Template revised September 22, 2016. COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 4b ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting February 14, 2017 DATE: February 7, 2017 TO: Dave Soike , Interim Chief Executive Officer FROM: Cassie Fritz, Seaport Project Management Program Controls Manager SUBJECT: Roofing Inspection and Design Support Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Professional Service Agreement Amount of this request: $0 Maximum Value of IDIQ Contract: $1,000,000 ACTION REQUESTED Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute up to two professional services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for Roofing Inspection and Desi gn support services totaling no more than $1,0 00,000 with a three-year contract ordering period. No funding is associated with this authorization. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Seaport Project Management analyzed the number of potential roof repair or replacement projects expected Port -wide within the next three years. Several projects were identified with an estimated design cost range from $ 30,000 to $120,000. In addition to replacement, this contract would cover tasks associated with general maintenance and roof repairs. The evaluation process concluded that an IDIQ design contract would be the best method to secure design and engineering support for these projects. The service agreements resulting from this request will allow the Port to respond to a range of needs, including, but not limited to, roof inspections, surveys, and design for roof repair , replacement , or solar panel installation . The contract will be available to meet the needs of the Maritime, Economic Development , and Aviation Divisions, as well as for Alliance properties. Exact scope and timing of these projects are subject to future surveys and business needs of the Port or the Alliance. The proposed professional services IDIQ contracts would allow the Port to respond to future service needs efficiently and cost effectively. Port staff are coordinating with the small business team to determine whether the Port will set aside one of t he contracts and/or establish small business subcontracting goals. COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 4b Page 2 of 3 Meeting Date: February 14, 2017 Template revised September 22, 2016 ; format updates October 19, 2016 . Project Scope of Work and Schedule Scope of Work The IDIQ contracts will be procured according to Port policies and procedures in accordance with the General Delegation of Authority and procurement policy CPO -1. The Port will advertise and issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) that will includ e a goal for small business participation. Up to two contracts will be awarded, at least one set aside for the highest ranked proposal submitted by a small business firm. The contracts will be written with specific not -to - exceed amounts and identify the s ervices required. Each contract will have a contract -ordering period (during which the services may be separately authorized) of three years. The actual contract duration may extend beyond three years in order to complete work identified in particular service directives. Service directives may be issued during the contract -ordering period and within the total original contract value. Schedule It is estimated that the contracts will be executed by May 2017 and have a three-year ordering period. Each service directive will specify the duration and schedule associated with the task or tasks involved. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Charges to these contracts will be from projects that will be authorized separately through established procedures. Consequently, there is no funding request associated with this authorization. BUDGET STATUS and SOURCE of FUNDS There is no funding request associated with this authorization. Individual service directives will be executed to authorize the consultant to perform any specific work on the contract against approved project authorizations and within the total contract amount. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED Alternative 1 – Separate procurement for e ach project Pros: (1) Separate contracts would allow consulting firms multiple opportunities to compete for each individual project. Cons: (1) This alternative would increase overhead and administrative costs to the Port, as we would need to manage more procurement processes and contracts. (2) This alternative may add four months to each project schedule to complete the procurement process for each individual project and would hamper the ability to meet project and customer needs. COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 4b Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: February 14, 2017 Template revised September 22, 2016 ; format updates October 19, 2016 . (3) Costs to the consulting company may increase as they would be responding to multiple procurements. This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 2 – Prepare a single procurement contract Pros: (1) Prepare a contract with up to two firms for identified design needs as they arise. This alternative would e nsure the Port has the necessary professional and technical resources available to assist in time -critical evaluations and delivery of future projects, and that small business participation is part of the criteria. (2) This alternative would minimize the numb er of procurement processes necessary for timely completion of projects and reduce overhead and administrative costs to the Port. Cons: (1) This alternative would limit the number of opportunities available to firms to compete for work. This is the recommended alternative. ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST None PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS None