
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _6d_ Page 3 of 4
Meeting Date: September 11, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Schedule
The current contract expires in November 2018. We intend to secure a contractor no later than
October 2018.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Do not execute a new long-term contract for deicer but purchase deicer as
needed from multiple suppliers during a snow event.
Cost Implications: Pricing consistent with Alternative 2 below. Estimated contract amount $2.2
million over five years.
Pros:
(1) Flexibility to go with any company who has product available and best current price.
Cons:
(1) Product quantity needed for a single event would exceed direct-buy purchase limits of
$50,000. A purchase of between $50,000 and $150,000 would require three quotes
before issuing a purchase order. A purchase of over $150,000 would require a formal
bid, which would take longer. These processes take too long for such a critical
operation. Performing individual purchases may result in a lower quantity of deicer
that could be purchased within the $2.2 million estimated cost.
(2) Product quantity needed for a single snow event may exceed purchasing limits as
outlined in the General Delegation of Authority. The Executive Director purchasing
limit is not to exceed $300,000.
(3) Liquid deicing products from different companies may react unpredictably when
mixed together in the same storage tanks. It is possible to create a transition plan to
switch from one product to another, but it would be dangerous to frequently add
different products to the same tanks.
(4) Liquid deicing products outside of those already tested and approved from different
companies may have different environmental impacts that are unknown to port staff.
If we went with another product we would have to update our NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit and get approval from the Washington
Department of Ecology. This process could take a year and a half, cost over $300,000
for testing, and may result in other corrective actions having to be implemented, or
possibly, our request may be denied outright.
(5) Vendors may not store sufficient quantities of product locally unless obligated by
contract requirements. Needed quantity may not be available during an event, which
is a great risk to airport operations.
(6) Vendors would fill orders for customers who they have contracted obligations for
before filling requisitions from the port.
(7) The port would likely have to pay a premium for delivery charges.
(8) Procuring deicer without a contract leads to variable and unpredictable cost per
gallon.
This is not the recommended alternative.