7b_Attach E


REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF 
ON-DEMAND TAXICAB AND FOR-HIRE
VEHICLE SERVICES
AT 
SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
RFP # 2016-ABD-1


ADDENDUM #4

Port of Seattle
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Airport Operations
17801 Pacific Highway South
Seattle, WA 98158


1



REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 
FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION 
OF 
ON-DEMAND TAXICAB AND FOR-HIRE VEHICLE SERVICES 
AT 
SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
ADDENDUM #4 
February 18, 2016 
To All Prospective Proposers: 
Answers to submitted questions: 
1.  Is there data available regarding the number of trips in which a taxi, after taking a fare
from the airport to Seattle, then took customers from Seattle back to the airport?
Please refer to Question 15 in Addendum 3 regarding deadhead data. 
2. Are the Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles required to be licensed as "wheelchair
accessible"?
Vehicles do not necessarily need to be licensed as wheelchair accessible but must meet
the requirements set forth in the vehicle safety regulations published pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and conform to: 
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/FAS/RegulatoryServices/CPU%20Rules/
CPU-06-2015.pdf 
3.  If a Proposer hand-delivers a proposal to the location indicated in the RFP, what is the
name of the individual to whom the proposal should be delivered? 
Hand-delivered proposals may be addressed to Deborah Harrison, Aviation Business
Development. 
4.  Would the Port extend the Deadline of the RFP to April 1, 2016. If no, what
considerations from the Port would lead to an extension brought forth by the Port, i.e.
Protest submissions or substantial alterations to the RFP based on questions posed by
Proposers? 
The Port declines to extend the submission deadline of March 1. 
5.  In section 4.1.3 of the draft concession agreement entitled "Relief for Exceptional
Circumstances" (p7, RFP p 27), the draft specifies a 20% reduction of enplaned
passengers as the trigger for a reduction of the MAG. However the MAG is estimated

2

based on the AVI count of taxi/FHV passengers and a percentage of taxi/FHV revenue.
Isn't a reduction in this AVI count or fare revenue a more appropriate metric than a
decrease in enplaned passengers? For example the TNCs could reduce taxi/FHV trips by
50% but the number of enplaned passengers could keep going up.
The language is standard language employed by the Port in a variety of concession
agreement to address catastrophic declines in Airport activity. It is not intended to
address risks specific to any particular concessionaire's operations or business. 
6.  Exhibit 3  Draft Operating Agreement 
6.G  Equipment of Concessionaire and Inspection  Digital Security 
Digital Security Cameras must be installed and monitored in all Vehicles per City of
Seattle rules (See City Rule R-6.310.320.S) 
The Proposer understands that this rule has been repealed from the City of Seattle Code
in 2014 and would expect that it no longer applies in the context of this RFP. Does the
Port agree? 
The Port agrees. This provision will be deleted from the draft Operating Instructions. 
7.  The Port highlights the operational geography in Exhibit C, and licensing requirements
(Exhibit 3, Section 7A) to meet City of Seattle and King County requirements. Due to
the service Geography representing the majority of NW Washington State, the legal
ability for For-Hire and Taxi cabs to pick up a return trip on long distance fare-trips being
invalid, does the Port recognize the need to remove these from the Deadhead
calculations. 
Further, can the Port furnish the proposers with the percentage of trips that end in areas
where the For-Hire and Taxi's have no legal ability to pick-up, using the performance
records of the previous contract. This proposer sees that area encompassing all
regions/cities outside of King County.
Please refer to RFP Part II, Section 14 (Evaluation Criteria), Item 4  Deadhead
Reduction & Trip Efficiency Plan. Proposer must describe how it will calculate and
measure deadhead reduction so the Port can accurately audit and track activity. 
Outbound trip destinations were addressed in Question 14 of Addendum 3.
Approximately half of all outbound trips were to locations within Seattle city limits. 
8. Is there a "break room" space available at the Terminal for Use by the Contractor? (This
would server not only as a break and meal space, but could be utilized for reporting and
clock-out purposes, thereby saving non-productive labor hours and corresponding costs). 
No space is available at the Airport terminal. 

