Item 6a Memo

PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 

COMMISSION AGENDA             Item No.      6a 
Date of Meeting       April 21, 2009 
DATE:    April 3, 2009 
TO:      Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:    Ralph Graves, Managing Director Capital Development 
Peter Garlock, Chief Information Officer 
SUBJECT:  Funding for Enterprise Project Cost Management System 
REQUEST:  Request for authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to approve all work and
contracts including: advertise, award, administer, prepare, execute and amend any
and all necessary service agreements for the Enterprise Project Cost Management
System Project in an amount not to exceed $1,975,000 and for ongoing annual
support and software license fees in an amount estimated at $110,000 per year for
five years. 
BACKGROUND
The Port of Seattle currently has three independent project management systems that were
internally developed ten years ago to support the unique business requirements of separate
organizations. The tracking and management of the costs and labor hours associated with
projects was done using financial and human resource management systems that were separate
from the project management systems. This approach required duplicate entry of information,
and caused limitations in cost visibility and the timeliness of reporting. 
In 2007, the Washington State Auditor's Office (SAO) performed an audit that found
deficiencies in the Port's construction project cost management. As a remedy, SAO
recommended implementing a centralized Enterprise Project Cost Management System 
(EPCMS) to improve the visibility and timeliness of project cost management. 
In collaboration with the Capital Development team, Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) conducted a comprehensive evaluation of our current systems and related
business processes in order to implement SAO's recommendation. We also sought best practice
experiences from peer organizations. This effort will culminate in the selection of a
comprehensive solution following a formal RFP process.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 16, 2009 
Page 2 of 4 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK 
Project Statement 
Replace the current construction costing systems with a common enterprise project cost
management system. The solution will be selected through a formal RFP process by a team
comprised of members from Capital Development (Seaport, Aviation, and Engineering),
Accounting, and Information and Communications Technology. 
Project Objectives 
Ensure that project cost information is accessible in real-time, and transparent to
management, staff, contractors, Commission, and the public. 
Ensure that project cost information is presented in a manner that facilitates the
construction management process. 
Ensure that the system provides appropriate alerts to cost issues, and facilitates real-time 
decision making by management, staff, and contractors. 
Ensure that the system monitors and manages workflow to improve productivity, quality
and efficiency by providing best practices and single source of data entry. 
Scope of Work 
Replace multiple construction costing systems with a new enterprise project cost
management system. 
Provide interfaces/integration to other internal systems. 
Provide training as required. 
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES 
This project supports the following Port strategies: 
"Ensure Airport and Seaport Vitality" by providing features and functionality not found
in the Port's current systems. The enterprise project cost management system will enable
greater accountability, compliance, and improved project management practices. 
"Be a High-Performance Organization" by introducing productivity enhancing
technology into our workplace. This provides cost efficiencies and advances our
strategies for common construction processes and single-source systems. 
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/RECOMMENDED ACTION 
1.  Modify the existing systems to address the SAO findings. This will not resolve other
functionality or system issues and will incur increasingly high maintenance costs. This is
not the recommended alternative. 
2.  Replace the current construction costing systems with a commercial, enterprise project
cost management system selected through a formal RFP process. This alternative meets
all project objectives. This is the recommended alternative

COMMISSION AGENDA 
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 16, 2009 
Page 3 of 4 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
This project includes $450,000 in expenses for business process work, vendor selection and end
user training which are not capitalized. The capital portion of this project includes purchase and
implementation of the new system. 
Budget/Authorization Summary 
Capital Project Budget 
Original Budget                                          $1,525,000 
Budget Transfers                                              $0 
Revised Budget                                        $1,525,000 
Expense Project Budget 
Original Budget                                           $450,000 
Budget Transfers                                              $0 
Revised Budget                                         $450,000 
Total Project Budget                                    $1,975,000 
Previous Authorizations  Executive                              $195,000 
Current request for authorization                                 $1,780,000 
Total Authorizations, including this request                          $1,975,000 
Remaining budget to be authorized                                   $0 
Project Cost Breakdown 
Capital Project 
Hardware and Software                                   $460,000 
Vendor Implementation Services                              $190,000 
Port of Seattle Staff and Contractors                               $614,000 
Sales Tax                                                $62,000 
Contingency                                          $199,000 
Total Capital Project                                         $1,525,000 
Expense Project 
Port of Seattle Staff and Contractors                               $417,000 
Contingency                                          $33,000 
Total Expense Project                                       $450,000 
Total                                               $1,975,000

COMMISSION AGENDA 
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 16, 2009 
Page 4 of 4 

System Continuing Costs 
Software Maintenance Fees                                 $100,000 
Sales Tax (9.5%)                                          $10,000 
Annual Vendor Support Costs                            $110,000 
Source of Funds 
The capital portion of this project is included in the 2009 capital budget and plan of finance as a
committed project, CIP C800321. The source of capital funds is 64% Airport Development Fund
and 36% General Fund. 
The 2009 expense portion of this project is included in the annual operating budget. 
Financial Analysis Summary: 
CIP Category             New 
Project Type              Technology 
Risk adjusted Discount rate     7.0% 
Key risk factors             NA 
Project cost for analysis        $1,975,000 
Business Unit (BU)           Capital Development Division 
Effect on business performance   Reduction of operation and maintenance costs 
IRR/NPV 5 year           NA 
CPE Impact 

PROJECT SCHEDULE 
Contract Execution                    May 2009 
Business Process Modeling, Requirements     June 2009 
Install and Configure New System          October 2009 
Implementation, Testing, Training           February 2010 
Go Live                          February 2010 
REQUESTED ACTION 
ICT requests that the Port Commission authorize the Chief Executive Officer to approve all work 
and contracts including: advertise, award, administer, prepare, execute and amend any and all
necessary service agreements for the Enterprise Project Cost Management System Project in an
amount not to exceed $1,975,000 and for ongoing annual support and software license fees in an
amount estimated at $110,000 per year for five years.

Limitations of Translatable Documents

PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.