

3  Team Quality

 Teams may not yet be perfectly formed

 Team members will be free to join other teams as we down-select

 We can provide guidance to inform teaming going forward

4  Criteria for Next Steps / Guidance to Teams

 At this stage we are only making sure people are “qualified” based on experience, capability and ability to close

 Now we start orienting respondents, who are becoming bidders, toward the specific STL opportunities

5  Number of Respondents to Advance

 Some may drop or partner going forward; luxury of interest in STL P3 and first mover allows process to be broader and interest to be
deeper

 Number of participants may impact level of participation

6  Interaction between Number Advanced, Process Timing, Execution Confidence, and Approval Risk

[3]
I. Process Overview
STL Pre-RFP Launch Process

 Headline Assumptions

 8-11 Qualified Respondents (actual number not yet determined)

 Complete onboarding, including NDA execution, and open data room week of December 9th

 Further narrow the field of qualified respondents during interim indications in February

 Briefing and dialogue with E&A and Board of Aldermen throughout the RFP process

 CWG will have further opportunities to make judgement of bidders prior to final submissions

 CWG in position to make recommendation to E&A and Board of Aldermen in mid-May

 Preparation Stage

 Preparation is nearing completion

 Key documents completed and ready for public consumption beginning week of December 9th

 Data room to be completed with updated FY2019 information and ready for qualified respondent access

 Strive for airline negotiation progress on open key issues (important before February)

 City Working Group Go / No-Go on releasing RFP and continuing process

 If authorized, complete onboarding of Qualified Respondents

[5]
RFP Phase I: Launch & Interim Indications (now through mid–
February)

 RFP Launch – Phase 1


 Pending the City Working Group go / no-go decision, RFP launch targeted for week of December 9th

 NDAs to be executed and qualified respondents receive access to the data room and third party vendor reports

 Parties to be invited to advisor presentation and airport tours week of January 13th

 Interim Indications
 Interim indications designed to enable a thoughtful down-selection to a manageable number of bidders

 Rather than general qualifications, further selection informed by specific responses in the context of the STL opportunity

 Allows the City and its advisors to begin receiving insight on how to position and evaluate eventual binding bids

 Preliminary timeline would seek indicative bids on February 14th at non-binding interim indications of value due on February
14th and notification of selection to move forward as soon as possible but no later than February 28th

 Potential criteria thematically sought in interim indication (further discussed later in presentation):

 Preliminary valuation (operating lease, real estate, cargo)

 Preliminary ideas on enhancing customer experience and community / economic development

 MBE / WBE strategy and St. Louis goals

 Description of full consortium of equity investors and operator(s), as well as any advisors

 Due diligence workstreams completed / in process to date

 View on whether the qualified respondent team can meet the City’s determined timeline

 View on the ability of a team to deliver and secure approval for a transaction

 Bidders would be encouraged to keep working during the interim indication evaluation period in order to meet our broader
timing objectives

[6]
RFP Phase II: Confirmatory Due Diligence & Binding Bid (late
February through April / May)

 At the completion of this stage, shortlisted qualified respondents should have substantially completed due diligence and should be
prepared to submit final, binding proposals

 Key Shortlisted Qualified Respondent Activities

 Ongoing operational and confirmatory due diligence

 Airline meetings

 Review and comment on the Use and Lease Agreements and other operative documents

 Financing work / obtaining commitments

 Identify commitments for community / economic development

 Meeting(s) with CWG

 Community & operational (late March / early April)

 [Final proposal (late April / early May)]

[7]
Weekly Workplan – Pre-Launch, Launch and Interim Indications
November 2019 December 2019
WEEK(S) OF ACTIVITY
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

 Substantially complete main process 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Pre-Launch &

documents 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Onboarding

Dec. 9th
 NDA and onboarding 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
 RFP launch week; data room opens; access
letters completed for third party consultant 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
reports 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31
 Early Q&A throughout December

January 2020 February 2020

 Continuing diligence, Q&A and calls with S M T W T F S S M T W T F S


City Advisors 1 2 3 4 1
Jan. 13th
 Qualified Respondent meetings and Airport 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tours
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
RFP Launch Stage /

