COMMISSION 
AGENDA MEMORANDUM                        Item No.          8d 
ACTION ITEM                            Date of Meeting     February 13, 2018 
DATE:     January 25, 2018 
TO:        Stephen Metruck, Executive Director 
FROM:    Mike Ehl, Managing Director Airport Operations 
Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management 
SUBJECT:  Safedock Upgrade and Expansion Project (CIP #C800779) 
Amount of this request:              $4,466,000 
Total estimated project cost:         $29,200,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to: (1) d esign and prepare
construction documents for the installation of Advanced Visual Docking Guidance Systems (AVDGS
) for gates on Concourses A, B, C, and D and the South Satellite; (2) procure
software/vendor services to configure a Gate Operating System  (GOS); and  (3) transfer
$981,750 to the International Arrivals Facility program for the purchase of approximately 17 AVDGS
units for Concourse A, for a total of $4,466,000 out of the total budget for this project of 
$29,200,000. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This project improves safety on the airfield by installing Safedock A-VDGS at all gates that
otherwise would not have A-VDGS units. A-VDGS units improve ramp safety by scanning the
gate area and alerting pilots to obstacles in their docking path. These units will improve gate
efficiency and reduce taxi-lane congestion. A-VDGS units will provide real-time docking video, 
actual gate usage data, and statistics to Port and airline partners that will provide for additional
efficiencies.  These  units  may  also  reduce  small  amounts  of  fuel  consumption  and  CO2 
emissions. 
This project will install Safedock A-VDGS in accordance with the Port's established competition
waiver at gates on Concourses B, C, D, and South Satellite completing the airfield installation of
Safedock units. Additionally, a centralized GOS will be procured that connects all A-VDGS units
and other Port systems and provides data for Port and airline use. Also, the International
Arrivals Facility (IAF) project planned to relocate the existing, outdated Video Docking Guidance
Systems (VDGS) on Concourse A to align with the new aircraft parking positions. Instead of

Template revised September 22, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. _8d_                                Page 2 of 8 
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018 
relocating those units, the Safedock Project will transfer $981,750 in funds to the IAF program
to purchase A-VDGS units to replace the older units. 
This project has been endorsed by major airlines including Delta, and the international airlines.
This project has yet to be voted on by the airlines but they have been briefed and staff received
a favorable response. 
JUSTIFICATION 
Safedock units improve ramp safety, increase efficient aircraft docking, and provide real-time
and actual gate usage data to Port business units and airline partners. This project supports the
2017 Aviation Division Priority #1- Safety. Safedock systems scan the ramp prior to aircraft
pulling into the gate. This provides a safety measure by making sure that equipment is not in
the way of arriving aircraft. There have been at least twelve (12) gate area incidents in the past
twelve (12) years that could have been prevented with a modern Safedock automated docking
system. Three (3) recent examples of where Safedock would have helped occurred in 2014,
2015 and 2017. In the first example, a marshaller directed a B-737 aircraft to the wrong nose
stop, causing the aircraft to contact the jet bridge. Safedock's laser-guided system stops aircraft
on the correct nose stop. In the second example, an aircraft was marshalled into the gate and
struck a fuel cart that was parked in the ramp area. Safedock's ramp scan feature would have
halted the docking process until the fuel cart was moved to a safe location. In the third
example, a B-747 struck a catering truck that was parked in the wrong area while taxiing into
the gate. Again, Safedock's ramp scan feature would have halted the docking process until the
catering truck moved to a safe location. While airlines generally don't share damage costs with 
the Port, the B-747 incident cost the airline on the order of $5,000,000 in damages. 
This system also assists aircraft in efficient docking which may save fuel and can reduce taxilane
congestion. With limited gate capacity, deploying technology to leverage gate usage is
critical to managing the expanded number of flights Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (STIA) 
is currently anticipating. Efficient docking can reduce taxi-lane congestion and improve gate
utilization by preventing gate area accidents and assisting pilots in docking accurately. 
Safedock will provide the Port and airlines with real on-gate and off-gate information to better
utilize the limited gate facilities as well as providing real-time video for gate scheduling and
airline asset tracking. Furthermore, the advanced Safedock units, connected to the Gate
Operating System (GOS), provide automatic ramp information display (RIDS) capability that 
allows airlines to display critical flight information to ramp workers. Delta, American and Alaska
desire this capability. 
