PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      4g 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting      June 9, 2015 
DATE:    June 1, 2015 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management Group 
SUBJECT:  Architectural Design Services Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)
Professional Service Agreements 
Amount of This Request:             $0 
Maximum Value of          $3,500,000 
Contracts 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute up to three
professional services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for Architectural
Design Services totaling no more than $3,500,000 with a three-year contract ordering period. No
funding is associated with this authorization. 
SYNOPSIS 
Aviation Project Management analyzed the number of potential projects expected within the next
three years. Several projects were identified with an estimated design cost range from $100,000
to $500,000. In addition airline needs are driving many near-term development projects at the
Airport. Our evaluation concluded that an IDIQ design contract would be the best method to
secure architectural design,  and other associated team disciplines, such as electrical and
structural engineering, for these projects.
The service agreements resulting from this request will allow the Port to respond to a range of
design needs. The contract will be available to meet the needs of the Aviation Division. Exact
scope and timing of these projects are subject to future business needs. 
The intent is to issue two contracts of $1,500,000 each and we are setting aside one contract for
small business design firms for a third contract of $500,000. 
BACKGROUND 
In May 2012, the commission authorized two Architectural IDIQ contracts for a total of
$3,000,000. Both contracts are now nearing capacity. Over the next few years, a number of
projects are being planned and significant changes will be coming to the Airport to fulfill

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
June 1, 2015 
Page 2 of 3 
business plan objectives. Procuring additional Architectural IDIQ contracts will allow the Port to
meet the needs of the planned projects in a timely manner.
PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE 
The IDIQ contracts will be procured according to Port policies and procedures in accordance
with Resolution No. 3605, as amended, and procurement policy CPO-1. The Port will advertise
and  issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) that will include a goal for small business
participation. The contracts will be written with specific not-to-exceed amounts and identify the
services required. Each contract will have a contract-ordering period (during which the services
may be separately authorized) of three years. The actual contract duration may extend beyond
three years in order to complete work identified in particular service directives. Service
directives may be issued during the contract-ordering period and within the total original contract
value. 
Schedule 
We estimate that these contracts will be executed by November 2015 and have a three-year
ordering period. Each service directive will specify the duration and schedule associated with the
task or tasks involved. 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Charges to these contracts will be from projects that will be authorized separately through
established procedures. Consequently, there is no funding request associated with this
authorization. 
BUDGET STATUS AND SOURCE OF FUNDS 
There is no funding request associated with this authorization. Individual service directives will
be executed to authorize the consultant to perform any specific work on the contract against
approved project authorizations and within the total contract amount. 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1)  Separate Procurement for Each Project 
Pros: 
Separate contracts would allow consulting firms multiple opportunities to
compete for each individual project. 
Cons: 
This alternative would increase overhead and administrative costs to the Port, as
we would need to manage more procurement processes and contracts. 
This alternative may add 4 months to each project schedule to complete the
procurement process for each individual project and would impact the ability to
meet project and customer needs. 
Costs to the consulting company may increase as they would be responding to
multiple procurements.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
June 1, 2015 
Page 3 of 3 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2)  Prepare a Single Procurement Contract 
Pros: 
Prepare a contract with up to three firms for design needs as they arise. This
alternative would insure the Port has the necessary professional and technical
resources available to assist in time-critical evaluations and delivery of future
projects, and that small business participation is part of the criteria. 
This alternative would minimize the number of procurement processes necessary
for timely completion of projects and reduce overhead and administrative costs to
the Port. 
Set aside one contract of lower dollar value for small business. 
Cons: 
This alternative would limit the number of opportunities available to firms to
compete for work. 
This is the recommended alternative. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
None 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
May 28, 2013 - The Commission voted to authorize the execution of two professional
services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for architectural service. 
January 10, 2012 - The Commission voted to authorize the execution of a professional
services indefinite delivery, indefinite quality contract for architectural services.