Template revised January 10, 2019.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
8d
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
October 22, 2019
DATE: October 11, 2019
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Wendy Reiter, Director Aviation Security
Jeffery Brown, Director Aviation Facilities and Capital Programs
Wayne Grotheer, Director Aviation Project Management
SUBJECT: Checkpoint 1 Relocation Design Authorization (CIP #C801093)
Amount of this request:
$10,000,000
Total estimated project cost:
$30 million - $40 million
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to (1) advertise and execute a
consultant contract to prepare design and construction bid documents for the relocation of
Checkpoint 1 at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, (2) use Port crews for design support and
enabling construction activities, and (3) purchase owner-supplied security screening equipment,
all of which in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 of a total estimated project cost between
$30 million and $40 million.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project is needed to improve the level of service for airline passenger security screening at
the Airport. The Airport currently has five checkpoints spread across the ticketing level. The
current Checkpoint 1 located at the south end of the Ticketing Level is undersized, has an
inefficient configuration, and cannot accommodate the newer Automated Screening Lane
technology that is utilized in the Airport’s other checkpoints. With the current conditions,
Checkpoint 1 is only suitable for pre-check passengers, which limits the airport’s overall screening
flexibility and effectiveness. The relocation of Checkpoint 1 would enable other Main Terminal
checkpoint and check-in improvements as part of the Main Terminal Optimization Plan (MTOP).
This project will relocate Checkpoint 1 from its current location on the Ticketing Level to the lower
Baggage Claim Level to provide additional screening throughput flexibility and a more adequate
level of service for our passengers. Along with supporting upgrades, the project will create new
queuing, travel document verifications, and additional security screening lanes with Automated
Screening Lane technology.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8d___ Page 2 of 6
Meeting Date: October 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Due to the urgency of this project, we are requesting project authorization prior to completion
of project definition. Seeking project authorization prior to completion of project definition adds
greater uncertainty to project scope and therefore project cost, hence the cost estimate is shown
as a range.
This project will be subject to airline review though a majority-in-interest (MII) vote.
JUSTIFICATION
Inability to accommodate efficient technology and adequate queuing for passenger security
processing at Checkpoint 1 will result in continued deterioration of passenger level of service in
the Main Terminal as demand increases. Passenger security screening at the Airport is
experiencing stints of systemic failure, resulting in excessive wait times and impacts to other
terminal processes. Without implementation of additional security screening capacity and
efficiency, it is distinctly possible that queues will become unmanageable, resulting in more and
more missed flights.
Relocation of Checkpoint 1 to the lower level would provide additional processing capacity and
operation area to improve passenger level of service. An enhanced Checkpoint 1 would provide
additional compliant screening lanes, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) support
spaces, adequate queuing to meet peak demand, and flexibility to accommodate current and
evolving screening protocols. This lower level checkpoint will serve all passengers but will
primarily benefit passengers using the South Satellite Concourse and passengers dropped off on
the arrivals curb during peak departure periods, helping to mitigate curb congestion. It also
introduces new opportunities for demand management, which are being considered in other
initiatives. Passengers using Checkpoint 1 would have direct access to the South Satellite Transit
System (STS) platform and ultimately any gate.
DETAILS
Scope of Work
This project will relocate the existing Checkpoint 1 from its current location on the Ticketing Level
to a new expanded location on the Baggage Claim Level.
To accelerate delivery of the new Checkpoint, the Port will be developing a Project Definition
Document (PDD) concurrently with the procurement of the Project Designer. The risk with this
accelerated approach is that the scope may change or increase as the project is further defined.
The PDD is scheduled to be completed in Quarter 1 of 2020 and will further inform the scope
enumerated below.
At this time, the scope includes the following elements:
(1) New security lanes with the latest screening equipment
(2) Demising of security checkpoint from the rest of the Bag Claim level and Gina Marie
Lindsey (GML) Arrivals Hall
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8d___ Page 3 of 6
Meeting Date: October 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
(3) Removal of Bag Claim 1 device
(4) Expansion of glass wall around the GML Hall and the Grand Staircase
(5) Removal of architectural elements to increase circulation in the GML Hall
(6) Provide code compliant egress from the new Checkpoint
(7) Vertical Circulation Upgrades
a. Low end estimate includes the upgrade of a single elevator
(8) Investigation of other vertical circulation improvements that may be required
a. High end estimate includes the replacement of four elevators and the creation
of new escalators from the skybridge to the bag claim level
(9) Relocation of The Clearing art wall
(10) New flight information displays
(11) Updated wayfinding signage
(12) Demolition and closure of existing Checkpoint 1 on the ticketing level
Since the project definition is not yet complete, we do not yet know if additional potential scope
elements (such as structural upgrades, electrical capacity, and heating ventilation and air
conditioning capacity) identified in the planning work to date will be required and if so, their cost
and schedule impact on the project. The work to be done in the coming months will refine this.