3

9.  Are there work stations (podiums or otherwise) available at the Terminal Curb for the
Operator's personnel? If not, can the Operator provide the same? 
There are no workstations available. The selected Proposer, at its expense, may provide
their own. If the selected Proposer seeks to utilize workstations, the Port will work to
identify space at which they may be placed. The Port may, however, require the selected
Proposer to lease this space. 
10. Are queuing stanchions used for taxi and on-demand lines of patrons? If not, can they be
made available and at whose expense? 
Queuing stanchions may, with the Port's prior approval, be used. Any stanchions will
need to be provided by the selected Proposer, at its expense. 
11. If Operator suggests and the Airport determines that the dispatch systems would benefit
from the use of additional or replaced signage, who will control design, production and
placement of the same? 
It depends on the nature of the signage. The Airport is generally responsible for and
provides way-finding signs throughout the Airport. To the extent affecting these signs, the
Port would control the design, production and placement. For localized signs intended to
supplement the Port's way-finding, these would usually be designed, produced and
placed by the operator. Any such signs, however, must meet Port of Seattle sign
standards and would be subject to pre-approval. 
12. Are credit cards currently mandated in all taxis and on-demand vehicles service the
Airport? 
No. Any Proposer not intended to accept credit cards should specifically address
payment mechanisms as part of its customer service discussion. 
13. Is employee parking provided by the Airport? Is there a cost for same? 
Yes. Employee parking is available in the North Employee Parking Lot located at 2300
N. 146th Street. The cost is $80/month per person. 
14. Does the Port of Seattle have a specific reference form or structure/template preferred for
reference submission? 
The Port does not have a preferred structure for reference submission. 
15. Customer Service 
A. Describe your personnel policies and procedures including hiring, training incentives,
performance measures, and equal opportunity employment programs. Include company
requirements on attire, hygiene and other employee procedures. 
Does the Port of Seattle intend this section of the submittal to cover subcontractors and/or
FTE or PTE employees? For example, in section 4J the Port asks the Proposer to

4

describe training procedures for drivers. Does the Port seek a description of all hiring,
performance and training incentives encompassing all proposed relationships including
all FTE, PTE and subcontractors in this section of the submission? 
Further, is there a mandated Airport Customer Service Program (in Addition to
Operator's internal programs) to be taken by Operator's employees? Does this also apply
to all independent contractors and medallion owners? 
Yes. The Port seeks to understand the personnel policies for all the persons interacting
with the public under the Concession. This may include employees and independent
contractors, both of the Proposer and any subcontractors. 
There is no Airport customer service program. 
16. Provide examples of how you will guarantee level of service and performance standards
with vehicle adjustments for seasonal change in demand 
The Port provided estimates on annual growth in the Background Section of the report.
Is the Port willing to provide Proposers with the estimated Seasonal Demand fluctuations
observed over the last term of the RFP to validate the Proposers estimates for vehicle
adjustments?
The table below illustrates the seasonality of on-demand outbound taxi trips over the past
five years: 
Percentage of Total On-Demand Outbound Taxicab Trips
Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun    Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec   Total
2011   7.0%   6.5%   8.3%   7.8%   9.0%   9.2%   9.4%   9.4%   9.1%   8.7%   8.4%   7.2%  100.0%
2012   7.7%   6.9%   8.3%   8.2%   9.0%   9.3%   9.2%   9.2%   8.9%   8.9%   7.6%   6.8%  100.0%
2013   7.8%   7.0%   8.1%   8.2%   9.0%   9.3%   9.2%   8.9%   9.1%   8.8%   7.2%   7.5%  100.0%
2014   7.3%   7.1%   8.0%   7.7%   8.6%   9.3%   9.5%   9.2%   9.3%   8.8%   7.7%   7.5%  100.0%
2015   7.1%   6.9%   8.0%   8.1%   8.8%   9.1%   9.4%   9.4%   9.1%   8.9%   8.1%   7.2%  100.0% 
17. Describe in detail your plan for ensuring maximum wait times of 5 minutes for customers
at the airport. 
Can the Port clarify the measurement tool, responsible party for measurement and
location at which the 5 minute wait time standard will be measured at? 
The Port is responsible for measurement of this item. It is measured by ground
transportation staff for passengers at the outbound, on-demand queues. 
18. Describe in detail your customer service standards. 
Does the Port of Seattle have an existing customer service manifesto or KPI model which
is available to Proposers to review to ensure that the objectives of the Port are available to
all parties?
With respect to ground transportation operations, the Port does not have an overarching
statement of mission, vision or strategies related to customer service.. 


