4f
PORT OF SEATTLE MEMORANDUM COMMISSION AGENDA Item No. 4f ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting September 27, 2016 DATE: September 19, 2016 TO: Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer FROM: Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management Group Michael Ehl, Director, Aviation Operations SUBJECT: Security Checkpoint 5 Wall Replacement Project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (CIP #C800858) Amount of This Request: $1,150,000 Source of Funds: Airport Development Fund Est. Total Project Cost: $1,200,000 Est. State and Local Taxes: $56,000 ACTION REQUESTED Request a single Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to (1) proceed with design and construction of the Security Checkpoint 5 Wall Replacement project at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Airport); and (2) use Port crews to construct the project. This single authorization is for $1,150,000 of a total estimated project cost of $1,200,000. SYNOPSIS Security Checkpoint 5 is located at the north end of the main terminal closest to Concourse D and the STS train station for the North Satellite. Passenger experience at Checkpoint 5 is poor and the Airport's ability to reconfigure the checkpoint is limited due to the existing solid wall that was installed in 2002. This project will replace the solid wall with rolling grilles at the entrance to Security Checkpoint 5. This will improve the passenger experience helping to make Sea-Tac Airport the West Coast "Gateway of Choice" and better meet the region's air transportation needs. A key action identified in the Century Agenda planning is to "improve operational efficiency of existing facilities." A single authorization is being requested in order to provide needed customer experience improvements as quickly as possible, i.e., by the end of this year. $50,000 has already been authorized by staff as preliminary work. This project was not included in the 2016 2020 capital budget. BACKGROUND The solid wall was originally installed in 2002 when the security checkpoint was enlarged. It provides a secure barrier between the ticketing esplanade and the checkpoint when it is closed. Template revised May 30, 2013. COMMISSION AGENDA Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer September 19, 2016 Page 2 of 5 However, the size and position of its doors creates a visual obstruction that makes the North Esplanade feel smaller and prevents passengers from seeing the length of the checkpoint lines. The position of the wall also limits flexibility in use of checkpoint queuing and divestiture space. Demolition of the wall and installation of a new rolling grille closure barrier will provide more opportunities to reconfigure the checkpoint entry to improve efficiency, improve the passengers' ability to assess queue length and wayfinding at the checkpoint and improve the appearance of the checkpoint. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS Sea-Tac is experiencing record-breaking passenger volumes in 2016. The higher volumes have put significant pressure on the Airport's passenger security checkpoints. While staffing has been increased to mitigate the impact of higher volumes, facility modifications are also needed in order to achieve greater flexibility in the layout of passenger queues and divesting. In addition, wait times at security checkpoints is a top concern for our passengers as reflected in the Airport Service Quality (ASQ) rankings registered in weekly enplaning passenger surveys. This project will restore the ability of passengers to view queue length and movement which is essential to the passengers' sense of wellbeing and improved customer experience. Project Objectives The objectives of this project will be to improve Security Checkpoint 5 by: Removing the visual impediments at the entrance of the checkpoint. Providing more space for a flexible configuration so that divesting, document checking and queuing can be set up in the most efficient manner possible. Providing a new method of securing the checkpoint to prohibit access and protect equipment when it is closed. Scope of Work Replace the solid wall at Security Checkpoint 5 with a new rolling grille closure barrier. Install an overhead barrier above the new rolling grille structure to the height of the existing wall. Schedule The schedule has been expedited so that work will be completed by the end of the year. Begin Design with preliminary funding ......................................................3rd Qtr 2016 Begin Procurement.......................................................................................3rd Qtr 2016 Begin Construction ......................................................................................4th Qtr 2016 Complete Project ..........................................................................................4th Qtr 2016 Revised March 28, 201 COMMISSION AGENDA Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer September 19, 2016 Page 3 of 5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Budget/Authorization Summary Capital