>> commissioner, we are returning to open session. it is approximately 9:11 p.m. and a note for the record. president mazzucco: the next item is a motion on whether or not to disclose. not to disclose? president mazzucco: i want you to know the we are going to adjourn this meeting in memory of someone, and commissioner hammer will do that, but i also want to adjourn this meeting in the memory of a former president of the haitian police officers association, a longstanding member of the task force, and, unfortunately, on the day's scheduled for his retirement

party, we got his eulogy. there are two men that i am sure he is very proud of, so on that item, we will move to line item number 11, adjournment. commissioner hammer, can you say something about chief fagan? commissioner hammer: i have met a lot of cops, and so many things stand out about the chief, but above all, the humanity of the man, of the courage and loyalty, the honesty, a man who loved his work and somebody note that people trusted to have their back. " i talked to him five weeks ago and saw him a few months ago. he was excited a few weeks ago that his son had flown back from afghanistan, where he was serving, and surprised his proper, and so he could spend

time with his son, who had been serving in combat, and enjoy that this guy had in retirement at age 60, we should all be envious of, and that is because he lived a life of integrity and courage. so i would move that we adjourn tonight in his memory and have some kind of accommodation at the funeral service, when that comes. president mazzucco: so moved. all in favor? >> aye. president mazzucco: adjourned.

welcome to the budget and finance committee. i'm supervisor john avalos the chair joined by supervisor ross mirkarimi the vice chair and supervisor sean elsbernd. the clerk is victor young. mr. young could you please share us your announcements? >> please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak if i am out a card and turn them in to me. if you present any documents please provide a copy to the clerk for inclusion into the file. items acted upon will be on the board of supervisors agenda november 16, 2010s in otherwise stated. chairman avalos: thank you, mr. young. i apologize for coming a little late. actually very late. i want to thank sfgtv for hanging in there. could you please call item one. >> resolution approving

professional services agreement 8994 curbside management program between fsp ppm management llc and in an amount not to exceed $26 million. chairman avalos: thank you. >> good morning, chair afpvalos. we are seeking approval of a new management contract with five star parking management for an additional term of 2 1/2 years with an amount not to exceed 0 $10,500,000. as pointed out by the budget analyst, the initial request was to approve the whole contract but the budget analyst has recommended we come back for each approval. there are a possibility of three additional one-year options and we will obviously come back for approval if it becomes necessary to extend them.

the curbside at san francisco airport is a very busy place. thousands of vehicles, profit vehicles and different modes approach the terminal every day. the airport has used professional curbside management in different forms since 1999 to manage and monitor the ground transportation services that access the curb and to help us increase usage of different modes by helping with customer service. the contract is the result of a request for proposal process with fsp being chosen. the cost is funded with airport operating funds through transportation fees we collect from the various businesses that make money by accessing our roads and curbside and passengers. that is the general background. i would -- the budget analyst

recommends approval and i would be happy to answer any specific questions you might have. chairman avalos: supervisor elsbernd? commissioner elsbernd: thank you. respecting the process, the one thing that stood out to me, this is one of those situations where we are saying goodbye to somebody who has a heck of a lot of experience and, frankly, i haven't heard a lot of people complain and seems to have done a good job. i'm curious in the airport's process of -- were there negatives with the previous provider? what involved the change? why change to somebody who appears to have been successful? >> we -- i believe that how we have been approaching this contract has been on sort off a short-term. we have been issuing different r.f.p.'s and the staff made a

determination that probably wasn't the best use of their time for continuity on the curb so they went into a longer-term for a contract which required us to come to the board and could do a new process. as part of the process a new company did emerge and not a huge amount higher but they did and in the process get more points and presented, i believe, a lower management fee that helped with their prior score. chairman avalos: just on the process itself, i heard questions and concerns about outliers and the way that scoring was done. was that looked at in terms of did you ask the attorney to do any investigation of that process? >> yes. the current company did file -- i don't know if it was an

official protest but sent a letter of protest with the result of the r.f.p., at which point the airport entered into a six-month extension with them to give us time to look at their concerns. o airport city attorney met with them and attorney as well as going over the evaluation sheets and scoring and their protest was found to be without merit. chairman avalos: what are the things that i saw -- one of the things i saw in the scoring is if you had experience and one of the outlier panelists looked like they scored versus the other group five star didn't have the experience but was rated higher in terms of experience and to me it showed something that i didn't expect, i wouldn't expect to see given the length of time they have

