PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      4d 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting      July 1, 2014 
DATE:    June 23, 2014 
TO:      Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Rees Robinson, Manager, Marine Maintenance Project Management 
Nick Milos, Manager, Corporate Facilities 
SUBJECT:  Pier 69 Roof Beam Rehabilitation (CIP #C800698) 
Amount of This Request:    $260,000        Source of Funds:  Airport Development
Fund, General Fund 
Est. Total Project Cost:      Range from
and Tax Levy 
$2,300,000 to
$3,300,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to complete design and
prepare construction bid documents to rehabilitate the Pier 69 roof beams for an amount not to
exceed $330,000, including $70,000 for preliminary project work authorized in January 2014,
making the current request amount $260,000. The current total estimated project cost is between
$2,300,000 and $3,300,000. 
SYNOPSIS 
This project will rehabilitate the five rows of concrete beams that support the roof at the top of
the clerestory windows of the Pier 69 facility.  The interior surfaces of the beams began
exhibiting visible spalling and exposed rebar shortly after the Port of Seattle occupied the
building in 1993. Recently, small pieces of concrete have fallen to the floor below. Initial
corrective action consisted of a physical inspection of the beams and chipping away of loose
concrete to eliminate the falling object hazard. A preventive maintenance task was set up to
inspect the beams periodically and remove any loose material. Additionally, assessment and
repair of the beams was included as part of the deferred maintenance program in 2011 and 2012. 
Preliminary analysis indicates that the beams may lack adequate structural capacity due to the 
reduced cross sectional area. Although not at risk of imminent failure, this is a serious concern
that requires additional investigation. In addition, the top of the window frames are anchored to
the concrete beam soffit, which in many cases has cracked, causing the anchor bolts to come
loose, resulting in the windows not being securely attached to the beams. 


Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
June 23, 2014 
Page 2 of 5 

PROJECT COST 
Repair of the beams was included in the 2012 deferred maintenance program based on an earlier
investigation that indicated repair was only required in isolated locations. A prototype repair
detail was developed in collaboration with Port Engineering, and $570,000 was budgeted in the
2014 Marine Maintenance expense budget to perform the work. At the onset of the repair work,
it became evident that the beams should be completely rehabilitated, which was beyond the
funding capacity of the program. 
The cost of this project is a very difficult to estimate. While there remains some uncertainty
around the precise scope of the rehabilitation, the primary issue involves estimating the cost of
accessing the work area. The total project cost is currently estimated to be between $2,300,000
and $3,300,000. The estimate will be reevaluated and refined during the design phase of the
project. 
The scope of work has increased to the extent that this project is no longer an expense repair
project but a capital rehabilitation project. Preliminary design work was authorized in the amount
of $70,000 from the expense budget. Those incurred costs will be transferred to the capital
project. 
BACKGROUND 
In 2011, a design consultant was hired to assess the beams and provide repair recommendations.
The consultant identified 11 areas in need of repair, but failed to determine a definitivereason 
for the concrete deterioration. Their investigation also discovered that the window detailing as
installed was different than what was shown on the original architectural drawings. 
In 2012, funds were budgeted in the deferred maintenance program to perform the recommended
repairs. The scope of work was to chip away loose concrete, coat exposed rebar and patch
concrete. Although there was a potential falling-object hazard from loose concrete, the consensus
up until this point was that the issue was aesthetic and not structural. When maintenance
personnel began the recommended work, the problem was found to be more extensive than
originally thought: the anchor bolts attaching the top of the window frame to the beams had been
installed too close to the edge of the concrete, which caused the concrete to crack, rendering the
anchor bolts ineffective. This is a structural issue that affects all the beams along the top of the
clerestory window walls. 
In response to this additional problem, Port Engineering designed a repair method to both
prevent spalled concrete from falling, and provide a direct connection of the top of the clerestory
windows to the concrete beams. A prototype of the detail was installed in December 2012. The
prototype is performing as expected and is aesthetically pleasing. 
In February 2014, an IDIQ contract was utilized to have a design consultant preform preliminary
design tasks  for the enhanced rehabilitation.  Tasks included  review of all existing

