State’s€¦ · MAP CONSULTING LLC 11640 WOODBOURNE DR. ANCHORAGE, AK 99516 USA Page 3 of 75 f....

MAP CONSULTING LLC 11640 WOODBOURNE DR.

ANCHORAGE, AK 99516 USA

April 2, 2019 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Office of the Commissioner Attention: Amy Deininger Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 2519S079 Project name: AMHS Economic Reshaping Consultant PO Box 112500 Juneau, Alaska 99811-2500

Dear Ms. Deininger:

MAP Consulting, LLC is pleased to submit to the State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) our proposal for the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) reshaping consulting services.

We have assembled a team with the professional background and experience to provide the economic analysis of the AMHS to identify potential reductions of the State’s financial obligations and/or liabilities as they relate to the AMHS as directed by Governor Dunleavy. Our economic analysis will also identify potential reshaping opportunities for the AMHS including public-private partnerships, selling all or parts of the system to a private entity or non-profit, or reducing service to routes off the National Highway System to be filled in by private operators with smaller vessels, among other opportunities. Our understanding of the scope of the economic reshaping analysis, the State’s schedule for delivering the final report and recommendations, and our professional expertise are more fully described in the attached proposal.

This proposal chronicles expertise to perform the services, tasks and deliverables set forth in the RFP. Our commitment to this effort is without condition or conflict. MAP Consulting exceeds the minimum contractor experience requirements stipulated under the Prior Experience section of the RFP. Our proposed consulting team’s qualifications and experience far exceed the three years requirement for conducting similar work in Alaska and elsewhere as outlined in Section 1.4 and in Appendices A and B of our attached technical proposal. All our key consultants reside in Alaska, except for one member who resides in Panama and has intimate knowledge of a Norwegian ferry privatized company. Our team members have worked here for a collective average of over 20 years each in areas of relevant experience, economics and marine expertise, sought under the RFP. We are prepared to begin our work immediately and commit our full resources to the project and its deadlines. MAP Consulting is licensed to do business in Alaska (Alaska Business License # 901582), as are all proposed subcontractors included in this proposal as demonstrated for subcontractor information required by the RFP in in Appendix C.



of 75

The MAP consulting team is prepared to perform and manage the work substantially in Juneau, Alaska at facilities we will provide. We expect to interact regularly with ADOT&PF and the AMHS in performing our work effort.

Alaska Bidder/Alaska Offeror

MAP Consulting and all subcontractors meet the qualifying requirements for the Alaska Bidder and Alaska Offeror preferences. MAP Consulting and all proposed subcontractors hold current Alaska business licenses and are we are proposing under those licenses. All team members have maintained a place of business in Alaska for more than six months prior to this proposal and are qualified to do business in the State of Alaska.

Insurance

MAP Consulting, LLC meets or exceeds all the insurance requirements contained in the RFP and will provide a certificate of insurance and waiver of subrogation related to workers’ compensation insurance.

Conflict of Interest

MAP Consulting, LLC has reviewed the work with the team members and is not aware of any conflicts of interest of any of the team members proposed for this engagement.

● John Tichotsky Ph.D. (Cantab), PO Box 100363• Anchorage, AK, USA 99510 • Telephone: 1-907-885-1937 • email: [email protected]; Alaska Business License 2083950

● Brian Murkowski Energy Consulting LLC, 3528 Vintage Circle, Anchorage, Alaska 99517; 713-449-6263; Business License 1055051

● Paul Fuhs, 319 E 11th Ave., Anchorage, Alaska 99501; (907)-351-0407; Business License 2083879

● Don Dyer, PO Box 4289 Palmer, Alaska, 99645; (907)-841-6121: Business License 1064311

● Loren Crawford, 7250 N. Sebastian Dr., Wasilla, Alaska 99654; (907)-707-8873; Business License 2083875

● Kjetil Solberg, Brisas de Amador, Isla PericoPlaza Comercial #601-602 , Calzada de Amador, Panama, Republic of Panama +50766185452

Additional Certifications

MAP consulting further certifies that MAP will comply with:

a. The laws of the State of Alaska,

b. the applicable portion of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964,

c. the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the regulations issued thereunder by the

federal government,

d. the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the regulations issued thereunder by

the federal government,

e. all terms and conditions set forth in the RFP,



of 75

f. the condition that this proposal was independently arrived at, without collusion, and

g. That this offer will remain valid for 90 days, with appropriate schedule adjustments, if

award is delayed.

I would also like to note, although not required or advantageous for bidding the RFP, that MAP Consulting, LLC is also a Women-owned Business Enterprise, as well a small business under state and federal procurement considerations.

I would also note that my company and our team will treat all confidential information provided by DOT&FP appropriately.

We look forward to working with ADOT&PF and the AMHS on this exciting and important effort. I will be happy to supply any additional information you may need or to discuss any aspect of this RFP response with you. Please contact Mary Ann Pease at (907) 529-9719 should you need additional information or clarification.

Thank you for giving MAP and team this opportunity to compete to provide service to ADOT&PF.

Sincerely,

Mary Ann Pease, Owner



of 75

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank



of 75

MAP Consulting LLC Proposal to

In Response to Request for Proposal

RFP Number 2519S079

Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS)

Economic Reshaping Consultant

Submitted April 2, 2019

Offeror's Name: MAP Consulting LLC

Request for Proposal Number: RFP 2519S079

Re: AMHS Economic Reshaping Consultant

Mary Ann Pease, Owner



of 75

MAP Consulting Proposal to

Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

RFP Number 2519S079 AMHS Economic Reshaping Consultant

Table of Contents 1. Technical Proposal – AMHS Economic Reshaping ............................................................. 8

1.1 Understanding of the AMHS Economic Reshaping Engagement ................................. 8

1.1.1. Understanding of the purpose and scope of the project ........................................ 8

1.1.2. Pertinent issues and potential problems related to the project .............................. 9

1.1.3. Deliverables to the State ......................................................................................13

1.1.4 Understanding and Meeting the State’s time schedule ..............................................14

1.2 Approach and Methodology for the AMHS Economic Reshaping Engagement ..................15

1.2.1. Decision Science: Flexible, Comprehensive, and Logical ............................................15

1.2.1.1. Decision Science: A Toolkit and Products that Supports Decision-making ............16

1.2.1.2. Marine transportation modeling and analysis ........................................................18

1.2.1.3. BC, Washington, and Norwegian Ferry Privatization .............................................19

1.2.1.4 Historical and Alaska-centric perspectives and solutions ........................................19

1.2.2. MAP Team Methodology and RFP Objectives .............................................................21

1.2.2.1. Framing the problem .............................................................................................23

1.2.2.2. Triage analysis and two-tiered examination ...........................................................24

1.2.2.3. Decide on structure of AMHS going forward ..........................................................24

1.2.3. MAP Team Methodology and RFP Time Schedule ......................................................25

1.3. Management Plan for the AMHS Economic Reshaping Engagement ................................26

1.3.1. Management plan supports project requirements, logical lead to deliverables .....26

1.3.2. Accountability of project plan ...............................................................................26

1.3.3. Organization of project team ................................................................................27

1.3.4. Lines of authority and communication of management plan .................................27

1.3.5. Hardware, software, equipment, and licenses necessary to perform the contract 28

1.3.6. Meeting the schedule set out in the RFP ..............................................................29

1.3.7. Beyond the minimum tasks to meet the objectives ...............................................30



of 75

1.3.8. A practical and feasible proposal .........................................................................30

1.3.9. Identifying potential problems ..............................................................................30

1.4. Experience and Qualifications ............................................................................................32

1.4.1. Individuals with experience on similar projects .....................................................32

1.4.2. Resumes and background for RFP requirements ................................................34

1.4.3. Applicable education and experience of personnel ..............................................34

1.4.4. Firm’s experience completing similar projects on time and on budget ..................40

1.4.5. Firm history for timeliness and successful completion ..........................................40

1.4.6. Letters of reference from previous clients ............................................................40

1.4.7. Subcontractors ability to perform and measure up ...............................................40

2. Cost Proposal ......................................................................................... Separate document

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Organization Chart AMHS Economic Reshaping Consulting Team .......................42

Appendix A.1. MAP Consulting Team Organization Chart .....................................................43

Appendix A.2. MAP Consulting Team Personnel Matrix ........................................................44

Appendix B: References and Résumés for Key AMHS Economic Reshaping Consultants .......45

Appendix B.1. Key MAP Team Member References .............................................................46

Appendix B.2. MAP Team Résumés .....................................................................................49

Appendix C: Alaska Business Licenses for Key MAP Team Members ......................................67

Appendix D: Team member anticipated effort matrix .................................................................74



of 75

1. Technical Proposal – AMHS Economic Reshaping

1.1 Understanding of the AMHS Economic Reshaping Engagement

The MAP Consulting team understands that the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) primary purpose for soliciting the AMHS Economic Reshaping engagement is to identify potential reductions of the State’s current financial obligation and/or liability as related to the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) while continuing to promote economic growth in the affected regions of the State. The MAP team further understands that the Department would like a rubric and system of organization and evaluation of the various combinations that State would consider in reshaping the structure of the Alaska Marine Highway System.

There is significant data collected, information analyzed and presented. Additional detailed basic analysis will only be engaged in as far as it is necessary to achieve what we interpret as the main goal of this study – to provide an avenue to decisions that will allow the AMHS to reshape, revitalize, and become efficient and useful for decades to come. That is, we will not re-invent studies or effort already done by the Elliot Bay Design Group, the MacDowell Group, the State, or Alaska Marine Highways Reform project. Instead, we propose that we will analyze and synthesize previous work, enhance or update only if necessary, to provide recommendations that can move to implement change – to reduce an annual subsidy of $99 million, the Governor’s cost concerns, coupled with continuing to provide for economic growth in the affected regions by the AMHS.

1.1.1. Understanding of the purpose and scope of the project

To address the overall purpose and scope of the project in being a economic reshaping consultant for the AMHS, we will examine combinations that are based on a core set of parameters that include:

• Various degrees of privatization versus state-ownership of the system for ownership,

management, and/or control.

• Structural organization of the system, based on ownership, business relationship,

and utilization. This will include looking at the advantages of various structural

organization: direct state-ownership (status quo or reorganized), private business, state-

owned “public corporation,” non-profit, and other novel structures, including private

public partnerships (PPP) and cooperatives.

• State authorities and benefits that can be utilized to optimize in considering the

structural organization of the system to reduce costs and make the system more

attractive to existing or potential owners, users, and managers (i.e. tax exemption,



of 75

governmental authorities, subsidies). We will also look at potential novel ways to cost

and/or can be removed or reduced from the budget allocation system.

• Special focus on cost reduction strategies, including the costs of individual routes,

specific cost items, including how labor is organized, and potential other strategies

to reduce costs.

• System components:

o The system will be viewed as two discrete parts: vessels and terminals.

o The system will also be viewed at the level of the individual ferry route,

including having different structures for routes or collection of routes, as well as

retaining the system as a single organization. Additionally, we will look at the

economics of specific vessels. These routes and vessel use will be considered

from the viewpoint of Jones Act requirements.

Although not directly listed in the scope, we infer the necessity to examine:

• potential revenue enhancement, beyond simply raising passenger and freight

tariffs, and,

• capital cost structure financing and needs strategies, including the potential to

modernize the system either because of future requirements (e.g. low sulfur fuel-quality)

or optimize parts of the system to produce optimization, including cost savings.

• Capital and operating finance structure that provides for stability and growth.

• Explicitly address Jones Act considerations in various considerations.

• Identify potential investors, owners, operators, and private party participants in

the system.

We will also be analyzing domestic and international examples of ferry system

restructuring, especially the BC and Norway experience, and seeing if there are

useful features to adapt to Alaska.

The above rubric is based on analyzing the ten potential specific outcomes the Scope of Work proposes be analyzed, as well as additional key opportunities we see in reshaping a state-run ferry system.

The overarching consideration is to evaluate the combinations in the light the potential

of cost reduction for the State, while considering impacts on economic growth in the

affected regions of the State.

1.1.2. Pertinent issues and potential problems related to the project

We have summarized what we believe to be “pertinent issues” in the previous section,

entitled, Understanding of the purpose and scope of the project. As far as “potential



of 75

problems,” our methodological approach is one that accommodates problems. This

approach allows “problems” to simply be guidance to lead to a solution that considers

the interests of various parties. Further, our approach will allow ADOT&PF the ability to

value the information you have available and to make decisions in the absence of

“perfect information,” a vital necessity to determine what is the practical reality for any

real-life system. Not only is this a pragmatic approach, it is also the approach

recognized and used in most business decision-making. The “solution,” in this case, is

to be able to make good decisions concerning the reshaping of the Alaska Marine

Highway System.