Safedock has received unsolicited airline support. Both Delta and Emirates approached airport
staff requesting Safedock at their respective gates. Emirates subsequently sent an email which
included support from Icelandair, Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Lufthansa, and ANA. Delta 
management met with Aviation Division management in 2017 and voiced their support for the
program.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. _8d_                                Page 3 of 8 
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018 
DETAILS 
Currently, STIA has Safedock VDGS units installed on the ramp at 21 gates. However, none of
the existing units have video cameras or apron scanning, 20 units cannot be connected to a
centralized system without significant updates, 17 cannot effectively display ramp information
and they are no longer sold by the vendor. Other STIA projects are expanding Safedock
saturation by installing A-VDGS units at all gates at the North Satellite (Northstar) as well as
expanding installation on Concourse A as part of the IAF project. However, that leaves gates
without A-VDGS units. Having A-VDGS units at some, but not all gates, results in inconsistent
docking operations and procedures within and among airlines. This project addresses
deployment inconsistencies by installing A-VDGS units at all remaining gates and upgrading
outdated units. The Port approved a sole source competition waiver in 2016 authorizing the
procurement of Safedock Advanced Visual Docking Guidance Systems and SafeControl Apron
Management (the centralized gate operating system) from the Safegate Group. 
Scope of Work 
This project will procure Safedock A-VDGS units with video cameras and apron scanning,
configure a centralized GOS,  connect all A-VDGS units to the GOS, provide access to
stakeholders, and interface to various Port systems. Specifically, this project will include the
following:
1.  Procure and install approximately 73 A-VDGS units with video cameras and apron scanning
for the following locations: B, C, and D Concourses and South Satellite. 
2.  Transfer $981,750 to the IAF program for their inclusion of A-VDGS units with cameras and
apron scanning for A Concourse. 
3.  Install and configure a centralized GOS with connections to all A-VDGS units and ability to
automatically display ramp information. 
4.  Interface the GOS to/from Port systems including the Port's airport operations database,
the Port's airline activity system (if possible), and the Port's reporting system, and integrate
video with the Port's video management system.
5.  Provide user access for Port staff including ACC, Safety Mgmt. Systems, Airline Scheduling
Systems, Ramp Tower, and airlines (minimally Delta, Alaska, American). 
6.  Decommission existing, outdated units (approximately 20). 
7.  Remove mounting hardware as needed. 
When possible, existing network cabling to local communication rooms will be re-routed to the
newly installed micro-distribution cabinets (Wi-Fi project). This will be determined on a case by
case basis.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. _8d_                                Page 4 of 8 
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018 
Schedule 
The schedule has been developed in coordination with the IAF project as well as the SSAT
Renovation group to ensure that the schedules for these projects is coordinated and that the
Safedock plan considers all schedule possibilities. It is anticipated that construction will only
shut down one gate at a time with a total of two gates being completed per week in order to
minimize disruption to airport operations. 
Activity 
Design start                                                               Q1 - 2018 
Commission construction authorization                                Q1 - 2019 
Construction start                                                       Q2 - 2019 
In-use date                                                               Q1 - 2020 
Cost Breakdown 
This Request           Total Project 
Design                                                  $3,484,250             $5,948,000 
Construction                                              $981,750            $23,252,000 
Total                                                         $4,466,000             $29,200,000 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1  Procure three (3) A-VDGS units, significantly upgrade 20 older existing VDGS
units (not advanced), link all units to a centralized gate operating system accessible by Port
stakeholders, and interface information to various other Port systems including the Airport
Operations Database among others. This was the original project scope. 
Cost Implications: $1,999,000 
Pros: 
(1)   Relatively low cost. 
(2)   This project bridges the gap in VDGS deployments at Concourse A and completes the
American Airlines "like for like" relocation. 
(3)   Port business units benefit from a centralized gate operating system by being able to
access aircraft docking information including (1) actual docking information for gate
usage; (2) real time and archived video footage of aircraft docking for incident review 
(however, limited to the 3 gates where A-VDGS is deployed). Airlines also benefit from
a centralized system by no longer being required to manually enter ramp display
information out on the airfield/ramp area. 
(4)   Future installations of A-VDGS units planned for Concourse A and North Satellite
would be seamlessly added to the centralized system when they come online. 
Cons: 
(1)   This is a piecemeal solution that results in inconsistent gate operations. 
(2)   This alternative does not meet airlines' requests.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. _8d_                                Page 5 of 8 
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018 
(3)   Limited safety improvements are provided by this alternative. 
(4)   Older Safedock units would remain that do not have video cameras nor obstacle
scanning capability, and have limited or no ramp information display ability. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2  Procure and install approximately 90 A-VDGS units over a phased, 5 year
program (designing, procuring and installing approximately 18  units per year). Procure 1
camera to upgrade an existing unit. The initial project would include design costs for the first
phase, transfer funds to IAF to procure units for A concourse, and would procure software and
vendor services to deploy a centralized system that interfaces to various Port systems and is
accessible by Port and airline stakeholders including Airport Communications Center (ACC),
Safety management Systems, Airline Scheduling Systems, Ramp Tower. 
Cost Implications: $33,000,000. 
Pros: 
(1)   Project costs would be spread over multiple years. 
(2)   This project deploys Safedock units at Concourses A, B, C, D and the South Satellite. 
(3)   The alternative leverages the IAF project to install units as part of gate modification on
Concourse A and takes advantage of the vendor's volume discount. 
