Concourse D Hardstand

INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT 


Source: Port of Seattle 
Operational Audit - Capital 
Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom 
April 2017  June 2019 

Issue Date: September 3, 2019 
Report No. 2019-15 


INTERNAL AUDIT

Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 3 
Schedule of Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 5 
Appendix A: Risk Ratings ....................................................................................................................................... 8 
Appendix B: Lump Sum Audit Clause Example ..................................................................................................... 9 














2

Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom 
Executive Summary 
Internal Audit (IA) completed an audit of the Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom (Holdroom) for the
period April 2017 through June 2019. The audit was performed to assess the quality of the Port's
monitoring of the Project to assure it met the Port's project management standards. 
Construction began in September of 2017 and the Holdroom opened on October 31, 2018. It is
approximately 32,400 square feet and includes six gate-like areas. Passengers are transported, by
bus, from the Holdroom to remote hardstands. The remote hardstands are used by passengers to
embark and disembark the aircraft. 
The project delivery method used to build the Holdroom was a design-build with a lump sum contract.
The Project team included Mackenzie Engineering (Consultant) as the Port's pre-design consultant,
The Walsh Group (Contractor) as the design-builder and HOK as the lead architect. The design-build
contract was $24.3 million which included a $350 thousand allowance for differing site condition
changes. An additional $1.7 million was incurred in change orders. Total expenses for the Project,
which included both construction costs and the Port's soft costs, totaled $35.1 million. Funding for the
project came from revenue bonds and the debt service is included in airline rates and charges. 
Our review noted that Port management's monitoring and documentation of change management
generally aligned with industry standards. This was evident in the areas of documenting the reasons
for changes, estimating change values, and complying with contractual mark-up provisions. However,
we identified two opportunities for managements' consideration: 
1.   (Medium) - The Port's consultant did not have adequate knowledge of airport building
requirements, which resulted in the design/concept drawings including a building type that was
not allowed in airport terminals. The Consultant's error on the design/concept drawings resulted in
additional costs to the Port of $142,654. 
2.    (Medium) - The Contract restricted the Port's ability to audit all contractor and subcontractor
records within the lump sum contract. The audit clause only allows audit of documents related to
changes. When audit clauses are restrictive, there is an inherent risk that the Port may end up
paying additional costs or not receive expected deliverables, without detection. 
These issues are discussed in more detail beginning on page five of this report. 


Glenn Fernandes, CPA 
Director, Internal Audit 

Responsible Management Team 
Jeffrey Brown, Director AV Facilities and Capital Programs 
Wayne Grotheer, Director Aviation PMG 
Tina Soike, Chief Engineering Director- Engineer Services 
Janice Zahn, Assistant Engineering Director- Construction Services 

3

Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom 
Background 
The new Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom (Holdroom) is approximately 32,400 square feet and
includes six gate-like areas. Passengers are transported, by bus, from the Holdroom to remote
hardstands. The remote hardstands are used by passengers to embark and disembark the aircraft. 
The Port of Seattle's Concourse D Annex project is designed to relieve current congestion for travelers
waiting at crowded gates and aircraft waiting on the airfield for an open gate to deplane passengers
during peak periods. The new annex uses space at Sea-Tac more efficiently to provide for passengers
waiting for flights, reduces the amount of time passengers spend waiting for a plane to arrive at a gate,
saves greenhouse gas emissions from idling aircraft, and saves airlines fuel. 
A sky-lighted curved roof structure includes a gently sloped ramp to the ground level and the departing
gates. Amenities for passengers include concessions, charging stations, free WiFi and restrooms. 
Total expenses for the Project, which included both construction costs and the Port's soft costs, totaled
$35.1 million including $1.7 million in change orders. Funding for the project came from short-term
revenue bonds and debt service included in airline rates and charges. Construction began in
September 2017 and the Terminal opened October 31, 2018. 
Audit Scope and Methodology 
We conducted the engagement in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards and the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. Those
standards require that we plan and conduct an engagement to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our engagement objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our engagement objectives. 
The period audited was April 2017 through June 2019 and included the following procedures: 
Change Orders and Port Allowance 
Verified proper approvals. 
Confirmed approved change orders and written authorizations tied to the full trend log. 
Performed a full reconciliation of allowance use. 
Reviewed documentation backup for direct costs, accurate markups, and change order/claim
submissions, specifically for errors & omissions change orders. 
Key Deliverables 
Assessed the Port project team's process was adequate to assure key deliverables, and
material requirements were met. 
Reviewed documentation backup, including punch list items, designs, general conditions, and
key deliverable requirements. 
Project Delivery Method 
Obtained an understanding of the project team's process of determining the proper project
delivery method. 
Assessed potential risks of project delivery methods through review of construction audit
guidance. 
Contract Language 
Assessed the contract language for use of the allowance, and the audit clause and the change
order process within the general conditions. 

4

Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom 
Schedule of Findings and Recommendations 
1) Rating: Medium 
The Port's consultant did not have adequate knowledge of airport building requirements, which
resulted in the design/concept drawings including a building type that was not allowed in
airport terminals. The Consultant's error on the design/concept drawings resulted in additional
costs to the Port of $142,654. 
The Port's consultant was tasked to prepare an investigative study and design/concept drawings up to
15% at a cost of approximately $95 thousand. The drawings were included in the Request for
Proposal (RFP) for contractors to use in their proposals. On May 11, 2017, after the contract with the
Contractor was executed, and the Holdroom design package was at 60% completion, the Port notified
the Contractor that the Port's Fire Protection Engineer concluded the type of building listed in the RFP
was not allowed for airport terminal buildings. The Fire Protection Engineer's conclusion was based on
the Port Fire Department's interpretation of the National Fire Protection Association's Standards
(NFPA 415; NFPA 5000). This conclusion resulted in additional time for the Contractor's team to
amend its design documents. 
Ultimately, the Port authorized a change order with the Contractor for $142,654. On December 18,
2017, the Port submitted a formal notice to the Consultant, of the error & omission (E&O), and the
Port's position that the Consultant was responsible for all additional costs because of the error. On
December 19, 2017, the Consultant acknowledged receipt of the notice and forwarded it to its E&O
insurance carrier. After the additional work was performed, and paid by the Port, the Port did not
pursue further action. 
Recommendations: 
Port management should follow-up with the Consultant regarding the formal notice dated December
18, 2017 requesting they absorb the cost. The timeliness of following up is critical since the statute of
limitations runs through May 11, 2020. Depending on the response received, Port management should
pursue collection options with consultation with the Port's Legal Department. 
Management Response/Action Plan: 
The Port's Project Team (Engineering and Project Management) will consult Port's Legal Department
for advice and direction regarding this topic. Upon consensus with Port Legal, the Port will formally
respond to Mackenzie, with cognizance for the time limitations. 

DUE DATE: 12/31/2019 





5

Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom 

2) Rating: Medium 
The Contract restricted the Port's ability to audit all contractor and subcontractor records 
within the lump sum contract. The audit clause only allows audit of documents related to
changes. When audit clauses are restrictive, there is an inherent risk that the Port may end up
paying additional costs or not receive expected deliverables, without detection. 
Audit Clause: 
The General Conditions of the Contract includes an Audit Clause (G-04.40) that allows the Port to
inspect, audit or copy the Contractor and its subcontractors Project Records. However, the General
Conditions limits these rights to, "Those financial Project Records related to Requests for Change
Orders, Claims, Value Engineering Change Proposals, or other adjustment to the Contract Sum." 
Lump sum contracts, such as the one used for this project, transfers more risk to the Contractor and is
easier for the Port to administer than other delivery methods, such as cost-plus fee contracts with a
guaranteed maximum price (GMP). However, there are still ways the Port may pay additional costs, or
not receive expected deliverables. Risks associated with lump sum contracts include situations where
a subcontractor bids on one scope of work and proposes several options that might involve less
expensive materials and methods. If the less expensive materials or methods are accepted by the
Contractor  in  the  buy-out  of  the  subcontract  (transitional  time  between  preconstruction  and
construction phase), the Port may not be credited the difference. Other exposures with lump sum
contracts include subcontractors substituting lower grade material than called for in the specifications
or use less material than for which the Port was billed1. Our audit noted that the Port's Project team
instituted  compensating  controls  to  decrease  these  risks,  such  as  daily  construction  inspector
monitoring, pre-install meetings with the Contractor, review of Contractor daily reports and utilization a
materials testing consulting firm. While these compensating controls decrease the risks noted above,
thereby providing comfort that the Port received the agreed upon deliverables and materials, audit
clauses should not be restrictive. 
Force Account: 
Construction Management Engineering Standard Operating Procedures (SOP 40.04) describe force
accounting as a process that ensures an organized, identifiable, verifiable and accountable method of
compensating a Contractor for costs and expenses including labor, material and equipment expended
by the Contractor and tracked daily. Furthermore, SOP 40.04 I.A.1 states in part, "The Port needs to
be proactive on defining and directing what we want the Contractor to do since it is all time and
materials (T&M) work that the Port will be paying for." Article 4.2.2 of the Contract requires that the
Contractor be paid pursuant to a Force Account for all work performed under a Port Allowance.
However, the Article allows the Port to pay for the Scope of Work as a lump sum which contradicts
SOP 40.04. Our testing determined that the Port's Project team reconciled all the approved Written
Authorizations to actual costs. 
Recommendations: 
1.  Audit clauses facilitate transparency and empower the Port to verify compliance with contract
terms. Therefore, we recommend that future contracts do not include audit limitations. An example
of a thorough audit clause is presented at Appendix B. 
2.  Update either future contract requirements or the SOP so that the language in both documents are
congruent. 

