Template revised April 12, 2018.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
6b
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
March 26, 2019
DATE: March 26, 2019
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Stuart Mathews, Director, AV/Maintenance
Jinah Kim, Sr. Manager, AV/Maintenance
SUBJECT: Airport-Wide Window Cleaning
Amount of contract:
$3,000,000.00
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute a service contract for
Airport-wide window cleaning services for two (2) years with up to three (3) one-year renewal
options. The total amount of the contract is estimated to be $3,000,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Airport has approximately 35,000 panes of glass comprised of windows and skylights that
need regular cleaning. A typical cleaning cycle for an office building is a minimum of two (2)
times per year, depending on the environment in which the facility exists. Having clean
windows allows for regular inspection and identification of cracks, is aesthetically pleasing,
enhances the customer experience and presents the image of a well-managed facility.
The previous custodial contract had included window cleaning, and that contract ended on
December 31, 2017. Due to numerous queries and concerns raised during the most recent
custodial contracting RFP, window cleaning was strategically removed from that contract scope
of work.
The contract will consist of an initial two (2) year contract with three (3), one (1) year renewal
options to be exercised at the Port’s sole discretion. An estimated $3.0 Million over the full five
(5) year potential duration of the contract is projected. The annual cost is included in the
Maintenance Department operating budget.
JUSTIFICATION
Cleanliness of the Airport is one of the key areas of focus for the Aviation division, in its efforts
to improve the overall experience of our customers. One of the key elements of terminal
cleanliness is the cleanliness of the large glass curtain wall systems that provide access to
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6b Page 2 of 5
Meeting Date: March 26, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
interesting and incredible views of the airport and surrounding region. As such, keeping those
windows clean is an important component of this overall effort.
The window cleaning at the airport is a high-risk task involving heavy equipment such as lifts
and boson’s chairs suspended from the roof anchoring system. The Port recognized that high
bay window cleaning is a unique specialty and decided to separate this service from the
custodial contracts.
This new set of standards and more detailed scope of work for window cleaning incorporate
more stringent safety requirements than the general custodial contracts allow. These
requirements have been established and incorporated in the RFP.
Although there will be limited subcontracting opportunities for this procurement, the size,
scope and complexity of this requirement could lend itself to prime contractor opportunities for
Minority and Women Business Enterprises (MWBE). AV and CPO will be coordinating with
Economic Development to maximize outreach to potential MWBE firms capable of performing
these services.
DETAILS
Scope of Work
The scope of work for the preferred alternative is to develop and execute a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the Airport-wide window cleaning contract to maintain cleanliness and life
of the windows. CPO will advertise, award and execute a service contract for the window
cleaning at Sea-Tac Airport via the advertised, competitive solicitation process. This service
contract will have an authority to secure window cleaning contract for a period of up to five (5)
years.
Costs for window cleaning can vary widely depending on the access methods required and the
amount and height of windows to be cleaned, but can range from $3.00 per pane to as much as
$15.00 per pane for each cleaning cycle, depending on complexity and location.
As a reference, the Central Terminal Food Court has approximately 500 panes of glass and the
Gina Marie Lindsay Arrivals Hall has approximately 650 panes of glass in the curtain wall. Twice
annual cleaning inside and outside at $10.00 per pane per side would cost approximately
$46,000. Actual costs will be determined through a competitive bidding process, so the above
estimate is for illustrative purposes only.
Through 2018, and into 2019, window cleaning has been performed in small scale instances as
single occasion work through alternative contracting methods. Window cleaning on a large
scale has been deferred during that period as staff work through this procurement process.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6b Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: March 26, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Schedule
Activity
Commission authorization
Procurement start
Contract Award & Execute
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Cleaning windows as a single occasional work through ad hoc, alternate
contracting methods.
Cost Implications: $3.0 million
Pros:
(1) By cleaning windows as single occasional work activities, work can be performed only
on an “as-needed” basis.
(2) This approach would have the potential for multiple small/disadvantaged business
firms to have an opportunity to work with the Port.
Cons:
(1) This approach is not a strategic business process that would benefit the Port with the
most desirable outcome.
(2) This approach would likely allow fewer window cleaning cycles for the same total cost
as multiple, smaller jobs executed on an ad-hoc basis would compromise economies
of scale rather than performing coordinated, scheduled work under a longer duration
contract, or contracts.
(3) The Port would not be treated as any one contractor’s 1st priority due to the lack of
commitment from the Airport.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Issue an advertised, competitive solicitation and award multiple contracts
(Divide the work into multiple contracts).
Cost Implications: $3.3 million
Pros:
(1) This alternative creates more on-going competition.
(2) By breaking the Airport up into multiple segments, this alternative may be more
attractive to MWBE firms.
(3) This alternative creates more opportunity for the Port to review and evaluate market
trends and techniques for the work being performed.
(4) Performing an overarching, multi-year procurement would be more efficient and
economical for the Port than alternative #1.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6b Page 4 of 5
Meeting Date: March 26, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Cons:
(1) This alternative creates multiple procurement processes in order to develop multiple
small contracts.
(2) This approach is estimated to cost the Port more per window unit, as each contractor
will require management and supervisory staff. This additional overhead is likely to
increase overall cost greater than performing work under one service contract.
(3) The Airport is a space constrained facility; if this alternative is chosen, the Airport is
challenged to find the space for multiple contractors to park their lifts or store their
equipment, tools and materials during the scheduled work time.
(4) This alternative requires more time and effort from Port management resources to
manage and coordinate multiple window cleaning contractors’ work with, and around,
multiple existing custodial contractors due to the need to work simultaneously in
locations around the Airport.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Advertise, award, and execute a service contract for Airport-wide window
cleaning services for up to 5 years with an estimated cost of $3.0 million.
Cost Implications: $3.0 million
Pros:
(1) This alternative allows for the competitive procurement for Airport-wide window
cleaning.
(2) This alternative creates some opportunity for the Port to review and evaluate market
trends and techniques for the work being performed.
(3) Performing an overarching, multi-year procurement would be efficient and
economical for the Port.
(4) Outreach to MWBE firms may result in MWBE participation as a potential prime
contractor for this requirement.
Cons:
(1) The Airport is a space constrained facility. While less space demanding than
alternative 2, if this alternative is chosen, the Airport will still be challenged to find
space for the contractors to park their lifts or to store their equipment, tools and
materials during the work schedule time.
(2) While less impactful than alternative 2, this alternative requires significant time and
effort in coordinating the work with, and around, multiple existing custodial
contractors due to the need to work simultaneously in locations around the Airport.
This is the recommended alternative.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6b Page 5 of 5
Meeting Date: March 26, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The 2019 budget for contract window cleaning is limited to $200,000 and is included in Aviation
Maintenance’s annual expense budget. This was anticipated to address the current facility for a
portion of the year 2019. Future costs will include significantly higher annual costs as large
facilities with large quantities of windows are brought into service, and full year service is in
place. The overall contract value anticipates those increases. The funding of window cleaning
with the future service contract will remain within the Aviation Maintenance expense budget
and the funding source will be the Airport Development Fund. The Aviation division will bring
forward a budget request for the increase as part of the 2020 expense budgeting process.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS
None
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None