Exhibit C Minutes Exhibit C
Port Commission Regular Meeting of June 13, 2017
Since 1938
Jvs
» Inc.
13 June 2017
Analysis of Evaluation Scoring for Ivar’s Proposal
Lease Group 3 Food Service Single Unit 15
SUMMARY: A FLAWED PROCESS
A careful review of the Port's process and the way it was carried out raise many serious
doubts about whether the process was capable of meeting the goals established by the Commission
as well as whether the Port staff executed the process well. For example:
oe The interview was a sham:
o Ivar’s was told at the conclusion of its interview in November that it was not being
selected, even though other competitors for the space had not yet been interviewed
and a decision wasn’t made until June.
o The interview was profoundly unprofessional. More than 20 of 30 minutes was
spent responding to the consultant's personal issues with gluten. This denied Ivar's
the ability to provide critical information to augment its written proposal and
address questions on more significant topics.
o Itis clear from the panel's written evaluation that information Ivar’s presented in
the interview was never considered.
e The Evaluation Panel was simply not qualified:
o The evaluation panel selected by the Port staff was not qualified to render
judgments about the financial capability, operational excellence or design of a
restaurant. None have operated a business enterprise, let alone a restaurant. The
outside consultant knew little, if anything, about the Pacific Northwest market.
e Scoring was seriously flawed:
o Scoring ignored the written rules regarding page limits.
o lIvar’s was downgraded for not altering the chain’s branding to “keep up with the
airport's improvements.” Expecting an iconic brand with many local outlets to
change its branding at one location (the airport) reflects the panel's lack of
experience.
o Questionable judgment in scoring - e.g. in the management and staffing section -
how reliable is the scoring when applicants who have never operated the concept
they are presenting get more points for management and staffing than an operation
that is said to be the most successful airport restaurant per square foot in the
country?
e The integrity of the process was violated:
1001 Alaskan Way © Pier 54 © Seattle, WA 98104 * 206-587-6500 * Fax 206-624-4895
wWww.ivars.com
o The Airport Leasing manager, Port CEO, and another airport concessionaire told us
that we would not been selected even before the process concluded.
e The process didn’t consider certain very important things:
Oo There was no green goal, either for environmental efficiency of operations or for
best use of building materials. The scoring for capital investment specifically
violates the Commission's stated goal to “Improve efficiency and affordability in the
unit build out process.” This is not only the most wasteful, anti-environmental
approach; it is the most harmful to the future profitability of operators.
Despite the Commission's goal to strengthen the airport's Northwest Sense of Place,
this process assigned that goal virtually no value.
The airport staff said it could not and would not consider Ivar’s performance at the
airport. Yet in making its announcement of the winner, the Port called attention to
the winner's experience at SeaTac.
There was no risk analysis considering the higher risk of start-up businesses,
compared with our 79 years in business.
Despite the Commission's goal of growing revenues, the process gave no
consideration to an applicant's ability to satisfy customers. (Example: this process
displaces Sea-Tac's restaurant producing the highest customer-satisfaction scores.)
o The process created disadvantages for existing operators:
oO The evaluation included no criterion to measure Customer Service or Customer
Choices. Don't we exist to serve customers at the airport. Why was this not a factor
in the decision
The point system created an incentive to spend as much as possible on new capital
investment. An existing operator was penalized substantially if it did not tear out its
existing facility.
Setting the same page-limits for new and existing operations is inherently
unreasonable. No responsible operator can answer certain questions in as brief a
manner as an applicant who has never operated the concept being proposed. Then,
refusing to score the information provided because of this unreasonable limitation
is very effective technique to prevent an existing operator in a very competitive
location from being selected.
e Errors of fact by evaluators:
Oo The written evaluation misstates facts about Ivar’s, leading one to question how
much care and attention to detail the evaluators were applying.
EVERY POINT MATTERS:
When the Port notified Ivar’s last week that we were not selected to lease Unit 15 in the
Central Terminal, it provided an analysis of its scoring system. Of 150 points available, the winner
scored 128.4 points, and Ivar’s scored 123.2 points, a difference of 5.2 points. To underscore how
important every element in the scoring was, consider that the difference between Ivar’s score and
the highest was less than one point per category. Even tenths of a point mattered.
COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSIS AND SCORING:
In its Basis for Award, the Port draws attention to the winning “who has worked for HMS
Host as a director of operations, including at Sea-Tac Airport,..." And with her partner,
“...demonstrated quality and a depth of experience in their proposal.” “...by a strong demonstration
of relevant previous airport experience in all areas.”
In media interviews since the award, Lance Lytle has consistently reported that one factor
which favored the selection of the winner was its experience at Sea-Tac Airport. Yet, Airport
Leasing Manager Lionel Vincenti, in explaining why Ivar’s was not chosen, stated that the Port
could not and did not factor Ivar’s experience and performance at Sea-Tac in its evaluation.
How does Sea-Tac Airport experience work to the benefit of one proposer, but not a long-
time tenant such as Ivar’s?
In the section Background, Experience and Financial Capacity, there were 20 points
available, and Ivar’s scored 16. It appears that Ivar’s was penalized for having submitted one too
many pages. Five pages were allowed, but we included a page of trade references, per the RFP.
The list of all of our stores could not be provided along with the other answers within the
pages allowed. The limit on pages disadvantages the most capable applicant. To be penalized for
having other, related successful operations is unjust. Even with the list of stores, it is not clear the
panel considered them.
“The Respondent provideda list of stores, ... including the Pike Place Market...” Ivar’s has
no store in the Pike Place Market. A description of our current operations was available to discuss
in our 30 minute in-person meeting with the Port in November 2016, but instead, the Port's
consultant forced the Ivar’s interview to focus 2/3 of its time reviewing gluten labels on the menu.
In the section, Concept Development, there were 25 points available, Ivar’s was awarded
24. There is no clear reason for docking one point. The Port asked for “...submissions specifically
oriented to and priced for children...” and we provided a children’s menu (copy attached).
The evaluators commented: “Gluten free menu items are mentioned in the text, but they are
not visible on the menu.” There was no request identify gluten-free options in the proposal, but we
mentioned them nonetheless. In our presentation to the panel, more than 20 minutes of our time
was taken up talking about gluten labels -- most likely because of the Virginia-based consultant's
personal gluten allergy.
While the interview process was unprofessional, it may also have been useless. By the time
of the November question and answer session, the decision had already been made not to award
the lease to Ivar’s. On Nov 17, as the Ivar’s team left the interview - which was before the
committee had met all proposers and before it had discussed the Ivar’s interview -- Lionel Vincenti
told Bob Donegan Ivar’s would not be renewed. This same point was made to Donegan again in
January by Ted Fick and again in March by the HMS Host manager.
“No specific concept description was provided.” This is not true. This description appeared
at the top of the very first page:
Ivar’s proposes to operate an Ivar’s Fish Bar in space CT-20. The Fish Bar will specialize in
regional seafoods including but not limited to fish, fish and chips, grilled seafoods, made to order
fromfresh local or regional and wild ingredients. This is similar to the menu that Ivar’s offers in
its 23 seafood bars andfish bars around Puget Sound, including only wildfinfish and regional
favoritesfrom Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska.
We will also make salads to order, including our award winning Caesar salad with blackened
salmon atop it. To accommodate our earlier travelers, we will make breakfastsfresh to order
(including the best breakfast item in the airport—our toasted English muffin with Dungeness crab,
a poached egg, and melted cheddar cheese), side dishes, fruit, cereals,fresh cookies and snacks, soft
drinks and bottled waters. We will offer ourfoods To Go in paper bags, or on a trayfor our guests
who want to use the tables and chairs in the Central Terminal,
Inexplicably, despite the comment about no concept description, the very next page in the
port's evaluation states, “The concept has strong, local brand recognition and has been in
continuous operation since 1938.”
In its comments on store design, the evaluation committee stated: “They could have offered
a more updated version to keep up with the Airport's improvements.” This is the best indication
that the committee was unqualified. It would be detrimental to alter the look of our brand in just
one location. Our design is consistent with what our customers know as uniquely Ivar’s. The Sea-
Tac Ivar’s is built of heritage materials (tile, galvanized metal, beveled wood siding) to match the
original Fish Bar Ivar opened on Pier 3 (now Pier 54) in 1938. The “updated versions” of our
proposed investment are in the highly efficient equipment, systems, and infrastructure.
In the section Unit Design, Materials & Capital Improvement, there were 25 points
available, Ivar’s was awarded 18.4. Ivar's was penalized for choosing the most environmentally
responsible path. We were asked to provide a “selection of appealing and durable materials
(including sustainable materials)..."The most sustainable materials are those which are reused.
Unlike other bidders, Ivar’s proposed to RETAIN ALL INFRASTRUCTURE rather than demolish
perfectly maintained infrastructure and rebuild it new. So all electrical, plumbing, walk in coolers,
communications, natural gas, HVAC would remain. We proposed spending our funds on more
efficient equipment, lighting, and surface materials, rather on demolition and needless replacement.
Our capital expense was lower than other proposals, which allowed Ivar’s to propose higher rent to
the Port.
With regard to capital investment, Ivar’s was docked most severely. Out of a possible 10
points, Ivar’s was awarded 5.4, the biggest detriment in the evaluation. The committee claimed:
“The respondent did not provide a description of the materials...” Clearly, these materials already
exist in the current store, and they also were provided at the in-person interview with the Port,
including sample wall tiles, stainless steel, floor tiles, etc. That this was provided in the interview
but ignored further demonstrates that the decision against Ivar’s was made before the interview.
But the real issue is that the Port process specifically incentivizes bidders to spend as much as
possible on new capital investment. An existing operator is penalized substantially if it did not tear
out its existing facility. The markdown from this anti-incumbent, anti-environmental, anti-
economic grading system alone accounted for nearly all the point margin by which Ivar’s lost.
In the section Financial Projections and Financial Offer, there were 20 points available,
Ivar's was awarded 19.8 points. Because of our efficient approach to capital reinvestment, lvar’s
was able to offer the Port higher rent. And while “The pro forma indicates a very strong
profitability,” the Virginia-based consultant did not believe our sales projections and challenged our
ability to produce the number of meals, projected revenues, and labor and product costs. When we
explained at our presentation that they were based on 11 years of operating results, the consultant
stated: “We can’t consider those facts in this proposal.”
In the section Management, Staffing, Operations and Environmental Responsibility,
there were 20 points available, Ivar’s received 19 points.
“Page limit was exceeded.” Again, Ivar’s appears to have been penalized for having
provided too much information. We were allowed six pages, not including maintenance schedules.
We provided seven pages ofwhich 3.5 pages were a description of maintenance descriptions, which
was exempted from the limit (“A maximum of six pages may be submitted for this section, not
including any maintenance schedules.”) How did this violate the page limit?
“The Respondent did not provide the means to track and document the cleaning or the
preventative maintenance schedules.” This was available for discussion at the in-person interview
in November, but we were forced to spend our time talking about gluten-free menu labels instead.
Ivar’s is documented at Sea-Tac as being one of the best tenants with regard to maintenance and
cleanliness. It served as an example for other restaurants at the Airport. We kept our restaurant as
clean as the day it opened.
Our staffing schedule was not even considered by the committee: “The staffing schedule
cannot be considered as a part of the submittal, as it was on a page that exceeds the limit for this
section.” The RFP was unclear on which pieces of information were included or not included in the
page limit.
There were seven points available for Management and Staffing, and Ivar’s was awarded six.
There is no explanation for the penalty of one point - despite having the same management team
open and operate the Sea-Tac store for 12-years running, the lowest turnover among employers at
the Airport, the highest pay and best benefits. No deficiencies were noted in the evaluation. Why
the penalty?
In the Section, Job Quality, Workforce Training, Employment & Service Continuity
There were 20 points available, [var's was awarded 18. There is no explanation why ivar’s did not
receive a perfect score. The evaluation noted our low turnover, long tenure, good career
opportunities, and no deficiencies were noted. All wages and benefits for our employees were
accurately described. Yet we were penalized in this score.
In the section, Small Business Participation, there were 20 points available, Ivar’s was
awarded 8. The points awarded in this section were deemed of equal importance as background
and experience and financial capability and rent offer. Ivar’s is not certified as a small business, so
our proposal was docked 10 points automatically, but no explanation was given for being penalized
two additional points. A process not biased against incumbents would evaluate the extent to which
a vendor uses small and minority businesses. Despite our efforts to work with, source from, and
mentor small business (many times at the request of the Port), Ivar’s received no credit.
This analysis of the scoring of our proposal demonstrates inherent bias against incumbent
operators and businesses not qualifying as small, as well glaring inconsistencies and inaccuracies in
in scoring, refusal to consider Ivar’s existing performance at Sea-Tac, and penalizing Ivar’s, in
essence, for being a Seattle icon.