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
June 23, 2014 
Page 3 of 5 
documentation; site visits to reassess the condition of the structure and window framing;
preliminary analysis of beam capacity; modification of prototype repair detail; and a rough order
of magnitude construction cost estimate. As part of this scope of work, the designer identified
additional concerns about the structural capacity of the beams as a result of the reduced cross
section. While further analysis needs to be undertaken, the preliminary analysis indicates that the
concrete beams should uniformly be restored to their full cross sectional area to support gravity
design loads. While there is not a risk of imminent failure, as previously stated, this is a serious
concern requiring additional investigation. 
As previously stated, the cost of this project is a very difficult to estimate. Estimated costs will
be reevaluated and refined during the design phase of the project. 

PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
A major challenge of this project will be to establish a means of accessing the work area.
Scaffolding will likely be installed and remain in place throughout construction. The work will
require containment of concrete dust, and proper handling and disposal of lead paint. 
Project Objectives 
There are multiple goals for the rehabilitation: 
Repair the corroded rebar and remove loose concrete 
Restore the cross sectional area of the beams 
Reattach the window frames to solid structure 
Provide a catchment system to prevent concrete from falling onto the floor below 
Scope of Work 
The scope of work will include removal of loose concrete, coating of exposed corroded
reinforcing bars, restoration of beam cross sectional area, reconnection of the top of the
clerestory windows, and installation of a continuous metal screen or flashing running the length
of the beams to contain any concrete that may loosen in the future. The metal screen or flashing
detail will be similar to the prototype detail designed by Port Engineering. 
Schedule 
Commission Authorization for Design         July 2014 
Commission Authorization for Construction     January 2015 
Issue Notice to Proceed                    June 2015 
Construction Complete                   October 2015

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
June 23, 2014 
Page 4 of 5 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Budget/Authorization Summary              Capital     Expense   Total Project 
Previous Authorizations                       $0      $70,000      $70,000 
Current request for authorization              $260,000          $0      $260,000 
Total Authorizations, including this request      $330,000          $0      $330,000 
Remaining budget to be authorized             TBD          $0        TBD 
Total Estimated Project Cost            $2,300,000 to         $0   $2,300,000 to
$3,300,000               $3,300,000 
Note: $70,000 authorized as expense will be transferred to Capital.
Project Cost Breakdown 
Design Phase                              $330,000 
Construction Phase                              TBD 
State & Local Taxes (estimated)                      TBD 
$2,300,000 to
Total 
$3,300,000 
Budget Status and Source of Funds 
This project was not included in the 2014 Capital Budget, but was included as expense project in
the amount of $570,000 in the 2014 Operating Budget.  The additional funds required to
complete this project will be funded from timing delays and possible deferrals in other projects. 
Since Pier 69 is the corporate headquarters for the Port, the funding for the project is allocated
between the General Fund 27.42% (Seaport), Tax Levy 8.37% (Real Estate), and the Airport 
Development Fund 64.22%.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
June 23, 2014 
Page 5 of 5 
Financial Analysis and Summary 
CIP Category             Renewal/Enhancement 
Project Type              Renewal & Replacement 
Risk adjusted discount rate     N/A 
Key risk factors             Project costs could exceed current estimates 
Project cost for analysis        $2,300,000 to $3,300,000 
Business Unit (BU)          Aviation, Seaport and Real Estate Divisions 
Effect on business performance      No incremental revenue associated with this
project 
Incremental operating expense is not yet known 
Annual depreciation expense will depend on the
useful life of the specific assets identified in the
project asset plan 
IRR/NPV             NPV is present value of project cost to Port 

ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1)  Do nothing. This will result in continued risk of falling concrete and further
deterioration of the concrete beams with loosening of the window to beam connections. In
addition, uncertainty will remain about the structural capacity of these central beams. This is not
the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2)  Authorize an additional $260,000 for project authorization of $330,000 to
complete design and prepare project bid documents prior to coming to Commission for
authorization to advertise and proceed with the project. This is the recommended alternative. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
Photos 1 through 6 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
None.