COMMISSION 
AGENDA MEMORANDUM                        Item No.          8j 
ACTION ITEM                            Date of Meeting     November 17, 2020 
DATE:     November 17, 2020 
TO:        Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director 
FROM:    Luis Navarro, Director, Workforce Development, Consuelo Davis, Program Manager,
Workforce Development, and LeeAnne Schirato, Commission Specialist 
SUBJECT:  Workforce Development Partnership Competitive Exemption 
Total contract amount:                 $500,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization (1) for the Executive Director to enter into agreement with
the City of Seattle to support the regional effort to improve apprenticeship retention and provide 
workforce development and Priority Hire programs for an amount not to exceed $500,000 during
a contract period not to exceed five years; and (2) that Commission exercise its authority under
RCW 53.19.020(5) to determine a competitive solicitation process is not appropriate or cost
effective. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The Port recognizes that the City of Seattle is uniquely positioned to coordinate regional efforts 
to align construction career investments to promote training and career opportunities for
residents of economically distressed areas and increase participation by underrepresented
groups. Despite the successes attained by construction workforce diversity programs, racial,
gender and economic disparities continue to exist in the construction trades industry and in our
larger community. The City has issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to competitively select
firm(s) to provide these services and manage the contract(s) on behalf of the Port and Sound
Transit. This partnership leverages the Port's investments in workforce development. 
It is in the port's best interest to partner with the City of Seattle to develop, implement, and
manage the program that aims to further equity in construction for Black, Indigenous and other
people of color (BIPOC), women and residents of economically distressed ZIP codes. 
JUSTIFICATION 
Staff  is  recommending  Commission  determine  that  a  separate  Port-specific  competitive
solicitation process is not appropriate or cost effective in accordance with RCW 53.19.020(5) for
this specific scope of work. Under this agreement: 
1.  The City of Seattle, a local municipality, will conduct a competitive RFP process to solicit
firm(s) to provide the services on behalf of the Port and the other public partners. This

Template revised April 12, 2018.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 8j                                   Page 2 of 4 
November 17, 2020 
reduces Port administrative costs in directly managing the contract performance of the
selected firm(s) while providing services to the community. 
2.  The City of Seattle is the public agency with the capacity and ability to manage this
regional effort based on historical background in managing workforce development
services. 
DETAILS 
Actions anticipated under this agreement may include, but are not limited to, the following: 
1.  The City has issued the competitive RFP and will provide the Port of Seattle an opportunity to
participate in the evaluation committee to review and rank proposer(s), in accordance with
the City's RFP selection process. 
2.  The City will, in its sole discretion, enter into contracts with the successful proposer(s) ranked
highest by the evaluation committee. 
3. The City will acknowledge the Port's participation in any resulting work product from this
procurement and resulting contract(s). 
4.  The City and Port will each plan and facilitate at least one quarterly partnership meeting
annually with all proposer(s) awarded under this RFP, unless otherwise mutually agreed
upon. Quarterly partnership meetings will be designed to coordinate efforts, share best
practices, align efforts, provide updates and document shared impacts and successes. 
5.  The City will collect and provide the Port reports in a mutually agreed format for non-preapprenticeship
training contract(s) issued with joint funds under this RFP, including results,
outcomes and performance evaluations for the life of the contract(s). Reports will be shared
quarterly, unless another schedule is mutually agreed upon. Reports for pre-apprenticeship
training contract(s) issued with joint funds will be obtained by each individual agency through
the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries pre-apprenticeship database. 

ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1  The Port solicits its own contract for apprenticeship retention and provide 
workforce development and Priority Hire programs; and directly manages the contract
performance. 
Cost Implications: not to exceed $500,000 in un-leveraged funding during period not to exceed
five years 
Pros: 
(1) The Port directly enters into an agreement with the awarded firm(s) after conducting its
own procurement process. This provides us with direct contract performance
management versus working with a third-party, such as the City of Seattle. 
(2) This alternative does not require coordination with other public agencies. 


Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 8j                                   Page 3 of 4 
November 17, 2020 

Cons: 
(1) The Port is limited to its own funding availability without the ability to leverage other
public funds.
(2) This alternative does not align with the Port's Workforce Development Policy Directive
goal to foster partnerships that will maximize the workforce development impact of the
Port of Seattle. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2  The Port does not fund apprenticeship retention or support workforce
development and Priority Hire programs. 
Cost Implications: no cost implications 
Pros: 
(1) No cost implications for the Port of Seattle 
Cons: 
(1) The Port does not advance its workforce development strategic plan 
(2) The Port does not leverage its partnerships to maximize regional workforce development
impact. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3  Commission exempts this agreement with the City of Seattle, exercising its
authority under RCW 53.19.020(5), and determines a competitive selection process is not
appropriate or cost-effective. 
Cost Implications: not to exceed $500,000 in leveraged funding during period not to exceed five 
years 
Pros: 
(1) City of Seattle, the Port, and other public partners are leveraging public funds to provide
services that aim to further equity in construction for Black, Indigenous and other people
of color (BIPOC), women and residents of economically distressed ZIP codes. By
consolidating public funds, the funding capacity for services into the community is greater
than each public agency managing their own individual efforts.
(2) The Port is able to advance its Workforce Development Policy Directive goal to leverage
partnerships to maximize regional workforce development impact. 
(3) Community based organizations participating as contractors will not be required to report
to several public agencies under separate contracts. 

Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 8j                                   Page 4 of 4 
November 17, 2020 
Cons: 
(1) The Port does not have a direct contractual authority with the selected firm(s) delivering
the services of apprenticeship retention, address workforce development and Priority
Hire. 
This is the recommended alternative. 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
The total estimated services will not exceed $500,000, for up to five years. $100,000 to be paid
in December 2020 using 2020 funding & $100,000 payment in 2021. $300,000 is for future
funding opportunities to continue partnership beyond 2021. By structuring this as an open
order type contract, the Port is able to issue service directives to fund with the remaining
$300,000 if allocated in the budget. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
(1) City of Seattle Construction Recruitment, Training, Job Readiness, and Retention
Request for Proposals (RFP) 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
N/A 










Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.