(4)   Port business units and airlines' stakeholders benefit from a centralized system by
being able to access docking information including (1) actual docking information for
gate usage; (2) real time and archival video footage of aircraft docking for incident
review; (3) automated ramp information for display.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. _8d_                                Page 6 of 8 
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018 
(5)   Future Safedock installations planned for the North Satellite (as part of NSTAR) will be
seamlessly added to the central system when they are installed. 
Cons: 
(1) This alternative is the most expensive. 
(2) The phased approach prolongs inconsistent ramp operations for a longer period of time
and delays airport-wide gains in safety, docking efficiency, and savings in fuel
consumption and emissions. 
(3) Data for making operational decisions will be incomplete. 
(4) Some airlines supporting the full installation do not receive early benefit. 
(5) This approach is inefficient. 
Alternative 3  Procure approximately 90 A-VDGS units, add a camera to an existing unit,
deploy a centralized system and interface information to various other Port systems (such as
the Airport Operations Database) for automated ramp information and reporting and to
Genetec video management system) that is accessible by Port and airline stakeholders including
Airport  Communications  Center  (ACC),  Safety  management  Systems,  Airline  Scheduling
Systems, Ramp Tower. 
Cost Implications: $29,200,000. 
Pros: 
(1)  Airport-wide deployment creates consistency in operations. 
(2)   This alternative leverages the efficiencies inherit in mobilizing once. 
(3)   This alternative results in functioning A-VDGS units airport-wide providing safety,
efficiency and data sharing to stakeholders sooner than the other alternatives. 
(4)   This project deploys Safedock units at Concourses A, B, C, D and the South Satellite. 
(5)   The alternative leverages the IAF project to install units as part of gate modification on
Concourse A and takes advantage of the vendor's volume discount. 
(6)   Port business units and airlines stakeholders benefit from a centralized system by
being able to access docking information including (1) actual docking information for
gate usage; (2) real time and archival video footage of aircraft docking for incident
review; (3) automated ramp information for display. 
(7)   Future Safedock installations planned for the North Satellite (as part of NSTAR) will be
seamlessly added to the central system when they are installed. 
Cons: 
(1)   The alternative requires earlier expenditures. 
This is the recommended alternative. 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary              Capital        Expense           Total 
COST ESTIMATE

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. _8d_                                Page 7 of 8 
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018 
Original estimate                                 $3,872,000               $0      $3,872,000 
Current change                                $25,082,000       $246,000       $246,000 
Revised estimate                               $28,954,000        $246,000     $29,200,000 
AUTHORIZATION 
Previous authorizations                             $80,000               $0         $80,000 
Current request for authorization                $4,466,000               $0      $4,466,000 
Total authorizations, including this request       $4,546,000               $0      $4,546,000 
Remaining amount to be authorized           $24,408,000       $246,000    $24,654,000 
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds 
This project was included in the 2018  2022 capital budget and plan of finance with a budget
of $3,872,000 million. The cost increase was due to the expanded scope with widespread
support among major airlines. The budget increase will be transferred from the Aeronautical
Allowance CIP (C800753) resulting in no net change to the Aviation capital budget. The funding
source will be the Airport Development Fund and future short-term revenue bonds. This project
was presented at the Airline Airport Affairs Committee on December 7, 2017, with Majority-in-
Interest vote to follow. 
Financial Analysis and Summary 
Project cost for analysis              $29,200,000 
Business Unit (BU)                  Gates 
Effect on business performance    NOI after depreciation will increase 
(NOI after depreciation) 
IRR/NPV (if relevant)                N/A 
CPE Impact                       $0.12 in 2020 
Future Revenues and Expenses (Total cost of ownership) 
The following recurring costs are anticipated: Annual hardware maintenance by Aviation
Maintenance: $138,000. The basis of this cost is the maintenance of 90 units. The incremental
maintenance cost is expected to be $155,000 at 5 years. Software licenses for Safedock Gate
Operating System (GOS) and Genetec Video Management: $18,205. The basis of this cost is an
estimated GOS license cost of $12,000 and $50/camera (91 cameras) for Genetec video
management. The incremental cost is expected to be $18,500 at 5 years. The software is
expected to require the normal upgrade at year 5 for an estimated cost of $200,000. 
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND 
STIA was the first airport in the United States to install Safedock. Below is the history of
Safedock VDGS units at STIA: 
2005-2007:      Concourse A (minus A6) for Delta Airlines realignment. 
2007:             D1-D4 Alaska Airlines trial. 
2012:             D7-D9 American Airlines realignment. 
2015:             C3 Alaska Airlines safety measure for tight gate space.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. _8d_                                Page 8 of 8 
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018 
2016:              Plan to upgrade old and expand. 
2017:             NSTAR includes Safedock at all gates. 
The following are new/expanding Safedock initiatives at other North American airports: 
Miami:                     18 
Atlanta (Delta gates)    155 
Toronto                   152 
LaGuardia                 41 
San Francisco           41+ 
Chicago                    10+ 
Los Angeles               28+ 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
(1)   Presentation slides 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS