PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
DATE:      October 31, 2019 
TO:         Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director 
FROM:     Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management 
Jeffrey Brown, Director, Aviation Facilities & Capital Programs 
SUBJECT:   Interim West Side Fire Station  Lessons Learned and After-Action Report 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This is in response to the Commission's approval of the budget increase for the interim West Side
Fire Station project on October 8, 2019, requiring a Lessons Learned and After-Action Report by
October 31, 2019. The project delivery problems associated with this project raise systemic issues
regarding: (1) project definition, (2) cost estimate, schedule and risk communication to the
Commission, (3) communications to management of project team concerns, and (4) lessons
learned performance and communications. As detailed below, improvements are underway to
address these issues. We recognize that additional steps are needed to address other issues with
project delivery and will continue to make further improvements. We have focused in this memo
on those relevant to the West Side Fire Station project. 
PROJECT DEFINITION 
For projects with urgent needs for completion, project teams face constant time pressure. If not
appropriately managed, this can result in project needs and risks not being fully understood
before the project starts. This can lead to problems not being solved in the project definition
stage of projects, when it is easiest and least expensive to do so, and instead being pushed to
later project stages when it is more difficult, costly and slows down the project. Significant
changes in project scope, project delivery method, or project constraints require a pause to fully
evaluate the impacts. In this project, this occurred in multiple ways: 
The change prior to initial Commission authorization from remodel of current firefighter
living quarters in the Paccar hangar to a project to build a separate living quarters was not
adequately defined to accurately establish project cost or schedule. 
The idea of a modular building to save time and money and allow reuse later was not fully
evaluated by the project team prior to implementing of this idea. A modular building was
ultimately rejected due to numerous constraints, including inability to get such a building
to the site without runway closures. 
The project team did not successfully involve end user front line staff in project definition. 
The project team did not involve key technical expertise, particularly project and
construction management staff with airfield experience, early in the project. 
The switch of project delivery method from design-bid-build to design-build was, in part,
a creative approach to combine the two separate projects for a more efficient and faster
http://collab.portseattle.org/sites/00391/Lessons Learned/Final Draft - Lessons Learned and After Action Report  Interim West Side Fire
Station.docx

Memorandum 
Page 2 of 3 
design and construction process. The design-build approach did provide an innovative
solution at a competitive marketplace cost. 
Discretionary changes in project scope following project definition did not go through a
consistent process of change management. 
We will review these lessons with our staff and with the Airport senior management team. Given
the airport's continued rapid growth and need for capital improvements, the time pressures will
continue; our challenge is to continue to work with the project sponsors to identify the subset of
projects which are truly time critical, to resist our own and customer time pressure to allow
sufficient time for all projects to complete project definition, and to have the discipline to
reevaluate when project conditions and constraints change significantly. Aviation Project
Management and Aviation Capital Programs are working to adopt a formal project change
management process, which will cover changes during project design in addition to updating the
process for changes during construction, by the end of 2019. We will stress the importance of full
end user and stakeholder involvement in concept development of projects, including the future
permanent fire station location under the Sustainable Airport Master Plan, to our staff. 
COST ESTIMATE, SCHEDULE AND RISK COMMUNICATION 
One-time Commission approval of project design and construction is allowed by Resolutions
3734, 3628 and 3605 (the Resolutions) but is rarely sought. Prior to project design, when the
Resolutions  require  Commission  authorization  of  a  project,  the  industry  standard  for
construction cost estimate accuracy (AACE International Recommended Practice No. 56R-08,
Cost Estimate Classification System  As Applied for the Building and General Construction
Industries) gives a broad range of possible costs depending on the level of project definition. Early
project definition estimates can vary greatly  from -20% to -30% on the low end and +30% to
+50% on the high end. The estimate accuracy range margins become smaller as the project is
further defined and then designed. The typical Engineer's estimate range used for construction
bids is -3% to -5% on the low end and +3% to +10% on the high end. 
In this project, the project team sought one-time Commission approval of project design and
construction to expedite the project. However, the team had not taken sufficient time to fully
define the scope/requirements and communicate uncertainty or project risks to budget and
schedule as a result.  The tradeoffs between project cost, schedule, and scope were ultimately
resolved in a way that will meet end user and stakeholder scope requirements but at a cost and
schedule that does not meet the expectations we had originally set with the Commission. 
As most recently seen in the October 22 Commission action request for early authorization of the
Checkpoint 1 relocation, when requested to move ahead without full project definition, we were
trying  to  ensure  that  non-standard  approaches  to  project  authorization  include  clear
communications of uncertainties and risks. We are also increasing communication of project risks
in relevant Commission project authorization requests. 
COMMUNICATIONS TO MANAGEMENT OF PROJECT TEAM CONCERNS 
Successful project delivery involves integration of expertise from multiple airport and corporate
departments. Project managers must work with the project team to evaluate and resolve 
conflicting input and project objectives. Where project team members believe their concerns are

Memorandum 
Page 3 of 3 
not being adequately addressed, all departments involved in projects must encourage
communication of those concerns to management. In this Fire Station project, concerns about
use of modular buildings were not raised to management when they first arose. Aviation Project
Management is reiterating the need to encourage project team members to elevate significant
concerns with our staff and with senior management of Aviation departments and Engineering. 
LESSONS LEARNED PERFORMANCE AND COMMUNICATIONS 
Documentation and dissemination of project lessons is critical to continuous improvement of
project delivery performance. Aviation Project Management has long-established policies
requiring project managers to review relevant lessons learned from other projects during project
definition, after any significant project change, and prior to contracting for construction. Aviation
Project Management has taken the following steps to increase the frequency and visibility of
project lessons: 
Our management team now reviews key lessons learned monthly in our staff meetings
and with the Aviation Oversight committee. This will have a positive impact on project
delivery culture where learning can be shared frequently with customers and where staff
are encouraged to share challenges for improved understanding and performance of all. 
We are training all project managers in how to facilitate lessons learned reviews, so that
we can effectively continue our current practice of facilitating and documenting these
discussions using someone who is not involved in the project being evaluated. 
We are now including relevant lessons learned (for the project as well as how lessons
from other projects are being incorporated) in individual project presentations to the
Aviation Oversight committee. 
When we seek authorization from the Commission for project budget increases or notify
the Commission of potential future increases, we have begun including relevant lessons
learned in our Commission memos and presentations. 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
October 8, 2019  The Commission authorized funding increase for the Interim Westside Fire
Station Design-Build Contract by $3,679,000 for a new total project cost of $9,179,000, with a
lessons learned and after-action report due to the Commission by October 31, 2019. 
May 28, 2019  The Commission authorized use of a design-build contract for this project. No
additional funding was requested. 
February 27, 2018  The Commission authorized design and construction of this project for a total
project cost of $5,500,000.