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Interim Indications

26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Feb. 10th
 Feb 14th Initial non-binding indications due
from Qualified Respondents
Key Onboarding Events Qualified Respondent
Meetings

Qualified Respondents Initial Bids


 Feb 28th Notification of shortlisted Qualified Notified
Respondents
Feb 24th
 Group expected to be decreased to ~3 - 5 Data Room Opens Notification of Shortlist
Qualified Respondents

Holiday Lull

[8]
Illustrative Phase II: Workplan – Due Diligence and Binding Bids
February 2020 March 2020
WEEK(S) OF ACTIVITY
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

 Airline Discussions (early March) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Mar. 2nd–  Confirmatory Diligence 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Apr. 13th  Lease Agreement 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
 Use Agreement
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

 [Community / Economic Development and 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31


Operational Capability Meetings with short-
Mar. 30th
listed Qualified Respondents and City
Working Group] April 2020 May 2020
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

Apr. 13th
 Apr. 17th
Provision of debt and equity 1 2 3 4 1 2
commitment letters 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Apr. 20th  Apr. 24th Binding bids due 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
 [Apr. 30th] Review bids with CWG; [Determine
whether BAFO or other improvements are
Apr. 27th needed] Notification of Shortlist Review Bids w/ CWG
 [May 1st Communicate BAFO parameters to
Qualified Respondents]
Airline Meetings Communicate BAFO
Parameters to Qualified
Respondents
May 4th  [May 8th BAFO due]
Debt & Equity Commitments BAFO Due
Letter

May 11th
 May 15th Winning bid selected; begin Board of
Binding Bids
Aldermen and E&A final approval processes Winner Selected

Community / Economic
Development and Operational
[9]
Capability Meetings
II. Bidder Review
Advancing Group: Size Constraints in Phase I
BIAS TOWARD LARGER / SMALLER
CRITERIA COMMENTARY
GROUP IN PHASE I
 City and advisors have limited bandwidth to address bidder
diligence requests and other process interactions (use / ease
City Resource agreement review, etc.) Smaller
Requirements  A group that is too large may cause delays in providing
necessary information and pressure overall process timeline

 A larger group of process participants may reduce a bidder's


perspective on its own probability of success
Bidder Resource
 Bidders may be reluctant to fully engage advisory teams and Smaller
Commitments their own internal resources if a group is too large and may
drop from the process altogether

 At present, bidders "don't know what they don't know"


Bidder Information  Any number of unknown diligence issues may reduce a Larger
Gaps / STL Knowledge bidder's interest in continuing or impact their perspective on
value

 There is a potentially limited pool of capable advisors or


Bidder Team group participants available to bidders
Smaller
Development  Freeing capable advisors and participants earlier in the
process allows them to potentially strengthen remaining teams

 No view on bidders value posture at present, particularly in


Clarity on Value regard to STL specifically
Larger
Posture  Reducing size of group may result in those with higher
valuation potential leaving the process

 Respondents to RFQ were only required to acknowledge an


STL Specific understanding of STL priorities for community development
Community and MBE / WBE requirements Larger
Development Priorities  Removing bidders at this stage may prevent potentially
attractive proposals from coming to light

While final stages of RFP likely target ~2-5 bidders, we recommend that Phase 1 of the RFP stage consist of [8-10] bidders
(subject to CWG review) [ 11 ]
Is There a Natural Breakpoint?