The problems that we will address, are typical of transforming and modernizing systems

of delivering services and addressing major infrastructure. This includes:

• Resistance to change

• Institutional, legal, structural barriers

• Organizational and cultural barriers

• Omission of entrepreneurial, business, and innovation incentives

• Time constraints, urgency, and opportunity

• Lack of funding and other resources

• Lack of knowledge of best practices and technology

To develop strategies to overcome these barriers we will provide strategies and

approaches that include:

• Leadership and decision strategies

• Mandate needs

• Incentives building and business and innovation strategies

• Structural approaches, including business and institution building strategies

• Funding and investment approaches

• Accessible explanation of needed changes and approaches to implementation

In mid-March, we approached several AMHS ferry experts within Alaska who, for various reasons, were not interested in providing consultation for the scope of work in the State’s RFP – directly or jointly with our consulting group. We also caucused most of the obvious experts from outside Alaska. The general issues involve that the recent history of Alaska, over the last fifteen years, has resulted in the State never being able to approach a holistic optimization or economic approach to the Alaska Marine Highway system – primarily because of the perceived “political approach” to any proposed resolution. In other words, we will tap into the knowledge base of most of the parties you hoped would submit a proposal for the RFP. Additionally, at least one group stated they had already provided recommendations to what they perceived to be the stakeholders. In any case, we have been assured that we



of 75

will be able to tap into all the best-available multi-decade experience as we provide the DOT&PF our toolbox of services. Further, we note that some technical experts are reluctant to participate in a process, expressing a “fear of retribution” from stakeholders, including the State, if they participate in studies that express a solution or decision-lead approach. We identify this a major barrier to overcome and we sympathize with the overall Department’s dilemma on multiple levels. We recognize that there is a related bias in bringing in an Alaska-based consulting group rather than an “Outside” group that has the currency of validation. On the other hand, looking toward a Washington State or BC-styled solution has its own issues in applying their expertise to the Alaska case. This explains why we have brought in Kjetil Solberg who has the experience to pull in a very broad set of views, including knowledge about Latin America, Norway, and other parts of the world. Further, we are utilizing a methodology that is ideally positioned to integrate existing analysis and study, have an “internal-Alaska” perspective, while utilizing an established network of outside experts for validation and support. We are not a cobbled together group of consultants – we are a group of experts that have worked for years, in some cases decades, on similar issues within Alaska, as well as internationally. We can give you a local-Alaska and an international perspective. Importantly, we have been part of successful paths to the resolution of seemingly very complex decision processes, including many of the major issues facing today’s Alaska. Equally importantly, we are not afraid of providing you with a workable solution – looking at everything from subsidies, state-owned corporate structure, or privatization. We are not frightened to provide you with an innovative menu, if it adheres to a rational approach. We believe that we can provide you exactly with a process that will lead to results-oriented solutions. In any case, we believe you will not find a better team that has both the ability to operate within Alaska, in a very complex environment, and provide international perspective and necessary validation for your multifaceted needs. While we will analyze and categorize existing strategies that can be thought of as traditional operational strategies we will also focus on strategies beyond the traditional. Additionally, our report and methodology will include a summary and analysis of the

“best available information,” that will include, at a minimum, pertinent information from

previous state funded AMHS studies such as the 2012 System Analysis, the 2015 Tariff

Analysis, the 2016 Economic Impacts analysis, 2017 AMHS Reform Phase 1 and 2

Reports, the 2017 Annual Traffic Volume Report, the 2018 Annual Financial Report, and

various vessel condition reports. We will also look at international case studies.



of 75

We will utilize these reports to minimize the need for any novel data and information

gathering, or basic analysis. At the same time, we will utilize the reports for arriving at

key views understanding and expectations of the role and needs of the AMHS.

For example, when arguing for the need to organize as a “public corporation” (State-

owned or controlled), key factors include:

• Bringing in private sector expertise, and presumably incentives

• Longer planning periods and stability in key leadership, presumably related to

decoupling from political cycles

• Aligned management and labor

• Strategically reduce operating costs

• Grow revenues

• Public-private partnerships

• Preserve access to federal capital funds

Clearly these kinds of drivers overlap with what we have identified as basic drivers from

the RFP.

They overlap in plain language questions, such as:

• Is there an overall plan — does it provide the level of service that Southeast requires, and address the willingness of the State to finance and/or subsidize?

• How can it be funded?

• Is there opportunity to reorganize the structure, including privatize, the system?

• What is the answer to decreasing ridership?

• Do the service levels reflect an optimized system plan?

• Are there new untapped opportunities to finance or produce revenue to the system, to Alaska, and the communities?

This last set of questions, where adapted from a recent opinion piece in an Alaska

publication.

In parallel, domestically and internationally, privatization or quasi-privatization

efforts/best practice or efforts to create business structures, look at very similar set of

drivers. For example, privatization of state-owned assets and services address issues

such as:

• Efficiency and Innovation

• Increase in Labor Productivity

• Capital Investment Opportunities

• Expansion and promotion of entrepreneurship, benefits of competition, and other

market-oriented structures

• Increased transparency

• Efficient pricing and transparent subsidization



of 75

• Enhanced customer service

• Alternative solutions to governmental and community needs

• Depoliticizing decision making in operations, while maintaining policy influence in the

overall solution for long-term growth

In short, there is a limiting set of factors that are important to getting to a decision point

1.1.3. Deliverables to the State

We will provide DOT&PF with a “triage analysis of major routes or groups of

routes” that identifies the suitability of each operation from a business organization

perspective, including non-or low-subsidized operations. We will demonstrate our

conclusions based on vessel traffic density and freight demand.

Further, our methodology is ideally suited to provide a “two-tier examination

[approach] of concepts” to allow the ability to exam combinations and alternatives,

with the consultation and input of department experts and representatives. This will

allow the project to determine the most promising among combinations identified. Our

methodology allows the report users to also consider including identifying to whom the

outcome is likely promising and why. Further, second “tier” or group of combinations

(outcomes or “final concepts”), utilizing what we will refer to as “basic drivers,” will be

provided with more detailed analysis. Additionally, we will provide a clear process and

explanation of how the drivers relate to the potential outcomes selected,

discussed and analyzed.

The “basic drivers,” as extracted from our discussion above, can be summarized as:

• Privatization versus state-ownership of the system for ownership, management, and/or

control,

• Structural organization of the system, including consideration of the current proposals for

a “public corporation,” and how this can complement a menu of choices,

• State authorities and benefits that can be utilized to optimize the system,

• Cost reduction strategies,

• System components organization/structuring,

• Revenue enhancement, including looking beyond simply raising passenger and freight

tariffs,

• capital cost structure financing and needs strategies,

• Information necessary to make a business decision for potential investors, owners,

operators, and private party participants in the system.



of 75

We may add additional basic drivers we discover or change our list of drivers in the

process of our research and analysis efforts in tandem with the Department.

Our goal is to provide a product that not only provides an analysis and

recommendations, but also provides tools and a propose process to make a

decision about the AMHS, based on existing information.

We will bring in the experience and validation of international examples of best

practice into our report.

We will provide a Final Report that defines the process used, results learned, and

recommendations for reshaping the AMHS. The report will be useful to fulfill the

Governor’s stated goal that, “AMHS will move towards other service options to realize

short and long-term cost savings for state government and to promote economic growth

in affected regions of the state.”

Additionally, we will organize, synthesize, and provide information in a form that

can be presented to potential investors to attract investment, as well as for use

by departments, the Administration, the legislature, communities affected by

reshaping the AMHS, and other stakeholders.

All of our deliverables will be predominantly presented electronically. Exceptions will

be based on the wishes of the Department, or if we believe paper copies are useful

medium, depending on the audience.

1.1.4 Understanding and Meeting the State’s time schedule

Schedule as defined in the RFP

We can begin performance as soon as the State of Alaska issues us a contract,

anticipated on April 22, 2019.



of 75

We will provide the Department with a report of our work from time-to-time to further our

interaction, provide an update to the Department, and support billing and administrative

needs during the engagement period.

We will provide the Department, on or before August 1, 2019, a document entitled

“Contractor Preliminary Draft Report and Recommendations,” that will include a brief

report of work done and preliminary recommendations.

We will be ready to receive Department comments on August 12, 2019, or other

mutually agreeable date within a few days.

We will provide a document entitled “Final Draft,” to the Department on or before August

30, 2019.

We will deliver a Final Consultant Report to the Department on or before October 15,

2019.

We will be ready to address the Final Consultant Report to any parties, as directed by

the Department.

The MAP Consulting team understands that the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) primary purpose for soliciting the AMHS Economic Reshaping engagement is to identify potential reductions of the State’s financial obligation and/or liability as related to the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) while continuing to promote economic growth in the affected regions of the state.

1.2 Approach and Methodology for the AMHS Economic

Reshaping Engagement Our methodology will be based on utilizing tools from decision science. The MAP team will make recommendations by posing and structuring the issues that face the Department and the AMHS with a decision-making framework that can achieve practical and achievable results.

1.2.1. Decision Science: Flexible, Comprehensive, and Logical

The decision science method will consider that the problem takes place in a highly politicized environment. Multiple solutions will be proposed for consideration and it will be shown how they address or benefit the goals the State and other parties might realize. We aim to provide you with materials that will support the ability to make a decision, not another report to induce “paralysis by analysis.” Decision Science is the collection of quantitative and qualitative techniques used to inform decision-making for business, government, and individual decisions. We will



of 75

synthesize and organize already existing data, information, and studies for you to be able to present a case to make decisions, whether it is soliciting an investment or securing a decision from a decision maker.

Decision analysis is useful in synthesizing and communicating information to support decision-making. While the Alaska Marine Highway System has had significant study made available to the State, public, policy and decision-makers, we will primarily focus on decision analysis methods that lead to the ability to reach strategic and policy decisions.

1.2.1.1. Decision Science: A Toolkit and Products that Supports Decision-making

The decision science tool box is significant, and we will likely settle on decision analysis techniques that will take into account decision framing (decision tree analysis), cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis (from multiple party perspective), risk analysis, and constrained optimization. We may engage in some basic simulation or operational modeling, as far as it might be beneficial for decisions outlined in the recommendations. There will be a core financial model of the individual routes, as well as system alternatives, coupled with marine transportation modeling and analysis. That is, many of the individual tools are “traditional” and familiar, but the synthesis will be aimed at providing a template for quality decision making. We will look holistically at the information and data, create a sound reasoning framework, clearly define the potential consequences, consider traditional and creative alternatives, and create the arguments that will help commit to choose and implement.



of 75

http://www.decisioneducation.org/about-DEF/better-decisions

By focusing on decision as the unit of analysis, decision science provides a unique framework for understanding the AMHS problem, as posed by DOT&PF and for improving a policy framework to address the overarching issues. Methods used to make recommendation on reshaping AMHS will likely include:

• Financial analysis: straightforward business approach for route, system-wide, and structural analysis.

• Cost-benefit analysis: a form of economic evaluation that can be used to assess the value in terms of money, as well as beyond straight-forward profit maximization.

• Cost-effectiveness analysis: involves comparison of the existing or additional costs and benefits of providing a service with those of the available alternative(s). The aim of such an analysis is to determine the value of the service in terms of money of the service to the government and community.

http://www.decisioneducation.org/about-DEF/better-decisions



of 75

• Operations analysis: applying analytical methods in order to facilitate better decision making. Operations analysis can include modeling, statistical analysis, and mathematical optimization, in order to determine optimal or near-optimal solutions to complex decision-making problems. We will, for example, determine the maximum (profit, performance, revenue) or minimum (loss, risk, or cost) of some real-world outcomes for the AHMS.

• Risk assessment (identifying and characterizing risks), risk management (evaluating how to mitigate risk), and risk communication (understanding and explaining the risks).

As we have mentioned several times in this proposal, much of the work or key elements needed in such work has already been completed. The key value we will provide in answering the scope and overall goal posed by the Governor and the DOT&FP.

