COMMISSION 
AGENDA MEMORANDUM                        Item No.          8d 
ACTION ITEM                            Date of Meeting      January 26, 2021 
DATE:     January 5, 2021 
TO:        Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director 
FROM:    Benny Austin, AVM Senior Manager 
Daniel Alter, AVM Fleet Manager 
Levi Clark, MM Fleet Manager 
SUBJECT:  Contract to Provide Auto Fuel for the Port of Seattle Fuel Locations 
Amount of this request:               $7,750,000 

ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to  execute an agreement
between Port of Seattle and a vendor to provide fuel and fuel services to be used by gasoline or
diesel-powered equipment including Fleet for both the Aviation and Maritime fuel locations.
The contract amount shall not exceed $7,750,000 and seven years. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The Aviation Division, Maritime Division, and Environmental Department are partnered in
developing the Sustainable Fleet Plan. This plan incorporates three objectives; meeting the
operational needs of the divisions, reducing fleet cost, and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from fleet vehicles. This plan will reduce but not eliminate greenhouse gases in the
near term. As such, this contract is a component of and supports the Port Sustainable Fleet
Plan. 
Port fleet assets consume approximately 250,000 total gallons of fuel per year, with that total
being split between Maritime and Aviation fueling locations. In 2019, the Maritime fuel site
dispensed approximately 63,000 gallons of fuel (40,000 diesel/23,000 gasoline). The Aviation
fuel site dispenses approximately 187,000 gallons of fuel per year (60,000 diesel/127,000
gasoline).
Executing this request would allow the Port to replace an expiring contract for the provision of 
gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and other alternative fuel options as they come
available, for delivery to Port of Seattle fuel site locations.


Template revised January 10, 2019.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 8d                                  Page 2 of 4 
Meeting Date: January 26, 2021 
JUSTIFICATION 
This will replace a contract that expires in 2021, which will allow for continued operations while 
including more options for alternative fuels that allow the Port to meet century goal agendas. 
Diversity in Contracting 
We have reached out and are working with the Diversity in Contracting Department to establish
goals. 
DETAILS 
(1)   The current contract is expiring mid-year 2021. 
(2)   The  new  agreement  will  take  advantage  of  available  alternative  fuels  and  fuel
standards to reduce emission impact while meeting fleet needs. 
(3)   It is the Fleet Managers' desire to get the lowest possible pricing for high quality
renewable fuels, with the lowest carbon intensity (CI) available, and made from
renewable feed stocks whenever possible. 
(4)   The agreement should allow for unique blends of fuels so Port fleet assets may take
advantage of the unique properties of each fuel blend and allow Fleet Managers to
select the appropriate alternative fuel based on availability and application. 
(5)   Fuel will be used for emergency use, backup generators, and boilers. 
Scope of Work 
The contract will include gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and other alternative fuel
options as they come available and it shall include delivery to both Aviation and Maritime fuel
site locations.
Activity 
In-use date                                       2021 Quarter 2 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1  Use public fuel locations in lieu of on-site fueling and vendor services. 
Cost Implications: Fuel cost would increase, with lost labor time estimated at 3,750 hours spent
traveling to and from public local fuel sites. 
Pros:
(1)   Reduction of fuel stored on-site, reducing environmental concerns. 
(2)   No need to maintain fuel infrastructure or spend money on inventory. 
Cons:
(1)    Increase in labor cost and complexity to refuel vehicles on an individual basis. 
(2)   Not all Port equipment is road legal and would extend downtime for possible critical
equipment waiting on remote fueling. 

Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 8d                                  Page 3 of 4 
Meeting Date: January 26, 2021 
(3)   This alternative is reliant on public fuel locations in emergency cases. 
(4)   The Port would need to issue out more Fleet fuel cards which complicates our ability
to reconcile fueling, reduces data being collected, increases exposure to fraud, and
reduces or eliminates the Port's ability to procure alternative fuel vehicles. 
(5)   Non road legal and specialty equipment would need fuel delivered to individual
vehicles or groups, increasing cost per gallon and complexity of operations. 
(6)   5,000 on-site fueling transactions would be moved to public fuel sites. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2  Vendor provides services to fuel Port vehicles and equipment: fuel vendor
would come on site with a fuel tanker to refuel Port vehicles on a scheduled basis.
Cost Implications: Cost would increase per gallon by about $.25/gallon or about $75,000/year. 
Pros:
(1)   Reduction of Port labor time spent refueling Port vehicles and equipment. 
(2)   No need to maintain fuel infrastructure or spend money on inventory. 
Cons:
(1)   Vendor equipment and personnel would have to have access to Port property. 
(2)   Increase in cost and complexity to refuel vehicles on an individual basis. 
(3)   Difficult to correctly schedule enough supply without over-scheduling, increasing cost. 
(4)   Additional risk of spills and fuel releases from mobile tanker. 
(5)   Some Port properties do not allow wet hose/mobile fueling due to environmental
regulations. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3  Execute an agreement between Port of Seattle and a vendor (cooperative
agreement or competitive process) to provide fuel and fuel services to be used by gasoline or
diesel-powered equipment including Fleet for both the Aviation and Maritime fuel locations. 
Cost Implications: Would stay the same as the current state as the Port currently has a contract
for fuel. 
Pros: 
(1)   Proven effective for current operations. 
(2)   Port can select the type of fuel used in vehicles and equipment. 
Cons:
(1)   Requires use of storage and space for onsite fuels. 
(2)   Requires ongoing maintenance of Port fuel site infrastructure. 
This is the recommended alternative. 


Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 8d                                  Page 4 of 4 
Meeting Date: January 26, 2021 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
This will not increase cost to the Port as this is replacing a current fuel contact. Cost is expected
to stay similar and fluctuate based on fuel consumption and price per gallon. 
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary              Capital        Expense           Total 
COST ESTIMATE 
Original estimate                                          $0      $7,750,000      $7,500,000 
AUTHORIZATION 
Previous authorizations                                    0               $0               $0 
Current request for authorization                          0      $7,500,000      $7,500,000 
Total authorizations, including this request                  0      $7,500,000      $7,500,000 
Remaining amount to be authorized                    $0             $0             $0 
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds 
Fuel cost is an annually budgeted item for AVM, Fire, and MM through the Port budget process. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
None 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
None 








Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).