Template revised September 22, 2016 COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. CTION ITEM April 11, 2017 Amount of this request: 1,025,000 ACTION REQUESTED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JUSTIFICATION ��COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. Page of Template revised September 22, 2016 ; format updates October 19, 2016 DETAILS Scope of Work The key responsibilities of the lot attendant include 24/7 coverage with one individual at the entrance of the NEPL. The ttendant controls access to the lot, and ensures only authorized employee parking customers enter the property. The attendant also monitors security cameras, and provides additional service to customers including emergency response, battery jump starts, tire inflation, and lock out assistance. The Employee Parking line of business is a cost recovery operation that delivers a parking and trans portation service Monthly parking passes are available for purchase, with customers parking at the North Employee Parking Lo (NEPL). In 2016, the Employee Parking system generated more than $9 million of cost recovery revenue. The lot is located abou t 2 miles from the main terminal of the airport on a 28.7 acre property. The lot has nearly 4,000 stall available, and serves as the primary parking lot for approximately 11,000 airport and airline employees including a diverse and critical group of avia tion support staff. The lot has a variety of amenities, and will soon include an upgrade that will provide electric vehicle charging locations. A Port of Seattle bus transports customers to and from the main terminal of the airport with scheduled service at least every 10 minutes. Employees enter and exit the NEPL with proximity (tap) control cards. When cards are not recognized by the system, the lot attendants validate credentials and manage lot access with override controls. The attendants are on si te to assist with dead batteries, flat tires, and are critical in the Employee Parking Department’s response to irregular operations. The attendants monitor the security camera system for any suspicious activity and report issues to the Port’s Police Depa rtment, Fire Department and the Landside Supervisors. The lot attendant provides a physical presence and a sense of security for customers. The Landside Department receives continuous favorable feedback from many customers. Alaska Airlines and Delta Ai r Lines (combined 6,000 users) committed their support in writing for the continued service. As part of the service to customers, a lot attendant has been available at the entrance since the NEPL opened in 1999. This contract will be set aside for small firms to compete. The project manager will coordinate with the small business team and Central Procurement Office (CPO) to notify qualified small firms of this opportunity. Schedule April 11, 2017 Presentation to Port of Seattle Commission June 15, 2017 Request for proposals August 1, 2017 Award notification October 1, 2017 New contract commencement ��COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. Page of Template revised September 22, 2016 ; format updates October 19, 2016 ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED Alternative 1 Use STENTOFON unattended access control with existing gate arm hardware in lieu of an at tendant. Cost Im plications $980,000 five years. This figure does not include design. Unknown component: sufficient fiber optic lines to support IP video intercom. Pros (1) Reduction in operating cost Cons (1) Slow response to issues requiring physical presence (2) No physical deterrent to dissuade prowlers and vandals (3) Union bargaining d ue to change in work conditions (4) Slower bus boarding (5) Possible increase in City of SeaTac neighborhood parking This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 2 Use STENTOFON unattended access control with new swing gate/fence in lieu of an attendant. Cost Implications $1.1 million over five years. This figure does not include design. Unknown component: sufficient fiber optic lines to support IP video intercom. Pros (1) Prevents unenrolled/unauthorized persons from entering the lot Cons (1) Slow response to issues requiring physical presence (2) Union bargaining d ue to change in work conditions (3) Slower bus boarding This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 3 Port staff as NEPL attendant Cost Implications $1.83 million over five years Pros (1) Immediate response to issues requiring physical presence (2) Prevents unenrolled/unauthorized persons from entering the lot (3) Maintains positive perception of customer service and safety ��COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. Page of Template revised September 22, 2016 ; format updates October 19, 2016 Cons (1) Recruitment and hiring (2) Staff management (3) Union jurisdiction This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 4 Contracted 24/7 attendant service Cost Implications $1 million Pros (1) Responds to c ustomer demand (2) Immediate response to issues requiring physical presence (3) Prevents unenrolled/unauthorized persons from entering the lot (4) Maintains positive perception of customer service and safety Cons (1) Reliance on contracted service for staffing (2) Potential for unplanned absence to temporarily affect access This is the recommended alternative. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The request of $ 1,025,000 is based on an initial annual value of $196,000 and a 2.2% increase year over year with a total five year value of $1,025,000. The contract amount will be included in the annual operating budget. The cost will be fully recovered from the users of the NEPL through the monthly permit fee. As such there is no impact on the passenger airline cost per enplaned passenger (CPE). Year 196,000 Year 2: 200,312 Year 3: 204,718 Year 4: 209,222 Year 5: 213,825 Total: $1,024,077 ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST None PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS None