Port’s lawyer says SeaTac security deal is an IT services contract, not construction

Matthew Siegel, representing the Port of Seattle, told the court the contract was an ICT (information and communications technology) agreement focused on system design, configuration and integration specific to SeaTac Airport. He stressed that Siemens’ RFP response originally did not include installation and that the installation element was later added by amendment; design, customization and system integration, he argued, were the contract’s core.

Siegel argued the trial court’s ruling should not stand. “The trial court erred in this case by allowing the Department of Revenue to reverse engineer a construction contract out of an information technology services agreement or IT agreement solely because the IT agreement contained an installation component,” Siegel said. He pointed to witness testimony that the system required site-specific configuration to interoperate with existing Genetec video infrastructure and to the separate contract for civil work, arguing that installation was secondary and byproduct to a technology solution.