5



19. The Port provided the number of Taxi-Trips reported in the last RFP term, as well as the
expected annual enplanement growth for the proposed RFP's term. Does the Port have
available the conversion rate for enplanements to on-demand services? 
Is the conversion rate directly attributable to enplanements? 
A variety of historical enplanement-related data are available at
http://www.portseattle.org/About/Publications/Statistics/Airport-
Statistics/Pages/default.aspx. Proposers are free to correlate this data with the historical
taxi trips provided in RFP Section 1. Any Proposer doing so is responsible for drawing
their own conclusions about the data. 
20. Does the Port have or has made available the actual deadhead reduction metrics from the
previous contract incumbent? If yes, will the Port provide Proposers with this
information? 
Please refer to Question 15 in Addendum 3 regarding deadhead data. 
21. Does the Port have a measurement tool which it proposes to use to measure deadhead
reduction with established KPI's or measurement metrics (emissions, occupancy, miles
etc.) 
Please refer to RFP Part II, Section 14 (Evaluation Criteria), Item 4  Deadhead
Reduction & Trip Efficiency Plan as well as Part III, Item 6.B. Proposer must describe
how it will calculate and measure deadhead reduction so the Port can accurately audit
and track activity. 
22. Does the Port factor deadhead reduction revenue into the gross revenue requests seen in
Section 5B and Section 7F? Proposer believes that this revenue although linked via an
ask of the RFP, does not have association to the Port as the RFP is for exclusive Pick-up
on-demand services and should therefore be excluded. 
The Port is asking Proposers to provide forecasts of only outbound trips under the
Concession. While Proposers must provide deadhead reduction commitments, revenue
from inbound trips does not need to be included in any forecasts. 
23. What is the technology used for reporting? Consideration will be given to vendors who
support a standards based reporting mechanism such as REST, JSON, XML etc.
Does the Port have a preferred API system or existing reporting system capability and
specification information available to Proposers? 
If yes, does the Port have an example of the preferred data submission characteristics and
formats required for submission? For example, does the Port have a data reporting
template available that will demonstrate the preferred standards based reporting requested
in the RFP. 
If no, does the Port have an example of the preferred data submission and format
characteristics required for submission? For example, does the Port have an initial detail

6

of the reporting characteristics for the identified preferred standards based reporting
requested in the RFP.
The Port does not have a preference for a specific standard/format. The Port will
consider any standards-based solution proposed by a Proposer. Since the Port does not
collect this data today, it does not have an example to provide. 
24. On or before the 20th day of each month, Concessionaire shall submit to the Port a
statement of the number of Revenue trips generated from the Concession during the
preceding month (the "Monthly Report") and shall simultaneously pay to the Port the
Per-Trip Fee due for that preceding month less the monthly payment of Minimum Annual
Guarantee already paid by the Concessionaire for that month. In order to assist
Concessionaire with the preparation of the Monthly Report, the Port will provide
Concessionaire with the preparation of the Monthly report, the Port will provide
Automated Vehicle Identification (AVI) system for each of Concessionaire's Vehicles for
the prior Month not later than (5) business days following the end of each month during
the term. Concessionaire shall file the Monthly Report using the technology and
procedures designated by the Port and shall show such reasonable detail and breakdown
as may be required by the Port. If the Port instructs Concessionaire to file the Monthly
Report or another report by computer, e-mail, or internet website, the Port shall not be
obligated to furnish the Concessionaire with the equipment necessary to do so. The
failure to timely provide the reports required by this Section shall be grounds for the
imposition of liquidated damages as provided in Section 10.2.3 and the Operating
Instructions.
What measures has the Port considered if the Concessionaire uses a supplementary or
alternative tracking technology for Trips, which has been requested as part of the RFP,
and that information differs from the AVI data as provided by the Port to the
Concessionaire. For Example, if the Concessionaire has 100 outbound fare trips tracked
electronically, and the Port provides by AVI record 110 trips or vise-versa. What
measures will the Port consider for mediation or precedent in reporting? 
The Port specifically references an AVI system as the method in which it will track
Revenue Trips as well as vehicle access at Sea-Tac airport, yet also requests is Section 2
Qualifications item 5 that the proposer must provide detailed electronic reports detailing
information that an AVI system is not capable of providing. Further reference to
electronic systems are made in Section 8.vi (1,2,3) whereby the Port will provide
consideration to alternative electronic reporting in real-time or near real-time. The Port
makes further reference in Exhibit 2  6.7 Technology requirements to an API system.
What considerations has the Port made on accommodations for multiple electronic
reporting mechanisms and the reconciliation or seniority that will be required between
each of these bodies if the Proposer does in fact provide real-time or near-realtime
reporting?
Section 1.18 of the draft Concession Agreement addresses this issue. The Port intends to
take account of both the AVI data and "Concessionaire's documented, auditable
records" in determining the number of Revenue Trips. The Port considers the AVI system
reliable within known tolerances. Effort will always be made to reconcile any data

