PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.       4f 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting    February 24, 2015 
DATE:    February 17, 2015 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Michael Ehl, Director, Airport Operations 
Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management Group 
SUBJECT:  Professional Service Contracts for Airfield Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity
(IDIQ) 
Amount of This Request:             $0   Source of Funds:      Not Applicable 
Maximum Contracts Value:      $4,000,000 

ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute two professional
services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for airfield technical support
services in the amount of $2,000,000 per contract for a total of $4,000,000 with a contract
ordering period of three years in support of upcoming airfield capital improvement projects at
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. A budget request is not associated with this authorization. 
SYNOPSIS 
Over the next few years, the Port of Seattle will embark on several large development programs
to fulfill business goals and Century Agenda Objectives. Procuring airfield technical support
services IDIQ contracts will allow the Port to meet the needs of the planned projects in a timely
manner. 
IDIQ contracts provide the Port with the flexibility to meet business requirements as they arise
by issuing individual service directives to accomplish tasks within a general, pre-defined scope
of work on an as-needed basis for a fixed period of time and a maximum contract amount. 

BACKGROUND 
The proposed IDIQ is for technical support services for engineering evaluations and analyses,
planning, operational, design and construction support, and for permits required for specific
projects.  Over the next few years, a number of projects are being planned and significant
changes will be coming to the Airport to fulfill business plan objectives. The Port will need the
ability to obtain highly technical assistance and to have additional resources available for periods

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 17, 2015 
Page 2 of 3 
of peak work load or when regular Port staff is not available to ensure project delivery can occur
in a timely manner. 
Upcoming design projects at the Airport will consist of small scale projects requiring a quick
turnaround and large scale projects requiring several years of planning and design support. In
order to meet the service capacity and turnaround times needed, staff recommends the Port
contract with two consulting firms. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
Contracts for architectural and engineering services are addressed in Revised Code of
Washington 39.80 that requires selection be based on the most highly qualified firm at a price
that is considered fair and reasonable to the agency.  Agency procedures and guidelines shall
include a plan to insure that minority and women-owned firms and veteran-owned firms are
afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to compete for and obtain public contracts for
services. 
The Port will advertise and issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) that includes small business
goals, including small contractors and suppliers (SCS); participation as determined jointly with
the Office of Social Responsibility (OSR). The consultant will provide a multidisciplinary team
to meet the Port's needs. The program lead will support the small business and SCS goals, 
which provide opportunities for a variety of small businesses to participate. SCS goals and the
opportunity for minority and women-owned firms and veteran-owned firms to participate can be
met by the use of subconsultants or joint ventures. 
The contract will have a contract ordering period (during which the design services may be
separately authorized) of three years. The actual contract period may extend beyond three years 
in order to complete the work identified in particular service directive(s). Service directives may
be issued during the contract ordering period. The Port will not issue service directives in excess
of the contract value. 
Representative projects could include, but are not limited to, airfield operational analysis, general
aviation planning, aircraft parking and gate layout planning, airfield electrical system upgrades,
wildlife data analysis, refueling and fuel management systems, stormwater and IWS system
evaluation, CAD support services and safety risk assessments. It is anticipated that many of
these projects and other non-identified projects will move forward for approvals based on the
improvements and their timing identified to support the Sustainable Airport Master Plan. Each
service directive will include the project specific scope, duration and schedule associated with
the work. 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
The total estimated cost for technical support services will not exceed $4,000,000. Each contract
will have a not-to-exceed threshold of $2,000,000. Work is not guaranteed to the consultants and
the Port is not obligated to pay the consultant until a service directive is executed.  After

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 17, 2015 
Page 3 of 3 
receiving authorization for each specific project in accordance with Resolution No. 3605, as
amended, the actual scope of work will be fully defined and the Port will issue individual
project-specific service directives. 

ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1)  Separate Procurement for Each Project 
Pros: 
Separate contracts would allow consulting firms multiple opportunities to
complete 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 would add 4 to 6 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 community may increase as they are responding to
multiple procurements. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2)  Prepare a Single Procurement Contract 
Pros: 
Prepare a single contract with 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