Template revised September 22, 2016. COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 4c A CTION ITEM Date of Meeting May 23 , 2017 DATE: May 15 , 2017 TO: Dave Soike , Interim Chief Executive Officer FROM: Wayne Grotheer , Director, Aviation Project Management Group SUBJECT: Architect Services IDIQ Contract Amount of this request: $ 0 Maximum value of contracts : $ 1 2 , 5 00,000 ACTION REQUESTED Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to e xecute four professional services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for a rchitect s ervices in the amount of $ 4 ,000,000 per contra ct for three contracts , and $500,000 for one small business - aside contract, for a total of $1 2 , 5 00,000. There authorization. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Aviation Project Management Group (AVPMG) utilizes IDIQ contracts to meet highly variable workload projections for architect services. The existing architect services IDIQ contracts established in 2015 , with a total value of $ 3 , 5 00,000, have been fully committed. We anticipate that t his request will provide the necessary architect services to meet AVPMG needs for the next three years. The demand for design services on airport projects is increasing . T he Airport is adding approximately twenty - four new capital projects each year. To support the increasing and dynamic business requirements of Sea - Tac Airport , AVPMG requires flexibility in obta ining design services . The IDIQ contracts provide flexibility through project - specific service directives that allow project architect services , which includes engineer sub consultants as part of the architect team, to be provided on an as - needed basis for a fixed period and a maximum contract amount. These contracts would also be available to other Port departments. Without these IDIQ contracts, individual project procurements would be required, which are less effi cient than a single procurement that can serve dozens of projects . Individual procurements would i ncrease cost s and add 4 months to each project schedule , which would delay COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 4c Page 2 of 4 Meeting Date: May 23 , 2017 Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016. The solicitation will include one $500,000 contract that is designated for small business es . This $500,000 contract will provide a good opportunity for a small business architect firm, and is not so large that it would be challenging for a small firm to The other con tracts would also include small business requirements. JUSTIFICATION IDIQ contracts provide the Port with the flexibility to meet business requirements as they arise by issuing individual service directives to accomplish tasks within a general, pre - defined scope of work on an as - needed basis for a fixed period of time and a maximum contract amount. with the Port’s General Delegation of Authority , and governed by CPO - 1 policy. Representative needs for contract architect services incl ude : Terminal & Tenant projects , Landside , and Infrastructure projects through 2019 . We expect that at the design stage will utilize the contract architects and engineers. Each contract will have a one - year duration with two one - year options for a total ordering period of up to three years. Service directives may be issued at any time during the contract - ordering period. The total value of all service directives issued on a contract will not exceed the c ontract value. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED Alternative 1 – Do not procure Architect Services IDIQ contracts. Each project would individually procure its own architect services as needed. Cost Im plications: Each project would expend additional administrative costs to procure individual architect services. Pros : (1) Defers the administrative cost of procurement to a later date when individual projects each do their own procurement. Cons : (1) Increased cost for individual project procurements rather than a more efficient single procurement of IDIQ contracts. (2) Each individual project would have to procure architect services, which would cost mo re and process. This would This is not the recommended alternative. COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 4c Page 3 of 4 Meeting Date: May 23 , 2017 Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016. Alternative 2 – Hire new full - time a rchitects and engineers as needed to meet project design workload forecasts . Cost Implications: A potential savings of approximately $6 million could be realized over a 3 - year period , compared with hiring consultants. Th is factors that are likely to occur. Pros : (1) Lower cost than consultant architects and engineers. (2) Institutional knowledge is built by Port Staff Cons : (1) Consultant architects and engineers with specialized skills might still need to be hired when Port staff skills do not meet the design needs of a particular project . ( 2 ) Projects that cannot be efficiently scheduled with staff designers would have to be prioritized and wait for staff to become available , or be independently out sourced. ( 3 ) Limited knowledge of future projects at - year . This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 3 – Prepare a single IDIQ procurement to contract with four architect services firms . Cost Implications: $1 2 , 5 00,000 maximum value of 3 - year not - to - exceed contracts. This request is for $0 since the costs would be paid by individual projects that issue Service Directives under the contract. Pros : (1) Ability to balance consultant workload capacity with Port requirements, p roviding (2) Procurement of IDIQ contracts that can be used by multiple projects avoids additional administrative costs that would otherwise be incurred if each project had to procure individual services contracts. (3) Highest level of flexibility – architect team s are added or removed as needed to meet demand (4) Provides opportunities to architect services firms (5) Provides opportunities to small businesses Cons : (1) Contract ors build institutional knowledge, rather than Port Staff. (2) Cost is higher for consultants than staff with comparable experience  One Port FTE architect/engineer over a 3 - year period cost s approximately $450,000.  One full - time consultant architect/engineer over a 3 - year period cost s approximately $ 950 ,000. This is roughly 50% more expensive than if the work were performed using in - house resources. This is the recommended alternative. COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 4c Page 4 of 4 Meeting Date: May 23 , 2017 Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Ch arges to these contracts will be from projects that will be authorized separately through established procedures. Consequently, there is no funding request associated with this authorization. The total estimated cost for architect services will not exceed $1 2 , 5 00,000. Each of three contract s will have a not - to - exceed threshold of $ 4 ,000,000 and one small business contract will have a not - to - exceed threshold of $500,000 . No work is guaranteed to the consultants and the Port is not obligated to pay the consul tant until a service directive is executed. After receiving authorization for each project in accordance with the Master Delegation of Authority, the actual work will be defined and the Port will issue individual project - specific service directives. ATTAC HMENTS TO THIS REQUEST  None PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS  June 9, 2015 – The Commission authorized the execution of three professional services IDIQ contracts for architect ser vices. Maximum combined value of contracts was $ 3 , 5 00,000 .  May 28, 2013 – The Commission authorized the execution of two professional services IDIQ contracts for architect ser vices. Maximum combined value of contracts was $ 3 ,000,000 .  January 10, 2012 – The Commission authorized the execution of a single professional services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for architectural services. Maximum value of contract was $4,000,000.