PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      7e 
STAFF BRIEFING 
Date of Meeting     August 23, 2016 
DATE:    August 16, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Lance Lyttle, Managing Director, Aviation Division 
Stuart Mathews, Director Aviation Maintenance 
SUBJECT:  Contract for Janitorial Services at Sea-Tac Airport 
SYNOPSIS 
This staff briefing is intended to provide information and discuss options for procuring janitorial
services at Sea-Tac Airport. Janitorial services provide a key element of the customer experience
at STIA. As such, developing and implementing an effective and efficient set of janitorial
services contracts is necessary to drive greater customer satisfaction. The initial three year term
of the current janitorial contract ends January 31, 2017. The Port has the opportunity to execute
two one-year options to extend the current contract. The current contract however, is not an
effective tool to generate the results desired for the Airport. 
Due to the recent rises in traffic, our current janitorial services contract for the entire scope of the
Airport has been facing challenges primarily from a quality perspective, though costs have been
rising as well. We believe that our current contract does not offer the Port the outcomes we
desire, nor does it offer our contractor a platform to succeed. With January 2017 marking the end
of the initial three year term of our current agreement, there is an opportunity to redesign and
update our contract. 
We intend to initiate a new competitive procurement and execute between 1 and 4 new contracts 
in order to: 
Create contracting opportunities that would serve as a win-win-win for the Airport,
Passengers and the Contractor. We are striving to: 
o  Improve quality. 
o  Control costs. 
o  Increase small and disadvantaged business participation. 
o  Increase competition. 
o  Recognize and support the need for labor harmony. 
Put the onus of quality performance on the contractor. 
Give the Port ability to make minor adjustments in scope to tackle quality issues. 
Provide a mechanism to adjust the contract due to changing conditions.


Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
August 16, 2016 
Page 2 of 7 
BACKGROUND 
This contract was previously bid out in early 2013, with the entire scope of janitorial services at
the Airport (all terminals, AOB & Outlying buildings) awarded to ABM, our current contractor.
Despite the Port & ABM's best efforts, a sharp and unexpected rise in traffic have led to cost and
quality issues. Costs have gone up by 23% in the last 2 years, while our Airport Service Quality
(ASQ) scores are not on par with our some of the Airport's peers. 
The current contract is not structured in a manner that provides the Port or the contractor with the
means to effectively deliver the quality expected as an appropriate cost. In addition, increase
passenger traffic requires a new contracting framework to allow the Port to impact ASQ scores
positively while simultaneously working to slow the rate of growth of the costs of these services. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
One of the mechanisms that will aid in creating this change will be a new RFP process. This will
allow the Port to onboard partners for janitorial services at Sea-Tac Airport that will strive for
higher standards of performance, and increase contract management capabilities and service
levels, while creating opportunities for Small Business participation. 
After speaking to staff at peer Airports excelling in quality scores and studying many more
Airport Janitorial contracting methods, staff believe that the best quality and cost outcome for the
Port will be achieved by making changes in the way this contract will be managed going
forward. Key components of these changes include: 
Setting a consistent cleanliness target the Port staff can monitor and the contractors can
work towards 
Creating a quality management system and incentives within the contract that drive
accountability and problem solving to achieve this cleanliness and performance target. 
Our contract with ABM today is budgeted at $13.7M for 2017, incorporating increases in
prevailing wages. One significant option for consideration with a new RFP would be the creation
of multiple zones. We expect that creating zones will offer some potential benefits: 
Allow the Port to manage quality  through competition,  by gaining institutional
knowledge and diversifying operational risk. 
Allowing for a more competitive environment. Many contractors wish to work with the
airport  the Port received a high level of interest during the last RFP (10 responses) and
has since had multiple inquiries from contractors on any upcoming janitorial contracts. 
Narrower scopes will allow more businesses to compete for work, resulting in a robust
selection process. In particular, smaller businesses may choose to compete for zones. 
This results in more oversight & management responsibilities for the Port, and as such, this must
be weighed when decisions are made.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
August 16, 2016 
Page 3 of 7 

Project Objectives 
The purpose of this project is to create a partnership & contract structure that focuses on quality
outcomes in a manner that is clear and transparent for the Port and the contractors that
accomplish the following objectives: 
Achieve our quality vision  being "Opening Day" fresh every day at 4am and maintain
positive customer experience. 