1.2.1.2. Marine transportation modeling and analysis

In the area of operations analysis, we will include, utilizing and synthesizing previous study whenever possible, elements of marine transportation modeling and analysis. Data typically collected includes those of vessel design, such as the number, size, speed and type of vessels on route, as well as the services offered, the frequency, vessel commonality and the choice of utilizing existing or bringing on new vessels. We will collect this from ADOT&FP, available reports, as well as potentially from our own sources. Our analysis will include revenue and cost modeling and ranking and evaluating system alternatives. The analysis will include common measures used to rank the suitability of alternatives in light of the traffic demand and service costs: maximum net revenue, minimum operating cost, and maximum ridership. Additionally, we will try to impute subsidies on individual routes. We will likely also look at ridership, net revenue and how it affects fare elasticity. The level of service must equate to a viable and sustainable path forward. No matter what goal or structure is chosen, superior solutions are best identified through the combined application of a good vessel revenue/cost model and a good traffic demand model. Unfortunately, it is common for marine transportation studies to focus on one aspect or the other, but not both. We will synthesize results on traffic demand, vessel type and route speed, alternatives to service, our analysis will also provide a process to evaluate and rank, based on both economic parameters and service performance, as well as focusing on costs to the State. In the case of analyzing a network of routes, we can also analyze the ranked solutions for each route that maximizes system-wide net revenue (or cost reduction, if that is the preferred indicator). System-wide optimum solutions may not be the top-ranked solution for some routes but will be high ranking solutions that achieve the desired goal for the objective economic (or other desired) measure while achieving the desirable goal of minimizing the number of unique vessel designs in the system. Similarly, optimized low



of 75

cost solutions for the State may not be the maximum for a private sector approach or maximum service for the communities. We will identify the magnitude and develop potential strategies to address the likely significance of such differences and potential resolutions, should the difference be a barrier to implementing a goal or deciding. We will go through a data inventory/collection and interview stage, followed by the analysis of current vessel types and terminals. We will then develop a financial model and potential modules that will include capital cost of vessels, ticketing system, and terminals; operating costs of staffing, maintenance, and administration; and the overall revenue from fares, concessions, and freight. In short, it will consider available data and information. We will also look toward results from surveying and/or forecasting. We will determine if we can get good estimates of elasticities of fare, travel time, waiting time, walking time, and comfort items for potential changes in the ferry demand that might be modeled.

1.2.1.3. BC, Washington, and Norwegian Ferry Privatization

In the process of analyzing, looking at feasibility, and reviewing the cost and benefits of the various proposed potential structures we will look at specific privatization efforts. BC Ferry and Washington ferry experience is relatively well-known in Alaska. However, the Norwegian experience is also an example of a successful ferry privatization. We would especially like to look at the privatization of a Norwegian coastal ferry operation known as Hurtigruten, the name can be translated as "Express Route", and the operation is also known as the Norwegian Coastal Express. The Hurtigruten group was created as a result of the phase out of the operating subsidies and a complete re-organization of the Norwegian OVDS and TFDS. Most recently the Hurtigruten group was delisted and acquitted by private equity firm TDR Capital. This is a Norwegian ferry and cargo operator that has expanded to become a niche cruise operator, controlling almost 2% of the world cruise market. They may be familiar to Alaskans, since they operate cruises in the inside passage. We will also be analyzing what conditions were necessary for TDR capital to assume Hurtigruten. This is one reason we are bringing on Kjetil Solberg. A marine expert for his entire life, Mr. Solberg’s advice and knowledge about the Norwegian privatization experience will be integral to a potential strategy. He worked as an operations manager for Hurtigruten.

1.2.1.4 Historical and Alaska-centric perspectives and solutions

Clearly, the Alaska Marine Highway System’s operating model initiated in the 1960’s is no longer meeting the changing needs of coastal Alaska communities. Nor for that matter, is the capital financing and revenue model meeting the abilities of the State to continue financing the AMHS. Clearly, the system finds it difficult to speak to optimization or resiliency, no matter what the quantitative analysis suggests. Should our proposal be accepted by the Alaska DOT&PF, we will substantiate and assist in



of 75

validating some of the conclusions that already known and understood and implemented in the maritime industry and stand as a challenge in how to rectify the current structure, while addressing your goal to reduce costs to the State of Alaska. The ferry system was conceived under the assumption that it would serve the needs of the roadless communities of Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka, Juneau, Haines and Skagway as well as Prince Rupert B.C. Almost fifty years ago, three motor vessel ships were built—the MV Malaspina, the MV Taku and the MV Matanuska. Later service to Seattle was initiated, which was moved to Bellingham for logistical reasons. The Bellingham run resulted in another ship, and, so, the MV Columbia came on line. During this phase, the service to Prince Rupert continued with twice weekly sailings. The MV Bartlett was replaced on the Prince William Sound run to Valdez, Cordova and Whittier. The service from Seward to Homer and Kodiak continued with the MV Tustamena. Often, summer bookings exceeded the vessels capacity. Then the MV Kennecott was added to serve primarily the Northern run with service out to Dutch Harbor and communities out on the Aleutian chain. A significant event occurred in 1992—ridership began to decline. The fast ferries were added at the time. The State subsidy increased accordingly, rates were adjusted to compensate for increased costs and yet little was done to attract increased ridership. While this was going on, the airlines began serving Southeast Alaska with jets and the bush charter carriers were expanding as well into the same communities that used to rely mainly on ferry service. And while ferry rates were competitive, the airlines were faster and more convenient. While passenger ridership was declining, the number of cruise lines began to expand their capacity with several new and larger ships. Ironically, the privatized Norwegian ferry service now operates a cruise within Alaska waters. Alaska is the now one of the most popular cruise destinations for tourists on the planet. Again, ironically, there are cruises to Alaska that are less expensive than the ferry rates. An example, currently, to take a pick-up truck from Bellingham to Wrangell, the fare is approximately $936, depending on the model and age of the truck. Add the fares for two persons at $720, and then a stateroom for two, at $402, equates to approximately $2,058 – more than some of the discount cruises! Service to Prince Rupert has been reduced, yet that was initially the major traffic generator because rates to Alaska from Prince Rupert to Ketchikan for a car and two persons was $484. What is happening in Alaska to our Marine Highway System is simply part of the evolution of marine traffic worldwide. Atlantic sailings, after the Second World War, began to decline because the Pan American 707 jet could make the trip in 8 to 10 hours compared with the Queen Elizabeth in 4 days. The AMHS ‘s economic model has changed, relative to the changing environment, and should continue to evolve. People



of 75

who travel to Southeast Alaska can get there cheaper and more quickly by air than by ferry. Meanwhile, unlike the privatized the ferry system of Norway, Alaska has spent very little in promoting Alaska ferry cruising, compared with the cruise lines. As we evaluate the alternatives within Alaska, there is also recognition that a system that was originally designed to provide good ferry access to roadless communities, now also provides ferry service as well to communities which have access to roads. Alaska has also developed a good barge service over the last several decades. For example, the same pick up that costs a couple to accompany can go by AML barge from Seattle to Wrangell for just under $1,000. One partial answer might lie with the State’s effort to proceed to negotiate a resolution with the Forest Service to allow road corridors as outlined in the SE Alaska Transportation Study, adopted by the US Congress. The Forest Service was given access to State tidelands in return for several corridors across Forest Service land that would connect with key terminal sites, allowing for day ferry service for the short water crossings within a few thousand yards in sight of shore. This is an example that would enable the roadless communities’ access to the coastal road systems as other citizens enjoy, while potentially enhancing the revenue for the existing ferry system. The Forest Service has currently denied the States selection rights for the corridors and the issue is in litigation. The State should prevail, but if not, they might cancel the Forest Service’s right to access State tidelands and forbid the Forest Service to trespass. As the AMHS looks to relief from its current conundrum losing ridership, increasing costs, and reducing service one solution is to look toward the potential of implementing the corridor concept. The corridor solution could do two things. It would neutralize the current Roadless rule of 2016 which the Forest Service mandated. It would also open the Tongass to corridor timber sales which could help restructure our dying forest products industry, and to a large degree give the ferry system a potential stream of revenue to initiate a transition to a system less costly to the State and a more efficient service for the communities. We are very excited at being able to tackle this very complex, locally entwined, and historically evolving system. We would like to look at traditional, as well as innovative proposals, ones that are based on some of the unique complexities that Alaska has inherited historically. Properly approached, a multi-layered strategy could give the AMHS time to address service issue and costs that are unsustainable, to restructure at take some of the best available advantages of changes current in the world – from Washington State to Norway – all within a context workable in Alaska.

1.2.2. MAP Team Methodology and RFP Objectives

Our approach utilizing “decision science” may be different from other research approaches that have analyzed the AMHS. We see this as a tremendous advantage in



of 75

addressing the overall goals and scope of this RFP. Primarily, our report will be geared to help make actual decisions. Not deciding is a decision in itself, and while we do not promote change for change’s sake, it is imperative that there is an understanding of the risks, benefits, and costs the status quo carries relative to other potential choices. Additionally, while some methods of research focus on producing new knowledge, our reliance on decision science is uniquely concerned with making optimal choices for the AMHS based on available information. In addition, what is traditionally provided for in studies, we will synthesize the best available information in order that you will be useful in understanding in making a decision. Our analysis will make plain the technical issues and value judgments underlying the decisions you will need to make a decision, and to identify tradeoffs that might accompany any particular action or inaction. Additionally, we will aim to structure potential solution cases to avoid “zero-sum” solutions – where one stakeholder wins at the expense of another – since these solutions are often unsustainable. Instead, we will structure “win-win” solutions that will lead to a resilient deal. As mentioned previously, we will utilize a variety of tools especially in the area of finance, economic and operational analysis, especially considering the priorities of the State, the communities and individuals served by the AMHS, and private businesses to make competitive and strategic decisions. After framing the problem with you we will likely use approaches for facilitating decision-making by groups that you identify, as well as decision tree and modeling techniques. This approach is widely used in business and management, and utilized in government, military, public health, and multi-stakeholder decisions and policy formation. Our method will have your department take advantage of decision analytic methods to make inform policy and implement a result that, backed by systematically integrating opportunities and evidence with explicit consideration of values you assign to achieve a good menu outcome for the AMHS. We will likely provide you with several methods to look at the Scenario Analysis Approach that you have already began to develop in your Scope of Work. We will continue to work with your experts, and experts we may consult, to jointly develop constructed scenarios that we can evaluate. We will elicit key parameters over reasonable ranges and provide a menu of strategies that will perform reasonably well across the range of feasible scenarios. The advantage to this method is the focus on thinking that inspires proactive and hopefully flexible strategies. We will also mitigate a risk in this approach and provide an assessment of the relative likelihood of any given scenario. We bring a team with industry-specific experience or knowledge in similar cost reduction/privatization proposals, that is beyond most government analysts. Our report will be structured and provide a narrative and analysis likely to be most useful in making a clear business case, especially to solicit interest by the private sector, or in the creation of a public corporation.



of 75

1.2.2.1. Framing the problem

As a way to demonstrate the accessibility of our approach we will begin with pointing out our approach of the RFP in Section 1.1. Understanding Purpose and Scope. In this section, we have taken a scope that includes ten potential scenarios, broken them down, and synthesized them in a list of “drivers” which we believe are the essence that we believe you would like to address. The “basic drivers,” as extracted from the ten scenarios include:

• Privatization versus state-ownership of the system for ownership, management, and/or control.

• Structural organization of the system,

• Level of service scoping,

• State authorities and benefits that can be utilized to optimize the system,

• Cost reduction strategies,

• System components organization/structuring,

• Revenue enhancement, including looking beyond simply raising passenger and freight tariffs,

• capital cost structure financing and needs strategies,

• Information necessary to make a business decision for potential investors, owners, operators, and private party participants in the system.

The next step is to see how the data and information is helpful to address the core concepts that you would like to structure decision-making around. In this way, would approach “framing the problem,” by partially analyzing your proposed scope and ten suggested potential scenarios becomes the basis of addressing your larger policy stated, as well as implied, goals. We will also evaluate the drivers we have proposed relative to the significant study and efforts done over the last several decades, and recently. Additionally, we will look at the best practice and experience, domestically and internationally. The resulting report will provide the Department and the current administration the ability to move from the status quo operation of the AHMS and move to options that will “realize short and long-term cost saving for state government,” while at the same time, “to promote economic growth in affected regions of the state.” In this case, the state wants to “minimize costs to the State,” while the communities would want to retain or increase services to their community at the lowest cost. Next, with the proposed potential option whether the system should be operated by the private sector introduces a party that would definitely support lowering costs but is also concerned with revenue and the option of increasing revenue, and most interested in optimizing a profit (revenue-costs).



of 75

In this case, you need an analytical structure that can accommodate:

• State minimization of cost;

• community optimization of services;

• private sector maximization of profit or strategic return.

1.2.2.2. Triage analysis and two-tiered examination

Our proposed methodology will allow you, as you have stated, to compare and rank alternatives, including compare, “…major routes or groups of routes that identifies the suitability of each for non-or low-subsidized operation, based on vessel(s) traffic density and freight demand.” Further, we will provide you with a “two-tier examination of concepts, to first determine the most promising among those identified, and then a second tier more detailed analysis of the final concepts selected.” However, we would approach the “final concept selected,” as approaches that can be practically acted upon – “actionable concept plan” vs just another report.

1.2.2.3. Decide on structure of AMHS going forward

Our proposed methodology makes the major assumption that DOT&PF intends to utilize the final report – the results learned and recommendations - to provide decision makers the tools to make decisions, in coordination with stakeholders, to reshape the AMHS. That is, we intend to provide analysis, process, and recommendations that will assist the State to avoid “paralysis by analysis” and be able to evaluate on either an absolute or relative basis, the most optimal decision, based on what is likely, practical, and feasible. Part of the report will also address strategies available to reduce the risk of not being able to make decisions. Stated another way we take the RFP’s position of “reshaping the AMHS to fulfill the stated goal: ‘AMHS will move towards other service options to realize short and long-term cost savings for state government and to promote economic growth in affected regions of the state,’” as a goal that the State intends on actualizing in short order. Further, the analysis will make use of pertinent information from previous state funded AMHS studies, including the 2012 System Analysis, the 2015 Tariff Analysis, the 2016 Economic Impacts analysis, 2017 AMHS Reform Phase 1 and 2 Reports, the 2017 Annual Traffic Volume Report, the 2018 Annual Financial Report, and various vessel condition reports, as your RFP suggests. We will also look at other cases, including the Norwegian case. We recognize that some of the information we provide is repetitive, but we seek to fully address the order of your evaluation rubric.



of 75

1.2.3. MAP Team Methodology and RFP Time Schedule

Our methodology is extremely flexible and allows for collecting and synthesizing the “best available information.” We recognize that our summarizing the schedule is repetitive, but we do this to be complete relative to your evaluation rubric. We can begin performance as soon as the State of Alaska issues us a contract, anticipated on April 22, 2019. Following, that we will have eight weeks to frame the question, evaluate existing information, preliminary model build, and interview key experts. Under that schedule we will provide be able to provide the Department, on or before August 1, 2019, a document entitled “Contractor Preliminary Draft Report and Recommendations,” that will include a brief report of work done and preliminary recommendations. We will be able to receive Department comments on August 12, 2019, or other mutually agreeable date within a few days and provide a document entitled “Final Draft,” to the Department on or before August 30, 2019. In the May through July period we will be able to move the preliminary recommendations – this is where we will address a refined triage analysis and two-tiered examination – backed by appropriate modeling, analysis and synthesis. This will allow the MAP team to provide the Department, on or before August to provide a written preliminary document. At some point, likely in August and September we will discuss some of the presentation products that can be included in the Final Consultant Report – such as Power Point slides, model output, simple graphics and animation, and the like, that will be useful to the Department and will give sufficient time to deliver a Final Consultant Report to the Department on or before October 15, 2019. We will deliver a Final Consultant Report to the Department on or before October 15,

2019.

Of course, beyond that time we will be ready to address the Final Consultant Report to any parties, as directed by the Department, since our methodology is geared to move from technical information to support in policy and decision-making.



of 75

1.3. Management Plan for the AMHS Economic Reshaping

Engagement

As Project Lead, Mary Ann Pease will manage the AMHS effort from her offices in

Anchorage, which she shares with Brian Murkowski, the team’s Strategic Planner. Also

operating from Anchorage and the Mat-Su are team members, John Tichotsky, Loren

Crawford and Don Dyer. Paul Fuhs will function out of his Juneau office and in addition

to being the marine consultant will also be available to interface with the legislature and

administration. Kjetil Solberg will work remotely, unless brought in for a specific task for

presentation.The team will use Paul Fuhs’ office as a staging and work area while in

Juneau.

Mary Ann will be responsible for all communications regarding the progress of

performance of the contract and shall deal with the Procurement Officer or designee on

any issues, recommendations, and decisions related to the contract. Pease will assign

tasks and coordinate all team efforts. Paul Fuhs will be the primary marine consultant

and state government liaison. Brian Murkowski will focus on strategic planning and

federal relationships. John Tichotsky will lead our economic evaluation and decision

analysis, and will be supported in economics, planning, and marketing by Loren

Crawford and Don Dyer. Paul Fuhs and John Tichotsky will both coordinate with Kjetil

Solberg. Don Dyer will also coordinate with Paul Fuhs directly on vessel purchase and

sale issues. John Tichotsky will coordinate with both Fuhs and Dyer on alternative fuel

vessels (e.g. LNG).

1.3.1. Management plan supports project requirements, logical lead to deliverables

We have described how we intend to answer the scope of work and how we propose to provide the results of this work in the Consultant Final Report – the main deliverable. Within this context, our management plan for a qualified team of experts, backed by a results-oriented, but science-based, methodology can provide the results desired under this RFP within the time proscribed. See Appendix D: Team member anticipated effort matrix for details of how we anticipate the work effort will be allocated.

1.3.2. Accountability of project plan

Mary Anne Pease will be responsible for the accountability of the project team to meet all objectives and deliverables, as well as meeting the project schedule.



of 75

MAP Consulting LLC warrants that our team has the necessary skills and expertise to deliver and perform the work in a professional manner. The organizational structure is clear shown in Appendix A Organizational Structure. All assigned personal, as illustrated by our summary biographies under Section 1.4 and detailed resumes in Appendix B, are highly qualified to perform the assigned duties and collectively have over 150 years of relevant experience. Mary Ann has successfully led numerous projects under State contract and has intimate knowledge of the process and familiarity with governmental agencies identified in this RFP. She will actively manage the team, provide regular communications and updates, be available to testify in government hearings and will be available for travel as needed.

1.3.3. Organization of project team

We have included an organization chart and a table matrix indicating the position title and description, summary of relevant experience, locations where the work will be performed, services to be performed, and estimated percentage of hours for this contract by proposed person under Appendix A. In general, the team hierarchy is relatively flat, with all members understanding their task within the scope. The entire team answers to Mary Ann Pease and she interacts on all administrative elements of the project. Otherwise, team member coordinate with each other on various project elements. Most of the project members have worked together on projects of equal or greater complexity. Pease and Murkowski have cooperated for years on projects, as have Tichotsky and Crawford. Pease, Murkowski, Tichotsky, and Crawford have worked together recently on a project of similar size and complexity – under an extremely aggressive time-table. A quality deliverable of over 400 pages was completed within six weeks. Tichotsky worked extensively with Solberg in the past. Fuhs and Dyer have worked with individual members of the team. The team is especially strong in that the individual members have very complementary skills.

See Appendix D: Team member anticipated effort matrix for details of how we anticipate the work effort will be allocated.

1.3.4. Lines of authority and communication of management plan

The management plan clearly identifies the lines of authority and communication. Mary Ann Pease as the sole point of contact i supported by a professional array of talent who have worked together on previous State projects. While everyone is responsible for their



of 75

area of expertise, general project activities will be assigned by Mary Ann Pease. Mary Ann Pease will carry out all administrative interaction. As stated previously, we have an organization chart and a table matrix that gives a good summary indicating the position title and description, summary of relevant experience, locations where the work will be performed, services to be performed, and estimated percentage of hours for this contract by proposed person under Appendix A. All team member officially report to Mary Ann Pease, who holds ultimate project authority. As mentioned before individual members will carry out communication with various experts, department members, and other individuals, as necessary to complete tasks. All communication will flow through our project team lead Mary Ann Pease. In the event Ms. Pease is unavailable, John Tichotsky will be her proxy.

1.3.5. Hardware, software, equipment, and licenses necessary to perform the

contract

We have all the hardware, software, equipment, and licenses necessary to perform the contract, with a single exception. We will be purchasing a single copy of DecisionTools Suite 7 from Palisade at the price of $2,860. This suite of cutting edge decision analysis software that is an add-on to Excel and includes a powerful suite of tools:

• @RISK for Monte Carlo simulation

• PrecisionTree for decision trees

• TopRank for “what if” sensitivity analysis

• BigPicture for mind mapping & data exploration

• StatTools for statistical analysis & forecasting

• NeuralTools for predictive neural networks

• Evolver for sophisticated optimization

• RISKOptimizer for Monte Carlo simulation & optimization

Loren Crawford and John Tichotsky are skilled at using this software, and, introduced its use in the Alaska Department of Revenue for everything from modeling revenue to portfolio returns forecasting. Crawford will be the primary user on the team. Prior to this it was used at the Department of Natural Resources for work on reservoir and reserves estimation. It is a standard decision science package. The Alaska Legislature’s Finance and Resources Committees have already been exposed to many hours of DecisionTools results, especially @Risk Monte Carlo simulation results. We have also utilized tree analysis within DOR, DNR, and State-wide issues. Although relatively



of 75

sophisticated tools, they provide very effective visualization of data and analysis. We know that licenses for the software are held at the Department of Revenue, Natural Resources, and OMB, and there are several professionals that can utilize parts of the suite.

We are not aware of the need for any additional software beyond the Microsoft suite of programs. Aside from the purchase of DecisionTools Suites, MAP Consulting LLC warrants that it has enough hardware, software, equipment and licenses necessary to fulfill the contract. We have two offices from which we will work in Anchorage and Juneau. each is supplied with modern communication, IT and support materials. MAP further confirms that all business licenses, insurance and other supporting documents are in good standing. MAP Consulting, LLC also certifies that it is an eligible 100% Woman-owned Business Enterprise (WBE) and has an application pending for certification and registration of its WBE status. All team members are Alaskan citizens.

1.3.6. Meeting the schedule set out in the RFP

As we have summarized in several other sections of this proposal, we are able to begin

performance as soon as the State of Alaska issues us a contract, anticipated on April

22, 2019.

The MAP team has no conflicts which would prevent the them from fulfilling the contract

terms within the dates specified in the RFP. Upon receipt of being awarded the contract

the team could begin work immediately and be available to interface with agencies and

key stakeholders.

We will provide the Department with a report of our work from time-to-time to further our

interaction, provide an update to the Department, and support billing and administrative

needs during the engagement period.

We will provide the Department, on or before August 1, 2019, a document entitled

“Contractor Preliminary Draft Report and Recommendations,” that will include a brief

report of work done and preliminary recommendations.

We will be ready to receive Department comments on August 12, 2019, or other

mutually agreeable date within a few days.

We will provide a document entitled “Final Draft,” to the Department on or before August

30, 2019.

We will deliver a Final Consultant Report to the Department on or before October 15,

2019.



of 75

We will be ready to address the Final Consultant Report to any parties, as directed by

the Department.

We understand and are prepared to meet the schedule set forth in the RFP.

1.3.7. Beyond the minimum tasks to meet the objectives

The MAP team is a highly diverse, professional, experienced and dedicated group that is familiar with government contracts that provide solutions. We believe that we have describe a proposal that meets and exceeds the minimum tasks necessary to meet the objectives in the RFP. We are also able to provide you a product that deals with complexity in a highly charged environment. We are extremely excited to tackle an opportunity to implement positive and lasting change for Alaska and an important and vital function for Alaska. As you can see from the previous Sections 1.1. and 1.2. our project plan goes beyond the minimum tasks to provide you with a deliverable and approach that will be able to meet RFP objectives. With the help of our methodology based on decision science, a professional team, and our genuine enthusiasm to tackle a significant Alaska issue that has been viewed as problematic for over a decade, the MAP team is ready to work.

1.3.8. A practical and feasible proposal

One of the most compelling feature of the MAP team methodology is that it uses and

evaluates best available information, provides a rubric for making decisions, and leads

to a business oriented approach to decision making. This is both practical and feasible.

Prior experience in successfully winning State contracts leads our team to conclude that we have assembled the right team with the extraordinary talent required to complete the work as defined in the RFP. Based on our collective experiences, we believe our proposal is both practical and feasible.

1.3.9. Identifying potential problems

The MAP team has worked on complex policy decisions on various levels: international, national, state, municipal, and local. The team has dealt with change within various private and public organizational systems. As we have reviewed in Section 1.1.2. The problems that we will address in this RFP are typical when developing an approach to transforming and modernizing systems that delivering services and addressing major infrastructure. So that we expect fundamental barriers, such as:



of 75

• Resistance to change

• Institutional, legal, structural barriers

• Organizational and cultural barriers

• Omission of entrepreneurial, business, and innovation incentives

• Time constraints, urgency, and opportunity

• Lack of funding and other resources

• Lack of knowledge of best practices and technology

Again, as we reviewed in section 1.1.2 the antidote to such problems is to anticipate them strategies to overcome these barriers. A decision-science approach allows to pull a wide variety of tools that direct how to implement practical strategies to approach successful outcomes. As elucidated in Section 1 of MAP's response to the RFP, we recognize the severity of the situation the AMHS faces and the Administration's conundrum in trying to resolve it. The implications of our recommendations will be significant and will require considerable thought, analysis, negotiation and research. As elucidated in other sections we believe we can bring in relevant best practices from around the world in addressing the RFP. The potential social, political and economic ramifications of reorganizing or privatizing such a historic and vital piece of Alaska's infrastructure are enormous. Identifying efficiencies, negotiating with key stakeholders, optimizing assets, considering alternative financing and potential partnerships are only a few of the tasks awaiting the successful bidder to this RFP. Our team is populated with experienced individuals who have spent their careers successfully solving problems of similar gravitas. Our MAP team individual members have secured significant policy changes within Alaska, domestically, and internationally thanks to addressing good strategies to achieve beneficial change.



of 75

1.4. Experience and Qualifications

The MAP Team has extensive experience in similar projects. We are very cognizant

that you would like us to propose potentially radical changes to a venerable system that

has established traditions. A system that has resisted change for multiple decades. At

the same time, it represents a significant cost to the public, while providing service to

communities that rely greatly on its continuance. Through a good consistent approach,

organization and framing the overall problem and its major parts, we believe that we can

provide you a comprehensive based on the teams grasp and experience in economics,

policy implementation, business valuation and management, privatization, maritime

system - just to name a few. Our knowledge of Alaska is profound, as is our ability to

tap into the best available knowledge from beyond Alaska.

MAP consulting has assembled a highly experienced and qualified team for conducting the AMHS economic reshaping analysis in preparing this proposal. Our key team members each have well over three years of economic analysis and related relevant experience. Brief biographies summarizing relevant qualifications and experience for each key consulting team member are provided below. We have included an organization chart and a table matrix indicating the position title and description, summary of relevant experience, locations where the work will be performed, services to be performed, and estimated percentage of hours for this contract by proposed person under Appendix A. Selected references and detailed résumés are provided under Appendix B. Alaska business licenses for key consulting firms are provided under Appendix C.

The MAP Team has significant global experience; solid, pertinent, and current Alaska

experience; exceptional professional, practical, and academic experience – a team with

a rare combination of skills within Alaska. We will bring the creative pathways to the

AMHS scope of work.

1.4.1. Individuals with experience on similar projects

The MAP Team has extensive experience on similar projects. We are very cognizant

that you would like us to propose potentially radical changes to a venerable system that

has established traditions. A system that has resisted change for multiple decades. At

the same time, it represents a significant cost to the public, while providing service to

communities that rely greatly on its continuance. Through a good consistent approach,

organization and framing the overall problem and its major parts, we believe that we can

provide you a comprehensive based on the teams grasp and experience in economics,

policy implementation, business valuation and management, privatization, maritime

system - just to name a few. Our knowledge of Alaska is profound, as is our ability to

tap into the best available knowledge from beyond Alaska.



of 75

Project Leader - Mary Anne Pease is a seasoned business manager and consultant

who has overseen numerous State consulting contracts and whose expertise ranges

from finance to budgeting, business strategies, project management and development,

acquisitions, mergers, energy development, business case analysis, communications

and PR.

Lead Economist - Dr. John Tichotsky is a Ph.D. and former chief economist for the

State of Alaska with a wide variety of specialized and business skills, coupled with a

comprehensive knowledge of economic analysis, privatization, and the specifics of the

Alaska economy.

Marine Consultant - Paul Fuhs has been specializing in Alaskan marine operations for

the past 30 years to include analysis of marine operations to guide design, financing

and construction of port facilities and the safety and efficiency of marine operations

throughout Alaska. He too has worked with Mary Ann Pease for over two decades.

Strategic Planning - Brian Murkowski brings over 25 years of experience in finance,

economics and strategic planning, as well as resource and project development. He

brings a banking background along with an intimate knowledge of federal and state

governmental and regulatory affairs. He and Mary Ann have worked together on an

array of projects since 2015 that include marine and fuel logistics, public private

partnerships, international finance, auditing, asset optimization and economic

evaluations.

Business Advisor - Don Dyer has been developing infrastructure projects for many

years in his role with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough as the Economic Development

Director. Dyer and the Port Director worked together to market the MV Susitna Ferry for

nearly two years and has developed an expertise in marine infrastructure and asset

analysis.

Analyst and Modeler - Loren Crawford is a skilled modeler, a business analyst, and a

talented utility, and natural resource economist, with a Master’s degree in economics

and specialized training in modeling and decision-science. Crawford and Tichotsky have

successfully provided analysis and policy implementation on some of the most difficult

Alaska issues related to services, taxation, and resource development.

International Marine Consultant – Kjetil Solberg was Operations Manager of TFDS Hurtigruten in Tromsø, Norway (www.hurtigruten.com) where he was in charge of new business developments and optimization of the line services. This company is a world-class example of a ferry privatization.

http://www.hurtigruten.com/



of 75

1.4.2. Resumes and background for RFP requirements

All resumes and bios for the MAP team can be found in Appendix B.

MAP consulting has assembled a highly experienced and qualified team for conducting the AMHS economic reshaping analysis in preparing this proposal. Our key team members each have well over three years of economic analysis and related relevant experience. Brief biographies summarizing relevant qualifications and experience for each key consulting team member are provided below.

We believe this team brings and excess of talent and experience to successfully

complete this task. All resumes and bios for the MAP team can be found in Appendix B.

We believe this team brings and excess of talent and experience to successfully

complete this task.

Perhaps most importantly, this team of specialists is willing to take on a study that

promises to propose fundamental change that under ordinary circumstances would

promise to be highly politicized and working on an aggressive schedule. However, we

believe that our team has the analytical skills, a superior and flexible methodology, and

the experience and fortitude to see the change you suggest in your proposal. While

seemingly simple a significant reduction in the costs to the State of the AMHS, while

maintaining growth in the communities serviced will mean significant change to a way of

conducting business in Alaska. The process will start with having the right tools to

address decisions, that in turn will make changes, that will enjoy success and

acceptance. This team is very confident that it will be able to provide you with the

deliverable you seek.

Please refer to our organization chart and a table matrix indicating the position title and description, summary of relevant experience, locations where the work will be performed, services to be performed, and estimated percentage of hours for this contract by proposed person under Appendix A. Selected references and detailed résumés are provided under Appendix B. Alaska business licenses for key consulting firms are provided under Appendix C.

1.4.3. Applicable education and experience of personnel

MAP asserts that the applicable education and experiences of the personnel designated

to work on the project are second-to-none. As is evident from their respective resumes

and bios in Appendix B and throughout this document, the team consists of highly

educated, licensed experts that collectively have the experience of working together and

tackling the toughest of assignments in successfully and in a timely manner.



of 75

Again, we have included an organization chart and a table matrix with significant detail indicating the position title and description, summary of relevant experience, locations where the work will be performed, services to be performed, and estimated percentage of hours for this contract by proposed person under Appendix A. In this section we have summarized the main relevant points of the MAP Team résumés. Mary Ann Pease, Owner and Principal Consultant, MAP Consulting LLC Mary Ann started MAP Consulting, LLC.in 2006, after an extensive career in Government Finance, Telecommunications, Utility management and project development. In 2006, Mary Ann turned her attention to a consulting practice(MAP) focused on all aspects of Finance, Budgeting, Business Strategies, Project Management and Development, Acquisitions, Mergers, Energy development, Business case analysis, Communications and PR. Major clients included international energy development – Resources Energy, Inc., State of Alaska, ANGDA, Municipality of Anchorage on numerous projects, Alaska Communications, the Knik Arm Crossing Project, CIRI, BBNC, Tindall & Associates, Ingalls & Snyder Investors , BBNC, and Chugach Alaska, MOA Assembly – primary focus is on the Financial Project assessments, Business case development, regulatory and federal approvals needed to progress the project, as well as the P3 Partnership aspect of the Crossing, extensive focus on the gas, Utility and electrical industry in Alaska. Her experience evaluating financial capacity includes: 5 years at Municipality of Anchorage as the OMB, Budget Officer and Financial planner – Health & Human Services, Water & Wastewater, Public Safety, Transit, Airport and Transportation; 3 years with the State of Alaska/ANGDA- Financial Capacity assessment of Railbelt Electric Utilities; and 3 years – Preparation, due diligence of Renewable Energy Loan Funds for Native and Village entities Mary Ann has been involved with financial assessment of project developments totaling well over $10 billion. She sits on the Oil & Gas Royalty Board for the SOA, has served on many Pension Fund Boards, and business advocacy boards and non-profits throughout the state. Mary Ann has a B.A. in Business/Economics from Albertus Magnus College, Connecticut, an MBA from the University of Bridgeport, CT and has completed the Wharton Executive Management Program. John Tichotsky, Ph.D. (Cantab.) Dr. John Tichotsky specializes in finance and economics of natural resource development and wealth management. He has worked in Alaska, Northeast Asia, Europe, and Central Asia, with recent experience in China. John Tichotsky also has



of 75

considerable experience as a project manager, an international resource negotiator, a privatization specialist, a real estate developer, a director for a junior mining company, and a senior analyst at a rating agency. He has a Ph.D. and Masters degree (Jesus College, Cambridge University), as well as a BA from Dartmouth College (New Hampshire). Dr. Tichotsky has considerable experience in privatization:

• John Tichotsky has decade of privatization evaluation in Chukotka, Russia in mining, oil

and gas, electricity, and subsistence resources, as an international advisor and

consultant for Roman Abramovich (Sibneft, Evraz).

• Conducted a project for the Chukotka Governor to look at the feasibility of purchasing an

ocean-going ferry to provide ferry service among Northeast Chukotka communities, with

the option of providing season service between Provideniya and Nome.

• John Tichotsky has over five years of US government privatization efforts in Mongolia

and the Russian Far East in multiple industries (electricity, communications, agriculture,

small business, oil and gas, mining, infrastructure, transport). This includes working on

issues related to voucher privatization.

• Tichotsky has credit rating analysis of Eastern European and post-Soviet regions for

bond issues that included privatization work. This includes work during the highly

successful Polish “shock therapy” economic transformation.

• Tichotsky was part of a Cambridge University study of electricity privatization in Europe.

Dr. John Tichotsky is well versed in financial flows within Alaska. He worked as the Chief Economist and Advisor to the Alaska Governor and the State of Alaska’s Department of Revenue, where he led a group of economists that provide the State of Alaska with policy advice on all of Alaska’s economic activities, especially investment and petroleum revenue. He is an expert in decision science, besides creating an Alaska based academic Master’s program that applied statistics to portfolio management, he also introduced decision science, including probabilistic modeling, as a backbone of the group’s work. The current OMB chief economist was a member of this group. John Tichotsky has authored definitive studies in northern regional economic development and Northeast Asian gas industry structure. He has worked extensively with rural and indigenous communities in Alaska, Russia, and Mongolia. Paul Fuhs Paul Fuhs has been specializing in Alaskan marine operations for the past 30 years to include analysis of marine operations to guide design, financing and construction of port facilities and the safety and efficiency of marine operations throughout Alaska. His experience began as owner of Aleutian Explosives in Dutch Harbor where he was a commercial diver specializing in port construction, vessel maintenance, emergency



of 75

response and the use of explosives underwater. He was later elected to be Mayor of Dutch Harbor where he led the efforts to build world class port facilities and infrastructure including facilities for the Alaska Marine Highway System. Paul also served as Business Agent for the Longshoremen’s Union in Dutch Harbor and is experienced in marine union practices, negotiations, work rules and cost factors. From 1990 to 1994, he served as Alaska’s Commissioner of Commerce and Economic Development and served as Chairman of the Board of AIDEA and the State Bond Bank which analyzed and financed several Alaska port facilities. At this time, Paul led the administration’s efforts to successfully establish Alaska’s Port Authority Act, one of the prime considerations for management of the AMHS. In 1995 he served as City Manager and Port Director of the Port of Nome and oversaw the $35 upgrade to the Port, based on analysis of current and future vessel traffic patterns. Paul was the founding President of the Board of the Marine Exchange of Alaska which provides vessel tracking services for the Coast of Alaska, vessel routing measures, emergency response and enforcement of state, national and international regulatory measures, including tracking and monitoring the operations of the Alaska Marine Highway System. Paul also served as the Executive Director of the North Slope Port Authority and also currently works as a maritime consultant specializing in Arctic port development, emergency response, and Northern Sea Route development for the Arctic Economic Council. Brian Murkowski, Principal, Brian Murkowski Energy Consulting, Anchorage, AK Mr. Murkowski has 25 years of experience in energy, banking, bond underwriting, strategic planning, business development, mergers and acquisitions, Mr. Murkowski has developed extensive practical experience in financial and credit analysis and forecasting. He holds a B.A. from Villanova University and an International MBA from Thunderbird, School of Global Management. Born and raised in Alaska, he worked as an international banker in Tokyo, with The Industrial Bank of Japan, where he engaged in risk analysis of large Asian infrastructure projects seeking long term debentures. In California, he worked as a commercial banker with the Taiwanese, General Bank. He was employed at Reliance Surety Corp., where he conducted daily financial analysis of over 20 construction industry clients seeking surety bonds. As Director of Strategic Planning and Corporate Development at Petro Star, he played a key role in working with governments related to financial analysis of potential corporate acquisition targets. As