Ivar's is the most honored restaurant at SeaTac and is considered among the best airport
restaurants in the United States. That the Port of Seattle would send it packing is a sad indictment
of both the design and the conduct of its leasing process. We humbly request the Port Commission
review this process and the scoring.
De
Bob Donegan
Attachments: Protest Letter 8 June 2017
Additional Information for Interview 17 November 2016
Since 1938
vs
» Inc.
Port of Seattle Commission By e-mail and paper mail
Dave Soike, Interim CEO
Pier 69
2711 Alaskan Way
Seattle, WA 98104
8 June 2017
RE: Ivar’s Inc. Protest of Sea-Tac Airport Lease Group 3 Evaluation Process:
CEP Food Service Single Unit 15
This letter serves as notice of Ivar’s protest of the Port of Seattle evaluation
Terminal at Seattle-Tacoma
process for Food Service Single Unit 15 in the Central
International Airport. Ivar’s is the incumbent tenant of this location, operating Ivar’s
Fish Bar since 2005. The integrity of the process has been breached by actions of the
Port and its employees. In addition, the evaluation process itself is fundamentally
flawed. Ivar’s demands that the Port of Seattle nullify the results of this evaluation.
Summary: The Process was a Travesty
As the following letter shows, the Port will be losing one of its best vendors.
Ivar’s produces some of the airport’s highest sales per square foot, pays the Port some
ofthe highest percentage sales, has earned the highest satisfaction and won the most
awards of any restaurant at SeaTac, has the highest participation and cooperation in
airport programs and initiatives, has the most stable and generously compensated
workforce, and treats the Port’s travelers to one of the Northwest’s favorite brands.
Quite obviously, a process that would reject such a vendor was fundamentally
flawed. What a shame if the Commission cannot act to prevent this travesty to a loyal
business party and its 33 employees, and what a loss to the hundreds of thousands of
satisfied travelers through SeaTac.
Breach of Process Integrity
In September 2016, Ivar’s submitted in good faith a response to the Port’s
Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP). Our proposal was evaluated by a Port staff
panel, primarily composed of employees without any concessions management
experience nor knowledge of Ivar’s performance at Sea-Tac over the past 12 years. In
1
1001 Alaskan Way © Pier 54 © Seattle, WA 98104 « 206-587-6500 Fax 206-624-4895
www.ivars.com
addition, staff were assisted by the Port’s consultant, Ann Ferraguto, based in
Alexandra, VA, who lacks knowledge of the local Seattle restaurant market. The near
complete turnover of the Airport’s ADR staff in the last two years has drained the Port
of any expertise to evaluate restaurant proposals. Nonetheless, Ivar’s presumed that
our proposal would be evaluated with the highest degree of impartiality and respect.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
In November 2016, in the midst of the evaluation process, the Port’s former
ADR Manager, Lionel Vincenti, informed me that that Ivar’s proposal was too short
and did not go into enough detail. Mr. Vincenti also stated that Ivar’s should have
attended a CEP briefing session to be better prepared to submit a proposal.
Attendance logs will substantiate that Ivar’s participated with three to four staff
members at every session. Further, Mr. Vincenti stated that Ivar’s had donea terrible
job in assembling a proposal, and that the panel would not consider Ivar’s
performance over the past 12 years at SeaTac in its evaluation. These comments,
during the evaluation process, are a glaring indication of a prejudice against Ivar’s
proposal.
During Ivar’s 30-minute interview with the evaluation panel, Ms. Ferraguto
devoted more than 20 minutes to questioning Ivar’s practices for informing customers
about gluten-free alternatives. Ms. Ferraguto refused to accept Ivar’s approach based
on the findings of the Seattle Menu Labeling process which determined that staff
knowledge of gluten-free alternatives, available brochures and website information is
preferable to adding confusing information to already crowded menu boards. Ms.
Ferraguto apologized for devoting nearly all of the session to this question, but offered
her own personal gluten sensitivity as the reason. This demonstrates that the
evaluation panel had no interest in asking any other questions or allowing Ivar’s the
ability to elaborate on its history at Sea-Tac or its proposal. This in turn indicates that
the panelist decision was predetermined before this interview.
