Template revised April 12, 2018.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
6d
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
October 23, 2018
DATE: September 30, 2018
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Jeffrey Brown, Director, Aviation Facilities and Capital Programs
SUBJECT: Planning Services Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Professional Service
Agreements
Amount of this request
$0
Maximum value of contracts
$15,000,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute two indefinite delivery,
indefinite quantity contracts for Airport Planning Services totaling no more than $15,000,000
with a three-year ordering period and two one-year options. No funding is associated with this
authorization.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In Q4 2016, Aviation Planning executed four IDIQ contracts for Airport Planning Services totaling
$10,000,000. These contracts are now approaching the end of their authorization capacity and
additional planning is needed over the next five years.
In addition to strategic and day to day planning work requested by staff, initiatives and projects,
on-going planning is needed to advance the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) capital
program, including: 1) a more detailed and dimensioned analysis to validate the feasibility of
individual projects and program elements; 2) planning necessary to transition projects to design,
and; 3) refinement of project phasing, definition, schedule and cost.
The intent is to execute two $7,500,000 contracts that include Woman and Minority Business
Enterprise (WMBE) aspirational goals. Once the contracts have been awarded and executed, the
WMBE aspirational goals will become a requirement.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. __6d__ Page 2 of 4
Meeting Date: October 23, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
JUSTIFICATION
On-going planning is required to provide Port leadership and project teams information
necessary to guide program development and define projects. Given the dramatic growth that is
currently straining facilities, the constrained physical conditions at Sea-Tac and the large capital
program defined by the SAMP, this additional planning is substantial and necessary. Additional
planning will provide a more refined analysis of the overall SAMP program and ensure that
capital investments are properly sequenced and well defined in order to transition projects to
design.
On-going planning is also needed to address emerging and sometimes unforeseen issues. Given
the often time sensitive and sporadic nature of the work load, the most cost effective and
efficient way to conduct planning is for Planning staff who have knowledge of Sea-Tac facilities
and processes to conduct a portion of this work in-house and also lead planning efforts that rely
on a combination of consultant resources and in-house expertise from Planning and other
departments.
DETAILS
Under the Airport Planning Services IDIQ contracts, the consultants shall provide the necessary
professional, technical, and advisory services, including all labor, equipment, and materials to
successfully provide on-call planning support services. Assigned work will consist of providing
studies and producing reports, memos and technical documents for review and approval by Port
staff. Detailed scopes of work and cost estimates will be prepared on an individual basis for each
task.
The professional, technical and advisory services are to address a broad range of airport facilities
and operations including: airside, terminal, cargo, airport support, airline support and landside
planning; conceptual design; capital programming; airport operations; and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regulatory, planning
considerations.
Scope of Work
The IDIQ contracts will be procured according to Port policies and procedures in accordance with
the General Delegation of Authority and procurement policy CPO-1. The Port will advertise and
issue a solicitation. The contracts will be written with specific not-to-exceed amounts and
identify the services required. Each contract will have a contract ordering period (during which
the services may be separately authorized) of three years with two one-year options to extend
the ordering period. The actual contract duration may extend beyond five years in order to
complete the work identified in the particular service directives. Service directives may be issued
during the contract-ordering period and within the total original contract value. The Port will
have the option of moving money between contracts if the Port determines that a contracted
current firm cannot adequately complete future work requests.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. __6d__ Page 3 of 4
Meeting Date: October 23, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Port staff is partnering with the Small Business Development Department in outreaching to small
and WMBE businesses, informing them of the upcoming opportunities that align within the IDIQ
scopes of work.
Schedule
We estimate that these contracts will be executed in Q1 2019 and have a three-year ordering
period with two one-year options to extend the ordering period. Each service directive will
specify the duration and schedule associated with the task or tasks involved.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Build up in-house staff on a limited duration basis to provide required planning
services
Pros:
(1) Over the length of the work, this option may show cost savings
Cons:
(1) Time to build up adequate staff with the necessary specific skill sets would take 18 to 24
months. This would substantially delay additional Advanced Planning which has an
overall delay to the capital program that would be following and integrated with the
Advanced Planning. This would also delay our current planning backlog and future
planning requests even further.
(2) The type of work needed has an expected lifespan and will not be continuous. Adding
full time in-house staff would create long term costs that would potentially be
unnecessary during certain times of the work and in the longer term future and it would
be difficult to attract talent on a limited duration basis.
(3) To be cost effective, the new Port staff would need to have a broad set of specific skills
which would be difficult to acquire in a manageable number of additions. Consultants
have staff with these specific skills and can utilize them on an hour by hour basis as
needed.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Separate Procurement for Each Task
Pros:
(1) Separate contract procurements would allow consulting firms multiple opportunities to
compete for each individual task.
Cons:
(1) This alternative would increase overhead and administrative costs to the Port, as we
would need to manage more procurement processes and contracts.
(2) This alternative may add months to each task to complete the procurement process
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. __6d__ Page 4 of 4
Meeting Date: October 23, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
for each individual project and would impact the ability to meet the needs of the
airport.
(3) Costs to the consulting companies may increase as they would be responding to
multiple procurements.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Prepare Single Procurement Process Resulting in Two Contracts
Pros:
(1) This alternative would insure the Port has the necessary professional, technical and
advisory resources available to assist with time critical planning efforts and delivery of
potential future capital work.
(2) Small business participation will be a contract requirement.
(3) This alternative would minimize the number of procurement processes necessary for
timely completion of tasks and reduce overhead and administrative costs to the Port
and consultants.
Cons:
(1) This alternative would limit the number of opportunities available to firms to compete
for more discrete packages of work.
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Charges to these contracts will be from the Aviation Division’s operating expense budget.
Consequently, there is no funding request associated with this authorization.
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
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 budget authorizations and within the total contract amount.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
None
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
August 9, 2016 – Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute up
to 4 IDIQ contracts for Airport Planning Services totaling no more than $10,000,000.
