4d
COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 4d ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting November 8, 2016 DATE: November 1, 2016 TO: Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer FROM: Jeffrey Brown, Director AV Facilities and Capital Program Wendy Reiter, Director, Aviation Security, Airfield Security Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management Group SUBJECT: Airport Automatic Baggage Tag Reader Replacement (CIP #C800802) Amount of this request: $1,145,000 Total estimated project cost: $1,160,000 ACTION REQUESTED Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to (1) execute contracts for the purchase of equipment for the automatic baggage tag reader replacement project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in an amount not to exceed $1,145,000 and (2) utilize Port crews and small works contracts to perform construction, for a total estimated project cost of $1,160,000. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project will improve reliability and maintainability of the airport's outbound baggage system. The project will replace six obsolete Automatic Tag Readers (ATRs) at the Airport. ATRs perform a critical function in the Airport's baggage handling system. ATRs use a laser array to read the bar codes on the bag tags as baggage is conveyed through the system, enabling bags to be directed to the correct destination. Malfunctioning ATRs severely hamper airline baggage performance along with customer service by causing bags to be misdirected resulting in lost or delayed bags. JUSTIFICATION This project contributes to the Port's Century Agenda goal to meet the region's air transportation needs at the Airport for the next 25 years. Although not currently malfunctioning, the existing ATRs have exceeded their useful lives and are no longer supported by the manufacturer leaving them unmaintainable. Staff believed that these ATR's would last until the Baggage Optimization project, but due to the schedule development of the project and the decision by Accusort (the equipment manufacturer) to no longer support the existing equipment with parts or technical support, a gap was realized. These new ATRs, which replace the six obsolete devices, will be in place for over three years until the systems they are part of Template revised September 22, 2016. COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 4d____ Page 2 of 4 Meeting Date: November 8, 2016 are replaced by the Baggage Optimization project at which time they will be utilized for replacement parts or reused elsewhere. Replacing the ATRs will accomplish the following: (1) Increase baggage system reliability (2) Make the ATRs maintainable should an equipment fault arise. DETAILS Scope of Work The following items comprise the scope of the ATR replacement: (1) Procure and install new ATRs; (2) Modify baggage conveyor sides to accommodate new ATR; (3) Install control wiring; (4) Revise system programming (through Brock sole source); (5) System commissioning; and (6) Demo of existing ATRs. New ATRs will be installed on the C25 system (1), the C96 system (1), and the C88 system (4), for a total of six (6) ATRs. Schedule This action requests construction authorization to enable ATR replacements to be in place prior to Summer 2017 peak activity. Project will utilize Port Construction Services (PCS) in order to meet the schedule requirements. This type of work has been performed by PCS in the past. Construction start 2017 Quarter 1 In-use date 2017 Quarter 2 Cost Breakdown This Request Total Project Planning $15,000 Construction $1,145,000 $1,145,000 Total $1,145,000 $1,160,000 ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED Alternative 1 Do not proceed with this project and wait for Baggage Optimization to replace. Cost Implications: $0 Pros: (1) No capital expenditure. Template revised September 22, 2016. COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 4d____ Page 3 of 4 Meeting Date: November 8, 2016 Cons: (1) Risk of failure from one or more of the existing ATRs resulting in poor customer service and cost impacts to airlines from lost or delayed bags. Failure would also result in costly corrective maintenance costs. This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 2 Fund partial replacement of ATRs with longer service durations Cost Implications: $1,000,000 for C88 system (4 total) or $840,000 C25 and C96 systems (2 total) Pros: (1) Partial ATR replacement would mitigate risk on some conveyance systems but not all. (2) This strategy would save the additional cost of equipment procurement and electrical scope for a substantial savings. (3) This would enable Maintenance and the new equipment manufacturer to support additional conveyor lines however all sortation would not be supported. Cons: (1) Same con as Alternative 1. This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 3 Replace six existing ATRs Cost Implications: $1,160,000, Pros: (1) Increases system reliability and reduces the chance that a traveler's bags will be lost or delayed due to failing equipment; (2) Enables maintenance and support by the ATR manufacturer and Aviation Maintenance; and (3) Protects Air Carriers from the cost of lost or late baggage caused by ATR malfunction. (4) The equipment will increase reliability of these baggage systems, resulting in reduced unplanned corrective maintenance costs. Cons: (1) This equipment will be replaced by the proposed Baggage Optimization project. Although it may be possible to relocate this equipment in the future, current plans are to keep it in place for approximately three years. This is the recommended alternative. Template revised September 22, 2016. COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 4d____ Page 4 of 4 Meeting Date: November 8, 2016 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary Capital Expense Total COST ESTIMATE Original estimate $1,800,000 $0 $1,800,000 Cost reduction (-$640,000) (-$640,000) Revised Estimate $1,160,000 $1,160,000 AUTHORIZATION Previous authorizations $15,000 $0 $15,000 Current request for authorization $1,145,000 $0 $1,145,000 Total authorizations, including this request $1,160,000 $0 $1,160,000 Remaining amount to be authorized $0 $0 $0 Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds This project was included in the 2016-2020 Capital Budget and Plan of Finance with a total budget of $1,800,000. The funding source is the Airport Development Fund. The original budget was decreased from $1.8M to a new value of $1.16M based upon a more accurate estimate performed by Port Cost Estimators utilizing historical data. Financial Analysis and Summary Project cost for analysis $1,160,000 Business Unit (BU) Terminal (Baggage System) Effect on business performance NOI after deprecation will increase (NOI after depreciation) IRR/NPV (if relevant) N/A CPE Impact $0.02 The costs are being amortized over three years due to likely replacement with the Baggage Optimization project. Future Revenues and Expenses (Total cost of ownership) After replacement, the equipment will increase reliability of these baggage systems, resulting in reduced unplanned corrective maintenance costs. ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST None PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS None Template revised September 22, 2016.
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.