been there. >> what i can say, i can't speak to the individual panelists' scoring, but i do know when the city attorney looked at the question of experience and it is unique out there. all airports are different. there is not really a cookie cutter approach to this. so there haven't really been other companies that have, are we have had the shorter r.f.p.'s it has mostly been daja that gave their bids because they were there. this time another company came together and if you would like me to have the airport manager talk about what he knows about five star parking and how they put together the proposal i would be happy to do that. i also believe five star representatives are here. but they put together a proposal that met all the qualifications and this panelist felt it was better.

chairman avalos: why don't we hear from the budget analyst office and then more questions and we may discuss the actual contract. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, debra newman from the budget analyst office. as ms. widener has indicated, on february 1, 2010, the airport issued a competitive request for proposal. they did receive two bids, one from the existing contractor and the second from five star parking. as shown in table one on page 1-3 of our report, five star parking received a slightly high higher evaluation rating and was selected as the preferred contractor. the airport -- the proposed resolution is requesting the contract for a greater amount of time, which would include not to

exceed $26 million for not only the initial five years and six-month period but additional three optional years. our recommendation is that that be reduced. they do agree with that recommendation. the only other point that i would highlight to you is that under the propped agreement the cost will increase significan y significantly. the monthly cost comparison is shown in our report on table 4, page 1-8. and the cost for salaries will increase 19.2%, tpreupg benefits 21.6% 6789 direct cost 250%, management fees 8.9% and overall increase is about 41%. however i would note that most of those increases are result of

the opening of the new domestic terminal two, which is anticipated to open next year. as i noted, we are recommending that you amend the proposed resolution to not to exceed $ $10,450,000 for the initial t two-year and six month period instead of the $26 million they are requesting and that they come back to the board of supervisors if they want to extend for any one of those three optional year periods and we would recommend approval as amended. commissioner mirkarimi: to the budget analyst office i agree with the amendment. i'm curious if terminal two was not opening and there had not been an inflation of cost in anticipating the additional coverage by f.s.p. for the

translated cost of 41% higher, how would they even out with the current provider now? >> there were some other, through the chair, there were a few other additional cost increases. some increases in insurance. there were also additional staffing changes. but i don't have the amount offhand but most of the cost increases were the result of terminal two. in terms of the comparison, i would defer to the airport staff for the specific breakdown. alternatively, we could come back to you and provide that, the separation of that analysis. commissioner mirkarimi: when you say they graded a little bit better, what does that translate into in terms of cost? >> i believe that i was speaking to staff who have been part of

the process and most of the cost associated with the contract are fixed in terms of salary, uniforms, insurance, that sort of thing. the only cost that may change from contractor to contractor is the proposed management fee, which five star had a slightly lower management fee, which gave them a higher score on that portion of the evaluation. if i could go back for one second to supervi the question star had been performing a similar service at the airport prior and they have extensive experience at the curbside at j.f.k. that may have factored into their higher scoring that you saw. chairman avalos: a question about i know there was a

conversation i had with john martin, the director, last january, i believe. it was around assuring that there are multiple players who are able to be involved in the shuttle services is at the shu services. and from our perspective we want to make sure that we can support local businesses and it seemed like there was a large opening that was being made for, at that time, for super shuttles. and that was kind of maybe elbowing out a little bit some of the local businesses. what is happening under this new curbside management program that we can expect that would keep the door open for businesses that are operating shuttles at the airport, local businesses? >> about a year ago the airport contemplated a new r.f.p. for the different zones.

there are different zones. they believe that is what you are speaking with, we withdrew that r.f.p. based on concerns some of the smaller companies things remain the same. all the companies that have been permitted for 15 years to do business at the airport continue to do business at the airport. the curbside management contractor overseas the operations of the curbside at the airport but the airport sets the zones, sets the policies. this contract has nothing to do with the zones or vans other than to implement the airport policies for the modes of transportation. nothing will change with this new contract. chairman avalos: thank you for your presentation. if there are no other questions from the committee we can go to public comment.