PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      4d 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting      July 12, 2016 
DATE:    July 5, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Michael Ehl, Director Airport Operations 
David Crowner, Manager, Airport Operations 
SUBJECT:  Procurement of and Award Seattle Ramp Tower Operations Services Contract 
Amount of This Request:  $12,941,000      Source of Funds:  Airport Development 
Fund 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute a contract for the
operation and management of the Seattle Ramp Tower for an estimated cost of $12,941,000 for
up to 8 years (5-year initial with 3 1-year options). 
SYNOPSIS 
The Seattle Ramp Tower has been operated by the Port of Seattle under two successively bid
multi-year terms with Robinson Aviation Inc. (RVA) for the past 11 years. This contract will
end on December 31 of this year. In order to ensure continuous operation of this tower and the
associated operational and safety benefits, the Port must initiate a new competitive procurement
process to retain a Ramp Tower services operator. 
Incorporation of a Ramp Tower at major airports increases safety, minimizes taxi times, saves
fuel, reduces emissions, and significantly reduces airline costs.  Costs associated with this
contract are fully recovered via a dedicated existing per-operation tariff and does not affect
landing fees. 
Key Benefits: 
Supports airline on-time performance 
Ensures efficient and effective aircraft traffic management and flow control 
Provides impartial sequencing of aircraft 
Keeps airline costs low via reduced delays and irregular operations 
Complements Airport gate management efforts 
Provides positive guidance of aircraft to ensure safe operations 


Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
July 5, 2016 
Page 2 of 7 

BACKGROUND 
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides positive control of aircraft activity on the
runways and taxiways at the Airport. This positive control does not extend to the remaining 
paved areas for aircraft, known as ramps and aprons. Although the FAA Air Traffic Controllers
can provide an advisory service to aircraft moving on the ramp, this is not part of their core
mission and is deemed secondary in their overall responsibilities. 
Utilization of a Ramp Control Facility provides advisory control of aircraft movements because
it more effectively choreographs aircraft movement to and from the airport runways and
taxiways, provides impartial sequencing of aircraft, and avoids "gridlock."  Ramp Control
Facilities at large airports are essential services in daily operations, and have demonstrated to the
satisfaction of airline and airport operators that ramp control incrementally reduces aircraft taxi
times, thus reducing airline costs. 
The National Transportation Safety Board, in its report on a 2001 runway incursion incident at
Sea-Tac, recommended that the Airport implement ramp control as a means to reduce the
potential for future runway incursions. The operation of a Ramp Control facility is also fully
supported by the air carriers that operate at the Airport. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
Project will maintain and improve operational continuity, reduce costs to the airlines, reduce
emissions, and will ensure the ongoing delivery of safe and efficient traffic management. 
While a formal analysis has not been conducted, conservative estimates utilizing airline taxi time
savings data provided by the current contractor and the FAA suggest that annual operating costs
are recovered if only one percent of flight operations (10 daily) benefit from the existence of the
ramp tower. Sea-Tac witnessed more than a thousand operations per day in 2015. 
Annual Costs Recovered if only 1% (10 daily) Operations Benefit 
2017 
5 minutes (conservative estimate) 
x $81.18/minute              $ 405.90 
x 10 aircraft/day               $ 4,059.00 
x 365 days                  $1,481,535 Airline Cost Savings 
vs 
$1,455,000 2017 Cost 
Project Objectives 
Maintain safety initiatives and flow 
Further improve upon efficiencies 
Ensure equitable traffic management 

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
July 5, 2016 
Page 3 of 7 

Scope of Work 
The Operator shall manage and operate the Ramp Tower on behalf of the Port and the
participating air carriers in providing effective management and expertise in overseeing a highly
trained, courteous and efficient staff. The Operator will be expected to provide the specified
services on a continuous and uninterrupted basis. 
Schedule 
Commission Approval            July 12, 2016 
Transition of Services               October 1, 2016  December 31, 2016 
Service Begins                   January 1, 2017 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Budget Status and Source of Funds 
The 2017 costs associated with this contract will be included in the annual operating budget.
Corresponding revenues, based on a cost recovery rate model, will also be included in the annual
operating budget. 
Financial Analysis and Summary 
Costs for 2017 are estimated at approximately $1.4 million. 
Costs are estimated based on historical and projected cost as follows: 
Contract 1             Ramp Tower 
9 Controllers            Contract Cost    Annual Operations 
2006    $1,013,223          340,058 
2007    $1,056,104          347,046 
2008    $ 985,000          345,047 
2009    $ 860,557          317,873 
2010    $ 810,544          313,954 

Contract 2             Ramp Tower 
11 Controllers           Contract Cost    Annual Operations 
2011    $ 869,612          314,947 
2012    $ 911,501          309,597 
2013    $ 938,039          317,186 
2014    $ 965,610          340,478 
2015    $1,165,159          381,408 
13 Controllers     2016    $1,412,715          393,613 

