PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      4b 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting     April 28, 2015 
DATE:    April 22, 2015 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Cassie Fritz, Program Controls Manager, Seaport Project Management 
SUBJECT:  Roofing Inspection and Design Support Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity
(IDIQ) Professional Service Agreement 
Amount of This Request: $0 
Maximum Value of IDIQ Contract: $1,200,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute up to two
professional services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for Roofing 
Inspection and Design support services totaling no more than $1,200,000 with a three-year 
contract ordering period. No funding is associated with this authorization. 
SYNOPSIS 
Seaport Project Management analyzed the number of potential roof repair or replacement 
projects expected within the next three years. Several projects were identified with an estimated 
design cost range from $55,000 to $125,000. In addition to replacement, this contract would 
cover tasks associated with general maintenance and roof repairs. The evaluation process 
concluded that an IDIQ design contract would be the best method to secure design and 
engineering support for these projects. 
The service agreements resulting from this request will allow the Port to respond to a range of 
needs, including, but not limited to, roof inspections, surveys, and design for roof repair or 
replacement. The contract will be available to meet the needs of the Maritime, Economic
Development and Aviation Divisions, as well as for Alliance properties. Exact scope and 
timing of these projects are subject to future surveys and business  needs of the Port or the
Alliance. The proposed professional services IDIQ contracts would allow the Port to respond 
to future service needs efficiently and cost effectively. The project manager will coordinate
with the Office of Social Responsibility to identify opportunities for small business
participation prior to the public advertisement of the IDIQ. 

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
April 22, 2015 
Page 2 of 3 
PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE 
Scope of Work 
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 
It is estimated that the contracts will be executed by August 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. 
This is not the recommended alternative.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
April 22, 2015 
Page 3 of 3 
Alternative 2)  Prepare a Single Procurement Contract 
Pros: 
Prepare a contract with up to two firms for identified 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. 
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 
None