Walking out of the interview on November 17, Mr. Vincenti informed me that
Ivar’s was not selected for a new lease at Sea-Tac, and in fact, was ranked third. In
January 2017, former Port CEO Ted Fick informed me that Ivar’s proposal was too
long and went into too much detail, and therefore could not be considered because of
its length. This is the same proposal that Mr. Vincenti deemed too short and lacking in
detail. And finally, in March, an HMSHost Manager approached staff at Ivar’s Fish
Bar in the Central Terminal and expressed regret that Ivar’s “will be leaving the
airport.”
Comments by both Mr. Vincenti and Mr. Fick, during the evaluation process,
Port
are evidence of a prejudice against Ivar’s proposal. The degree to which
employees have shared their opinions about Ivar’s proposal and released confidential
information about an ongoing process to third parties is astounding. The integrity of
the evaluation process has been breached and the process rendered invalid.
Unqualified Evaluation Panel
The evaluation people we met in our interview who were selected by the Port
staff were not qualified to render judgment about the financial capability, operational
excellence, customer service standards nor design of a restaurant. None appeared to
have operated a business, let alone a restaurant in an airport. The panel spent 20 of
our allotted 30 minutes arguing how to inform customers about gluten free menu
alternatives rather than asking questions about our proposal.
Flawed Evaluation Process
The intent with the Port’s new CEP process was to make competing for a space
at Sea-Tac less about evaluating an elaborate proposal, and more about the substance
ofthe proposer. In fact, many times over the past decade, Port staff repeatedly
advised Ivar’s to “just keep doing what you are doing” and suggested that Ivar’s
exemplary performance would be a key factor in evaluating its ability to continue to
operate at the airport. The Port often asked Ivar’s Sea-Tac team to meet with potential
proposers, especially small and DBE restaurant operators, to offer advice on operating
at Sea-Tac “because Ivar’s is the best at the airport.”
In fact, since Ivar’s opened in the Central Terminal at Sea-Tac in 2005, it has
been recognized 17 times by 16 different media and other organizations as among the
“Best Airport Restaurants” in the country (see the attachment). National and
international media have characterized Ivar’s at Sea-Tac as quintessentially Seattle
and a symbol of the Pacific Northwest. Ironically, our most recent award for
environmental excellence, announced last month is from...
The Port of Seattle !
With Ivar’s stellar track-record and strong local brand identity, we find it
baffling that an evaluation panel could conclude that Ivar’s is not worthy of operating
at Sea-Tac and that our loyal customers are not deserving of our offering. We
conclude that the evaluation process is fundamentally flawed to produce a “no-
confidence vote” based on these criteria outlined in the Request for Proposals:
Experience and Financial Capability
Ivar’s has been in continuous local operation for 79 years. With our many
locations from Bellingham to Tacoma and Spokane and in stadiums around Puget
Sound, Ivar’s has demonstrated its ability to build and operate high volume
restaurants in our diverse communities. It is virtually inconceivable that Ivar’s would
not be the highest rated applicant in this category, had the Port fairly and fully
considered our information.
Concept Development
Ivar’s is unique as a Seattle brand that is known worldwide. No other local
concept has been as recognized as Ivar’s and our brand strength in the Seattle market
is evidenced by our sales performance. For instance, our Sea-Tac location serves
more than 14,000 cups of chowder each week out of a space of 1,142 sq ft, not
including the free chowder we donate for the USO for every service member passing
through Sea-Tac. What better symbol of a local concept is there than Ivar's chowder?
Unit Design
From our corrugated metal detailing and vintage neon sign to a portrait of our
flounder Ivar Haglund, our location at Sea-Tac is not only solidly built with
environmentally friendly materials, it is functional in order maximize customer
service. The Sea-Tac Ivar's is easily associated with our brand outside the airport.
The Port designed the scoring system to substantially downgrade our proposal
because we reused much of our leasehold and reduced our investment cost. This is
patently biased against the incumbent and, moreover, penalizes the most
environmentally sustainable approach—reusing the existing materials.
Financial Projections and Offer
Ivar’s has paid the Port more than $5 million in rent while at Sea-Tac, largely
due to the growth in its revenues. Ivar’s is a proven customer favorite and pays the
highest percentage rent of any restaurant tenant in the Central Terminal. (We
proposed to INCREASE that percentage in a new lease!) Ivar’s has passed every Port
audit without discrepancies, and we have never missed a rent payment nor had its
Letter of Credit arrive late. With our 12 years of experience operating at Sea-Tac, we
understand and developed solid financial projections and provide the appropriate
financial offer to the Port for mutual benefit. (Air Projects’ Ferraguto challenged our
sales and labor cost projections and pronounced them unachievable, DESPITE OUR
12 YEARS OF SIMILAR RESULTS, another indication of bias against Ivar’s.) If
another proposer is speculating on higher sales volumes than Ivar's or is offering
higher rent, the Port should question the feasibility of such a proposal.