Diversity in Contracting
Project team is working with the Diversity in Contracting team to conduct outreach and the
setting of a women- and minority-owned business enterprise (WMBE) aspiration goal for this
project.
Schedule
Activity
2020 Quarter 1
2020 Quarter 4
2021 Quarter 1
2022 Quarter 1
Note that additional scope items may delay project completion.
Cost Breakdown Low End Range
This Request
Total Project
$5,500,000
$5,800,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$21,700,000
$10,000,000
$30,000,000
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8d___ Page 4 of 6
Meeting Date: October 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Cost Breakdown High End Range
This Request
Total Project
$5,500,000
$5,900,000
$2,500,000
$2,600,000
$2,000,000
$31,500,000
$10,000,000
$40,000,000
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Expand existing Checkpoint 4
Cost Implications: $70,000,000
Pros:
(1) Expands existing checkpoint
(2) Keeps all checkpoints on ticketing level
Cons:
(1) Adding lanes at this checkpoint requires closure of two existing neighboring Airport
retail locations
(2) Greater impact to travelling public during expansion of checkpoint
(3) Checkpoint 4 is not included as a final state of the MTOP and therefore the investment
would be considered temporary and would most likely need to be demolished in the
future.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Keep Checkpoint 1 on the Ticketing Level as-is
Cost Implications: $0
Pros:
(1) No capital investment required
(2) All checkpoints will remain on ticketing. Less confusion for the traveling public
Cons:
(1) Does not increase checkpoint capacity
(2) Current checkpoint will continue to only screen pre-check travelers
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Relocation Checkpoint 1 to Bag Claim Level
Cost Implications: $30,000,000-$40,000,000
Pros:
(1) Creates ideal amount of space for queuing, document check, screening, and re-
composure
(2) Provides additional area for passenger screening without expanding the building
footprint
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8d___ Page 5 of 6
Meeting Date: October 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
(3) Locating a passenger screening checkpoint on a different level than existing
checkpoints and with additional lanes is likely to provide a moderate benefit to the
TSA staffing formula and may result in additional TSOs allocated to the Airport.
(4) Existing Checkpoint 1 location can remain operational during a portion of construction
activities
(5) Allows other portions of the MTOP program to proceed without having to reduce
capacity (based on the current airport wide passenger screening capacity).
Cons:
(1) Baggage claim level is not a typical location for passenger screening and wayfinding to
this checkpoint will likely be challenging to resolve.
(2) Requires additional TSA staff.
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary – Low End of Range
Capital
Expense
Total
$27,500,000
$2,500,000
$30,000,000
$300,000
$0
$300,000
$7,500,000
$2,500,000
$10,000,000
$7,800,000
$2,500,000
$10,300,000
$19,700,000
$0
$19,700,000
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary –
High End of Range
Capital
Expense
Total
$37,500,000
$2,500,000
$40,000,000
$300,000
$0
$300,000
$7,500,000
$2,500,000
$10,000,000
$7,800,000
$2,500,000
$10,300,000
$29,700,000
$0
$29,700,000
As noted elsewhere in this memo, project definition is not yet complete and project scope is not
yet fully set. These cost estimates are Rough Order of Magnitude.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8d___ Page 6 of 6
Meeting Date: October 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
This CIP C801093 Checkpoint 1 Relocation was not included in the 2019-2023 capital budget and
plan of finance. The budget has been transferred from the Aeronautical Reserve CIP (C800753)
resulting in no net change to the Aviation capital budget. The funding source will be the Airport
Development Fund and future revenue bonds.
The ownership of the screening equipment will be transferred to the TSA. Accordingly, the cost
of the equipment will be accounted for as public expense. In the table above, the estimated cost
of the screening equipment is indicated in the Expense column.
Financial Analysis and Summary
Project cost for analysis
$30,000,000; $40,000,000
Business Unit (BU)
Terminal Building
Effect on business performance
(NOI after depreciation)
NOI after depreciation will increase
IRR/NPV (if relevant)
N/A
CPE Impact
$0.08 in 2022 if cost = $30million; $0.10 if cost = $40
million
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Presentation slides.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
July 23, 2019 – Briefing: Main Terminal Optimization Plan