PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      4d 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting      June 28, 2016 
DATE:    June 15, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Julie Collins, Senior Director, Public Affairs 
SUBJECT:  Service agreement for Facilitation and Project Management Services  IDIQ
contracts 
Amount of This Request:        $1,500,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute two contracts for
facilitation and project management services involving complex business or public policy issues,
for a cost not to exceed $1,500,000 and duration of up to three years. There is no funding
request associated with this authorization. 
SYNOPSIS 
The Port has occasions where an expected need emerges around a complex issue or business
project and it becomes necessary to hire a consultant to provide facilitation services. For Public
Affairs, this may involve unanticipated policy developments that require specialized expertise or
management of a complex short-term project.
IDIQ contracts provide the Port with flexibility to meet business requirements as they arise by
issuing individual service directives to accomplish tasks within a general, pre-defined scope of
work, on an as-needed basis, for a fixed period of time, and a maximum contract amount. Port
staff are coordinating with the small business team within Economic Development Divisions to
determine whether the Port will set aside one of the contracts and/or establishing small business
subcontracting goals. Funding of services under this contract will come separately from annual
operating budget.
BACKGROUND 
There are several situations where Public Affairs or other Port departments may need to retain
the services of a consultant. The use of consulting services may occur because they bring unique
knowledge or specialized experience that Port staff may not possess. In other situations, an issue
may emerge unexpectedly and Port staff might not have the ability to shift other responsibilities
to assume this new work. Another example where project facilitation services are valuable is
when there are conflicting viewpoints among stakeholders or sensitive issues that require the
expertise of a skilled facilitator who may also serve the role as an objective third-party.

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
June 15, 2016 
Page 2 of 4 

Over the past two years, the Port has utilized consultants in such circumstances including:
managing the due diligence work associated with the formation of The Northwest Seaport
Alliance, facilitating a process to seek stakeholder alignment in the advancement of the
International Arrivals Facility project, and for project management in the short time-frame work
related to the vacation of Occidental Avenue. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
This approach will put a proactive system in place to address the inevitable need, which arises
from time-to-time, for urgent consulting assistance. 
Scope of Work 
The consultant will assist the Port in facilitating and/or managing projects that involve complex
business or public policy issues. 
The consultant assistance may include the activities including: 
Clarifying desired project/issue outcomes 
Identifying key stakeholders 
Assessing stakeholder perspectives 
Framing potential challenges and opportunities 
Additional consultant work could also include: 
Meeting facilitation 
Conducting surveys/interviews, and developing recommended options, processes 
Strategies or systems to accomplish the objective of the project/issue 
Deliverable will be negotiated at the time of service directive and may include: 
Presentation materials, including PowerPoint 
Contact list and summaries of outreach efforts 
Meeting handouts or other materials 
Survey material, comment cards or other feedback forms 
Summary of meeting activities, including public comments, data from feedback forms,
etc. 
Other documents needed to support tasks authorized under service directives, as directed
by Port staff. 
Schedule 
It is estimated the contract will be executed in fourth quarter 2016. 



Revised March 28, 2016

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
June 15, 2016 
Page 3 of 4 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
There is no funding request associated with this authorization. The total estimated cost for both
contracts is $1,500,000. No work is guaranteed to the consultants and the Port is not obligated to
pay the consultant until a service directive is executed. 
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES 
The purpose of this contract is to proactively plan for the consulting resources necessary for a
rapid response to an unexpected issue or situation. The strategic rationale for this contract is to
ensure the Port has access to highly knowledgeable and experienced facilitation and project
management services in a timely manner. 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1  Contract for facilitation consultant on a project-by-project basis. 
Cost Implications: Increase in costs due individual additional procurements. 
Pros: 
(1) Separate contracts will provide multiple opportunities for consulting firms to compete
for work. 
(2) Flexible staffing resources. 
Cons: 
(1) This alternative would require additional time and cost to procure a consultant for
each project, requiring additional lead time, management oversight, additional
administrative preparation.
(2) Consultant firms may need to spend more time and money responding to individual 
project based procurements. 
(3) This alternative may lead to more non-competitive contracts. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2  Reduce the contract amount and retain a public affairs-only focus. 
Cost Implications: Initial contract value will be less because we only cover public affairs needs. 
Pros: 
(1) Public affairs-oriented issues frequently emerge without warning, so being able to at
least address this area of need would be an improvement over Alternative 1. 
Cons: 
(4) Other departments also have needs for such readily-available consulting services and
would still have to rely on a separate procurement process for each situation. This

Revised March 28, 2016

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
June 15, 2016 
Page 4 of 4 
alternative would require additional time and cost to procure a consultant for each
project,  requiring  additional  lead  time,  management  oversight,  additional
administrative preparation.
(5) Consultant firms may need to spend more time and money responding to individual
project based procurements. 
(1) This alternative may lead to more non-competitive contracts. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3  Establish two contracts for a total of $1,500,000 for facilitation and project
management services port-wide. 
Cost Implications: $1,500,000. 
Pros: 
(1) This provides a competitive process to establish multiple contracts and assures the
Port has critical consultant service available on short notice. 
(2) Retain consultant to perform specific work on service directives in an expeditious
manner since the contract and base prices will already be established. Port will only
need to negotiate specific scope and associated fee. 
Cons: 
(1) Less opportunities for firms to compete for various projects. 
(2) Staff may rely too heavily on readily-available consulting services rather than first
exploring less-cost options. 
This is the recommended alternative. 

ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
Computer slide presentation. 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
None. 




Revised March 28, 2016