of 75

Manager of International Business Development-Upstream, Asia Pacific for Repsol S.A. in Madrid Spain, he led and coordinated large, complex multi-disciplinary teams through acquisitions, divestitures and partnership efforts. As a Senior Staff Business Development Analyst in Anadarko’s Petroleum’s Worldwide Business Development group, he was responsible for “above ground’ risk for numerous oil and gas projects and bid efforts. As a Vice President at Resources Energy Inc, a Japanese led company trying to develop a Cook Inlet LNG export project, he oversaw Governmental and Regulatory affairs and assisted in strategy, planning, negotiations and financial analysis of potential partners and competitors. He is currently living and working in Anchorage as a consultant associated with several Alaska efforts including Cook Inlet LNG and the Alaska-Canada Rail project. Loren Crawford Loren Crawford is a life-long Alaskan, with experience in economics and finance with the State of Alaska, the Municipality of Anchorage, and the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. Loren has instructed at the University of Alaska Anchorage, and consulted privately for three years. He obtained his MA of Economics with the University of Arizona in 2012, and BA of Economics minoring in Mathematics with Brigham Young University Idaho in 2010. Loren has experience in econometrics, duration estimation, modeling oil production, financial pro formas, private and public project finance. He has experience forecasting demand and tax revenues related to: income, petroleum, mining, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, charitable gambling, fisheries, tourism (hotel and cruise ships), and tire sales. He consulted ISER in the construction of a permanent fund model. He has experience in regulated utilities and performed cost of service studies, revenue requirement studies, rate design studies, and budgetary financial planning. He has experience in economic impact analysis, constrained optimization methods (e.g. a logistical planning problem) and decision analysis. Don Dyer President, Mat-Su Economic Development Corporation, Wasilla, Alaska During his tenure with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough as the Economic Development Director, Dyer and the Port Director worked together to market the MV Susitna Ferry for nearly two years. He was the person that took calls, prepared information, and assisted potential buyers in evaluating the ship as a platform commercial enterprise. He also had an insider’s close-up view of the expensive and time-consuming aftermath stemming from the failure of the Mat-Su Ferry project to succeed and the small dollar maintenance errors that ended up costing the MSB and their insurance company millions. The MV Susitna was a highspeed turbine engine catamaran configured as a landing craft. Some industry examples of the commercial proposals made during his tenure applied to mining, dredging, marine logistics, transportation, emergency response, timber harvest, commercial fishing, tourism, salvage, environmental response and cleanup, etc. In the



of 75

course of these duties, he assisted potential buyers with constructing operating budgets and business cases based upon the known operating costs of the vessel. He was also involved in receiving offers for the purchase of the vessel and presenting these to MSB management. Eventually, after he had moved on, the MV Susitna was sold to the Philippine Red Cross. Kjetil Solberg Kjetil Solberg’s has stellar international connections in the marine industry, especially in Norway and Latin America, and together with own domestic and international experience we expect to catalyze your project with our top-notch and energetic team. Kjetil Solberg started his maritime career at a young age in his native Norway and at age 21 became the youngest commander on a NATO War Ship in the Royal Norwegian NAVY. At age 27 he was master mariner and a captain on Norwegian chemical tankers for the S.G.Steimler & Odfjell Tankers AS of Bergen Norway. After his sailing days Solberg Operations Manager of TFDS Hurtigruten in Tromsø, Norway (www.hurtigruten.com) where he was in charge of new business developments and optimization of the line services. He succeeded in creating the company’s tanker department and was the key person behind the “Civil Coast Guard Division” which revolutionized the Norwegian Coast Guard Model, and saved the Norwegian Tax payers for Billions of Norwegian Crones. Solberg founded his own shipping company as founder of Norline AS (www.norlines.com) in 1996 and become owners of the lines first vessels and logistical system which stretched from Kirkenes in Northern Norway to Lisbon in Portugal. In 1999, he profitably sold Norline and founded an operation in Adak, Alaska, where he established the world’s largest cod fishing and processing facility. The Company (Adak Fisheries LLC) still today holds the records for the high volume of cod, halibut & golden king crab processed in a single season opening. He also established his own Sub Sea and Dive operations. (Viking Sub Sea Services LLC) In 2008 Solberg sold his shares in Adak to an international company who later ceased the operations at Adak, due to the fishing closures in Western Alaska enforced by the federal government. In 2008 Solberg relocated to his wife’s native Panama and established himself at both the Atlantic and Pacific side of the Panama Canal. Today he owns and operates, together with his son, Sam Solberg, the IMS Group which, among other activities, is the largest subsea operator in Latin America.


http://www.norlines.com/



of 75

1.4.4. Firm’s experience completing similar projects on time and on budget

MAP Consulting LLC has a demonstrated record of completing similar projects on time

and on budget. Additional details and client lists for Mary Ann Pease and MAP

Consulting LLC are found in Appendix B of this document under her resume. However,

MAP’s recent notable government contracts include those with the Department of

Environmental Conservation, the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation and the

Alaska Mental Health Trust.

1.4.5. Firm history for timeliness and successful completion

All government contracts MAP Consulting has entered have been completed on time

and within the budget allotted. Additional information can be provided upon request.

1.4.6. Letters of reference from previous clients

References for all MAP team members can be found in Appendix B.

1.4.7. Subcontractors ability to perform and measure up

There are no plans for MAP to retain additional subcontractors to complete this RFP.

The ability to perform for all those who would work on this proposal are detailed within

this proposal.



of 75

2. Cost Proposal

The cost proposal has been provided in a separate electronic file as per the RFP

instructions.



of 75

Appendix A: Organization

Chart for Proposed AMHS

Economic Reshaping

Consulting Team



of 75

Appendix A.1. MAP Consulting Team Organization Chart



of 75

Appendix A.2. MAP Consulting Team Personnel Matrix

Consulting Team

Member and Title Experience in Evaluating Financial Capacity *

Locations Where Work

will be Performed

Services to be Performed by Team Member

Estimated % of Work

under this RFP

Mary Ann Pease, Contract and Team Lead; Primary Contractor

MBA, Over 30 years of broad-based management and finance experience

Anchorage, Alaska

Contract Management, Primary Client Contact, Team Management and Coordination, Financial Capacity Analysis, QA/QC

17%

John Tichotsky, Lead Economist

Ph.D., Chief economist State of Alaska and Dept Revenue; 25 years of experience privatization; decision science over eight years

Anchorage, Alaska

Lead economist, economic and decision-making analysis

17%

Paul Fuhs, Marine Consultant, Governmental & Regulatory Affairs

Over 30 years of consulting and government experience in Alaska

Juneau, Alaska

Lead marine consultant. Point person in Juneau, government and regulatory affairs

16%

Loren Crawford, Economic Planning & Modeling

Master’s degree, Extensive modeling, decision science, planning and financial expertise, more than five years

Anchorage, Alaska

Decision Analysis and Planning 17%

Brian Murkowski, Strategic Planning, Federal affairs

25 years of experience in in finance, banking, and energy

Anchorage, Alaska

Financial Capacity Analysis, Prospective Borrower Research, QA/QC

16%

Don Dyer, Business Advisor

President of Mat-Su Economic Development Corporation

Anchorage, Alaska

Business analysis, community economic development, experience selling n Alaska ferry

7%

Kjetil Solberg, International Marine Consultant

Over thirty years of experience

Panama International marine consultant, privatization restructuring, Norway experience

10%



of 75

Appendix B: References and

Résumés for Proposed Key

AMHS Economic Reshaping

Consultants



of 75

Appendix B.1. Key MAP Team Member References

Consultant Entity References

Mary Ann Pease MAP Consulting LLC Harold Heinze Former CEO of ANGDA, Commissioner of DNR, and ARCO President (907) 903-3623

Paul Bloom, Managing Partner Goldman Sachs 206-769-3387 Steve Klein First Infrastructure Managing Partner 973-626-3417

John Tichotsky Alaska Capital, LLC Dr. Helena Wisniewski, Professor of Enterprise, UAA (201)-675-4093 Michael Pawlowski, Chief of Staff, Sen Lisa Murkowski (202)-224-6665 Jack Ferguson, President, Jack Ferguson and Assoc. (202)-544-6655

Loren Crawford Loren Crawford Fritz Krusen VP, AGDC (907)-222-7417 Karen Bell Regulatory Affairs Manager Anchorage Water and Wastewater & Utility



of 75

(917)-626-6537 Ed King Alaska Chief Economist (907)-465-2008

Paul Fuhs Captain Ed Page, Executive Director, Marine Exchange of Alaska 907-321-0407 Marion Davis, Former Alaska Manager, Matson Shipping 907-351-1052 Thomas Mack, CEO, Aleut Corporation 907-561-4300

Brian Murkowski Brian Murkowski Energy Consulting LLC

Tom Hendrix VP of Oil & Gas Carlisle Transportation (907)-276-7797 Mark Johnson Business Development Manager, GCI Industrial Telecom (907)-868-5478 Roe Sturgulewski Alaska Operations Leader Arcadis U.S., Inc. (907)-276-8095



of 75

Don Dyer President, Mat-Su Economic Development Corporation

John Moosey Manager Mat-Su Borough Doug Clegg President Spring Creek Capital (206)-870-5900 James Wilson Sr Internal Auditor Mat-Su Borough (907)-745-9688

Kjetil Solberg Clem Tillion (907) 296-2207 or (907) 299-1909 Rich Monroe (907) 350-3185 Governor Frank Murkowski (907) 360-0601



of 75

Appendix B.2. MAP Team Résumés



of 75

Résumé of Mary Ann Pease

❑ PROFESSIONAL STRENGTHS

❑ Experienced in utility acquisition strategy

❑ Infrastructure, Telecommunications, oil, gas and utility operations

❑ Governmental relations

❑ Financial management

❑ Legislative and regulatory issues

❑ Community outreach and shareholder/investor relations

❑ Financial/Business case analysis, financial statement analysis and

policy recommendation

❑ Knowledgeable in strategic and operation plans for long-term fiscal integrity

❑ Ability to effectively manage long-term projects, communicate ideas for organizational

improvement and focus on cooperative endeavors to attain public relations or financial

goals for corporate name recognition or increased investor return.

❑ Communications and Government relations

❑ Participation in and Lead on the communications strategy, Public Outreach for numerous Infrastructure projects – for example; The Knik Arm Bridge project, Susitna Hydro, Truth about Pebble, CIRI wind farm, etc

❑ Presentation and Facilitator for the Title 21 process – Eagle River effort

❑ Participated in the communications strategy and outreach for many pro-business development projects for the mining, transportation and energy arenas

❑ Led the Government relations efforts on the deregulation of the Telecommunications Industry for ACS – both in DC and Alaska

❑ Oil and Gas Infrastructure project – responsible for Public meeting coordination and presentations; Buccaneer, Chevron (Drift River Facility), etc.

❑ As an officer in a publicly traded Communications company (ACS) participated in the Investor roadshows, government relations strategy and outreach, etc.

❑ Experience with business structure and business relationships

❑ Project lead on ML&P’s acquisition of Shell’s working interest in the Beluga River Field

❑ Part of the Lead Team central to ACS’ investor relations effort

❑ Directly responsible for the Alaska Operations of Aurora Power, a natural gas marketing company.

❑ Active on several business centric groups, Chambers, CWN, etc

❑ Experience with projected pro-forma financial statements

❑ Budget Office for Anchorage Water and Wastewater

❑ Responsible for the in-house development of AWWU’s financial management system and awarded MOA employee of the Year for project efforts

❑ Finance Director, ML&P – directly responsible for all aspects of financial reporting

❑ VP Investor Relations, ACS (NASDAQ:ALSK)

❑ Experience with projected pro-forma financial statements

❑ Finance Director of ML&P



of 75

❑ Budget Officer for OMB

❑ VP for Alaska Operations for Aurora

❑ Lead on the deregulation strategy for the Railbelt

❑ Review of gas contract proposals and negotiations under previous administration

❑ Experience with presenting business plan to bonding and rating agencies, securing financing

❑ Finance Office for ML&P, responsible for presentations to rating agencies

❑ Gas Acquisition presentation

❑ Issued millions of dollars of revenue and General Obligation debt at ML&P and the Municipality

❑ Member of ACS management team on various “road shows” to the investment community as a follow-up to the IPO

❑ Assuring that the business plan is consistent with financial and project plan

❑ ACS – VP Investor Relations, Corporate Communications

❑ ML&P, Finance Director

❑ Aurora Power, gas marketing and drilling operations financial forecasts and new venture analysis

❑ Business Plan Execution

❑ Board of Directors, ACS – Actively participated in the development of a Dashboard for ACS to include a Balanced Scorecard. Regularly monitored balanced scorecard metrics to ensure that company remains focused on creating economic value for shareholders

❑ Alaska State Chamber, Executive Committee

❑ Anchorage Chamber- Chairman Developed Strategic Business Plan

❑ Industry Experience

❑ Background includes all aspects of financial management, program management, project management, design-build and project execution for numerous resources projects. Responsible for the successful acquisition of the Beluga River gas field for Municipal Light and Power. As part of the acquisition, my primary focus was on the due diligence, contract negotiation and testimony before the regulatory commission of Alaska. I have successfully testified before regulatory agencies, municipal and state government as well as Federal agencies and commissions.

