Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Snohomish County committee advances four Paine Field professional-services contracts to consent agenda
Summary
The Planning and Community Development Committee moved four motions authorizing on-call professional services contracts for Paine Field (Snohomish County Airport) to the April 23 consent agenda, covering planning, structural and transportation engineering and construction engineering with total not-to-exceed amounts of $4,849,773.
The Snohomish County Planning and Community Development Committee on April 15 moved four motions to the county’s General Legislative Session (GLS) consent agenda on April 23 that would authorize the county executive to execute on-call professional-services contracts for Paine Field (Snohomish County Airport).
The four motions cover: a planning and airport-business services contract with Landrum & Brown (RFQ 24-011BC) not to exceed $1,000,000; a land-side and structural engineering contract with KPFF (RFQ 24-011BC) not to exceed $2,000,000; a transportation engineering contract with Kimley-Horn & Associates (RFQ 24-011BC) not to exceed $1,000,000; and a construction engineering contract with Jacobs Engineering Group (RFQ 23-005BC, part B) not to exceed $849,773. The combined not-to-exceed total for the four agreements is $4,849,773.
County staff said the on-call contracts are intended to provide professional assistance for aeronautical planning and airport business development, land-side civil and structural engineering, transportation engineering (roadway, parking and intersection design), and construction-phase engineering services. The Jacobs contract is described in the packet as part B (construction engineering); part A, for design and bidding services, was executed on Aug. 23, 2023. The Jacobs part B contract is set to terminate on Dec. 31, 2027, with up to two additional two-year extensions at the county’s option.
All four motions described multi-year administration (four-year base terms with options to extend in three of the items) and included stated not-to-exceed amounts. No formal vote was taken by the committee on April 15; members moved the motions to the GLS consent agenda for April 23 if there was no objection.
The committee record did not show movers or seconders for the motions, and no council member debate or objection appeared in the transcript. The committee chair announced the referral to GLS for consideration on the consent agenda.
If approved by the full council on consent, the contracts will permit the county executive to execute agreements and obligate funds up to the stated caps; the motions as presented did not include additional project-level budget breakdowns or contract numbers beyond the RFQ references shown in the meeting materials.
