PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      4g 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting      June 28, 2016 
DATE:    June 8, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Tina Soike, Chief Engineer/Director of Engineering Services 
Jonathan Ohta, Construction Manager, Engineering Services 
SUBJECT:  Engineering Construction Management Support, Construction Scheduling,
Construction Estimating, Construction Auditing, Cost Claims, Construction Safety,
Survey and Mapping Services, and PLA Drug and Alcohol Testing Services IDIQ 
Contracts 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute up to 17 indefinite
delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) service agreements for services related to construction
management, construction scheduling, cost estimating, construction auditing, construction
claims, construction safety, survey and mapping, and Project Labor Agreement (PLA) drug and
alcohol testing in support of all Port of Seattle projects and tasks in a total amount not to exceed
$9.3 million with an ordering period of three years.  No funding is associated with this
authorization request. 
SYNOPSIS 
Staff anticipates issuing up to 17 IDIQ contracts to provide eight different types of consultant
services to support the Port's Engineering department staff on major construction projects. With
the fluctuating project workload, IDIQ contracts provide the Port with the flexibility to meet
business requirements as they arise through augmenting Full-Time Employees (FTEs) with
outside consultants. Individual service directives are issued to accomplish tasks within a general,
pre-defined scope of work on an as-needed base for a fixed period of time and a maximum
contract amount.  Engineering is coordinating with the small business team in the Economic
Development Division, and partnering with the Central Procurement Office and the Procurement
Excellence consultant to pilot methods to promote small business opportunities.  For example,
the services are distributed into various contract sizes in order to increase the participation of
small business. In addition, various approaches to outreach, contract packaging, and selection
criteria are being considered to enhance participation. It is anticipated that several of these
services will have small business set-asides (e.g. Construction Management, Cost Estimating,
Scheduling, and possibly others). 
Competitively bid IDIQ contracts are a widely used public sector contracting tool, consistent
with the Port's Resolution No. 3605, as amended, and governed by CPO-1 policy. 

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
June 8, 2016 
Page 2 of 5 
BACKGROUND 
The number of outside technical service agreements that the Port enters into is substantial, and
there is a significant amount of time and effort required to process each agreement. These
agreements will supplement our staff when the demand of the projects are more than our current
staff can provide, or are in need of services that our staff is not able to perform. As an example,
some of the administration activities required include long-lead-time advertisements, consultant
interviews,  consultant  selection  and  negotiation,  contract  preparation,  and  insurance
requirements. These activities inhibit rapid response and reduce the management and staff time
available for other engineering and construction activities. Significant economic efficiencies can
be obtained by reducing the number of selection processes.
This authorization will only authorize the execution of the contracts. A service directive will be
issued for projects authorizing the consultant to perform a specified scope of work only after
staff has received authorization for the project in accordance with Port policies and procedures.
The not-to-exceed cost for each contract type is listed below for a three-year contract ordering
period. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
Within the next 3 years, over 40 projects have been identified as having construction costs over
$300,000 each, for an overall estimated total construction cost of over $416 million, the majority
for the Aviation division. This excludes the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) and NorthStar
Projects which have project specific construction management agreements for their use. Eight
requests for proposals (RFP) would be issued to execute a number of IDIQ agreements, allowing
consultants to support construction management services, construction scheduling, cost
estimating, construction auditing, construction claims, construction safety, survey and mapping, 
and PLA drug and alcohol testing services. The goal is to have the first of these service
agreements in place by October 2016 and stagger the advertisement and execution of the
remaining contracts through October 2017.  Use of these IDIQ agreements allows greater
flexibility to respond to workload variations and reduces the need to hire additional full-time
employees. 
Contract Service Type           No. of Contracts     Dollar Value Total     Consultant Staff*    FTE Staff* 
Construction Management              4                 $5,000,000        17            37 
Construction Scheduling                2                   $500,000        1             1 
Cost Estimating                      2                   $500,000        1             1 
Construction Auditing                  2                   $500,000        Yes           N/A 
Construction Claims                   2                  $1,000,000        2             6 
Construction Safety                    2                   $800,000         4              3 
Survey and Mapping                 2                  $500,000        3            20 
PLA Drug and Alcohol Testing            1                  $500,000       Yes           N/A 
Total                             17                  $9,300,000        28             68 
*excludes IAF and NStar construction management project teams

