Template revised September 22, 2016.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
6e
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
March 27, 2018
DATE: March 19, 2018
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management Group
SUBJECT: Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Service Agreements for Mechanical and
Electrical Engineering Design Services
Amount of this request:
$ 0
Maximum Value of Contracts:
$10,000,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute up to five professional
services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for mechanical and electrical
design services for a total maximum value of $10,000,000. There is no funding request
associated with this authorization.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Aviation Project Management Group (AV/PMG) utilizes IDIQ contracts to meet highly
variable workload projections for design services. The existing mechanical and electrical design
services IDIQ contracts, valued at $6,000,000, have been fully committed. Based on current
projections, this request will provide the necessary mechanical and electrical design services to
meet project needs for the next three years.
Competitively procured IDIQ contracts are widely used public-sector contracting tools,
consistent with the Port’s General Delegation of Authority, and governed by CPO-1 policy. The
solicitation will include requirements to utilize small businesses.
The Aviation Project Management Group has identified nearly $90 million in capital
improvement projects that will require the services of a mechanical/electrical design consultant
over the next three years. While larger projects will be designed with individually procured
consulting agreements, the majority of the remaining projects may be designed utilizing the
IDIQ contracts described herein. Evaluation of the options resulted in IDIQ contracts being
selected as the best method to secure the required services.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _6e___ Page 2 of 4
Meeting Date: March 27, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
JUSTIFICATION
The workload demands for delivery of electrical and mechanical projects at Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport are increasing. To support the increasing and dynamic business
requirements of Sea-Tac Airport, the Aviation Project Management Group requires flexibility.
The IDIQ contracts provide flexibility through project-specific service directives that allow
engineering design services to be provided on an as-needed basis for a fixed period and a
maximum contract amount.
DETAILS
This request is to execute up to five contracts: the first three will be valued at $3 million each,
and will be awarded to the highest-ranked qualified firms; the fourth and fifth contracts, valued
at $500,000 each, will be awarded to the highest-ranked qualified Small Business Enterprises. A
small business goal will be included in the solicitation in support of our program. In the event
the Port does not receive sufficient number of qualified proposals, the Port may award fewer
contracts and increase capacity of the awarded contracts to the selected firms, for a total
capacity not to exceed $10 million.
Each contract will have up to a three year ordering period. Service directives may be issued at
any time during the contract-ordering period. Work may be performed after expiration of the
ordering period. The total value of all service directives issued on a contract will not exceed the
contract value.
Budgets to utilize these contracts will come separately from individual project authorizations.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Procure separate design contracts for each project.
Cost Implications: Each project would expend additional administrative costs to procure
individual engineering design services contracts.
Pros:
1.
Separate contracts would allow the consulting firms opportunities to compete for
each individual project.
2.
Defers the administrative cost of procurement to a later date when individual projects
each do their own procurement.
Cons:
1.
Increased cost for individual project procurements rather than a more efficient single
procurement of one set of IDIQ contracts.
2. This alternative is an inefficient use of Port resources and staff time and does not
leverage the Port's allowable contracting methods. It would increase overhead and
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _6e___ Page 3 of 4
Meeting Date: March 27, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
administrative costs to the Port, as we would need to manage more procurement
processes and contracts.
3.
This alternative will add time to each project schedule to complete the
procurement process for each individual project and will impact our ability to meet
project and customer needs.
4.
Costs to the consulting companies may increase as they would be responding to
multiple procurements.
5. Integration among related projects would be more difficult to achieve.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Hire 13 new full-time engineers to meet project design workload forecasts.
Cost Implications: A potential savings of approximately $6 million could be realized over a three
year period, compared with hiring consultants.
Pros
:
1.
Lower hourly cost than the use of consultant engineers.
2.
Institutional knowledge is built by Port Staff.
Cons:
1.
Consultant engineers with specialized skills might still need to be hired when Port staff
skills do not meet the needs of a particular project.
2.
Time to build up adequate staff with the necessary and specific skill sets would take
approximately 18 to 24 months. This would substantially delay our current backlog of
projects.
3.
The type of work needed has an expected lifespan and is not guaranteed. Adding full
time in-house staff would create long term costs that could potentially be unnecessary
during times when that work is not needed.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 - Procure several design services IDIQ agreements in a single solicitation action.
Cost Implications: None
Pros
:
1.
This alternative reduces costs in staff time and overhead for each project involved -
the solicitation, evaluation and selection process for design services is completed
upfront for multiple projects.
2.
This alternative reduces the schedule for subsequent projects involved because the
solicitation, evaluation and selection for design services have already been
completed. Typically, this process consumes approximately 3 to 4 months.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _6e___ Page 4 of 4
Meeting Date: March 27, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
3.
This alternative allows the Port to utilize the consultant at an earlier stage of
project development. Under a typical project specific solicitation, the consultant
cannot come on board until after the planning phase has been completed.
4.
This alternative more effectively provides for the “consistency” of parallel projects
that may utilize the same consultant.
Cons:
1.
This alternative would limit the number of opportunities available to firms to
compete for work.
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Charges to these contracts will be from projects that will be authorized separately through
established procedures. Consequently, there is no funding request associated with this
authorization. The total cost for mechanical/electrical design services under these contracts will
not exceed $10,000,000. No work is guaranteed to the consultants and the Port is not obligated
to pay the consultant until a service directive is executed. After receiving authorization for each
project in accordance with the Master Delegation of Authority, the actual work will be defined
and the Port will issue individual project-specific service directives.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
None
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None
