PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      4e 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting     August 4, 2015 
DATE:    July 28, 2015 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Cassie Fritz, Program Controls Manager, Seaport Project Management 
SUBJECT:  Dock and Diving Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Professional Service
Agreements
Amount of This Request:             $0 
Maximum Value of Contracts    $1,500,000 

ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute up to two
professional services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for Dock and
Diving Support Services totaling no more than $1,500,000 with a three-year contract ordering
period. No funding is associated with this request. 
SYNOPSIS 
Dock repairs, inspections, replacements, and maintenance are regular events at the Port's
maritime terminals. For the next three to five years, continuous improvements, maintenance, and
repairs will be necessary to sustain docks and dock areas. The Port has previously issued dock
and diving service contracts that are set to expire in December 2015 and January 2016. 
The service agreements resulting from this request will allow the Port to respond to a range of
needs including, but not limited to, above or underwater inspections, surveys, design for dock
repair or replacement, sediment monitoring, and emergency spill response. Exact scope and
timing of these projects are subject to future surveys and business needs of the Port of Seattle or 
the Northwest Seaport Alliance. The proposed professional services IDIQ contracts would allow
the Port to respond to future service needs efficiently. One contract will be awarded to the
highest ranked firm for $1,000,000. The second contract with a value of $500,000 will be set
aside for the highest ranked proposal submitted by a small business firm. 
PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE 
Scope of Work 
The IDIQ contracts will be procured according to Port policies and procedures in accordance
with Delegation of Authority and Procurement policies. The Port will advertise and issue a

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
July 28, 2015 
Page 2 of 3 
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) that will include a small business contract set-aside. The
contracts will be written with specific not-to-exceed amounts and identify the services 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 the end of the year 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 separately authorized using standard Port
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 authorizations and within the total contract amount. 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1)  Separate Procurement for Each Project 
Pros: 
Separate contracts would allow consulting firms multiple opportunities to
compete for each individual project. 
Cons: 
This alternative would increase overhead and administrative costs to the Port,
as we would need to manage more procurement processes and contracts. 
This alternative may add several months to each project schedule to complete
the procurement process for each individual project and would impact the
ability to meet project and customer needs. 
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: 
Prepare a contract with up to three firms for identified needs as they arise. This
alternative would insure the Port has the necessary professional and technical

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
July 28, 2015 
Page 3 of 3 
resources available to assist in time-critical evaluations and delivery of future
projects, and that small business participation is part of the criteria. 
This alternative would minimize the number of procurement processes necessary
for timely completion of projects and reduce overhead and administrative costs to 
the Port. 
Set aside one contract specifically for use by a qualified small business. 
Cons: 
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