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
June 8, 2016 
Page 3 of 5 
Schedule 
The goal is to have the first of the service agreements (Construction Management services) in
place by October 1, 2016. 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Source of Funds  There is no funding request associated with this authorization. Individual
service directives or agreements will be executed to authorize the Consultant to perform any
specific work on the contract against approved project authorizations. 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1  Contract for support services on a project-by-project basis.  Under this
alternative, the Port's Engineering Department would contract for services on a project by
project basis when needed. 
Cost Implications: Increase in project costs due to the individualized additional procurements.
Cost impact over $9.3 million. 
Pros: 
1.  Flexible staffing resources. 
2.  Project specific contracting. 
Cons: 
1.  This alternative would require the lengthy and costly process of selecting consultants
for each project, thus requiring increased lead time, additional management oversight,
additional administrative preparation, and increased advertising fees.
2.  No flexibility to shift project specific consultants to other emerging projects. 
3.  Consulting companies interested in this work would need to spend more money
preparing RFQ proposals as part of the selection process. 
4.  Project soft costs will be higher as a percentage of hard construction costs especially
on smaller projects, potentially prohibitively so. 
This is not the recommended alternative.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
June 8, 2016 
Page 4 of 5 

Alternative 2  Delay the advertisement and award of these IDIQ Contracts. Existing contracts
have staggered expiration dates, with the first expiring in August 2016. Delays in contract
procurement may cause suspension of work assignments, project impacts, schedule delays and
increased costs. 
Cost Implications: Potential impact to project schedules with a strong likelihood of extremely
high delay costs. Cost impact over $9.3 million. 
Pros: 
1.  None 
Cons: 
1.  Projects may be delayed while waiting for staff support to be available to respond to
project needs. 
2.  Contractor delay claims may rise as a result of Port staff not being able to respond to
project needs. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3 - Strategically hire FTE's and augment with consultant staff. Advertise and
execute IDIQ services agreements to allow efficient and cost effective use of consultants to
provide the technical services required by Engineering.
Cost Implications: The estimate for these costs is $9.3 million. 
Pros: 
1.  This provides the most flexible staffing plan of the alternatives. 
2.  Reduces the risk of being overstaffed if the future workload is reduced. 
3.  Allows development of Port staff in core programs (such as Baggage, Infrastructure)
for continuity and succession planning. 
4.  Low risk associated with potential project schedule delay due to an inability to
support a construction project. 
Cons: 
1.  Limited staff development and retained project knowledge. 
2.  This alternative is more expensive than Alternative 5. 
This is the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 4 Strategically hire FTE's and augment with consultant staff. Advertise and
execute higher value IDIQ services agreements to utilize an increased level of technical services.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
June 8, 2016 
Page 5 of 5 
Cost Implications: Estimated at $12.6M. 
Pros: 
1.  Reduces the risk of being overstaffed if the future workload is reduced. 
2.  Lowest risk associated with potential project schedule delay due to an inability to
support a construction project. 
Cons: 
1.  Limited staff development and retained project knowledge. 
2.  This is the most expensive option. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 5  In lieu of using consultants, hire an additional 28 FTE's to handle the increased
workload. 
Cost Implications: Estimated at $4.4M 
Pros: 
1.  Low risk associated with potential project schedule delay due to an inability to
support a construction project. 
2.  Lowest cost of all the alternatives, exclusive of long term staffing commitment costs. 
3.  Greatest retainage of institutional knowledge. 
Cons: 
1.  Adds 28 FTE's to Port staff.  In the event of a decrease in workload, a workforce
reduction would be required. 
2.  Job market availability may not be able to fill all positions. 
3.  This alternative may require additional staff to manage these FTE positions. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
NONE 

PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
NONE