 Weaker RFQ submittees granted interviews strengthened questions around capital and / or operator capabilities in the interview
stage

 Oaktree Consortium (STL Aviation Group) and Partners demonstrated some common concerns in addition to specific questions for
each team

− Short-term hold

− Private equity cost of capital

− Airline perspective (including with respect to TBI)

− Other issues

 OTPP demonstrated clear strengths but also challenges from a resource commitment perspective

− Cadillac Fairview did not attend or participate in interview phase

− Demonstrated concern over the size of the group moving forward, reinforced by discussions with multiple team members

− Demonstrated concern about process timing

[ 12 ]
Potential RFP Stage 1 Groups
Included bidders presented alphabetically – does not imply rank

SMALL GROUP - 8 BIDDERS LARGE GROUP - 10 BIDDERS

1 2 1 2

3 / 4 3 / 4

5 / 6 5 / 6

7 8 7 8

9 10

CONSIDERATIONS (8 BIDDERS) CONSIDERATIONS (10 BIDDERS)

 Reduces number of bidders who may potentially offer valuation  Greater number of bidders who may potentially offer valuation and
and be subject to more detailed criteria at end of RFP Phase I be subject to more detailed criteria at end of RFP Phase I

 Smaller number (8) likely increases process commitment /  Concern that some bidders may not commit resources to the project
confidence of selected respondents or may withdraw (OTPP, IFM, PSP)

 May end up with 7-8 bidders in this case regardless, but with
 OTPP (and possibly select members of the Oaktree and Partners potentially less preferable group
teams) would be given feedback to seek membership in a
consortium with greater resources and commitment to execute  Partners Group would be added to the other 7 respondents who are
transaction not invited to the RFP stage (either eliminated or withdrawn)

[ 13 ]
Qualitative Observations (To Inform The Group That Gets Advanced)
STL
Momentum
Aviation OMERS / Blackstone /
AMP IFM Schiphol OTPP PSP Vantage Aena (Partners,
(Oaktree, Fraport ADP
ASUR)
JLC etc.)

Team

Equity

Operator /
Technical

Community

Execution

Investment /
Horizon

Commitment
to Process
City
Approvability ? ?
Airline
Perspective
Airlines: Airlines: OK team; Process Strong, Strong Process Unstated Good U.S. Committe
Most Desirable strong confidence relevant team; operator; concerns; process bandwidth d; U.S. is a
impressive partner, interest; (Fraport); adequate cost of good concepts: PR new
individuals; approval risk reasonable strong local operator; capital; operators experience; priority;
very high given partner execution MBE/WBE priority good would be
Comments priority for quality; confidence performance opportunity leveraging; first U.S.
new fund potential best based on social investment
bid but high experience approval;
volatility / great
participation / connector
approval

Approval risk can be impacted by adjustments to the categories


We can provide guidance to impact going forward

[ 14 ]
Potential RFP Stage 1 Thematic Criteria

Airport Customer Committed


Experience Financial Strength
Concepts

Process and
Financial Value Execution
Confidence
Potential Bidder
Considerations

Community and
Economic
Approval Development
Likelihood Vision /
Perspectives

[Team
Composition]

Higher standards across the board used to reduce group to 2 – 5 bidders in RFP Stage 2
[ 15 ]
Near-Term Calendar

December 2019
WEEK(S) OF ACTIVITY
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Substantially complete main process documents 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
 NDA and onboarding
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Dec. 9th  RFP launch week; data room opens; access letters
completed for third party consultant reports 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
 Early Q&A throughout December 29 30 31

January 2020
S M T W T F S
 Continuing diligence, Q&A and calls with City 1 2 3 4
Advisors
Jan. 13th 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 Qualified Respondent meetings and Airport
Tours 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

Data Room Opens

Key Onboarding Events

Holiday Lull

Qualified Respondent Meetings

[ 16 ]
Appendix – Pre-Interview RFQ Summary Matrices
RFQ Respondent Consolidated Scoring Summary (Pre – Interview)

Total
Operations & Capital Investment Real Estate Improvements for Notable U.S.
Pass / Fail Criteria Weighted Selected Airport Management Experience
Management Improvements Leadership Development All Stakeholders Investments
Score
Criteria Weighting (40%) (20%) (20%) (10%) (10%) Name Airport Terminal Concession

