Template revised May 30, 2013.
PORT OF SEATTLE
MEMORANDUM
COMMISSION AGENDA
Item No.
4c
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
October 27, 2015
DATE: October 20, 2015
TO: Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer
FROM: Cassie Fritz, Seaport Project Management Program Controls Manager
SUBJECT: Infrastructure Services Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)
Professional Service Agreement
Amount of This Request:
$0
Source of Funds:
Future Individual
Project
Authorizations
Maximum Value of IDIQ
Contracts:
$2,000,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to advertise and execute up
to three consulting services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for
infrastructure-related design, construction, and other engineering support services for a not-to-
exceed total of $2,000,000 with a three-year contract ordering period. No funding is associated
with this request.
SYNOPSIS
The Port of Seattle owns and maintains a large portfolio of properties of varying age and
condition. Infrastructure projects are those that facilitate the efficient and safe operation of our
industrial and commercial properties, preserve the value of assets, and ensure compliance with
state and local codes. These service agreements will provide Maritime, Economic
Development and Capital Development with subject matter expertise to support infrastructure
related maintenance, repair, and upgrade projects as needed to ensure ongoing operation of
Port of Seattle or Northwest Seaport Alliance facilities.
The service agreements resulting from this request will allow Port staff to respond to a range of
infrastructure project needs, including, but not limited to:
Stormwater drainage systems
Electrical power and lighting systems, low voltage and telecom systems
Pressurized utilities such as domestic water and fire mains and natural gas lines
Roadways and elevated roadway structures, pavement sections, and traffic analysis
Permitting assistance and compliance
Landscape and public shoreline access
Adherence to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC)
COMMISSION AGENDA
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer
October 20, 2015
Page 2 of 3
Two contracts will be awarded to the highest ranked firm for $850,000 each. A third
contract with a value of $300,000 will be set aside for the highest ranked proposal submitted
by a small business firm.
REQUEST SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE
Scope of Work:
The contracts will be written with a specific not-to-exceed amount, identify the services
required, and will have a contract ordering period (during which the services may be separately
authorized) of three years. The actual contract duration may extend beyond three years in order
to complete work identified in particular service directives. Service directives may be issued
during the contract-ordering period and within the total original contract value.
Schedule:
It is estimated that the contracts will be executed by March 2016 and each will have a three-year
ordering period. Each service directive will specify the duration and schedule associated with the
task or tasks involved.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Charges to these contracts will be from department budgets and projects that will be authorized
separately through established procedures. Consequently, there is no funding request associated
with this authorization. Individual service directives will be executed to authorize the
consultant to perform any specific work on the contract against approved project authorizations
and within the total contract amount.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1) – Separate Procurement for Each Project
Pros:
Separate contracts would allow consulting firms multiple opportunities to
compete for each individual project.
Cons:
This alternative would increase overhead and administrative costs to the Port, as
we would need to manage more procurement processes and contracts.
This alternative may add four months to each project schedule to complete the
procurement process for each individual project and would impact the ability to
meet project and customer needs.
Costs to the consulting company may increase as they would be responding to
multiple procurements.
This is not the recommended alternative.
COMMISSION AGENDA
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer
October 20, 2015
Page 3 of 3
Alternative 2) – Prepare a Single Procurement Contract
Pros:
Prepare a contract with up to two firms for design needs as they arise. This
alternative would ensure the Port has the necessary professional and technical
resources available to assist in time-critical evaluations and delivery of future
projects, and that small business participation is part of the criteria.
This alternative would minimize the number of procurement processes necessary
for timely completion of projects and reduce overhead and administrative costs to
the Port.
Set aside one contract of lower dollar value for small business.
Cons:
This alternative would limit the number of opportunities available to firms to
compete for work.
This is the recommended alternative.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
None
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None