7

provided by the selected Proposer with the Port's AVI data. Nonetheless, in determining
the number of Revenue Trips, the Port would generally intend to utilize the most accurate
and reliable data available. 
25. Concessionaire shall be entitled to a credit (the "Rent Credit") against the Minimum
Annual Guaranty and Per-Trip Fee due to the Port for the amount of base rent together
with leasehold excise tax payable on such amount actually paid to the Port each year
under that separate lease agreement between the Port and Concessionaire for certain
exclusive space as provided in Section 2.3. Concessionaire may apply the Rent Credit
against any amount of Minimum Annual Guaranty and/or Per-Trip Fee owed by
Concessionaire to the Port. In the event that Concessionaire applies the Rent Credit
against an amount of Minimum Annual Guaranty, the Rent Credit shall automatically
operate as a credit against the Per-Trip Fee otherwise covered by payment of the
Minimum Annual Guaranty. (In other words, the Rent Credit Shall be treated, under
Section 4.2.2 of this Agreement, as a "payment of Minimum Annual Guarantee already
paid by the Concessionaire" when determining the amount of Per-Trip Fee payable by
Concessionaire.) 
The Port requests as part of the RFP evaluation in Section 5B-Revenue to Port and
Section 7F-Financial Stability, both detailed annual proformas and revenue to be
provided to the Port. Can the Port provide the estimated credit to the Proposers or an
allowance with which the Port will consider the submission to ensure parity between
submissions, as this is an area of evaluation and scoring in the RFP.
This question reflects a misunderstanding of Section 4.3 of the draft Concession
Agreement. The Port will separately lease to the selected Proposer space at the holding
lot, as provided in Section 2.3 of the draft Concession Agreement. There will be rent
obligation associated with the lease. Section 4.3 provides that any rent paid under the
lease will operate as a credit against the amounts due under the Concession Agreement.
As a result, Proposers may effectively disregard the rental obligation in preparing their
proposals because the rental obligation will not affect the total amount paid by the
Proposer. 
26. Concessionaire agrees that it will affix Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) tags to its
vehicles n a manner and location approved by the Port and to pay the Sum of $100.00 per
tag for any loss or damage that may occur to the tag(s). Additional requirements may be
set forth in the Operating Instructions.
The Port makes numerous mentions of other technology solutions to track in real-time or
near-realtime and API management programs. If the Port institutes a new tracking
mechanism seen as superior to an AVI system, and therefore makes VI redundant to the
operations at Sea-Tac, will the Port refund the Concessionaire the total costs or straight
line term depreciated costs associated of affixing AVI tags to each vehicle. 
The concessionaire is in a position whereby it will have to bear the cost of implementing
technologies to meet the demands of the contract as well as adapt to during the life of the
contract (potentially 5 years) and sees a refund or credit for technologies made redundant
by the Port as fair and equitable. 