4 4 4 4 4 Pass
ADP Group serves ADP Group has ADP completed five Blackstone is one of Demonstrated Expected to be able Paris Charles de X
280 million completed 18 major P3 airport the largest property detailed examples to secure equity Gaulle
passengers through airport expansion transactions since owners in the of managing investment and
25 airports on 4 projects since 2008 2007; BIP world; ADP airports in a financing. Paris Orly X
Blackstone / ADP
continents and and invests over completed two constructed manner that Acknowledged all
(Lambert Gateway 4.0 Tallgrass Energy
includes major $1bn annually investments for Europe’s largest benefits all City priorities Ankara Airport X
Partners)
hubs such as Paris- across its network ~$3bn airport stakeholders
Charles de Gaulle of airports development on
Airport in France 2,200 acres of land
Recommended Interview

4 4 4 4 4 Pass
Consortium has Numerous capital Extensive list of Extensive list of Demonstrated track Expected to be able London X
40+ years of airport improvement public real estate and record of ongoing to secure equity Gatwick
operations projects including infrastructure infrastructure airport operation investment and
experience across multi-billion dollar investments investments and maintenance financing. Kansai X
Oaktree / JLC /
12 countries, modernizations at including Austin including South improvements, and Acknowledged all International
Ullico / Vinci Austin Airport, San
managing the LAX, MIA and South Terminal P3, Europe Atlantic experience growing City priorities 4.0
(STL Aviation Juan Airport
development and Santiago San Juan Airport High Speed Rail, passenger and Hartsfield- X
Group)
operations of International P3, LaGuardia NorthPark cargo traffic, and Jackson Atlanta1
nearly 50 airports Airport Terminal B business park (550 associated
including 12 redevelopment, and acres, 5 million sq. economic activity
within the U.S. others ft.), and others

4 4 4 3 4 Pass
Largest Airport Invested €19.5+ Experience leading Valuable Airports have won Expected to be able Madrid Barajas X
Operator in the billion in airport multiple experience with numerous awards to secure equity
world with ~355 improvement investments for large real estate across the portfolio investment and Barcelona El X
million passengers programs over the infrastructure development but based on customer financing. Prat
AENA serviced globally last 19 years projects in Spain question as to service and Acknowledged all 3.9 N/A
across 53 airports with values greater whether they lead satisfaction City priorities Palma de X
than $1bn the day to day of Mallorca
the projects
themselves

1. Vinci operates the international terminal at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport


[ 18 ]
RFQ Respondent Consolidated Scoring Summary (Pre – Interview)

Total
Operations & Capital Investment Real Estate Improvements for Notable U.S.
Pass / Fail Criteria Weighted Selected Airport Management Experience
Management Improvements Leadership Development All Stakeholders Investments
Score
Criteria Weighting (40%) (20%) (20%) (10%) (10%) Name Airport Terminal Concession

4 3 4 4 4 Pass
52.3 million $1+bn invested in Since 2014 Partners AECOM Hunt as a $300mm Capacity Expected to be able Cancun X
passengers in 2018 San Juan under the Group has been a consortium Enhancement Plan to secure equity
across 16 airports FAA P3 program as partner or lead member. Significant at San Juan Airport investment and San Juan Luis X
in Mexico, Puerto well as numerous investor on over experience across and a multi-billion financing. Muñoz Marín
Partners / ASUR Rico, and large capital $4.5bn in consortium (DEN, dollar tourism Acknowledged all
Raven midstream
(Momentum Colombia. programs at infrastructure asset LGA, JFK, MSY, initiative City priorities 3.8 Rionero X
facility
Aviation Partners) Experience with Cancun Airport equity investments PDX)
only other
privatized airport
under FAA
program
Recommended Interview

4 3 4 4 4 Pass
Manages a Led planning and Completed some of Acquired 2.5 Increased total Expected to be able Athens X
geographically delivery of over 45 the largest million sq. ft. of passenger volume to secure equity International
diverse portfolio of facility transactions across adjacent vacant across airports investment and
five airports maintenance the infrastructure land at Dusseldorf from 56 million in financing. Dusseldorf X
serving nearly 90 projects across sector including Airport to develop 2013 to 89 million Acknowledged all Airport
million passengers network airports, $1.2 billion the largest hotel in 2018; increased City priorities
generating €1.8 including €120 acquisition and convention capital Hamburg X
PSP / AviAlliance 3.8 San Juan Airports
billion of revenues million hydroelectric center in the state, expenditures at the Airport
in 2018; 40% refurbishment of portfolio in New various single user same airports from
ownership and Hamburg Airport England and A$1.6 and multi-tenant €148 in 2013 to
management of San and €260 new billion concession office buildings €387 in 2018
Juan Airport terminal to the State of South and other
development at Australia structures
Budapest

4 4 2 4 4 Pass
Manages an Demonstrated Involved in the Developer, owner Demonstrated Expected to be able Amsterdam X
international experience of privatization of and manager of detailed examples to secure equity Schiphol
portfolio of large completing Brisbane airport €1.6 billion of of managing investment and
airports across multiple large (1997) but generally commercial real airports in a financing. JFK Terminal 4 X
North America, redevelopments of acts as an operator estate around the manner that Acknowledged all
Schiphol 3.6 N/A
Europe, and Asia JKF Terminal 4 and of airports rather Group’s airports benefits all City priorities Eindhoven X
handling between 1 at other airports than investor stakeholders
and 68 million
passengers per year
(incl. JFK
Terminal 4)

[ 19 ]
RFQ Respondent Consolidated Scoring Summary (Pre – Interview)

Total
Operations & Capital Investment Real Estate Improvements for Notable U.S.
Pass / Fail Criteria Weighted Selected Airport Management Experience
Management Improvements Leadership Development All Stakeholders Investments
Score
Criteria Weighting (40%) (20%) (20%) (10%) (10%) Name Airport Terminal Concession

3 4 4 4 4 Pass
Fraport invests and Fraport has OMERS / Fraport Fraport oversaw Lima Airport Expected to be able Frankfurt X
operates more than completed 20 have frequently the development of (Fraport) voted best to secure equity Airport
25 airports globally projects in been lead or co- Aerotropolis in Airport in South investment and
(OMERS 13). Less Frankfurt over the investors in Frankfurt over the America for 7 years. financing. Delhi X
experience on full last 10 years with concession last 30 years. London City Acknowledged all International
Puget Sound Energy,
OMERS / Fraport airport operations total value of more contracts globally Leader in the (OMERS) engages City priorities 3.6
Chicago Skyway
than other than $10bn, with valuations of concept of Airport with local residents Xi'an X
respondents including new $1+bn Cities to provide International
terminal employment and
construction apprenticeships
Recommended Interview

3 3 4 4 4 Pass
Cited five Invested ~$400mm Provided six Demonstrated Demonstrated Expected to be able Copenhagen X
investments in per year on capital examples of experience detailed examples to secure equity Airport
large European improvements leading non-airport developing real of managing investment and
airports but unclear across its airport infrastructure estate for airline airports in a financing. Brussels Airport X
OTPP / OAIC / as to what their portfolio on investments users, cargo manner that Acknowledged all
CAI operational terminal including Chicago operators and benefits all City priorities Birmingham X
3.4 Chicago Skyway
(Gateway Airport involvement is; expansions and Skyway Toll Road corporate stakeholders Airport
Partners) investments are others initiatives and Sydney headquarters
minority interests since 2013 Desalination Plant
with the exception
of Bristol Airport in
the U.K.

3 3 4 3 4 Pass
Manages 16 $1.3 expansion at Numerous public Developed a Recipient of Expected to be able Manchester X
airports globally Manchester Airport infrastructure business park over numerous awards to secure equity Airport
handling 160 to reconfigure and transactions 410 acres at recognizing quality investment and
million annual upgrade terminals, including $1 billion Melbourne Airport across IFM / financing. London X
passengers but taxiways and Indiana Toll Road and developed MAG's portfolio; Acknowledged all Stansted
IFM / MAG does not manage baggage facilities; concession and land around highly active in City priorities 3.3 Indiana Toll Road Airport
airports in North significant CapEx $3.9 billion lease Brisbane Airport; local community
America investments across for NSW Ports no North American engagement East Midlands X
other airports as experience
well

[ 20 ]
RFQ Respondent Consolidated Scoring Summary (Pre – Interview)

Total
Operations & Capital Investment Real Estate Improvements for Notable U.S.
Pass / Fail Criteria Weighted Selected Airport Management Experience
Management Improvements Leadership Development All Stakeholders Investments
Score
Criteria Weighting (40%) (20%) (20%) (10%) (10%) Name Airport Terminal Concession
3 3 4 2 4 Pass
History of success Invested €2bn in GIP is a global Experience Track record of Expected to be able London X
across three U.K. capital programs of leader in developing real maintaining active to secure equity Gatwick
Airports (Gatwick, similar complexity infrastructure estate projects of
dialogues with all investment and
London City, across three investments and lesser scale in prior relevant financing. Edinburgh X
Edinburgh) and airports; €1.75bn has made over 65 investments. Lack stakeholders and Acknowledged all Paine Field Airport
GIP 3.2
recent investor in a invested at Gatwick infrastructure of clarity on have instituted an City priorities Passenger Terminal
small airport in alone investments over whether they issue-based Paine Field X
Washington State the last 13 years handle the day to corporate affairs (Seattle)
(Paine Field) day development of function across
projects their airport
portfolio
3 4 2 2 4 Pass
Demonstrated Involved in $4bn Examples provided Development Airports have Expected to be able LaGuardia X
multiple examples redevelopment of were of lesser value experience includes received numerous to secure equity Terminal B
Recommended Interview

of managing LaGuardia than envisioned for the JFK Terminal 6 awards including investment and
airports of similar Terminal B, the Airport and / 7 redevelopment recognitions of financing. Chicago X
complexity concession include 31.7% project but failed to excellence from the Acknowledged all Midway
internationally and redevelopment at equity in provide sufficient Canadian Chamber City priorities
in North America; Chicago Midway, LaGuardia detail on real estate of Commerce; Lynden X
current network and $826 million Terminal B development improved Liverpool LaGuardia Airport, Pindling
Vantage 3.0
comprised of 10 development of 1.3 management beyond existing John Lennon Midway Airport Airport
airports including million sq. ft. of services agreement, airport / airfield Airport safety
LaGuardia new terminal space along with various infrastructure record from bottom
Terminal B and at Larnaca and other service quartile to third-
Chicago Midway Pafos Airports agreements across best in the U.K.
North America and
Bahamas

2 2 4 4 4 Pass
Investments Provided examples Over 170 Consortium Demonstrated Expected to be able Melbourne X
concentrated in the of projects of lesser investments made member Northpoint history of investing to secure equity Airport
U.K. and Australia, complexity (2018 in infrastructure Development has beyond the investment and
within airports of terminal equity and debt significant minimum financing. London Luton X
lesser complexity redevelopment globally ($12bn in experience in requirements to Acknowledged all Airport
(exceptions to project for £160m at equity and $38bn industrial real continuously City priorities ITS ConGlobal,
AMP London Luton and London Luton); in debt) estate development improve and grow 2.8 Millenium Parking Newcastle X
Melbourne); since 1997, in the U.S. infrastructure Garages Airport
currently manages invested ~$3.7bn of assets; experience
six airports with equity in aviation working with
~65 million network airlines to design
passengers low-cost terminal
annually

[ 21 ]
RFQ Respondent Consolidated Scoring Summary (Pre – Interview)
(cont.)

Total
Operations & Investment Real Estate Improvements for All
Capital Improvements Pass / Fail Criteria Weighted Selected Airport Management Experience
Management Leadership Development Stakeholders
Score
Criteria Weighting (40%) (20%) (20%) (10%) (10%) Name Airport Terminal Concession
2 2 3 4 4 Pass
Valuable experience Terminal expansion Privatization of Perth, Several examples of Perth, Queensland and Expected to be able to Wellington X
investing in large project at Wellington is Wellington and other developing airport- Wellington Airports secure equity Airport
airports in Australia complete but most other airports demonstrate adjacent property have all received investment and
H.R.L. Morrison and New Zealand but projects are ongoing experience in including commercial awards for the quality financing. 2.6 Queensland X
lack of operational transactions of similar retail and Airport City of their service Acknowledged all Airport
experience and U.S. value and nature concept City priorities
focus Perth Airport X