Management, Staffing, Customer Service and Environmental
Sustainability
Our management team of Suzette (20 years with Ivar’s), Tony (12 years), Paul
(36 years) and Joyce (12 years) that opened the Sea-Tac location in 2005 is still our
management team 12 years later. By contrast, the Port staff turnover has led to a
merry-go-round of concessions managers. Nonetheless, Ivar’s has been a consistent
top performer. Ivar’s routinely hears from Port staff that we are the model tenant in
the airport.
The same attention to relationships is part of our customer service ethic. Of the
more than 3 million customers we served at SeaTac, 89% rated how they feel about
their visit as “Highly Satisfied.” Ivar’s can trace the resolution of every one of the
400+ complaints we have received in our online comment program over the last 12
years. Can the Port name any other local restaurant with such high customer
satisfaction, and track and resolve customer complaints like this?
We also helped create the Port’s composting and recycling systems for
restaurants at Sea-Tac, and remain the only restaurant to use washable plastic trays
instead of disposable paper for customers who eat in the Central Terminal. This
spring, the Port awarded Ivar’s its Green Gateway Environmental Excellence Award
for these efforts.
Again, our actual performance should trump illustrious promises from other
proposers.
Job Quality, Workforce Training and Employment/Service Continuity
Ivar’s has an established record of creating quality jobs at Sea-Tac. In addition
to higher wages, Ivar’s offers even part time employees full benefits (medical, dental,
chiropractic, counseling, drug, and 401(k) with a 50% company match). Employees
have opportunities for growth and continuing education throughout our restaurant
business and the chance to win Ivar Haglund scholarships for college or trade school
expenses.
We believe we have the lowest turnover among restaurants at the airport. The
Port required current Sea-Tac tenants to disclose if they were compliant with the City
of SeaTac wage ordinance, and if retroactive payments had been made to current and
former employees. Ivar’s made retroactive payments, with interest, to current and
former employees prior to submittal of our proposal. (Ivar’s was dismissed as a
defendant in the blanket suits against all employers at Sea-Tac in March, 2017.)
Small Business Participation
The Port’s objective is to promote local business and small business. Ivar’s has
its roots in this community as a small company that has grown in size, but not in
spirit. We support and rely on many small businesses for our products and services.
We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with small business suppliers such as
designers, construction crews, maintenance firms, fishing families, tribal
communities, shellfish farms, bakeries and many others.
Conclusion: A Flawed Process
In short, Ivar’s is a proven and beloved success at Sea-Tac. A process that
results in choosing a lesser qualified restaurant operator is a flawed process and is not
in the best interests of the Port nor its travelers. Even though the process fails entirely
to consider that Ivar’s is the most successful airport at SeaTac and places Ivar’s at a
great disadvantage because it is not a small business, had the Port scored Ivar’s fairly,
it still would have won.
Lack of Protest Procedure for Lease Group #3
Unlike Lease Groups 1 and 2, there is no protest procedure for Lease Group 3
posted to the Port’s website. In fact, the Port’s website says protests are due by
September 8, 2016.
If the protest procedure is similar of that for Lease Groups 1 & 2, it is also
unfair. The same people who made the decision to terminate Ivar’s lease are the
protest committee.
Regardless of any Port protest procedure, Ivar’s is confident that the most vocal
protest will come from Ivar’s loyal customers in the Pacific Northwest and at SeaTac.
We request the Commission void this outcome.
Best regards,
Ruts
Bob Donegan
President
BobD(@KeepClam.com
206 587 6500
Ivar’s Fish Bar at Sea-Tac airport has been honored 17 times in 9 years!
Year Group/Company/Award More Info:
The 13 Best U.S. Airport Restaurants“probably the
2009
best restaurant in Seattle's airport” — http://brookwoodfarms.com/index.php/news/eat-runaways/
Brookwood Farms
2010 Ivar's Chowder named in “Best Airport Food in the https://www.urbandaddy.com/articles/11890/hub-grub-the-best-
Country” — Urban Daddy.com airport-food-in-the-country
Frommer's - The 10 Best U.S. Airport Restaurants
2011 http://www.eater.com/2011/3/1/6694799/heres-a-list-of-the-top-
2011 - "The best restaurant in Seattle-Tacoma
ten-airport-restaurants
airport..."
