PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA                Item No.      6d 
ACTION ITEM                Date of Meeting    October 11, 2016 
DATE:    October 4, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Michael Ehl, Director, Airport Operations 
Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management Group 
SUBJECT:  Flight Corridor Safety Program  Phase I 
Amount of this request:                         $0 
Total estimated project cost:                  $2,731,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to award and execute a major
public works construction contract for the Flight Corridor Safety Program Phase I project with
the lowest responsible bidder, notwithstanding the low bid exceeding the engineer's estimate by
more than 10 percent. 
SYNOPSIS 
The Commission authorized advertisement for bids for the Flight Corridor Safety Program Phase
I on August 9, 2016. Four contractor bids were received and opened on October 3, 2016. The
lowest responsible bid exceeded the engineer's estimate by 28%.  This represents a bid
irregularity requiring further Commission action prior to contract award in accordance with the
Port's General Delegation of Authority, Section 4.2.3.4. Port staff has reviewed the bids and the
engineer's estimate and recommends award of the construction contract to the lowest responsible
bidder. The authorized funds are sufficient for the project and no additional funds are required. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
This program is necessary to meet the Aviation Division's goals of ensuring safe and secure
aircraft operations. The Port must remove obstructions to navigable airspace to meet regulatory
requirements and continue operating a world class airport. 
Justification for this program falls under the following categories: 
1.  Federal Aviation Administration Requirements for Airport Operators to Control Obstructions 
a.  Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 139, Certification of Airports 
b.  Advisory Circular (AC) AC 150/5300.13A change 1,  Maintenance of obstacle
clearance surfaces 
c.  Grant Assurance 20 "Hazard Removal and Mitigation" 
d.  Grant Assurance 21 "Compatible Land Use" 
2.  State Requirement for Airport Operators to Control Obstructions

Template revised September 22, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 4, 2016 
Page 2 of 5 
a.  RCW 14.12.020 "Airport hazards contrary to public interest" 
3.  Airport's Strategic Goals and Objectives 
a.  Strategic Goal No. 1, Operate a world-class international airport by: Ensuring safe
and secure operations 
Project Objectives 
Program objectives are as follows: 
Remove obstructions to facilitate safe aircraft operations 
Communicate with transparency to the surrounding communities 
Comply with local, state, and federal regulatory requirements 
Revegetate with low-growth vegetation and re-plant trees in appropriate locations 
Prevent any net loss of vegetation 
Scope of Work 
Scope of work for Phase I of the program includes removing trees/vegetation on and around the
Airport.  This scope also includes environmental review and permitting in compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local requirements. The work includes installation of temporary
erosion and sediment control devices, removal of trees/vegetation, grading, revegetation, and
restoration. 
Schedule 
Execute Construction Contract                             4th Quarter   2016 
Construction Completion                               1st Quarter   2017 
Activity 
Commission design authorization          2016 Quarter 1 
Design start                           2016 Quarter 2 
Commission construction authorization       2016 Quarter 3 
Commission authorization to award irregular   2016 Quarter 4 
bid 
Construction start                       2016 Quarter 4 
In-use date                           N/A 
Cost Breakdown                         This Request       Total Project 
Design                                      $0          $558,000 
Construction                                    $0         $2,173,000 
Total                                           $0         $2,731,000 


Template revised September 22, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 4, 2016 
Page 3 of 5 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Budget/Authorization Summary              Capital     Expense       Total 
Original budget                             $0    $2,731,000    $2,731,000 
Previous authorizations                        $0    $2,731,000    $2,731,000 
Current request for authorization                  $0          $0          $0 
Total authorizations, including this request            $0    $2,731,000    $2,731,000 
Remaining budget to be authorized               $0          $0          $0 
Budget Status and Source of Funds 
The Flight Corridor Safety Program costs are expense costs. $150,000 was budgeted in 2015 to
develop environmental documents to support the program.  $750,000 was included in the
Aviation Division's budget for 2016. The additional funds needed in 2016 are available from
within the Capital Development Departments' expense budgets. Future annual budgets will
include provision for the rest of the program.  This authorization request completes the
authorization for Phase I of a three phase program that will be completed in 2019. 
The full cost of the program will be included in the Airfield Movement Area cost center in the
year the costs are incurred and recovered from the airlines through increased landing fees. As
such, all costs will be paid for out of the Airport Development Fund. If all costs were incurred in
2016, the incremental impact on the airline cost per enplaned passenger would be approximately
$0.12. However, as discussed above, some of the costs will be spread into 2017. 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1  Do not award the project. 
Cost Implications: Cost from Planned Budget deferred: ~$2,173,000 
Pros: 
(1)  Under this option there is no near-term use of 2016 expense funds.
Cons: 
(1) Phase I work would be accomplished in 2017. 
(2) FAA could consider the Airport to be non-compliant with Federal rules and
regulations. The FAA would have a number of options on how to address the noncompliance.
The FAA's options would include: 
(a) Consider approach and/or departure procedures to be unsafe, and limit their
use; 
(b) Consider approach and/or departure procedures to be unsafe, and turn them
off; 
(c) Limit or eliminate FAA grant funding until the obstructions are removed.
FAA entitlement grant funding is estimated to be ~$6.6 Million in 2016 and
up to ~$7.1 Million in 2021. 

