Acting Port Director Jim Jager and Port of Alaska engineers told the Assembly Infrastructure, Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee on July 29 that work tied to the Port Asset Management Program (PAMP) and related port projects will require multiple contract awards, insurance purchases and further technical studies.

The presentations covered a proposed five-year extension of Jacobs Engineering’s program-management contract with a not-to-exceed amount of about $63 million, a sole-source training contract for Safeguard Marine LLC (roughly $120,000), an awarded $25,646,000 contract for an electrical substation, planned insurance purchases for the Terminal 1 construction program and a forthcoming condition assessment of POL 2 dock structure.

The matters matter because Terminal 1 is a multihundred‑million-dollar construction program with an August 15 convergence date for new ship-to-shore cranes. The committee heard that schedule, insurance and contractor-management decisions affect risk on the construction critical path and the municipality’s potential exposure.

John Daly, PAMP engineering manager for the port, described the Jacobs extension as a five‑year, September‑to‑September period of performance intended to cover construction administration, permitting and design support. Daly said the extension is a not‑to‑exceed contract “up to $63,000,000” and that construction‑administration costs are expected to fall in the industry typical range of 4 to 6 percent of construction costs.

Eric Adams, Jacobs’ program manager on the PAMP support team, outlined a separate request for a sole‑source contract to Safeguard Marine LLC to provide pilot‑vessel training during construction phasing. Adams said the period of performance would run roughly July/August 2025 through March 2026 and that the cost is “about 120,000,” with the port planning to put the sole‑source award on the July 29 assembly agenda for approval.

The committee was told that the electrical substation work—separated from the Terminal 1 construction contract—was awarded to Electrical Power Constructors (EPC) for $25,646,000; that contract was executed in June and issued a notice to proceed in early July, with long‑lead procurement already under way.

On insurance, port staff said they will ask the assembly on July 29 to approve two construction‑period policies: a builder’s‑risk policy and an owners’ interest (gap) liability policy. Adams summarized the builder’s‑risk items presented to the committee, saying the policy would begin Aug. 1, 2025 and run through March 2, 2030. He reported a builder’s‑risk premium figure presented in the meeting as roughly $5.8 million and said total coverage figures were also discussed in the briefing. The owners’ interest policy was described as a 52‑month policy with a premium the presentation listed as $1.3 million and coverage up to $35 million.

Port staff also briefed the committee on several smaller or supporting projects that are already in procurement or will come to the assembly: replacement of the port security checkpoint (federally funded), Bluff Drive fence and camera upgrades (FEMA port security grant), recurring dock fender repairs (estimated at about $293,000 for T1/T2 fenders), a port maintenance complex (sprung structure), a battery energy storage first phase with procurement expected to be complete in late July/early August, and an EPA Clean Ports grant of $2 million that will fund an energy‑services contractor to act as project developer.

Contract amendments and studies discussed included a pending $191,000 request to amend a Yutelhoven contract originally about $475,000 to add valves and piping for petroleum system commissioning; a Moffett Nickel transportation‑optimization study that began as a $239,250 2023 contract and for which an additional amendment amount was said to be forthcoming; and selection of a vendor to deliver a 35% design for Terminal 2, which staff said they plan to bring before the assembly in September.

The committee was also notified that port staff discovered structural problems at POL 2 when ice melted this spring. Staff said they will perform a condition assessment and load rating in the coming weeks to identify whether repairs or operational restrictions are needed. Port staff told the committee they do not believe the POL 2 condition is likely to jeopardize the Terminal 1 crane schedule but said the inspection results could affect later phases of PAMP and some maintenance activities.

Committee members asked about year‑to‑year burn rates under the Jacobs extension (staff said current annual spending under Jacobs is “a little bit over $7,000,000 a year” and that the extension would average higher levels during peak construction seasons) and whether the port budget will absorb the 2025 work (staff said most current 2025 work is funded but acknowledged financing challenges remain for Terminal 1).

Looking ahead, staff said they expect the assembly to consider the listed contract awards and insurance purchases at the July 29 and Aug. 12 assembly meetings, will bring a PAMP surcharge update to the August committee meeting, and will return with the POL 2 condition assessment once the inspections are complete.

“It's one of those decisions that we're going to make a decision, and nobody is going to be completely happy with it,” Jager said of some PAMP tradeoffs; he urged that thorough studies and user buy‑in guide decisions.

Ending: Committee members signaled they will devote significant time at the August meeting to the PAMP surcharge and the Terminal 2 35% design, and staff repeated that the POL 2 assessment and several contract amendments will be brought back to the assembly as soon as analyses and purchasing steps are complete.