2011 http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2011/04/19/americas-best-airport-
Fox News Travel Best Airport Food
food.html
The 10 Best Airport Restaurants in the U.S http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2011/09/the-10-best-airport-
2011
eateries-in-the-us/
- Complex.com
Top 10 US Airport Restaurants
2012 https://thepointsguy.com/2012/09/travel-tuesday-top-10-best-us-
— The Points Guy travel site airport-restaurants/
2012 #8: The Definitive Guide to America’s Favorite Airport http://blog.gateguruapp.com/post/21036549628/the-definitive-
Restaurants — Gate Guru guide-to-americas-favorite-airport
Ten Best Airport Restaurants in the US
2013 http://thesavvyexplorer.com/ten-best-airport-restaurants-us/
~The Savvy Explorer
The Layover (Travel Channel) -
2013 http://www.travelchannel.com/shows/the-layover/travel-
Anthony Bourdain's Favorite Restaurants - Seattle
guides/seattle-travel-guide
Guide
2013 CheapFlights.com - 6 US Airport Restaurants Worth http://www.cheapflights.com/news/6- us-airport-restaurants-worth-
the Long Layover a-long-layover/
One of the 5 best places to eat at SeaTac
2015 http://seattlerefined.com/travel/traveling-soon-here-are-5-of-the-
— SeattleRefined.com hest-places-to-eat-at-sea-tac
2016 https://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2016/5/24/the-10-best-things-
10 Best Things to Eat - Seattle Met magazine
to-eat-at-sea-tac
Link no longer operational;
2016 Nominee - USA Today's 10 Best Readers’ Choice
Awards email from Feb 3, 2016
2016 7 Airport Restaurants You SHOULD Look Forward To!
http://blog.dutyfree.buzz/dining-airport-restaurants-things-know-49/
~ Duty Free Buzz Blog
http://www.10best.com/awards/travel/best-airport-grab-and-go-
2017
Winner - USA Today's 10 Best Reader’s Choice Awards dining-2017/
2017 “14 Airport Restaurants That Are Totally Worth a http:/{www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/best-airports-
restaurants us 58d04964e4b0be71dcf75043
Layover” — Huffington Post
2017 Seattle-Tacoma International Airport - Green See attachment from Port of Seattle
Gateway Environmental Excellence Award
SeaTac CEP Food Service Single Unit 15
lvar’s Update
17 November 2016
Questions 1: Menu
Kids Menu We will offer four items on the kids’ menu, each at $6.99. See the attachment
for details.
Attachment: Draft kids’ menu
Nutritional Information
Each of our stores, and our website include nutritional information as a brochure.
Allergen information about every regular item we serve is posted in every store and all staff are
trained in allergen information, and we have at least one allergen specialist in each location.
Attachments: Nutritional Information (2-page, color, 2-sided)
Allergen information chart
1 Menu panel showing entrees, calorie count
ES, Dow EuEh 60 FOL dove
NCHS CROCE]
ClCc 6S
Kids Menu
Served to kids under 12 years,
including a surprise & soft drink
Fish ‘n Chips
Chicken ‘n Chips
Mac ‘n Cheese
No Winnld vunn vathov nat i+ alnnn? Da vou keen it safe for vourfamily?
Alleyens & Gluten At lvar's, every, tious meal starts
ES, with wholesome ingredients andthoughtful
EERE “ preparation. Ivar's sources the highest quality
aHAi8 2%
ro S59, © 00% seafood and ingredients for the best flavor 8
Cn %
SE “bs 5 ayty 0p,PY ey 2pny 2p G andinutritional value.
Chowders so. ARIE EI RINT
White Clam Chowder Vv YY VVV Ivar‘Haglund was proudofthe
Red Clam Chowder vv v Vv Pacific Northwest and its inherent bounty.
So, naturally, Ivar's is wild about seafood lvars.com
Wild Alaska Salmon Chowder + Vv Vv
with a tradition that continues in today’s
Alder Smoked Salmon Chowder vv vv
quality. menu.offerings. The seafoodwe serve
isthigiiniproteih, rich'in antioxidants Nutritional
andomega-3:fatty-acids.
