some of the contract to better reflect schedule performance. reassessing a system wide emergency procedures, they suggest a broader verification of emergency procedures in cases other incidents and public safety issues. finally, the question came up about earthquakes. one of the things is to bring up earthquake strength, better performance under a major earthquake. but what happens if an earthquake occurs during construction? we were not able to look into that with great depth, if there are ways and means of construction activity to better protect against potential earthquakes that might occur during construction. longer-term, recommendations,

one is for future programs to consider other types of delivery methods. there are other methods like design build and general contractor design build operate and maintain other types of approaches that you may want to consider and that helps in terms of change orders and trying to bring construction expertise into program during the design phase. we recommended there be construction specialist reviews to try to reduce the numbers of change orders due to construction related activities. a lot of lessons learned on the water system improvement programs. we recommend is be carried to other programs like the sewer system improvement program. you have 86 projects on this

program and you always want to look carefully at how the interface fits together. that is being handled very well and we made a recommendation as to looking at a more formal management program to help that the accomplished. thank you very much. >> this is from the recommendations of the peer review. the doctor agreed with the panel's final recommendations, particularly the need for more studies for the cost and

schedule. the doctor believed a significant review of the compliance with the management processes needed. because of the concerns brought up in the report and peer review report, the rboc will continue to review whether it is on time and budget. that's the presentation. if anyone has any questions. >> thank you very much. i understand you have been termed out. >> i helped start the committee eight years ago and i think we have accomplished a lot in the eight years and i hope we continue to facilitate construction -- constructive review of the program and i

think another route -- a number of our recommendations have been included, including some of the recommendations that have been incorporated into the labor report. i think it has been a constructive mutual relationship. >> eight years is a significant chunk of your life and we appreciate the effort you have put into that. it is also the case that we have been given a huge trust by the people of san francisco, giving a 40 to spend this money in this way. it is fundamentally important to living in that trust that we invite an overview -- it is an incredibly important thing and we will be asking for trust again. it is in your effort and the

record we have of being transparent, doing itself auditing and encouraging external auditing that puts us in a position where i can say we earned that trust for another round. i do have one question. it talks about your work plan going forward, developing adjustments of project completion, time, and total cost. i can tell when you tell me something about are we following procedures and all -- are the procedures good enough. i was trying to figure out -- what do i do with that?

let me put it as a question and a request. what is your anticipation as to what information that would come out of that that would be actionable by the commission and the request is, to the extent possible, if you feel our projections are not correct, that you also help us figure out why so that there is something we can do about it. that is a concern and a request and i would appreciate any thought you have on it. >> i agree that when you get duelling information, it's hard to know where to come out on it. initially, we wanted the report

because we didn't have anybody on the committee was construction management experience to have them go in on a high level and have them look at and point out where we should provide more study in the future. i think the study did point to the fact that this is an area representing the community and ratepayers' need to keep an eye on. right now, staff is going through two months of intensive workshop with the committee to show us how they do their forecasting. we are trying to figure out how the information we feel we need can be reported to us in a way we can manage its.

so far, we are working out a few of those reports and it is going to continue next month. if there is information that comes to our attention, we would bring it forward because that is our obligation to the community as well as you. >> this is always the most difficult part of a multi-tier complex project. to try to anticipate what is going to happen 10 or 15 years down the road from when it is completed. what we did looking at the procedures and process was to determine there are procedures in place and there are systems that are very good. that has to give you some confidence you are going to end

up where you want to be. we recommended there be earned value analysis of not just the construction phase but the environmental design so you could get the answer that you want. those are being done and i would not suggest you have an independent party come in and do that again because it would be very difficult for someone to do that who is not as well informed as to your current team is. but you can do periodic audits and audit what their projections are and that is being done. i saw one of their reports where they did a nice job looking at completed projects and found there were only 4% of the award of value of the contract. those types of audits are also

valuable. but that is probably the best way to assess tracking of the overall program. >> we don't want to spend our money on duplicating other people's work, so we look at all of the different audits being done by the city and other projects to try to not duplicate work and to provide more useful information. >> >> thank you for a job well done. >> and eight considerable years of service. that is a very much appreciated. any public comment? >> if you would call item 11? >> a discussion to approve the joint venture award program

funded agreement central base tight system improvement project, to provide engineering service and authorize the general manager of the utility system to -- and subject to the board of supervisors' approval pursuant to the charter section. >> i'm the assistant general manager for infrastructure. we are before you today to ask for your approval to award the central bayside central improvement program to the high ranking firm joint venture. this is an important project. it is something that was identified at the workshops as part of this proposal. we have had five posers which we short listed three and the top

ranking firm -- i'm happy to answer any questions about the process. >> thank you. commissioners come any questions? >> who were the other bidders? >> the other bidders -- there was a joint venture and ann w. h. you are s -- >> and this was from southern california? do they have offices here? >> they have offices here. in the bay area. >> any other questions?

is there public comment on this item? do i have a motion? so moved. >> do i have a second? >> second. all those in favor? >> with the commission's permission, it probably would not prevent them from voting, but to give them comfort, you can release them from voting. >> the rules of order say that is by permission of the commission. will it be in order for there to be a motion that we do that? >> that would make the record most clean. >> so moved. >> moved and seconded.

>> on the item itself, we have a motion and a second. item number 12. >> a discussion to authorize the san francisco public utilities commission and an understanding with the california medical center to perform sewer improvements related to the cesar chavez improvement project, authorize the general manager to except and expand it funds, increasing the contingency and authorize staff to provide support subject to supplemental appropriations, the cesar chavez improvement

project. decreasing the contract and a time extension 4 total contract duration of 598 consecutive calendar days subject to board approval of a supplemental appropriation and adopt environmental findings under the california environmental quality act. >> i think you may be aware we are doing a lot of work on cesar chavez. st. luke's hospital wants to rearrange its campus and this would allow us to get money from them and move our sewer lines and out of the way so we could do our work. >> thank you. any questions for the general manager? any public comment? >> i need to abstain? -- >> all those in favor?

the motion carries. >> all those in favor? of the motion carries. >> the next item will be a closed session. if you would call for any public comment on any closed session items? >> and do we have any public comment on items of the closed session? could i have a motion to assert attorney-client privilege? all those in favor? >> if you agree to let me read the items, we will with a closed session.

the existing litigation is defended it -- the city and county of san francisco, 17 conference of legal counsel, city and county, the civil prosecutor, the state of california and the existing litigation and 18 public employee hiring administrative secretary public utilities commission. if the room would be cleared and the last person to go out could close the door, we will go into a closed session. we have called public comment already.