Template revised September 22, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 4, 2016 
Page 4 of 5 
(3) Port would not be in compliance with Federal and State safety requirements
regarding obstructions to navigable airspace. 
(4) Airlines may be required to take weight penalties and/or not serve certain markets, as
aircraft would have to be lighter to take-off over the obstructions. 
(5) Does not meet the Airport's strategic goal of ensuring safe and secure operations. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2  Re-bid the Phase I in 2017 
Cost Implications:  Estimated $150,000 minimum of additional costs from escalation and
administrative time 
Pros: 
(1) Demonstrates the Port's commitment to removing obstructions. 
Cons: 
(1) Phase I work would be accomplished in 2017 
(2) FAA could consider the Airport to be non-compliant with Federal rules and
regulations. The FAA would have a number of options on how to address the noncompliance.
The FAA's options would include: 
(a) Consider approach and/or departure procedures to be unsafe, and limit their
use; 
(b) Consider approach and/or departure procedures to be unsafe, and turn them
off; 
(c) Limit or eliminate FAA grant funding until the obstructions are removed.
FAA entitlement funding is estimated to be ~$6.6 Million in 2016 and up to
~$7.1 Million in 2021. 
(3) Port would not be in compliance with Federal and State safety requirements regarding
obstructions to navigable airspace. 
(4) Airlines may be required to take weight penalties and/or not serve certain markets, as
aircraft would have to be lighter to take-off over the obstructions. 
(5) Does not meet the Airport's strategic goal of ensuring safe and secure operations. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3  Award the major works construction contract to the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder. This alternative delivers the project when needed. 
Cost Implications: None accomplished within existing budget. 
Pros:
(1)  No additional costs or delays for re-bid 
(2)  Maintains project schedule to begin removal of obstructions in 2016 

Template revised September 22, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 4, 2016 
Page 5 of 5 
Cons: 
(1)  None 
This is the recommended alternative. 
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND 
Obstructions are any objects penetrating FAA-designated approach and departure paths at or
around an airport. Obstruction studies and the related publication of obstruction charts were
completed every ten years by the FAA until approximately 1994. In preparing for the activation
of the Third Runway, the FAA performed an obstruction analysis in 2005 that led to the removal
of trees in 2006-2008. An aerial obstruction analysis was conducted by the Port in 2015 that
identified approximately 1,600 obstructions consisting of trees and other vegetation.
The Port has developed a comprehensive Flight Corridor Safety Program that will address the
removal of obstructions in several phases and span multiple years: 
Phase I: 2016/2017 - Port-Owned property 
Phase II: 2017/2018  Public agency-owned properties including Highline Public School
District, Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle Public Utilities and public
right of way within the cities of Burien, Des Moines and SeaTac; and commercial properties 
Phase III: 2018/2019 - Residential properties 
The Port may change scope elements of this contract and/or introduce into subsequent contracts
changes based on input from the surrounding airport communities. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
None 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
August 9, 2016  Commission authorized to advertise and execute a major works
construction contract in the amount of $1,831,000 for a total project cost of $2,731,000 
February 9, 2016  Commission authorized to design, advertise and execute a major
works construction contract in the amount of $750,000 for a total estimate project cost of
$900,000. 
November 24, 2015  Commission briefed on the Flight Corridor Safety Obstruction
Management program. The briefing provided an overview of state and federal
laws/requirements, and staff's recommendation of a phased delivery approach to
complete the program. 


Template revised September 22, 2016.