1 Rich Townsend, R.L. Townsend & Associates, LLC, Effective Auditing of Construction Activity; Courtenay M. Thompson,
Courtenay Thompson & Associates, The Reasons for Auditing Lump Sum Construction Contracts 

6

Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom 
Management Response/Action Plan: 
Response #1- Audit Clause: 
Port Engineering, Project Management and Central Procurement Office (CPO) will meet to discuss
modifications to the audit provisions in future contracts. 
Response #2- Force Account: 
Port Construction Management will review and make changes to ensure that contract requirements
and SOP are congruent. 

DUE DATE: 12/31/2019 















7

Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom 
Appendix A: Risk Ratings 
Findings identified during the audit are assigned a risk rating, as outlined in the table below. Only one
of the criteria needs to be met for a finding to be rated High, Medium, or Low. Findings rated Low will
be evaluated and may or may not be reflected in the final report. 
Financial      Internal                                               Commission/
Rating                                   Compliance      Public 
Stewardship  Controls                                         Management 
High probability
Non-compliance
Missing or not                       for external audit   Requires
with Laws, Port
High       Significant     followed                          issues and / or     immediate
Policies, 
negative public     attention 
Contracts 
perception 
Partial              Potential for
Partial controls 
compliance with   external audit
Requires
Medium   Moderate                  Laws, Port       issues and / or
Not functioning                                          attention 
Policies             negative public
effectively 
Contracts          perception 
Functioning as
Low probability
intended but     Mostly complies                       Does not
for external audit
could be        with Laws, Port                       require
Low      Minimal                                    issues and/or
enhanced to     Policies,                            immediate
negative public
improve        Contracts                           attention 
perception 
efficiency 











8

Concourse D Hardstand Holdroom 
Appendix B: Lump Sum Audit Clause Example 
A.  Records for all contracts, specifically including but not limited to lump sum contracts (i.e. fixed 
price or stipulated sum contracts), unit price, cost plus or time & material contracts with or 
without a guaranteed maximum (or not-to-exceed amounts) shall upon reasonable notice be
open to inspection and subject to audit, scanning, and/or reproduction during normal business 
working hours. Such audits may be performed by any Owner's representative or any outside
representative engaged by Owner for the purpose of examining such records. The Owner or
its designee may conduct such audits or inspections throughout the term of this contract and for 
a  period  of  three  years  after  final  payment  or  longer  if  required  by  law.  Owner's
representatives may (without limitation) conduct verifications such as counting employees at
the Construction Site, witnessing the distribution of payroll, verifying information and amounts
through interviews and written confirmations with Contractor employees, field and agency 
labor, subcontractors, and vendors. 
B.  Contractor's "records" as referred to in this Exhibit shall include any and all information, 
materials and data of every kind and character, including without limitation, records, books,
papers,  documents,  subscriptions,  recordings,  agreements,  purchase  orders,  leases,
contracts, commitments, arrangements, notes, daily diaries, e-mails, superintendent reports, 
drawings, receipts, vouchers and memoranda, and any and all other agreements, sources of
information and matters that may in Owner's judgment have any bearing on or pertain to any
matters, rights, duties or obligations under or covered by any Contract Document.  Such 
records shall include written policies and procedures; time sheets; payroll registers; payroll
records; cancelled payroll checks; subcontract files (including proposals of successful and
unsuccessful bidders, bid recaps, negotiation notes, etc.); original bid estimates; estimating
work  sheets;  correspondence;  change  order  files  (including  documentation  covering
negotiated settlements); back charge logs and supporting documentation; invoices and
related  payment  documentation;  general  ledger,  information  detailing  cash  and  trade 
discounts earned, insurance rebates and dividends; and any other contractor records which
may have a bearing on matters of interest to the Owner in connection with the contractor's 
dealings with the Owner. 
C. Contractor shall require all payees receiving $10,000 or more in connection with this contract 
(examples of payees include subcontractors, material suppliers, insurance carriers, etc.) to 
comply with the provisions of this article by including the requirements hereof in a written 
contract agreement between Contractor and payee. Contractor will ensure that all payees 
(including those entering into lump sum contracts) have the same right to audit provisions
contained in this contract. 
D.  Owner's authorized representative(s) shall have reasonable access to the Contractor's facilities, 
shall be allowed to interview all current or former employees to discuss matters pertinent to the
performance of this contract and shall be provided adequate and appropriate work space, to 
conduct audits in compliance with this article. 
If  an  audit  inspection  or  examination  in  accordance  with  this  article,  discloses  overpricing  or
overcharges to the Owner (of any nature) by the Contractor and/or the Contractor's Subcontractors
more than $100,000 in addition to adjusting for the overcharges, the reasonable actual cost of the
Owner's audit shall be reimbursed to the Owner by the Contractor. Any adjustments and/or payments
which must be made because of any such audit or inspection of the Contractor's invoices and/or
records shall be made within a reasonable amount of time (not to exceed 90 days) from presentation
of Owner's findings to Contractor. 

9

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.