"Bend the cost curve"- contracting for these services at or near our current costs, which
are in line with peers. 
Incorporates an environmental stewardship program to align with the Port's Century
Agenda goals. 
Incorporates workforce development through the use of a Small Business Enterprise
goal of 35% overall for the value of all contracts in combined total. 
Support  the commission's initiative  regarding quality jobs by maintaining labor
harmony provisions in our contractual relationship with prospective bidders.
Scope of Work 
This scope of work includes nearly all janitorial services at STIA. This includes all janitorial
services in the public facing terminal areas as well as office and operational areas that are all the
responsibility of the Port. 
Schedule 
We will conduct the search for partners in a three phased process. The schedule for that process
is: 
Supplier Outreach                                          July 2016 
Publish RFQ                                   September 28, 2016 
Publish RFP                                      October 28, 2016 
Select Vendors                                       November 2016 
Execute Contracts                                     December, 2016 
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES 
This project will support the following Century Agenda and Aviation Strategic Goals. 
Advance this region as a leading tourism destination and business gateway 
Meet the region's air transportation needs at Sea-Tac Airport for the next 25 years 
Position the Puget Sound region as a premier international logistics hub 
Lead the US Airport industry in environmental innovation and minimize the airport's
environmental impact. 
Use our influence as an institution to promote small business growth and workforce
development.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
August 16, 2016 
Page 4 of 7 

Customer satisfaction is a key component of the Port's strategic goals. Customers (both internal
and external) who are not satisfied with the quality of the facility can choose to take their
business to our neighboring competitor airports. Increasing customer satisfaction is a key
strategy put forth within the High Performance Organization Long Range Plan. Improving the
quality of our janitorial services in a cost effective manner is a key component to achieving that
customer satisfaction. 
Environmental stewardship requirements will continue to be incorporated in the contracts to
ensure materials and methods used by the janitorial services contractors meet the environmental
stewardship goals of the Port. 
The Port is developing the solicitation and will include specific small business utilization 
requirements and labor harmony in whichever option is determined to be the preferred option.
Feedback from this briefing will aid staff in determining the direction forward as we prepare for
a commission action item. 
In order to help facilitate networking between prime contractors, WMBE contractors, SBE
contractors and SCS suppliers the Port has held a networking event.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION 
Alternative 1  Continue with our current contract for a 4th year 
Cost Implications: Estimated annual cost $13.7 Million for 2017. 
Pros: 
(1)  Requires the least amount of internal resources to execute. 
(2)  Allows for the most reliable budgeting, as cost increases for 2017 can be closely
estimated. 
(3)  Eliminates the time pressures present for the development of a new contracting
methodology. 
Cons: 
(1)  Limited avenues within this contract to improve service or slow the growth of costs. 
(2)  The current contract makes it challenging to improve facility cleanliness
performance both for the contractor and the Port. There is no mechanism to
incentivize nor penalize the contractor based on performance. There is also little
existing contract structure to increase contract services based on passenger
increases. 
(3)  Current contracting mechanisms for changing contract value are only though the
addition of spaces or through changes in prevailing wage or the consumer price
index (CPI). No mechanism currently exists to deal with passenger volume
increases.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
August 16, 2016 
Page 5 of 7 
Alternative  2    Amend the current contract to introduce quality targets, incentives and
compliance measures. 
Cost Implications: Estimated annual cost $14.0 Million for 2017. 
Pros: 
(1)  Allows the Port to test an improved quality management system. 
(2)  Allows for minimal transition impacts due to the existing contractor's institutional
knowledge. 
Cons: 
(1)  Does not create a competitive environment. This option could lead to little or no
shift toward the Port's desired outcome if amendments are not accepted by the
contractor. 
(2)  Due to the near future expiration of the contract, an RFP will need to be executed in
the near future anyway, without the potential performance gains other option offer. 

Alternative 3  Bring janitorial services in-house. Hire staff to manage and perform janitorial
services. 
Cost Implications: Estimated annual cost $13.5-15.0 Million for 2017 
Pros: 
(1)  Provides the opportunity to manage staff more flexibly. Can adjust to rapidly
changing conditions such as passenger growth. No contractual negotiations
required. 
Cons: 
(1)  Cost estimates range primarily on the salary and benefits rate for the front-line
janitorial worker. Actual rates may vary widely from the estimated rates depending
on the outcome of the hiring process and any decisions by the group to become
represented. 
(2)  Current management staff lack the technical expertise to develop the janitorial
service program from ground zero. Knowledge of janitorial processes and cleaning
techniques would need to be developed. 
(3)  Hiring such a large staff would significantly strain Port Human Resources staff. 
(4)  A high quantity of specialty equipment would need to be procured in a relatively
rapid fashion to ensure a smooth transition.
(5)  Small business opportunities would be eliminated as a result of insourcing. SBE
targets for this set of contracts are set at 35% currently. 
(6)  Labor agreements may need to be negotiated as a result of insourcing.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
August 16, 2016 
Page 6 of 7 
Alternative 4  Conduct an RFP process for janitorial services with a single provider for the
entire scope of work and execute a single contract. 
Cost Implications: Estimated annual cost $14.0 Million for 2017. Anticipated 5 year costs
between $75 and $80 Million. 
Pros: 
(1)  One provider has total responsibility, making the contract easier to manage on day
to day basis. 
(2)  The successful bidder will likely be a large firm with strong standard operating
procedures. 
(3)  Overhead and equipment purchases would likely see some benefits of scale. 
Cons: 
(1)  Port dependent upon one provider. This reliance may impact the Port's ability to
drive performance. 
(2)  Limits competiveness of firms due to size of scope 
Alternative 5  Conduct an RFP process with three scopes of work, breaking the facility into
distinct zones, execute up to three contracts resulting from the RFP. 
Cost Implications: Estimated annual cost $12.0 -$14.0 Million for 2017. Anticipated 5 year costs
between $73 and $80 Million. 
Pros: 
(1) Offers the chance to build a robust operation in which the Port can create competition
among multiple providers based on performance. 
(2) Given the smaller sized contracts, this option may allow more firms to bid on the
work, potentially driving cost efficiencies and improved quality due to increased
competition. 
(3) This option creates multiple opportunities for small business enterprises to bid, either
as the prime contractor or as subcontractors in partnership with a larger provider. 
(4) With one zone being inclusive of the non-secure portion of the facility, fewer
personnel and materials will need to travel between secure and non-secure portions of
the terminal. 
Cons: 
(1) Requires incrementally more oversight and management by Port staff to manage
quality and compliance. 
(2) Multiple contracts may limit the benefits of scale that can be realized from a single
larger contract. 
With the zone alternatives, the Port will be limiting the number of zones any one contractor can
be awarded. The intent of this limitation will be to continue to promote competition once
contracts have been awarded, and provide flexibility for the Port going forward.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
August 16, 2016 
Page 7 of 7 
Alternative 6  Conduct an RFP process with four scopes of work, breaking the facility into
distinct zones, execute up to four contracts resulting from the RFP. One of those four zones will
be designated specifically for a small business enterprise.
Cost Implications: Estimated annual cost $12.0 -$14.0 Million for 2017. Anticipated 5 year costs
between $73 and $80 Million. 
Pros: 
(1) Offers the chance to build a robust operation in which the Port can create competition
among multiple providers based on performance. 
(2) Given the smaller sized contracts, this option may allow more firms to bid on the
work, potentially driving cost efficiencies and improved quality due to increased
competition. 
(3) This option creates multiple opportunities for small business enterprises to bid, either
as the prime contractor or as subcontractors in partnership with a larger provider. 
(4) With one zone being inclusive of the non-secure portion of the facility, fewer
personnel and materials will need to travel between secure and non-secure portions of
the terminal. 
(5) Provides an opportunity for a small business to grow in capability as a prime
contractor, rather than as a subcontractor. 
Cons: 
(1) Requires incrementally more oversight and management by Port staff to manage
quality and compliance. 
(2) Multiple contracts may limit the benefits of scale that can be realized from a single
larger contract. 
(3) Designating one zone specifically for a small business entity may risk labor harmony.
In alignment with Alternative #5, the Port will be limiting the number of zones any one
contractor can be awarded. The intent of this limitation will be to continue to promote
competition once contracts have been awarded, and provide flexibility for the Port going
forward. 
This is the preferred alternative. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
Computer slide presentation 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
None