PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 

COMMISSION AGENDA             Item No.      5a 
Date of Meeting     June 2, 2009 
DATE:    May 14, 2009 
TO:      Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:    Ralph Graves, Managing Director Capital Development 
Nora Huey, Director, Central Procurement Office 
SUBJECT:  Determination that competitive solicitation is not appropriate or cost-effective for
procuring conflict resolution services (including arbitrators, mediators, third-party
arbitrators, dispute resolution board members and hearing officers) and exempting 
such contracts from the requirements of Chapter 53.19 RCW. 
REQUESTED ACTION 
Request for Port Commission determination that competitive solicitation is not appropriate or
cost-effective for procuring conflict resolution services (including arbitrators, mediators, thirdparty
arbitrators/appraisers, dispute resolution board members and hearing officers) and
exempting such contracts from the requirements of Chapter 53.19 RCW. 
EXEMPTION FROM COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION (RCW 53.19.010) 
Contracts for conflict resolution services, such as arbitrators, mediators, third-party
arbitrators/appraisers, dispute resolution board members and hearing officers are subject to
Chapter 53.19 RCW, which requires "open competition for all personal service contracts entered
into by port districts unless specifically exempted under this Chapter [53.19]." Unless this class
of contracts falls under one of the five exemptions in RCW 53.19.020, the contracts would be
subject to "competitive solicitation"  defined as "a documented formal process providing an
equal and open opportunity to qualified parties and culminating in a selection based on criteria,
in which criteria other than price may be the primary basis for consideration." 
RCW 53.19.020 lists five exemptions from competitive solicitation. The fifth exemption is for
"[o]ther specific contracts or classes or groups of contracts exempted from the competitive
solicitation process by the commission when it has been determined that a competitive
solicitation process is not appropriate or cost-effective." RCW 53.19.020(5). 
In order to include the class of contracts for providing conflict resolution services (including
arbitrators, mediators, third-party arbitrators/appraisers, dispute resolution board members and
hearing officers) under the exemption in RCW 53.19.020(5), the Commission must make a
reasoned determination that the competitive selection process would not be appropriate or cost

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
May 14, 2009 
Page 2 of 2 

effective to obtain the services that this class of contracts provides. In making the determination
as to whether the proposed class of contracts should be exempt from competitive solicitation
requirements, the Commission must avoid acting arbitrarily and capriciously by noting and
discussing relevant facts and circumstances. 
The Central Procurement Office of the Capital Development Division requests that the
Commission consider the following factors and determine that subjecting the class of contracts
for providing conflict resolution services (including arbitrators, mediators, third-party
arbitrators/appraisers, dispute resolution board members and hearing officers) to competitive
solicitation requirements would not be cost effective or appropriate: 
Conflict resolution services provided by arbitrators, mediators, third-party
arbitrators/appraisers, dispute resolution board members and hearing officers, are
generally required in conjunction with resolution of conflicts/disagreements under a
contract to which the Port is one of several parties. 
The Port's need for these services is generally subject to time-lines dictated by the
contract and may not reasonably permit competitive solicitation. 
Exempting this class of services from competitive solicitation increases the number of
service providers available for selection where both parties to a contract must approve the
provider. 
The selection of arbitrators, mediators, third party arbitrators/appraisers, dispute
resolution board members and hearing officers, is frequently a multi-party decision that is
not compatible with the Port's solicitation process.