8d. Memo
Load Dock Employee Screening Project at SEA International Airport
COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8d ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting June 28, 2022 DATE: June 21, 2022 TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director FROM: Eileen Francisco, Director Aviation Project Management Wendy Reiter, Director Aviation Security SUBJECT: Load Dock Employee Screening Design, Equipment Purchase, and Construction Authorization (CIP# C801119) Amount of this request: $1,645,000 Total estimated project cost: $1,700,000 ACTION REQUESTED Request a single Commission authorization for the Executive Director to (1) complete the design of the Load Dock Employee Screening project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, (2) execute contracts to purchase screening equipment, and (3) use Port crews for construction. The total project estimated cost is $1,700,000. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project if constructed will deliver the necessary facilities to establish a higher level of employee screening in the load dock area of the Airport. This project will also help advance safe and secure operations by ensuring prohibited items are not brought into the sterile area through the loading dock. An existing Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract will be utilized for design, and Port Construction Services (PCS) will construct the project. To strengthen security and improve operations surrounding deliveries and the screening of employees, the Load Dock Employee Screening Project will serve as a vital conduit. The anticipated total project value is $1.7 million. JUSTIFICATION This project is required to meet the Airport’s goal of full employee screening. Currently, travel through the Loading Dock is managed using the Airport’s Access Control system. However, while deliveries are visually inspected, employees are not screened. Employee screening on the Load Dock would be co-located with inspections of deliveries to provide screening for everything transiting that space into the sterile area of the Airport, including employees, vendors, contractors, and their personal items. Template revised January 10, 2019. COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8d___ Page 2 of 5 Meeting Date: June 28, 2022 Diversity in Contracting The project staff intends to utilize an existing Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract which has an established 16% WMBE goal associated with the design. In partnership with the Diversity in Contracting department, this project will be performed by PCS and will utilize small works contracts that typically utilize women and minority-owned business enterprises (WMBE) as primes. DETAILS Scope of Work The project will be designed utilizing an existing IDIQ architectural firm. The capacity for this design has been reserved in anticipation of approval. The project will utilize PCS resources to construct and complete the installation of the security equipment. The project will procure an Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) screening machine through a sole-sourced contract valued at approximately $521,000. The AIT is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will allow screening for all personnel without the need for any additional accommodation, is TSA certified, and complies with current federal guidelines. The equipment will have a recurring maintenance contract, which will be budgeted within the Aviation Security department's annual operating budget. The project will also install an x-ray machine provided by the Port Security team. The project will complete upgrades to the existing security cameras, lighting, and signage at the Load Dock. Chain link fence and bollards will be installed around the perimeter of the Employee Screening to protect the new security equipment, and a hazardous materials storage cage will be relocated to accommodate the screening equipment placement. Schedule Activity Design start 2022 Quarter 3 Construction starts 2023 Quarter 2 In-use date 2023 Quarter 3 Cost Breakdown This Request Total Project Design $398,000 $453,000 Construction $726,000 $726,000 Owner Furnished Material & Equipment $521,000 $521,000 Total $1,645,000 $1,700,000 Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting). COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8d___ Page 3 of 5 Meeting Date: June 28, 2022 ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED Alternative 1: Construct an employee screening site at the Load Dock including explosive trace detection and a large scanner suitable for merchandise and goods materials inspections. Cost implications: $9,500,000 Pros: (1) Most thorough screening option that provides complete screening for materials and goods coming through the loading dock. (2) Merchandise will be going through a higher level of screening. Cons: (1) Most expensive option. (2) Takes up the most space and may not be able to fit without major infrastructure modifications. (3) Will have the highest processing time. This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 2: Provide stadium-style screening, with a walk-through metal detector and a table for hand-performed bag searches. Cost implications: $700,000 Pros: (1) Takes up less space. (2) Less initial capital investment. (3) Will provide a basic level of screening that will help achieve the Airport’s goal. (4) For employees and personal item screening. (5) Reduces the security risk, but not as much as the preferred alternative. Cons: (1) Not as thorough, more potential for human error. (2) Less efficient, subject to longer wait times, and decreased throughput. (3) Increased number of hand screens/pat-downs. (4) Does not meet the SEA Aviation Security Standard for Full Employee Screening This is not the recommended alternative Alternative 3: Construct an employee screening site at the loading dock, including an X-Ray machine and an AIT (body scanner). Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting). COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8d___ Page 4 of 5 Meeting Date: June 28, 2022 Cost implications: $1,700,000. Pros: (1) Employees and vendors along with personal belongings would be screened, mitigating security risks. (2) Aligns with the Airport’s security master plan. (3) Reduces the threat level of the airport. (4) Body scanner is more thorough because it is not restricted to metal objects. (5) Meets the SEA Aviation Security Standard for Full Employee Screening Cons: (1) May add to response time for maintenance staff and others. (2) Requires capital investment. (3) Reduces throughput of the gate during peak hours of the dock. (4) Will require maintenance of equipment. This is the recommended alternative. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary Capital Expense Total COST ESTIMATE Original estimate $1,500,0000 $0 $1,500,0000 Current change $200,000 $0 $200,000 Revised estimate $1,700,000 $0 $1,700,000 AUTHORIZATION Previous authorizations $55,000 $0 $55,000 Current request for authorization $1,645,000 $0 $1,645,000 Total authorizations, including this request $1,700,000 $0 $1,700,000 Remaining amount to be authorized $0 $0 $0 Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds This project, CIP C801119, was included in the 2022-2026 capital budget and plan of finance with a budget of $1,500,000. A budget increase of $200,000 was transferred from the Aeronautical Allowance CIP (C800753) resulting in zero net change to the Aviation capital budget. The funding source will include the Airport Development Fund (ADF) and revenue bond. Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting). COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8d___ Page 5 of 5 Meeting Date: June 28, 2022 Financial Analysis and Summary Project cost for analysis $1,700,000 Business Unit (BU) Terminal Building Effect on business performance NOI after depreciation will increase due to inclusion of (NOI after depreciation) capital (and operating) costs in airline rate base. IRR/NPV (if relevant) N/A CPE Impact Less than $.01 in 2023 ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST (1) Presentation slides PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS None Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
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.