3 4 0 2 4 Pass
Operates two airports $1.2 billion in Has not successfully Operate six road Received multiple Expected to be able to El Dorado X
in South America completed capital completed a concessions in South awards from Skytrax secure equity Airport
(Colombia and improvement projects transaction of at least America but lacks including Best Airport investment and
Ecuador) handling ~40 at Bogota Airport $500 million sufficient real estate in South America financing. Mariscal Sucre X
Odinsa (Grupo
million passengers and including terminal experience (BOG, 2015 - 2018); Acknowledged all 2.6 Airport
Argos)
one million tons of air development and $860 traffic at BOG increased City priorities
cargo annually million in improvement from 9 million in 2007
projects at Quito to 33 million in 2018
Others

Airport

3 0 3 2 4 Pass
Manages two large Scoring reflects Experience in airport Examples provided Demonstrated Expected to be able to Fiuminco X
airports in Rome and material transactions of similar were of lesser scale to examples of managing secure equity Airport
owns a controlling underperformance of value and minority the Airport’s unused investments in a investment and
stake in smaller French capital maintenance stake in Hochtief, a developable real estate manner that benefits all financing. Ciampino X
Atlantia 2.4
airports; primary obligations with leading infrastructure and other examples stakeholders Acknowledged all Airport
operations include toll regards to the Genoa construction group were not yet completed City priorities
road management bridge Nice, Cannes- X
Mandelieu &
Saint Tropez
3 3 1 2 4 Fail
Largest airport operator Experience with Experience having Developed Master Successfully expanded Response was not Aeroqarque X
in South America with multiple capital completed multiple Plans for real estate but airline route growth well thought out and Airport
52 airports serving ~81 expenditure programs transactions with has not successfully and passenger volumes mostly boilerplate; no
million passengers including the substantially lesser developed airport- at multiple airports in comment on equity Ezeiza Airport X
CAAP annually; no North construction of new value than envisioned adjacent real estate addition to driving financing; very 2.6
American exposure terminal buildings for the Airport aeronautical and non- limited exposure to Brasilia Airport X
($232mm spent on aeronautical revenues the North American
capital expenditures in while streamlining aviation marketplace
2018) costs

[ 22 ]
RFQ Respondent Consolidated Scoring Summary (Pre – Interview)
(cont.)

Total
Operations & Investment Real Estate Improvements for All
Capital Improvements Pass / Fail Criteria Weighted Selected Airport Management Experience
Management Leadership Development Stakeholders
Score
Criteria Weighting (40%) (20%) (20%) (10%) (10%) Name Airport Terminal Concession
4 4 1 3 4 Fail
84 million passengers In house asset mgmt. Experience having Successfully developed Dublin and Cork Did not provide Dublin Airport X
handled in 2018 across and development team completed multiple Dublin Airport Central frequently recognized guidance on plans to
Dublin, Cork, Riyadh with experience transactions with with 41,000 square as award winning team with equity Cork Airport X
(King Khalid); handling capital substantially lesser meters for mixed airports and partner. Do not
daa ownership interests in programs greater than value than envisioned aviation / non aviation experienced in believe daa could 3.3 King Khalid X
Dusseldorf and Cyprus €650m including new for the Airport activities economically regulated undertake this Terminal 5
terminal construction airports project alone
and capacity
Others

development

0 0 0 2 0 Fail N/A N/A N/A N/A


Has not performed in a Has not performed in a Has not successfully Has demonstrated real Has not demonstrated Only provided detail
relevant airport relevant Capital completed a estate experience of a any experience in with regard to real
management role Expenditure delivery transaction of at least substantially lesser working with estate experience; no
role $500 million scale to the Airport's stakeholders mention of financing
GRID unused developable capabilities or airport 0.2
real estate management history

[ 23 ]