COMMISSION 
AGENDA MEMORANDUM                        Item No.          8h 
ACTION ITEM                            Date of Meeting    September 27, 2022 

DATE:     September 7, 2022 
TO:        Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director 
FROM:    Dave Soike, Chief Operating Officer 
SUBJECT:  Independent External Review Panel – Authorization for Competition Exemption and
Contract Execution 
Amount of this request:                       $0 
Total estimated project cost:            $300,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request commission authorization for (1) the commission to determine that a competitive process is
not appropriate or cost effective and exempt this contract from a competitive process consistent with
RCW 53.19.020(5); and (2) the Executive Director to execute a contract(s) with Okamoto Strategies,
LLC., Smithconsult.global, LLC., and Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc., for a not to exceed amount of
$300,000, for the Port’s Maritime independent external review panel. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An independent review of project planning and overall delivery capacity and reliability is needed
for Maritime, Economic Development, and NWSA capital programs. Staff would like to proceed
with professionals who have unique and extensive knowledge of large public works construction
programs and relevant experience in port related construction and project management, design,
development, and public works  contracting. This independent review work requires a
comparable level of expertise previously provided for the International Arrivals Facility program 
and Aviation Capital Program. The same consultant’s experience will be leveraged to benefit the
Maritime, Economic Development, and NWSA capital programs.
JUSTIFICATION
The capital programs for the three entities identified above are intertwined and are collectively
embarking on the largest capital program in history. 
These three of four firms originally utilized were selected in 2018 after considering
documentation of 14 firms, where 8 received phone or in-person discussion interviews, prior to
the selection. That process included the Commission’s Chief of Staff, Executive Director, and Chief

Template revised January 10, 2019.

            COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8h                                 Page 2 of 5
Meeting Date: September 27, 2022 
Operating Officer. As a result, we are confident these three firms have only increased their unique
knowledge and value since then.
In addition to leveraging previous experience that has already proven valuable, use of this set of
consultants is expected to save significant cost for the port by not requiring extensive review of
port operations to achieve a similar  level of in-depth  understanding held by this set of
consultants. Also, this set of consultants have  a specific knowledge of  Port policies and
operational parameters to allow them to quickly winnow alternatives and drive to the best
solution recommendations. Two of these three sole proprietor firms have been used to support
other regional agencies in reviewing efficacy of their capital work. A competitive process is
considered neither appropriate or cost effective based on staff’s previous extensive outreach to
identify and select the unique expertise needed for this purpose. 
Two of the original four consultants continue to this day in monitoring mode until the project is
complete. In addition, two of the four consultants were selected for 2021/2022 work using prior
authorizations to review Aviation’s capital program. This request proposes that three of the
original four conduct the non-Aviation review-work; and the consultants have indicated they
have the available time to do so.
Diversity in Contracting 
No goal has been established due to the requested waiver of a competitive process; however,
one of the three businesses is a Minority Business and Small Business Enterprise.
DETAILS 
Consultant will review background information, conduct interviews, gather benchmarking
information, evaluate current project delivery systems, recommend improvements to systems,
and develop and support a plan for implementing and monitoring improvements. 
Scope of Work
Consultant will summarize and report on detailed findings related to background information,
benchmarking, evaluation of current project delivery systems, recommended improvements to
systems, and specific plans/timelines for communications,  implementing, managing, and
monitoring selected improvements. For this to be effective it is necessary to monitor certain
projects to their end, and to do so through multiple budget cycles.
Schedule
Timeline for accomplishing the work will commence upon contract execution, currently
estimated to occur in early October. 


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

            COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8h                                 Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: September 27, 2022 
Activity 
Commission authorization                      2022 Quarter 3 
Draft report                                       2022 Quarter 4 
Final report                                        2023 Quarter 1 
Monitoring                                    2023 through 2025 
Cost Breakdown                                     This Request       Total Project 
Study and report                                                  $0           $150,000 
Monitoring and adjustments as necessary                         $0           $150,000 
Funds are expected to come from expense and/or capital budget overhead depending upon
capitalization policy and which projects are selected for review, standard procedures will be
reviewed, and because this is an overall capital improvement effort rather than a single specific
project or study.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternatives include not doing the work now (Delay), seeking other consultants to conduct this
work (Compete), or approving proceeding without a competitive solicitation process (Waive).
Alternative 1 – Delay 
Cost Implications: delay of this work will defer the expenses
Pros:
(1)   Funds can be used to meet other needs 
Cons:
(1)   Delayed benefits of independent review 
(2)   Continued challenges with project delivery capacity and reliability 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2 – Compete 
Cost Implications: competing this work will add costs for solicitation 
Pros:
(1)   Provide opportunity for other consultants 
Cons:
(1)   It is anticipated that other firms do not possess the same level of knowledge, speed, or
diversity of thought that these three firms can provide. 
(2)   Delayed benefits could result in larger capital expenditures at a time when the Port
needs to be very efficient with is financial resources 
This is not the recommended alternative. 

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

            COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8h                                 Page 4 of 5
Meeting Date: September 27, 2022 
Alternative 3 – Waive 
Cost Implications: consultant fees will be expensed 
Pros:
(1)   Realize benefits earlier 
(2)   cost savings 
(3)   Leverage previous proven experience 
Cons:
(1)   Does not provide opportunity for others 
This is the recommended alternative. 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary              Capital        Expense           Total 
COST ESTIMATE 
Original estimate                                          $0        $300,000        $300,000 
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds 
Unbudgeted expense will create a variance, of approximately $50,000 expected in 2022,
$150,000 in 2023, and $100,000 in 2024 and 2025. Port staff will have the ability to discontinue
the contract(s) at any time should the sought results be obtained earlier.
Financial Analysis and Summary 
Project cost for analysis              $300,000 
Business Unit (BU)                  Maritime Division 
Effect on business performance     NA 
(NOI after depreciation) 
IRR/NPV (if relevant)                NA 
CPE Impact                       NA 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
None 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
May 8, 2018 – The Commission approved Motion 2018-07, which delegates authority to the
Executive Director to execute up to four personal service agreements (with a maximum
compensation not to exceed $200,000) for members of the IAF Executive Review Panel.
September 11, 2018 – The Commission received a presentation of the IAF Executive Review Panel 
findings and recommendations. 

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

             COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8h                                  Page 5 of 5 
Meeting Date: September 27, 2022 
September 25, 2018 – The Commission approved Motion 2018-12, which adopted the 
International Arrivals Facility program recommendations of the Executive Review Panel; directing
the Port of Seattle Executive Director to implement the recommendations; providing reporting
requirements and deadlines; and authorizing the Executive Director to authorize potential
additional service from the members of the Executive Review Panel up to a total cost of $500,000. 
















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