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
July 5, 2016 
Page 4 of 7 

New Contract          Ramp Tower       Estimated 
13 Controllers           Contract Cost    Annual Operations 
Initial Term        2017    $ 1,455,000          SAMP 
Initial Term        2018    $ 1,499,000          SAMP 
Initial Term        2019    $ 1,544,000          SAMP 
Initial Term        2020    $ 1,590,000          SAMP 
Initial Term        2021    $ 1,638,000          SAMP 
1-Year Extension    2022    $ 1,687,000          SAMP 
1-Year Extension    2023    $ 1,738,000          SAMP 
1-Year Extension    2024    $ 1,790,000          SAMP 
Total    $12,941,000 
The airlines support the ongoing cost and operation of the ramp tower recognizing its value, in
reducing operating costs. 
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES 
This program aligns with, and supports, the Port's Century Agenda strategies and objectives by: 
Meeting the region's air transportation needs for the next 25 years 
Through the efficient use of our facility and resources. 
Promotes stewardship of our environment, reduces our environmental footprint, 
and air pollutant emission - Through reduced delays and shorter taxiing times. 
Workforce retention of port-related jobs 
Through the ongoing employment of 13 high wage employees. 
This initiative also supports division strategies: 
Ensuring safe and secure operations. 
Keeping airline costs as low as possible without compromising operational and
capital needs. 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1 - Revert Ramp Tower Operations to FAA Air Traffic Control 
Cost Implications: $0 
This alternative would close the Ramp Tower operation and discontinue the practice of
controlling aircraft activity on the ramps and aprons at the Airport. It would further burden the
FAA controllers with 'advisory' ramp control service, diminishing their focus on active runways
and taxiways. Inefficiencies in flight operations caused by aircraft movement conflicts would
increase, as would the risk of incursions. 


Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
July 5, 2016 
Page 5 of 7 

Pros: 
Airport no longer responsible for administration of contract 
Cons: 
$1.5M opportunity cost to airlines due to slower taxi times and delays 
Increased congestion, bottlenecks, delays 
Loss of confidence in system/airport reputation 
Inability to effectively manage growth 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2  Transition Ramp Tower operations to a specific airline or airline
consortium. 
Cost Implications: Unknown 
This alternative would turn over the operations of the Ramp Tower to the Sea-Tac airline
community to be managed either by a selected carrier or an airline consortium. 
Pros: 
Reduced Airport administrative coordination 
Cons: 
Potential loss of airport-wide focus 
Potential lack of continuity and ability to forecast operational conflicts 
Loss of trust and confidence between Ramp Tower and ATCT 
One-airline operator option may not be acceptable to remaining airlines 
Airline Consortium model requires immediate formation of such, as no such organization
currently exists, possibly delaying service implementation.
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3 - Operate Ramp Tower with Port of Seattle Staff 
Cost Implications: Estimated at $1.63M annually; $8.75M  5 years; $14.77M  8 years) 
This option results  in additional operational and administrative costs and foregoes the
opportunity for competition in future procurements. Staffing the Ramp Tower via third-party
operator, affords the Port certain managerial and cost containment advantages that may not be
realized if operated with Port employees. 
Pros: 
Continuity of organizational objectives. 

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
July 5, 2016 
Page 6 of 7 

Cons: 
Not core competency. 
Increased FTEs and management of FTEs 
Lack of employee hiring flexibility and requirement to hire consistent with POS practices
may result in significantly higher pay rate than contract. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 4  Procure third-party contract or services to manage and operate the SEA
Ramp Tower 
Cost Implications: Estimated $12,941,000 over 8 years 
This alternative will provide personnel to staff and operate the Ramp Control Tower facility,
providing the coordinated flow of aircraft to and from the runways, increasing the safety and
efficiencies for the FAA, the Airport and the airlines, resulting in reduced taxi times, better
traffic coordination and reduced fuel emissions. 
Pros: 
Maintains impartiality in traffic sequencing 
Retains safety and efficiency levels 
Ensures ongoing on-time performance and airline punctuality 
Strengthens airport's performance standards 
Maintains trust and professionalism between the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
and Ramp Tower 
Cons: 
Associated administrative oversight 
This is the recommended alternative. 

ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
Computer slide presentation. 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
June 22, 2010  The Commission authorized execution of a three-year PSA, with an
optional 3-year extension for a total estimated cost of $9,400,000. 
September 22, 2009  The Commission authorized execution of the second one-year
extension to the PSA for the operation of the Airport Ramp Control Tower Facility, for an
estimated $1,019,000. 

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
July 5, 2016 
Page 7 of 7 

November 11, 2008  The Commission authorized execution of the first one-year
extension to the PSA for the operation of the Airport Ramp Control Tower Facility, for an
estimated cost of $1,019,000. 
November 22, 2005  The Commission authorized execution of a three-year PSA, for an
estimated cost of $3,675,000, with provisions for two one-year extensions, for the
operation of the Airport Ramp Control Tower Facility. 















Revised March 28, 2016  pjw