Batter vv Information
Breading vvvey We proudly serve wild Alaskan-Salmon,
Panko Breading Vv Vv deep-water Alaskan Halibut and Pacific True
Cajun Breading vv Vv Cod. Our fish is sourced directly.from the
Clam Strips Vv Vv waters where they thrive, making their flavor
vv
robust and: nutritionally pristine. We also take
Chicken Strips » VVV
greaticaresin;preparingyour seafood by
SEITE HENNE using only 0'grams trans-fat canola oil.
Tartar Sauce v Vv Vv
Seafoodisidelicious and nutritious.
Sweet Tartar Vv Vv
Did you know the American Heart
Ketchup Association recommends you eat fish at
Cocktail Sauce v Vv least twice a week? Recent research shows
Barbecue Sauce Vv v that eating oily fish like salmon, which
contains omega-3 fatty acids, may help
lower your risk ofheart disease.
Cole Slaw Dressing Vv Vv
Seafood has also long been considered
Caesar Dressing v vv Vv
brain food. Additional research suggests
Ranch Dressing Vv Vv Vv that certain foods may reduce the risk of
Sesame Dressing vVvv stroke and appears to protect brain cells.
This includes cold water fish that contain
beneficial omega-3 fatty acids such as salmon
Non-Stick Spray v and halibut. The Alzheimer's Association also
Liquid Butter v recommends increasing intake of these foods.
*Trace amounts.
Ivar's uses shared prep areas and cooking equipment, and cannot wholly eliminate the Enjoy your:delicious and healthy
risk of cross-contaminatlon (there is no separate fryer or grill exclusively for people with lvar's seafood today.
seafood allergles, for example). Additionally, we cannot guarantee that any of our menu
items will be completely free of specific allergens as suppliers occasionally substitute
snroducts (feel free to ask the manaaer to see the inaredient label for anv Item.
7
ERIN G . ",1G
5 5 CY
& 2%
“, on, %a“og,, SO,
3,“kA
0. % “, 3,2“ %, Yo,.Po,
o % oY ee oe %
.
Seafood Entrees
FORTRAN I ls lk Le IST GYe =X
I ER REE
3Piece True Cod 44 570 12 3 1180 76 31 Grilled SalmonDinner 416 580 24 4 580 43 49 Hot Chocolate 120z 340 164 1 0 100 42 2
4 Piece True Cod 475 640 13 3 1560 82 39 Grilled Halibut Dinner 453 670 16 3 750 83 50 Barg’s Root Beer 22 oz 624 290 0 0 130 8 0
5Piece True Cod 592 800 16 4 1950 102 49
EEE Cherry Coke 220z 624 280 0 0 70 77 0
ETE
1Piece PankoTrue Cod 344 850 34 6 1110 10 23 Fish Sandwich (Cod) i
- 624 270 0 0 8 72 0
2% 560 10 2 1810 91 2 Coca-ColaClassic 22 oz
REiece Panko True Co 4is00 35 6 1350 110 35
DRG 24 BENCH BE ESN Rca
2Fish Tacos (Cod) 216 340 11 2 1090 38 21
Hrece Panko True Co oi lanl Heal a Ld
Pmadagiac 324 [303 NON RON 153) jE2g po
3Fish Tacos (Cod) 326 40 15 3 1520 56 30
ababy Frawns 374 790 38 8 1650 97 7 SalmonBLT MinuteMaidLemonade2202 624 300 0 0 40 80 0
Jumbo Prawns 26 380 15 4 500 23 38
431 590 14 3 1690 78 30 Pibb Xtra 22oz 64 280 0 0 8 72 0
Calamari”alamarl 382 680 21 5 1170 83 32 Chowders Ea aN EO Sprite 2202 AEBEAR
Clams 383 940 45 11 1120 108 22 White Clam Chowder 8oz 226 320 22 13 660 25 6
Super Clams 458 1020 SE
60 6 1790 87 29 Red Clam Chowder 8 oz 26 200 11 3 M0 20 5 EE
Full Boat Special p.sservingst 678 800 28 5 2580 B85 45 Alaska Salmon Chowder8oz ~~ #600 03 UO
226 240 17 8 850 15 8 Barbecue Sauce
Super Combo 503 1090 49 T1 2150 127 32 Cocktail Sauce 35 0 0 60 9 0
i
Halibut ) [
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.
