Item No: _____7a_supp________ Date of Meeting: __April 5, 2011__ RCF Construction March 4, 2011 February 1, 2011 RCF Construction CSB Vaulted Ceiling Installation Progress BMF South Ramp Retaining Wall Placement NW Support Building Cladding Installation ORI Forming and tying rebar at Abutment 1 2 Rental Car Facility Program Contract - Status Summary Base Contract Amount Revised Additional Costs * In review ** Unallocated Balance Executed Billed to date (as of Feb 2011) Consolidated Rental Car Facility Total Construction Costs $224,837,739 $211,421,525 $214,455 $202,606,715 $8,600,355 $194,465,051 $5,953,159 $17,031,082 $11,830,698 $8,765,318 ($3,564,934) $6,001,387 $16,800,000 89,202 $8,640,600 $8,070,198 $8,474,182 Construction Contingency Summary Non Suspension Contract Changes Suspension Related Contract Changes $13,105,619 Off Site Roads Construction Contract Amount $7,627,485 Construction Contingency $1,087,000 $134,060 $7,627,485 $0 $2,467433 $1,274,344 ($321,404) $100,005 $13,086,444 $0 $185,828 $0 $1,590,600 $0 Bus Maintenance Facility Construction Contract Amount $13,086,444 Construction Contingency $1,611,000 $20,400 NOTE: * updated as of March 9, 2011 ** includes costs in dispute for entitlement or quantum 3 4 Consolidated Rental Car Facility Program Costs as of 3/14/2011 Project 6/30/09 Budget RCF $350,772,000 2/2/10 Authorization Approved Transfers/ Trends $350,772,000 $17,405,918 Pending Transfers/ Trends $12,252,900 Remaining Contingency Expended to Date $13,105,619 $272,291,136 Forecast to complete $350,772,000 (1) BMF $28,282,000 $28,282,000 ($1,900,000) $20,400 $1,590,600 $4,313,841 $26,382,000 ORI $19,542,000 $19,542,000 ($1,954,656) $134,060 $648,596 $6,476,473 $17,203,000 (2) (2) MTI $3,383,000 $583,746 $0 $0 $338,300 $160,247 $3,383,000 Buses $17,327,000 $16,000,000 ($4,911,269) $0 $219,897 $212 $12,415,731 $0 $0 $9,070,269 ($333,000) $8,737,269 $0 $0 $24,640,281 $283,241,909 $410,155,731 Unallocated Contingency Total (1) $419,306,000 $415,179,746 $17,710,262 $12,074,360 (1) Pending transfer will augment budget (2) Pending transfer includes $970,000 requested in Commission memo. Once approved, transfer will augment contingency and budget. 5 6 Rental Car Facility Funding Plan Update 7 Background • 2009 funding plan for the Consolidated Rental Car Facility included use of variable rate debt - Initially in the form of a line of credit • up to $100 million • to be replaced with variable rate bonds in the future - Line of credit expires this year - Currently no outstanding balance 8 Estimated Project* Funding - July 2009 Sources of Funding - July 2009 ($mil.) non-CFC funded costs CFC cash tax-exempt bonds taxable bonds future variable rate debt future Airport deferred interest loan TOTAL 12 69 19 248 51 20 419 * Excludes bond related costs 9 Line of Credit can be replaced by Commercial Paper (CP) • Port's current program has capacity - no additional bond issue needed - Program totals $250 million • Flexible draws - as needed, no over-funding • Consistent with original plan to include a portion of variable rate debt - Lower interest rates - Flexible re-payment • Can be converted to a longer-term solution when appropriate 10 Status of the Port's CP Program CP Program ($ mil.) Bank of America Letter of Credit Bayerische Landesbank Letter/line TOTAL Projected Uses ($ mil.) Current outstanding Liquidity Rental Car TOTAL Column1 100 150 250 42 50 51 143 11 Alternatives • Issue new variable rate bonds - Additional costs and debt management - No benefits compared to CP • Issue fixed rate bonds - No variable rate risk - Higher cost - Risk of over-issuing 12 Next Steps • Cancel Line of Credit • Use CP as needed to complete the project • Report to Commission on the final funding plan - Based on final project costs - Reflecting updated CFC forecast 13 Walker Parking Consulting Contract • Original Solicitation and Selection competitive. • Original Contract Method: Award base ($100k) and amend (current total $31.5m) as work progressed. • Project History was multiple stops, starts and changes over 10 years. • Rules changes include a new State law, two Commission Resolutions and two Port Policies. • Actions were each consistent with then current requirements as understood at the time. • Procedural details would be different today, contract method may change or not. 14 Service Agreement Rules Changes • Resolution 3181 as amended by the Commission in November of 1994 and Policy PUR-2 dictated requirements for Professional Services Agreements. • Senate Bill 3274 in June 2008 clarified limits on amendments and required staff to inform Commission when contract value grew by 50%. • Resolution 3605 in August of 2008 replaced Resolution 3181, restricted adding new scope to contracts and required notifying the Commission if amendment to a contract grew value by 50% of the original contract value. • CPO-1 in January 2009 replaced PUR-2, implemented the service agreement provisions of 3605 and defined the project-specific servicedirective type consulting contract. • Amended Resolution 3605 in November of 2009, added a requirement to specifically request Commission authorization for any amendment to a Professional Services Agreement over $300,000. • CPO-6 in January 2010 states Port procedures for competition waivers. 15 Legend Procurement procedures in place Walker Parking Contract History Amount Authorizations RCF Rental Car Facility ORI Off-Site Roadway Improvements BMF Bus Maintenance Facility RCI Rental Car Improvements Cumulative Authorization or Obligation Purpose Project Approach If Done Today (RCW 53.19.060 & Amended 3605) Amend No. Date Authorization 11/1/94 Authorization 3/22/01 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 Program Schematic Development Program Service Agreement Base 3/5/04 $100,000 $100,000 Initiate Team, Design Procedures Program Service Directive Authorization 4/22/04 $3,330,000 Rental Car Improvements RCI New Solicitation 1 6/2/04 $50,000 $150,000 Detailed Programming RCI Not in Original Solicitation 2 6/10/04 $50,000 $200,000 Concept Validation RCI Not in Original Solicitation 3 6/17/04 $879,000 $1,079,000 Concept Validation Program Service Directive 4 7/8/04 $436,162 $1,515,162 Finalize PS&E RCI Not in Original Solicitation 5 9/27/04 $61,213 $1,576,375 Construction Support Services RCI Not in Original Solicitation 6 10/15/04 $500,000 $2,076,375 Detailed Programming Program Service Directive Authorization 11/9/04 $18,675,000 $22,175,000 Design RCF, Procure GC/CM Program Amendment & 50% Notification 7 12/29/04 $84,000 $2,160,375 Main Garage Improvements RCI Not in Original Solicitation 8 6/3/05 $300,000 $2,460,375 Shelve Project Program Service Directive 9 12/1/05 $550,000 $3,010,375 Restart Programming, ADPR RCF, ORI Service Directive Resolution 3181 Amended Updated 3181 & PU-2 10 6/7/06 $750,000 $3,760,375 Restart Concept Re-validation RCF Service Directive 11 12/14/06 $2,249,615 $6,009,990 Schematic Design RCF Service Directive Authorization 2/27/07 $6,460,183 $28,635,183 Additional Design; Pre-Construction Program Amendment & 50% Notification 12 3/14/07 $320,000 $6,329,990 Site Design RCF Service Directive 13 5/8/07 $5,000,000 $11,329,990 Design Development RCF Service Directive 14 6/4/07 $517,659 $11,847,649 Design Development ORI Service Directive 15 9/10/07 $180,062 $12,027,711 Conceptual Design BMF Not in Original Solicitation 16 10/5/07 $6,500,000 $18,527,711 Finalize PS&E RCF Service Directive 17 12/18/07 $422,255 $18,949,966 Schematic Design BMF Not in Original Solicitation 18 1/30/08 $136,644 $19,086,610 Temporary Facilities; ORI Cost Estimate RCF, ORI Service Directive 19 2/21/08 $51,600 $19,138,210 Traffic Signal Design ORI Service Directive 16 Authorization 5/13/08 $3,574,300 Legislation 6/12/08 20 6/22/08 $200,000 $19,338,210 Construction Support Services RCF Service Directive 21 7/22/08 $1,340,595 $20,678,805 Finalize PS&E ORI Service Directive 22 7/21/08 $5,700,000 $26,378,805 Construction Support Services RCF Service Directive Authorization 8/26/08 23 8/27/08 $104,070 $26,482,875 Purchasing Support Services RCF Service Directive 24 9/25/08 $127,380 $26,610,255 Design Claims Resolution RCF Service Directive 25 10/21/08 $0 $26,610,255 Rate Changes Program Amendment Authorization 11/11/08 $552,000 $32,761,483 Additional Design ORI Amendment Policy 1/31/09 26 4/17/09 $265,172 $26,875,427 Design Modifications; Complete PS&E RCF, ORI Service Directive Authorization 6/30/09 $591,670 $33,353,153 Additional Design ORI, BMF Amendment 27 9/3/09 $6,879 $26,882,306 Revise Small Operator Area RCF Service Directive 28 9/18/09 $275,331 $27,157,637 Design Claims, Additional Design RCF Service Directive Authorization 11/3/09 29 12/4/09 $111,863 $27,269,500 Additional Design Services ORI Service Directive Authorization 12/15/09 $300,000 $33,653,153 Additional Design ORI Amendment Policy 1/10/10 30 2/9/10 $36,677 $27,306,177 Additional Signal and Lighting Design ORI Service Directive 31 4/14/10 $42,433 $27,348,610 Design Claims Resolution RCF Service Directive Authorization 6/8/10 $4,000,000 $37,653,153 Additional Construction Support RCF Amendment & 50% Notification 32 7/7/10 $3,770,000 $31,118,610 Construction Support Services RCF Service Directive Authorization 1/25/10 $350,000 $38,003,153 Construction Support Services ORI Amendment 33 2/3/11 $347,506 $31,466,116 Construction Support Services ORI Service Directive $32,209,483 Additional Design; Award GC/CM Program HB-3274 in effect Amendment & 50% Notification Port Contracting Resolution 3605 Replaces 3181 Revamps Past Procedures CPO-1 Replaces PUR-2 Service Agreement Procedures Resolution 3628 Amends 3605 $300,000 Amendment Limit CPO-6 Competition Waiver Procedure 17 What would we do today? • Allowable contract scope is defined by the solicitation. • Service-directive contracting is preferred in part because it makes ultimate contract total more visible. • Base and amendments contracting still considered when course of project is uncertain. • Contract scope limits strictly enforced. • Projects and contracting go better when decisions and events don't delay progress. 18 Wayfinding and Signage Issues Consolidated Rental Car Facilities Other Facilities SeaTac's solution • Lack of way-finding signs directing passengers to Facility from airport, especially if multiple terminals exists or RCF across from terminal (no busing). •Early recognition of signage issues so conducting several full-sized on-site mock-ups with Industry to test the adequacy and visibility. Identified sign to in areas of poor lighting to be back lit. • There was a lack of consistency with the terminology between other cities airports and facilities. Lack of timely planning and time to make changes. • Captured lessons learned from other facilities, so working very closely with the Industry on use of common terminology, logo's and branding. • Inconsistent sign size, color, location, lighting, directional arrows and font size hard to see/follow which confuses customers. Lack of timely planning and time to make changes. Must consider driving or walking to the facility or the terminal(s), bus pick up/drop off, terminal way finding and visitors to the facility. • Conducting site walk through tours with Industry reviewing sign placement and key decision points customers will experience within both the RCF and Terminal and between. •Working closely with the Port's signage department and Turner's sub-contractor for consistent sign size, color, location, lighting, directional arrows and font size. •The bus identification and busing signage at terminals and RCFs not clear which confuses customers. Closing counters and directing people to bus stops a challenge •Busing Committee developed criteria to make RAC buses clearly marked for easy identification. Includes brand logos representing companies in the RCF. • Signage for vertical movement confusing. Also, the human factor where passengers simply follow others and end up on the wrong floor, though very large clear signage provided. • Developing dedicated escalator signage to make it easy for the passenger to follow or to re-direct if they make a mistake. 19 Activation Recommendation to test our wayfinding and signage After construction is complete and before the facility opens, Port staff will be recruited as pretend customers, given mock "assignments", directed to find their way either to a specific location in the RCF or between the RCF and Terminal and to critique the signage. Mock customer testing will be done in time to allow for signage enhancements, if necessary. Examples of mock "assignments" include: • Return vehicle to the RCF, stop to use the restroom before boarding a bus back to the airport. • Meeting someone from another flight (1 hour behind yours) in the Central terminal to get something to eat before you both make your way to the Rental Car Bus together. • Drop off a friend at the RCF to rent a car that are not traveling from the airport. • Disembarking plane from the North satellite, retrieve bags from baggage claim and make your way to the Rental Car Bus. You are renting a car without a reservation. 20