Expense Total Project Original Budget $1,200,000 $0 $1,200,000 Previous Authorizations $50,000 $0 $50,000 Current request for authorization $1,150,000 $0 $1,150,000 Total Authorizations, including this request $1,200,000 $0 $1,200,000 Remaining budget to be authorized $0 $0 $0 Total Estimated Project Cost $1,200,000 $0 $1,200,000 Project Cost Breakdown This Request Total Project Design Phase $170,000 $220,000 Construction Phase $910,000 $910,000 State and Local Sales Tax $70,000 $70,000 Total $1,150,000 $1,200,000 Budget Status and Source of Funds The Checkpoint 5 Wall Replacement (CIP #C800858) was not included in the 2016-2020 capital budget and plan of finance. The total budget of $1,200,000 will be transferred from C800753 Aeronautical Allowance resulting in no net change in the Airport's capital budget. The funding source for this project will be the Airport Development Fund. Financial Analysis and Summary CIP Category Renewal/Enhancement Project Type Customer Service Risk adjusted discount rate N/A Key risk factors N/A Project cost for analysis $1,200,000 Business Unit (BU) Terminal Building Effect on business performance NOI essentially flat IRR/NPV N/A CPE Impact Less than $.01 in 2018 Lifecycle Cost and Savings Aviation Maintenance anticipates no significant impact on operation and maintenance costs due to this project. It is anticipated that the life of the asset will be approximately ten years due to anticipated changes to the north end of the terminal to accommodate passenger growth. STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES The project promotes the Port's Century Agenda objective by providing critically needed improved passenger experience helping to make Sea-Tac Airport the West Coast "Gateway of Revised March 28, 201 COMMISSION AGENDA Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer September 19, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Choice" and better meeting the region's air transportation needs. A key action identified in the Century Agenda planning is to "improve operational efficiency of existing facilities" which this project will do for the north end checkpoint. Small Business Within the demolition and installation phases, there will be opportunities for those small businesses interested in participating on this project. This supports another Century Agenda objective to increase the Port of Seattle's utilization of small businesses. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED Alternative 1 Status Quo Keep the Checkpoint 5 wall in place as-is. Cost Implications: No capital cost Pros: (1) No capital cost (2) No construction impact Cons: (1) Does not improve visual appearance of checkpoint or ability of passengers to assess queue lengths. (2) Does not improve ability to better configure divesting, document checking and queuing spaces. This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 2 Fully reconfigure the entire security screening, divesting, document checking and queuing spaces as part of a complete North Main Terminal renovation. Cost Implications: $38 Million was included in the NorthSTAR program for this work. However, this project has been deferred and the estimate is now considered outdated and likely insufficient to complete the original required scope. Pros: (1) This is the only alternative that reconfigures the checkpoint layout and thus would allow us the opportunity to maximize throughput at the checkpoint. (2) This alternative would reconfigure the entire north end of the Main Terminal and would improve passenger circulation at the checkpoint as well as all other north end terminal areas. Cons: (1) Moving forward with this alternative in advance of the Sustainable Airport Master Plan's completion would be risky in that we do not have complete information on the future programming of this space. Revised March 28, 201 COMMISSION AGENDA Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer September 19, 2016 Page 5 of 5 (2) This is the most costly alternative and would have the largest construction impact to the checkpoint. (3) This alternative would take the longest to complete as well, at least three years. This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 3 Replace the solid wall with rolling grilles at the entrance to Security Checkpoint 5. Cost Implications: $1,200,000 Capital Cost Pros: (1) This alternative is a cost-effective way to improve operational efficiency of existing facilities in advance of the SAMP projects. (2) This alternative would have less construction impact to the checkpoint. Cons: (1) This alternative does not correct the aesthetics or visual barrier issues caused by the remaining two solid walls (located north of the primary Checkpoint 5 secure wall). (2) There may need to be a follow on project later down the road to replace these walls if that remains a problem. This is the recommended alternative. ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST Computer side presentation PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS None Revised March 28, 201
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.