8

This question reflects a misunderstanding of Section 6.9.2 of the draft Concession
Agreement. The selected Proposer does not need to pay for each AVI tag installed in its
Vehicles. The selected Proposer only needs to pay for the AVI tags that it loses or
damages. 
27. How can we guarantee monies to the Port based on an estimate of trips when we have no
idea what percentage of the total trips Uber is going to take?
Each Proposer must make its own determination regarding this issue. 
28. How many trips do they believe that Uber will take of the total from the background
section (page 4)? 
The Port does not know. Anecdotal data from other airports reflects that the introduction
of Transportation Network Companies may result in a decrease of total, outbound taxi
trips of 5-10%. However, each Proposer must make its own determination regarding any
effect from the introduction of Transportation Network Companies. 
29. When the Port reported 131,482 trips in 2015 for for-hire vehicles (page 4), how did they
calculate that? Was this only from the AVI? Was this corroborated from company
dispatch logs? 
This is data from the Port's AVI system. It is not corroborated with any data from the for-
hire vehicle operators. 
30. Who are the "appropriate regulatory bodies" (page 6) to be registered with and who needs
to be registered? 
The answer depends on the identity of the Proposer. Each Proposer should ensure that it
has registered with those regulatory bodies with which it is required to register under
federal, state and local law based on the nature of the Proposer and its operations. 
31. Does there need to be a contract in place between the proposer and the "on demand"
providers before the RFP is submitted? 
Not necessarily. Each Proposer is required to demonstrate an "ability to provide" 300
dual-licensed vehicles. While an in-place contract may evidence that, it is not required to
demonstrate an ability to provide those vehicles. 
32. Nothing in the qualifications section on Page 6 addresses the value that our client brings
as the direct service providers/single owners at the Airport. My clients feel that they are
not being given credit for the exceptional service that they have provided for the last 5
years; we are the reason that Yellow Cab has provided excellent service and we believe
that this should be taken into account. 

9

The Port will evaluate the proposals exclusively on the Evaluation Criteria identified in
Part II, Section 14 of the RFP. 
33. What authority does the Port have to dictate to private business who we must work with
in our RFP including For-Hire vehicles? 
Under RCW 14.08.120, the Port has the authority to adopt rules and grant concessions
"under such terms and conditions that seem just and proper." 
34. Does the Port realize that by putting taxis and for-hires into the same space, they will be
creating problems and conflicts that the Port will be ultimately responsible for? 
Each Proposer is responsible for managing its own operations, specifically including any
conflicts that may arise between any of its Drivers. 
35. If there are changes or bills passed at the legislature in Olympia that effect taxi service
how will that be handled with the RFP? 
The Port cannot answer the question without knowledge of the specific bills or changes.
With that said, please see Sections 2.5, 14.3 and 14.12 of the draft Concession
Agreement. 
36. What type of evidence or documentation does the proposer have to provide to prove they
actually have vehicles in their fleet? Can a proposer with only 100 dual licensed vehicles
claim that they anticipate 300 dual licensed vehicles will sign up with them after being
awarded the concession? Wouldn't this show that they don't meet the minimum
qualifications on page 6 of the RFP. 
Please see the answer to Question 31 above. As noted there, each Proposer is required
to demonstrate an "ability to provide" 300 dual-licensed vehicles. How that is
demonstrated is up to each individual Proposer. 
If Yellow Cab wins the concession again, do they still have to wait until July 1, 2016, to
add more vehicles to the airport fleet or can they do so beforehand? 
The current Concession Agreement with Puget Sound Dispatch does not expire until June
30, 2016. Any new Agreement, regardless of the selected Proposer, will not start until
July 1, 2016. 
37. Do for-hire vehicles need to be dual licensed city-county or are taxicabs the only vehicles
that need to be dual licensed to qualify for the 300 vehicle requirement? 
All vehicles, other than wheelchair accessible vehicles, supplied under the Concession
must be dual-licensed. This includes both taxicabs and for-hire vehicles. 
38. Does Yellow Cab need a transition plan since it already is at the airport? 

10

All Proposers require a transition plan. The current operation is significantly different
from the operation contemplated under this RFP. 
39. Should the trip information provided by the Port on page 4 of the RFP -- which shows
approximately 9 taxicab fares for every one for-hire fare -- be relied upon to set the ratio
between taxicabs and for-hires in the proposer's breakdown? For example, using that
information, the initial ratio would be 270 cabs and 30 for-hire vehicles for the initial
year in a 300 car fleet. 
Each Proposer must decide on its own whether and how to utilize this data. However,
the Port notes that for-hire vehicles were not providing on-demand service like for-hire
vehicles now will under the Concession. 
40. Can a proposer receive more than 300 airport permits in their initial first year of
operation by providing a fleet of more than 400 vehicles? 
Please see Section 6.2 of the draft Concession Agreement. 












11