Template revised January 10, 2019.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
6f
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
July 9, 2019
DATE: July 1, 2019
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Jeffrey Brown, Director Aviation Facilities and Capital Programs
Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management Group
SUBJECT: Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Service Agreement for Passenger
Loading Bridges, fixed walkways, associated gate equipment services, and utilities
modifications for the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Amount of this request:
$0
Total estimated contract
value:
$5,000,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute a professional services
indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for Passenger Loading Bridge (PLB) design
services in the amount of $5,000,000 with a 3-year base contract period, with two 1-year
options for renewal, in support of upcoming capital improvement projects at Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport (STIA).
There is no budget request associated with this authorization; funding to utilize these contracts
will be provided separately from individual project authorizations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the next several years, the Port of Seattle will be replacing, or providing new PLBs, fixed
walkways, associated gate equipment, and modifying existing utilities, as needed. This work is
considered vital to the operational integrity of STIA asset management and will fulfill business
goals as well as objectives. Procurement of a PLB design services IDIQ contract will allow the
Airport to meet the needs of operations and planned projects in a timely manner.
The Aviation division has identified thirteen (13) PLBs that need to be replaced within the next
5 years and will require gate closures during the replacement. Throughout the same period,
construction of other capital projects will require additional gate closures. The PLB IDIQ
contract will provide the Airport with the flexibility to meet and adjust to operational
requirements as they arise, by issuing individual service directives to accomplish tasks within a
pre-defined scope of work, either, on an as-needed basis, or for a fixed-period of time and a
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _6f__ Page 2 of 5
Meeting Date: July 9, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
maximum contract amount. This contract will have a 3-year base contract period, with two 1-
year options for renewal, at which time the Airport may issue further Service Directives.
Competitively procured IDIQ contracts, are widely used public-sector contracting tools,
consistent with the Port’s General Delegation of Authority, and governed by the Central
Procurement Office policy (CPO-1 policy).
JUSTIFICATION
The Airport estimates thirteen (13) additional PLBs, fixed walkways, and associated gate
equipment that may need design services for complete replacement, by the end of 2023. These
PLBs are divided amongst several existing and future Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs)
sponsored by Aviation Operations, Facilities and Infrastructure, and Maintenance. The CIPs are
detailed below:
The PLB Phase 2 project (CIP C800793) is budgeted for $10,000,000, which has 3 PLBs
remaining that have design service requirements.
Facilities and Infrastructure is considering an additional 4 new PLB’s and associated gate
equipment to a new CIP.
The SafeDock Upgrade and Expansion project (CIP C800779) is budgeted for
$27,972,250, which is installing SafeDock throughout STIA. SafeDock is an infrastructure
improvement to PLB operation and ramp safety. Following installation of this system, all
PLBs renewed will require SafeDock, which in turn requires additional design be
performed.
In general, the scheduling of a PLB replacement project is relatively unpredictable and highly
dependent upon operational and capacity concerns. Utilization of this type of IDIQ contract has
proven to be an efficient, cost effective, and flexible method of responding to uncertain design
requirements over a multiple year span. Once the Service Agreement is executed, individual
Service Directives will be negotiated and executed before any design work is performed.
Diversity in Contracting
Project staff, in coordination with the Diversity in Contracting department, have set a 15%
woman and minority business enterprise (WMBE) aspirational goal for this IDIQ contract.
DETAILS
This request is to execute one (1) IDIQ valued at $5,000,000, which will be awarded to the
highest ranked firm.
This contract will have a 3-year base contract period, with two 1-year options for renewal. The
actual contract duration may extend beyond five years to complete the work identified in a
specific Service Directive. The Port will not issue any Service Directives in excess of this
contract’s value, or after expiration of the contract ordering period.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _6f__ Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: July 9, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Procure separate design Service Agreements for each project.
Cost Implications: Each project would expend additional administrative costs to procure
individual PLB design services.
Pros:
(1) Separate contracts would allow consulting firms multiple opportunities to compete for
each individual project.
(2) Defers the administrative cost of procurement to a later date when individual projects
prepare their own procurement.
Cons:
(1) This is an inefficient use of Port resources, staff time, and does not leverage the Port’s
contracting methods.
(2) This alternative will increase overhead, and 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 individual projects and would impact the ability to meet project, and
customer needs.
(4) Costs to the consulting companies may increase as they would be responding to
multiple procurements.
(5) Integrations among related projects would be more difficult to achieve.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Hire Six full time employees (Engineers, Information Communication and
Technology, Building Architect) to meet project design workload forecasts.
Cost Implications: A potential savings of $1,900,000 could be realized over a five (5) 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 will be necessary as 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 is highly specialized 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.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _6f__ Page 4 of 5
Meeting Date: July 9, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
(4) The design of PLBs is highly specialized and currently in high demand. Staff with these
skill sets may be difficult to attract, hire, and retain.
(5) Lack of office space.
(6) Hiring FTE’s only for less than FT work is not cost effective.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Prepare a single IDIQ procurement to contract with a PLB design services
consultant for PLB projects as they arise.
Cost Implications: No capital costs will be incurred with this procurement. Funding to utilize
this/these contract/s will be separately authorized by the individual projects requiring PLB
design services.
Pros:
(1) This alternative provides a high degree of integrity in design for construction and
minimizes the number of procurement processes necessary for timely completion of
projects.
(2) This alternative reduces the schedule for each project requiring these services because
the solicitation, evaluation, and selection for design services has already been
completed. Typically, this process consumes approximately 3 to 4 months.
(3) This alternative allows the Port to utilize the consultant at an earlier stage of project
development.
(4) This alternative leverages the Port’s contracting methods.
(5) This alternative provides for the “consistency” of parallel projects that may utilize the
same consultant.
Cons:
(1) This alternative would limit the number of opportunities for available firms to
compete for work.
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There is no funding request directly associated with this authorization. No work is guaranteed
to the selected consultants and the Port is not obligated to pay a selected consultant until a
service directive is executed. The budget for work performed under each agreement will come
from individual service directives authorizing the consultant to perform specific work on the
contract against approved project authorizations and within the total contract amount.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
None
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _6f__ Page 5 of 5
Meeting Date: July 9, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None
