8j. Memo
Automated Screening Lanes Checkpoint Conversion
COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8j ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting February 13, 2024 DATE: February 2, 2024 TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director FROM: Wendy Reiter, Director Aviation Security Eileen Francisco, Director, Aviation Project Management SUBJECT: Automated Screening Lanes Checkpoint Conversion Project (CIP# C801420) Amount of this request: $12,000,000 Total estimated project cost: $12,250,000 ACTION REQUESTED Request a single Commission authorization for $12,000,000 for the Executive Director to take all steps necessary, including the execution of all contracts, including Public Works, Alternative Public Work procedures in accordance with RCW 39.10, Goods and Services Personal Services, Professional Services, other consulting services, and any other types of contracts or agreements to complete this project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project will replace Automated Screening Lanes (ASLs) with standard (non-automated) screening lanes at passenger Security Checkpoints 2 and 3 at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Airport). This work will be completed in Q2 2024 using a combination of design and construction contracts and port forces. This project is supported by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to mitigate security lines and improve customer service at the Airport. JUSTIFICATION Passenger loads continue to increase and create long lines at the Airport’s passenger security checkpoints. There were 50.8 million passengers in 2023, and there is forecasted to be 52.6 million in 2024. Currently installed ASL’s are not providing the passenger throughput expected, therefore creating inefficiencies at the passenger Security Checkpoints at which they are installed, Checkpoints 2, 3 and 5. In addition to underperforming, ASLs regularly go out of service for maintenance issues, causing frustrations for passengers and the TSA. Template revised January 10, 2019. COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8j Page 2 of 4 Meeting Date: February 13, 2024 Diversity in Contracting For construction, the project team plans to utilize (1) an existing IDIQ design contract, which has a 25% WMBE goal, and (2) an existing Job Order Contract, which has a 6.3% DBE goal. DETAILS This project will make modifications to the screening lanes at passenger Security Checkpoints 2 and 3. The project will convert the Automatic Screening Lanes (ASLs) to standard screening lanes like those being used at Checkpoints 1, and 4, along with all supporting infrastructure. This project will provide the Airport with an additional four security checkpoint lanes and improved queuing space within the terminal. Achieving this project before the busy summer period has risks, specifically regarding: quality of design, reducing time for investigations, and construction pushing out beyond intended into the busy period. Security Checkpoint 5 will be converted to all standard lanes, as well, inside of the scope for the SEA Gateway Project. Scope of Work Demolish existing security screening systems at checkpoints two and three. Deliver and install new security equipment, provide additional infrastructure as needed, and complete final system testing and integration of security lanes. Schedule Activity Commission Design & Const. Authorization 2024 Q1 Design start 2024 Q1 Construction start 2024 Q2 In-use date 2024 Q3 Cost Breakdown This Request Total Project Design $1,500,000 $1,750,000 Construction $10,500,000 $10,500,000 Total $12,000,000 $12,250,000 ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED Alternative 1 – Checkpoints two and three would remain with ASLs in place, rather than removing and converting them back to traditional lanes. This would keep the number of lanes at eight and seven respectively and would not increase the number of lanes. Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting). COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8j Page 3 of 4 Meeting Date: February 13, 2024 Cost Implications: This would not seek to spend any money on increasing the number of lanes. There would be no cost implications. Pros: (1) No capital cost. (2) Avoids the risk of construction spilling over into summer and causing increased congestion at checkpoints during a busy season. Cons: (1) Does not address the current congestion issues due to lack of suitable lane numbers at the Port’s checkpoints. (2) Does not support new security directive of providing qualified equipment that meets the new Checkpoint Property Screening System (CPSS) requirements. This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 2 – Replace 15 ASLs at with 19 traditional screening lanes. In this alternative the work would be undertaken with a full checkpoint shutdown at a time. Checkpoint two will be prioritized for K-9 screening, with construction for checkpoint three starting once checkpoint two is finished. Cost Implications: This would be the less expensive alternative for the construction work. By shutting down a whole checkpoint, all stages of construction can more efficiently utilize the space. Pros: (1) Faster than alternative two by shutting down a whole checkpoint at a time and allowing for more efficient construction work. (2) Once checkpoint two is back online, there will be additional lanes to ease some of the negative congestion effects during checkpoint three’s construction. Cons: (1) Will have negative congestion effects during the construction periods. This is the recommended alternative. Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary Capital Expense Total COST ESTIMATE Original estimate $12,000,0000 $0 $12,000,0000 AUTHORIZATION Previous authorizations $250,000 0 $250,000 Current request for authorization $12,000,000 0 $12,000,000 Total authorizations, including this request $12,250,000 0 $12,250,000 Remaining amount to be authorized $0 $0 $0 Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting). COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8j Page 4 of 4 Meeting Date: February 13, 2024 ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST None PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS None Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.