❑ November 2006 – present - MAP Consulting, LLC., owner. Focused on Business Strategies, Acquisitions, Mergers, Energy development Business case analysis, Communications and PR. Major clients include Resources Energy, Inc, Municipality of Anchorage on numerous projects, Alaska Communications, the Knik Arm Crossing Project, CIRI, BBNC, Tindall & Associates, Ingalls & Snyder and Chugach Alaska, MOA Assembly – primary focus is on the Business case development, regulatory and federal approvals needed to progress the project, as well as the P3 Partnership aspect of the Crossing, extensive focus on the gas and electrical industry in Alaska.



of 75

❑ July 2005 – November 2006 - Gas Pipeline Advisor for the Governor. As Gas pipeline advisor for the Governor responsible for the overall communications strategy, legislative initiatives and media and governmental relations portion of the gas pipeline project.

❑ Vice President, Corporate Communications (JANUARY 2001 – July 2005) for Alaska Communications Systems (ACS) and the Vice President, Finance & Investor Relations (October 1999 – January 2001) Ms. Pease was responsible for the company’s external relations, corporate communications, regulatory and legislative telecommunications strategy at State and Federal levels.

❑ Vice President of Alaskan Operations for AURORA POWER (July 1997 -October 1999) Responsible for all facets of operations in natural gas marketing for Alaska. Developed the deregulation strategy for Aurora Power to bring competition to the electric industry.

❑ Finance Director (January 1993 – July 1997) Municipality of Anchorage, Municipal Light & Power Responsible for the 1/3rd acquisition of the Beluga River gas field from Shell.

❑ Budget Officer and Fiscal Planner (March 1989 – December 1992) Municipality of Anchorage, Office of Management and Budget



of 75

John Tichotsky, Ph.D. (Cantab.)

PO Box 100363• Anchorage, AK, USA 99510 • Telephone: 1-907-885-1937 • email:

[email protected]

Finance, Economics, and Management

Dr. John Tichotsky specializes in finance and economics of natural resource development and wealth management. He has worked in Alaska, Northeast Asia, Europe, and Central Asia, with recent experience in China. John Tichotsky also has considerable experience as a project manager, an international resource negotiator, a privatization specialist, a real estate developer, a director for a junior mining company, and a senior analyst at a rating agency.

RECENT EMPLOYMENT

● Economic and Commercial Advisor, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (2017-2019) ● Chief Economist and Advisor to the Governor, State of Alaska (2015-2017) ● Chief Economist and Audit Master, Economic Research Group for the Tax Division, Department of

Revenue, State of Alaska. (2012-2015) ● Consultant, policy advice, government relations, economic analysis, interpretation for various

private and government clients. (1989 – present) ● International Policy Advisor to Roman Abramovich. (2001 – 2012) ● Economist, US Agency for International Development (1999) ● Member-manager and owner of Ledyard Group LLC a development company (2002 – 2017) ● Director Zoloto Resources, Ltd., a Canadian/US publicly-traded gold exploration company. (2006-

2012)

EDUCATION

● Ph.D. with a thesis entitled, Natural Resources Development in the Republic of Sakha: Russia's

Diamond Producing Region, Jesus College, Cambridge University (UK). (1997) ● Master of Philosophy with a thesis entitled, Natural Resource Development after Perestroika: Gold

and Tin Mining in the Russian Northeast, Jesus College, Cambridge University (UK). (1993) ● B.A. with a double major in economics and Russian language and literature, Dartmouth College (New

Hampshire, US). (1988)

BOARDS AND ADVISORY

● Advisor, US Arctic Research Commission. (2010-present) ● Board Member, Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, a consortium of

institutions conducting arctic research. (2008-2014) ● Institute Associate, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge. (2002-

present) ● Member, Treasurer, Secretary of the Board of Trustees, Sheldon Jackson College (Sitka,

Alaska) (2005-2008).



of 75

Paul Fuhs 319 E 11th Ave

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

(907) 351-0407

email: [email protected]

Birthdate: 3/27/49

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:

Paul Fuhs Professional Services, owner, 1994-present Professional services include

project development consulting, lobbying and public relations services on local, state

and federal transportation, natural resource development, and energy issues. Current

clients: Matson Shipping Lines (formerly Sealand Shipping) Carnival North America

LLC, Southwest Pilots Association, The Aleut Corporation, PND Engineers, Fairview

Business Association, NordAlaska Coal LLC, Marine Exchange of Alaska.

Alaska Seafarms, LLC, Alaska Longneck Farms, LLC, owner and partner, 2000 to

present, dive operations, management and regulatory compliance for geoduk clam

farms in Alaska

City Manager, Port Director, City of Nome, 1996

Contracted Political Advisor 1995, to the Alaska State Legislature on National Energy

and Environmental Affairs. Included public relations, coalition building and lobbying

Congress on ANWR and other issues.

Commissioner, Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, 1992

to 1994, Chief Executive of Cabinet level department responsible for Alaska's business

regulatory, economic development and international trade programs. The department

manages the state’s economic development advocacy and marketing in oil and gas,

fishing, timber, tourism, mining, energy and other services and industries. The

department maintains international trade offices in 8 nations, provides infrastructure

financing and regulates banking and securities, insurance, and occupational licensing.

Direct supervisor over 17 divisions, 440 employees and an annual operating budget of

$72 million - Juneau, Alaska.

mailto:[email protected]



of 75

Senior Legislative Liaison, Office of the Governor, 1992, Chief lobbyist for Governor

Hickel during 17th Alaska Legislative Session - Juneau, Alaska.

State of Alaska, Director of Economic Development, 1991 - 1992. Coordinating

Alaska's economic diversification program in resource industries, tourism,

manufacturing and small business assistance.

Aleutian Explosives, Owner 1983 - 1991 My company specialized in commercial

diving, underwater demolitions, disposal of hazardous materials, emergency response,

demolition of buildings, bridges and explosives consulting throughout Alaska

Professional Musician, 1985 to present, lead vocalist, keyboard and guitar player , for

various bands in Dutch Harbor, Juneau and Anchorage, Alaska

International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 1980-1983 Union

organizer, Business Agent, represented longshoremen and fish proccessing workers

before National Labor Relations Board and OSHA, negotiated contracts and led dispute

resolution - Dutch Harbor, Alaska

Commercial Fisherman, 1973-1974, Summer gillnet fishing in Bristol Bay

United States Army, 1969-1971 (MOS 97 DELTA) Military Intelligence Coordinator,

North Vietnamese linguist, honorable discharge. Development and administrative

operations of intelligence network centers.

BOARDS AND PUBLIC CORPORATIONS SERVED ON AS COMMISSIONER OF

COMMERCE : 1992 to 1994

GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS, Council Member

STATE BOND COMMITTEE, Chairman of the Board. Committee manages Alaska's

General Obligation bond debt.

ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY, Chairman of

the Board. Authority finances public infrastructure and secondary loans for Alaskan

business.



of 75

ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, Chairman of the Board. Authority finances and

manages large scale electrical installations in Alaska.

ROYALTY OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD, Member, Board of

Directors.

BOARD OF MARINE PILOTS, Board Member

ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION, Member, Board of Directors

HEALTH RESOURCES AND ACCESS TASK FORCE, Board Member

ALASKA SEAFOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, Board Member

ALASKA COASTAL POLICY COUNCIL, Board Member of council overseeing coastal

zone management program.

ALASKA AEROSPACE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Board Member of public

corporation developing commercial satellite launch and control sites in Alaska.

ELECTED POSITIONS AND VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS:

MAYOR OF UNALASKA/DUTCH HARBOR, ALASKA, 1985 - 1991 During my three

terms in office, this community became the #1 fishing port in the United States and a

major cargo transshipment center.

MARINE EXCHANGE OF ALASKA, 2000 to present, Founding President of non profit

organization uniting all segments of the Alaska maritime industry to provide vessel

tracking, monitoring and emergency response. www.mxak.org

JAPAN ALASKA SOCIETY, 2001 to present, Founding member of the Board of

Directors of organization dedicated to Japan/Alaska cultural and business relations.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, 1993 to 1994

Member, Board of Directors of national coalition of state Secretaries of Commerce and

international trade



of 75

THE NORTHERN FORUM, 1992 - 1995, Founding Secretary-treasurer of international

organization of Northern states, territories and republics to promote economic

development, environmental protection, technology exchange, tourism, etc. in the

Arctic.

JUNEAU ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, 1993 - 1996, Board Member of

local government council to formulate and implement economic development strategy

for Juneau, Alaska.

PORTS ALASKA, Founding Co-Chairman, 1988-1990 statewide coalition of Alaskan

ports organized for marketing, port personnel training and port development.

SOUTHWEST ALASKA MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE, Founding President, 1986-1988

organized highly successful regional coalition of Southwest Alaska communities

focused on state, national and international fisheries allocation and development issues.

ALASKA MARICULTURE ASSOCIATION, Founding President, 1986-1990

Association organized to promote favorable legislation and provide technical assistance

to the Alaska mariculture industry.

FOUNDATION FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION, ALASKA, Director of Business

Relations, founding Board Member, 1988-1992, This Foundation took a leadership role

in coordinating business and cultural relations between the USSR and Alaska during

the early years of US/USSR cooperation.

UNALASKANS AGAINST SEXUAL ASSAULT AND FAMILY VIOLENCE, (USAFV),

Vice President, instructor in self-defense for women. 1984-1988 Organization provides

support for victims of abuse and educates for prevention of abuse in Unalaska/Dutch

Harbor.

ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, Statewide organization of local Alaska local

governments, Member of Board of Directors, 1987-1990

HEALTH PLANNING EXPERIENCE: 1972-1976 Member: Anchorage Borough Health

Board, State Health Plan Task Force, Alaska State Comprehensive Health Planning

Commission.



of 75

EDUCATION: Resource economics, political science, research methods, debate and

foreign language at the following educational institutions:

West Anchorage High School

Saint Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota

Alaska Methodist University

Military Intelligence Center, Fort Holabird, Maryland, USA

Defense Language Institute, Biggs Field, Texas

University of Alaska, Anchorage

Languages spoken: English, Vietnamese, Spanish and Russian

AWARDS AND CERTIFICATIONS:

1992 ALASKA PROPELLER CLUB, Maritime Person of the Year

1990 ALASKA MUNCIPAL LEAGUE, Elected Official of the Year

LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS:

Alaska Explosives Handlers License Public Safety Diver

Dive Rescue Specialist Advanced Open Water Diver



of 75

RÉSUMÉ OF BRIAN MURKOWSKI

E-mail: [email protected] - Phone: 713-449-6263 Address: 3528 Vintage Circle, Anchorage, Alaska 99517

Experience: March 2015 – Present -Owner, Brian Murkowski Energy Consulting, LLC Vice President, Regulatory Affairs for Resources Energy, Inc., (REI) - REI is the North American subsidiary of Energy Resources, a Japanese company established to develop a 1mm ton/yr LNG project in Alaska’s Cook Inlet for export to Japan. Responsible for all regulatory and permitting issues. Involved in all negotiations with N. American investors, gas producers, local, state and federal agencies. January 2013 - April 2013 -Repsol USA Houston, Texas North American Business Developer - Part of a select, confidential, collaborative team tasked by executive management in Madrid with a multi-billion dollar corporate acquisition(s) in N. America Charged with collection, screening and analysis of financial and asset data on over 100 small and mid-cap oil & gas companies. Recommended acquisition targets to senior management that fell within criteria parameters April 2012 - January 2013 -Repsol S.A. Madrid, Spain Manager, International Business Development - Asia Pacific - Responsible for all business development activity in the Asia Pacific region for one of the world's major oil and gas companies Coordinated all groups contributing to the analysis and capture of producing or near producing oil and gas assets including geologic, engineering, legal, HSE, tax, financial, marketing, contracts and negotiation Prepared comprehensive reports on all oil and gas activities in the region and made recommendations to senior management on strategy and A&D Prepared and presented to Repsol E&P S.A., a comprehensive review of global gas supply and demand dynamics that influenced corporate LNG strategy and resulted in the divestiture of most LNG related assets Represented Repsol at international conferences and seminars related to Asia Pacific oil & gas



of 75

July 2011 - April 2012 -Repsol S.A. Madrid, Spain International Business Developer Europe, Africa & Asia - Part of a 4 member A&D team responsible for identification and capture of oil & gas companies and assets outside the Americas Led project efforts and managed data room visits for efforts in Norway, Mozambique, Australia and Papua New Guinea Coordinated all above and below ground groups and made recommendations to executive level decision makers Represented Repsol at conferences and seminars related to oil and gas in the eastern hemisphere Assisted European associates by transferring successful N. American business practices and advised management on US government energy policy March 2008 – July 2011 –Repsol USA, Houston, Texas Business Developer, Alaska & Canada Responsible for identification, analysis and capture of producing or near producing assets in Canada and Alaska. Coordinated data rooms visits and all above and below ground contributors on numerous projects.

Advised senior management on North American energy issues and policy as the organizations only government affairs asset. Regularly interfaced with national energy policy makers in Washington D.C. and the Canadian Provinces.

