Template revised January 10, 2019.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
6g
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
March 12, 2019
DATE: February 22, 2019
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Pearse Edwards, Senior Director, External Relations
SUBJECT: Service agreement for Facilitation and Project Management Services IDIQ contracts
Contract total:
$1,000,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute two contracts for
facilitation and project management services involving complex business or public policy issues,
for a cost not to exceed $1,000,000 and duration of up to three years. There is no funding
request associated with this authorization.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Port has occasions where an expected need emerges around a complex issue or business
project and it becomes necessary to hire a consultant to provide facilitation services. For
External Relations, this has and will continue to involve unanticipated policy developments that
require specialized expertise or management of a complex short-term project.
Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts provide the Port with flexibility to meet
business requirements as they arise by issuing individual service directives to accomplish tasks
within a general, pre-defined scope of work, on an as-needed basis, for a fixed period of time,
and a maximum contract amount. Port staff met with the Diversity in Contracting Department
within the Economic Development Division to set a women- and minority-owned business
enterprise (WMBE) goal of fifteen percent of contract spending. Funding of services under this
contract will come separately from annual operating budgets.
JUSTIFICATION
There are several situations where External Relations or other Port departments may need to
retain the services of a consultant. The use of consulting services may occur because they bring
unique knowledge or specialized experience that Port staff may not possess. In other
situations, an issue may emerge unexpectedly, and Port staff might not have the ability to shift
other responsibilities to assume this new work. Another example where project facilitation
services are valuable is when there are conflicting viewpoints among stakeholders or sensitive
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6g Page 2 of 4
Meeting Date: March 12, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
issues that require the expertise of a skilled facilitator who may also serve the role as an
objective third party.
Over the past three years, the Port has utilized consultants in such circumstances including:
managing the due diligence work associated with:
• On-call communications planning and project management services to members of the Port
of Seattle Commission and staff regarding the planned International Arrivals Facility
External Review Panel.
• Facilitation and process support for the Sea-Tac Stakeholder Advisory Roundtable (StART)
meetings and stakeholder communications.
• Prioritization and Alignment Project Implementation Assistance within the Port of Seattle.
• Facilitation of the negotiations of a new interlocal agreement between the Port of Seattle
and the City of SeaTac.
DETAILS
This approach will put a proactive system in place to address the inevitable need, which arises
from time to time, for urgent consulting assistance.
Scope of Work
The consultant will assist the Port in facilitating and/or managing projects that involve complex
business or public policy issues.
The consultant assistance may include the activities including:
• Clarifying desired project/issue outcomes
• Identifying key stakeholders
• Assessing stakeholder perspectives
• Framing potential challenges and opportunities
Additional consultant work could also include:
• Meeting facilitation
• Conducting surveys/interviews, and developing recommended options, processes
• Strategies or systems to accomplish the objective of the project/issue
Deliverables will be negotiated at the time of issuance of a service directive and may include:
• Presentation materials, including PowerPoint
• Contact list and summaries of outreach efforts
• Meeting handouts or other materials
• Survey material, comment cards, or other feedback forms
• Summary of meeting activities, including public comments, data from feedback
forms, etc.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6g Page 3 of 4
Meeting Date: March 12, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
• Other documents needed to support tasks authorized under service directives, as
directed by Port staff.
Schedule
The two contracts are estimated to be executed in the third quarter of 2019.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Contract for facilitation consultant on a project-by-project basis.
Cost Implications: Increase in costs due to individual additional procurements.
Pros:
(1) Separate contracts will provide multiple opportunities for consulting firms to compete
for work.
(2) Flexible staffing resources.
Cons:
(1) This alternative would require additional time and cost to procure a consultant for
each project, requiring additional lead time, management oversight, additional
administrative preparation.
(2) Consultant firms may need to spend more time and money responding to individual
project-based procurements.
(3) This alternative may lead to more non-competitive contracts.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Reduce the contract amount to $500,000 and retain a external relations-only
focus.
Cost Implications: Initial contract value will be less because we only cover external relations
needs.
Pros:
(1) External relations-oriented issues frequently emerge without warning, so being able to
at least address this area of need would be an improvement over Alternative 1.
Cons:
(1) Other departments also have needs for such readily-available consulting services and
would still have to rely on a separate procurement process for each situation. This
alternative would require additional time and cost to procure a consultant for each
project, requiring additional lead time, management oversight, and additional
administrative preparation.
(2) Consultant firms may need to spend more time and money responding to individual
project-based procurements.
(3) This alternative may lead to more non-competitive contracts.
This is not the recommended alternative.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6g Page 4 of 4
Meeting Date: March 12, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Alternative 3 – Establish two contracts for a total of $1,000,000 for facilitation and project
management services port-wide.
Cost Implications: $1,000,000.
Pros:
(1) This provides a competitive process to establish multiple contracts and assures the Port
has critical consultant service available on short notice.
(2) Retain consultant to perform specific work on service directives in an expeditious
manner since the contract and base prices will already be established. Port will only
need to negotiate specific scope and associated fee.
Cons:
(1) Fewer opportunities for firms to compete for various projects.
(2) Staff may rely too heavily on readily available consulting services rather than first
exploring lower-cost options.
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
There is no funding request associated with this authorization. No work is guaranteed to the
consultants and the Port is not obligated to pay the consultant until a service directive is
executed.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) PowerPoint slide presentation
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
June 28, 2016 – The Commission approved a three-year IDIQ contract in the amount of
$1,500,000 for similar services.