Prior Employment:

Anadarko Petroleum 2002 – 2008, Houston, Texas Senior Landman Senior Staff Business Development Analyst, Int’l Deepwater Exploration Senior Staff Business Development Analyst, Worldwide Business Development

Petro Star Inc. 1998 – 2002, Anchorage Alaska Director of Strategic Planning and Corporate Development

Reliance Surety Corp 1994 – 1996, Los Angeles, California Contract and Environmental Surety Bond Underwriter

General Bank 1993 – 1994, Los Angeles, California Management Trainee, International Trade Finance



of 75

The Industrial Bank of Japan 1991 – 1993, Tokyo, Japan Trainee, Country Analyst Southeast Asia & Oceania

Education: Master of International Business Management 1998 Thunderbird, The American Graduate School of Global Management, Glendale, Arizona

Bachelor of Arts & Science 1991

Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania

References:

Tom Hendrix

VP of Oil & Gas, Carlile Transportation, Tel: (907)-276-7797

Mark Johnson

Business Development Manager, GCI Industrial Telecom, Tel: (907)-868-5478

Roe Sturgulewski

Alaska Operations Leader, Arcadis U.S., Inc., Tel: (907)-276-8095



of 75

Loren Crawford 7250 N Sebastian Dr Wasilla, AK 99654

Phone: 907.707.8873 ⬥ E-mail: [email protected]

Experience

Commercial Analyst & Economic Advisor 1/2018 – 12/2018

Alaska Gasline Development Corporation

⬥ Lead the development of a world-class project finance model in three weeks to assist negotiations between

Sinopec, Bank of China, and China Investment Corporation

⬥ Interacted with Goldman Sachs to develop a financial strategy for the project

Utility Financial Analyst 9/2015 – 1/2018

Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility

⬥ Coordinated with internal staff to develop tariff changes for the board, Anchorage assembly and Regulatory

Commission of Alaska

⬥ Operated in multiple database software platforms including PeopleSoft (accounting), Maximo (operations),

Microsoft Access and other propriety databases based in SQL to extract management information

⬥ Formulated a cost of service study and rate study using a logical analytical approach using sound judgment and

decision-making methodologies

Petroleum Economist 3/2014 – 9/2015

Economist III 8/2013 – 3/2014

Economist II 12/2012 – 8/2013

State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, Tax Division, Economic Research Group

⬥ Developed a strong understanding of the exploration and development side of the fuel supply in the Cook Inlet

and then applied advanced Excel skills to model possible outcomes and develop recommendations

⬥ Exhibited a wide degree of creativity and latitude in researching and analyzing the oil and gas tax credits to

evaluate their performance against the opportunity cost, and other financial risks to develop an alternative strategy

to increase oil production in Cook Inlet while decreasing financial risks

⬥ Directed the publication of the Revenue Sources Book under extremely inflexible deadlines while simultaneously

fulfilling responsibilities in multiple concurrent projects and activities including being deeply embedded in

designing, implementing and testing the Tax Revenue Management System

⬥ Produced cogent presentations at the annual oil price forecasting session

⬥ Communicated clearly, persuasively, concisely, courteously and professionally with senior management,

employees, contractors as a business analyst and the public in my role as an economist and publisher

⬥ Analyzed and interpreted complex legal documents as a member of the AKLNG Finance Team and Marketing

Teams

Adjunct Professor 8/2013 – 5/2015

University of Alaska Anchorage

⬥ Instructed multiple macro- and microeconomics courses

Education

University of Arizona 8/2011 – 12/2012

⬥ Completed a Master’s of Economics with emphases in econometrics – a science based in probability, statistics,

and logical persuasion for estimation

⬥ Authored an analysis of different methods of estimation on treatment effect in duration models including



of 75

heteroskedasticity and varying sample size

Brigham Young University - Idaho 1/2007 – 12/2010

⬥ Earned a Bachelors of Arts in Economics with a minor in Mathematics and emphasis in finance

Volunteer Involvement Vice President; 10/2013 – 10/2015

Finance Committee Member 2/2018 – Current

North Lakes Community Council



of 75

Kjetil Solberg

• Brisas de Amador, Isla PericoPlaza Comercial #601-602 , Calzada de Amador, Panama, Republic of Panama

• Telephone: +50766185452

• Email: [email protected]

Kjetil Solberg started his maritime career at a young age in his native Norway and at age 21

became the youngest commander on a NATO War Ship in the Royal Norwegian NAVY. At age

27 he was master mariner and a captain on Norwegian chemical tankers for the S.G.Steimler &

Odfjell Tankers AS of Bergen Norway.

After his sailing days Solberg Operations Manager of TFDS Hurtigruten in Tromsø, Norway

(www.hurtigruten.com) where he was in charge of new business developments and optimization

of the line services. He succeeded in creating the company’s tanker department and was the key

person behind the “Civil Coast Guard Division” which revolutionized the Norwegian Coast

Guard Model, and saved the Norwegian Tax payers for Billions of Norwegian Crones.

Solberg founded his own shipping company as founder of Norline AS (www.norlines.com) in

1996 and become owners of the lines first vessels and logistical system which stretched from

Kirkenes in Northern Norway to Lisbon in Portugal.

In 1999, he profitably sold Norline and founded an operation in Adak, Alaska, where he

established the world’s largest cod fishing and processing facility. The Company (Adak Fisheries

LLC) still today holds the records for the high volume of cod, halibut & golden king crab

processed in a single season opening. He also established his own Sub Sea and Dive operations.

(Viking Sub Sea Services LLC)

In 2008 Solberg sold his shares in Adak to an international company who later ceased the

operations at Adak, due to the fishing closures in Western Alaska enforced by the federal

government.

In 2008 Solberg relocated to his wife’s native Panama and established himself at both the

Atlantic and Pacific side of the Panama Canal. Today he owns and operates, together with his

son, Sam Solberg, the IMS Group which, among other activities, is the largest subsea operator in

Latin America.


http://www.norlines.com/



of 75

Don Dyer P.O. Box 4289 Palmer, AK 99645 • (907) 841-6121 •

[email protected]

Qualifications Summary I have a 27-year track record of vision, results oriented leadership, and successful on time project delivery. My capabilities include:

• Business & Financial Analysis

• Project Management

• Operations Management

• Business Planning

• Budget Development & Management

• Requirements Documentation

• Technology Systems Design

• Public Speaking, Training & Seminars

Experience Relevant To This Project

May 2014 – Present - President & CEO - MatSu Economic Development Corporation

• Focused 2018 work heavily on international agricultural exports from Alaska to Asia.

• Traveled during 2017 - 2018 extensively to directly survey and document food production, import, processing, distribution, and retail systems in Japan, China, and Denmark.

• Attended World Food Summit in Copenhagen 2018

• Participated in Governor’s Trade Mission to China 2018

• Attended SIAL (the 3rd largest weeklong conference of its kind) food conference in Shanghai 2018.

• Delivered a major seafood marketing study for an Alaskan Native Corporation and Business Plan for the Japanese market.

• Directed the 2015 - 2017public outreach and government outreach campaign resulting in the awarding of a Certificate of Need for a 130 bed Skilled Nursing Facility.

• Consulted numerous to companies moving or considering a move the Mat-Su Valley.

March 2012 – April 2014 - Economic Development Director - Matanuska-Susitna Borough

Managed all aspects of Economic Development for the MatSu Borough

• Marketed the business opportunities in the MatSu locally, nationally and internationally. I led the team effort to market Port MacKenzie as an LNG port for 18 months, resulting in an MOU being signed between the MatSu Borough and a large Asian LNG port developer.

• Organized and led an all-volunteer Economic Development Organization of over 120 individuals working in 24 work groups to execute the MatSu Borough



of 75

Strategic Economic Development Plan. Our volunteers invested over 10,000 hours of project work per year.

• Delivered over 150 presentations, trainings, and speeches to the: Alaska Legislative Committees, Local Legislative Bodies, Business Conferences, Radio & TV, Chambers of Commerce, potential new businesses.

• Worked directly on the project to market and sell the MV Susitna Ferry. • Prepared and managed budgets for three fiscal years, totaling approximately

$400,000 per year. Education & Training 1988 – 1992 - Brigham Young University - Provo, Utah

Business Management/Accounting. 87 units finished.

Professional Training - Completed certification coursework with the International Economic Development Council.

• Technology-Led Economic Development

• Entrepreneurial and Small Business Development Strategies

• Development Marketing and Attraction

• Economic Development Ethics

• Real Estate Development & Re-Use

• Managing Economic Development Organizations

• Business Retention and Expansion



of 75

Appendix C: Alaska

Business Licenses for Key

MAP Team Members



of 75



of 75

Appendix D: Team member

anticipated effort matrix in

percentage of time and in

hours of effort



of 75

Appendix D: Team effort matrix by percentage of time and hours.

Researc

hD

ata

pro

cessin

gIn

terv

iew

ing

Modelin

g

Fra

min

g,

str

uctu

ring

Decis

ion

makin

g

exe

rcis

es

Solic

itin

g

exp

ert

and

sta

kehold

-

er

opin

ions

Pro

ject

writing

Pre

senting

Managin

g

Org

aniz

a-

tional

activi

tiy

Marine

exp

ert

ise,

busin

ess

researc

h,

and

mark

et

researc

hto

tals

Mar

y A

nn

Pea

se,

Co

ntr

act

and

Tea

m L

ead

; Pri

ma

ry

Co

ntr

act

or

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

0%

10

%1

5%

20

%3

5%

15

%1

00

%

Joh

n T

ich

ots

ky, L

ead

Eco

no

mis

t1

0%

5%

10

%1

0%

10

%3

%2

%2

0%

5%

0%

5%

20

%1

00

%

Pau

l Fu

hs,

Mar

ine

Co

nsu

ltan

t, G

ove

rnm

enta

l &

Reg

ula

tory

Aff

airs

10

%1

5%

10

%2

%1

5%

3%

10

%5

%5

%0

%5

%2

0%

10

0%

Kje

til S

olb

erg,

In

tern

atio

nal

Mar

ine

Co

nsu

ltan

t2

0%

2%

5%

3%

10

%0

%5

%5

%1

%0

%0

%4

9%

10

0%

Bri

an M

urk

ow

ski,

Stra

tegi

c

Pla

nn

ing,

Fed

eral

aff

airs

5%

5%

10

%3

%5

%5

%1

0%

20

%5

%2

%1

5%

15

%1

00

%

Lore

n C

raw

ford

, Eco

no

mic

&

Mo

del

ing

5%

5%

5%

55

%1

0%

3%

2%

10

%5

%0

%0

%0

%1

00

%

Do

n D

yer,

Bu

sin

ess

Ad

viso

r1

5%

1%

10

%3

%5

%2

%5

%1

5%

1%

0%

3%

40

%1

00

%

Researc

hD

ata

pro

cessin

gIn

terv

iew

ing

Modelin

g

Fra

min

g

Decis

ion

makin

g

exe

rcis

es

Solic

itin

g

exp

ert

and

sta

kehold

-

er

opin

ions

Pro

ject

writing

Pre

senting

Managin

g

Org

aniz

a-

tional

activi

tiy

Busin

ess

and

mark

et

researc

h

tota

ls

Mar

y A

nn

Pea

se,

Co

ntr

act

and

Tea

m L

ead

; Pri

ma

ry

Co

ntr

act

or

00

00

12

02

43

64

88

40

36

24

0

Joh

n T

ich

ots

ky, L

ead

Eco

no

mis

t2

41

22

42

42

47

.24

.84

81

20

12

48

24

0

Pau

l Fu

hs,

Mar

ine

Co

nsu

ltan

t, G

ove

rnm

enta

l &

Reg

ula

tory

Aff

airs

23

34

.52

34

.63

4.5

6.9

23

11

.51

1.5

01

1.5

46

23

0

Seco

nd

Mar

ine

Co

nsu

ltan

t2

82

.87

4.2

14

07

71

.40

06

8.6

14

0

Bri

an M

urk

ow

ski,

Stra

tegi

c

Pla

nn

ing,

Fed

eral

aff

airs

11

.51

1.5

23

6.9

11

.51

1.5

23

46

11

.54

.63

4.5

34

.52

30

Lore

n C

raw

ford

, Eco

no

mic

&

Mo

del

ing

11

.75

11

.75

11

.75

12

9.2

52

3.5

7.0

54

.72

3.5

11

.75

00

02

35

Do

n D

yer,

Bu

sin

ess

Ad

viso

r1

51

10

35

25

15

10

34

01

00

14

15

Sum

To

tal H

ou

rs p

er A

ctiv

ity

11

3.2

57

3.5

59

8.7

51

71

.95

12

4.5

34

.65

91

.51

87

97

.15

88

.66

12

73

.11

41

5

State’s€¦ · MAP CONSULTING LLC 11640 WOODBOURNE DR. ANCHORAGE, AK 99516 USA Page 3 of 75 f....

Documents

Transcript of State’s€¦ · MAP CONSULTING LLC 11640 WOODBOURNE DR. ANCHORAGE, AK 99516 USA Page 3 of 75 f....