staff, and six were found to be qualified. one contractor was excluded when a subsequent conflict of interest arose. the invitation to bids were therefore sent to the five remaining contractors on july 30. during the bid period, seven addendum were drawn to the contractors bidding it. the engineers estimates after completion of the addendum was $5 million. the bids were opened the during nine. four bids were received. one of the five qualified did not submit a bid. the bids are as follows.

it is noticeable, the high bid was 10 percent over the engineers at does 's estimate. this is a confirmation that the bid package was understood by contractors and these are satisfactory levels. on november 16, we received a bid protest from the second lowest bidder. this was reviewed carefully and on november 29, the tjpa denied the protest.

so the recommendation is to award contracts to balfour beatty. they are a large contractor, 19th in the world. they have experienced all over the world, including relevant experience in california. they possess the requisite experience to do this type of work. it is a major project. they submitted 17.3% sbe participation, the majority of which was worked for trucking companies to get that 51 50,000 yards removed. this amounts to $32.2 million.

they submitted the lowest responsive bid. it is important that we move ahead. i recommend approval of this contract. it means to keep us on schedule. this is the real work that we will achieve, getting the train box build, and the train on top of it. chairman ford: any questions from the board? director colon hen. director cohen: and when would the work began on this? >> they would start in january with load design work for all of that cross-bracing, permits. the first piece of work would start around march, april.

that would be the extraction of timber files underneath the buttress. you cannot deal with wooden piles in the way, so that would be our first item of work, but a lot of work is needed for designs and some metals. director cohen: the engineer estimate figure, when we were most recently changing the scope of phase one to include the train box, there had been a previous estimates which i do not recall. the hope was that this would be potential to realize some significant savings in the overall funding plan for the project. do you recall how this lined up with how that estimate was four, five months ago? >> the estimate has always been around the $200 mark. that is part of the $400 million

that is part of the train box. i did not really expect a huge savings. this is very technical. this work has to be done to the highest standards. we cannot afford to have any short cuts. chairman fordthe contractor is . if they would like to speak? chairman ford: yes, that would be appropriate. >> good morning, directors. i am the project manager. we are honored and excited to be considered to be a part of this landmark project. we have done similar work. we did a similar project in downtown seattle.

we have a lot of experience in the west coast. i would also like to say that we have an excellent track record of increasing sbe participation throughout the project. our rfp participation goals are not set. we continue to work with out rich companies and continue to do everything we can to increase sbe percentages. we intend to work with bdi to continue outreach in order to secure additional sbe percentages. since the bit date, we have been through additional participation with some of our major contractors, managed to identify an initial $3.5 million in sbe participation, which we

plan to provide to local sbe's. $1 million of that is to trucking. we are ready to go, we have a lot of experience in this type of work, and we are honored to be a part of this project. chairman ford: thank you very much. madam executive director, it is my understanding that this protest has also been filed with the fta, at this point. so it is not just the tjpa. can we talk about that protest and what were the factors? >> i think i will have cheryl address the board for that. chairman ford: one question before we get into that, sbe participation. on the top of the item, it says balfour beatty has included

24.3% sbe participation in its contract goal. but on the same page it says 24% sbe utilization goals. i am trying to reconcile those two numbers. page three. i just want to clarify that so i know exactly what we mean. >> [inaudible] chairman ford: so the goal is 24%. >> we submitted a lot of paperwork in good faith to do that. some of the sbe's our vendors and only will take 60% of the number. the important thing is to get real contractors doing real work. they promise to make more

effort. similar results came from two of the other three bidders. at least one produced a bid that said he could get to 24%, but again, there were four vendors there. chairman ford: and that was who? >> granite. chairman ford: the group that is protesting. >> that is part of their protest, yes. chairman ford: thank you. >> good morning, directors. city attorney. on behalf of the tjpa. granite has submitted a bid protest to the tjpa.

they followed up with a bid protest to the fta. basically, the tjpa issued a substantive response after the bid protest was filed. we submitted a response to the fta as well. we are waiting for fda's response. to become the fta reviews a bid protest based on whether or not they have followed procedures, whether there was any violation of federal law. in my review, i found it was fairly confident, the tjpa has procedures to follow their own procedures and did not violate any law or regulation in making a the recommendation that is before you today. chairman ford: ok. any other questions? i understand we have an amended resolution related to this item.

>> yes, the board secretary will read it item. >> the resolution has been revised to include three additional whereas clauses following the fifth clause. three additional read -- or as the low bidder joint venture challenged the bid, tjpa issued a bid. fta will issue a ruling or determination. whereas the subcontract will sell only be rewarded under this conclusion subject to tjpa conclusion protest. the resolution is also amended to include an additional line to the first result which will stay the tjpa board of directors

authorizes a trade contract for balfour beatty in the amount of $187 million subject to fda ruling. >> just in terms of the math, i am not sure that this is the healthiest way to look at it. the discrepancy on sbe participation is about 7%, but the overall bid difference is 10%. i know this may not be the only issue granite has raised --

just, the math does not seem to work. we should try to meet our goals. at a certain point, we could take $20 million and give it to disadvantaged communities, where we would be doing more for those communities than by selecting a contract that is 10%, 7% higher sbe participation rate. i am not recommending -- >> i wanted to point out, at bit time, they came in at 17.3%. they have since been identified and that the $3 million, so that number has gone up. as brian mentioned in the analysis of the sbe's that came in on the second lowest bidder, many of them weren't vendors.

brian or sarah, maybe you can address that. -- many of them were vendors. >> i did not mean for my question to be addressed. chairman ford: in terms of the critical tasks on the project, but with a one-month delay in this mean? >> we are on schedule with the federal railroad administration. they have been overseeing the project since the award of the $400 million. they are expecting approval today. this would allow a review of the protest so that the contractor can begin getting the permits and begin all the work they need to do. it is a complicated scope. maybe emilio can address the timing issue, but it is critical that we keep moving forward. >> program manager we did

analyze the schedule. the work involved is necessary prior to the excavation because it creates the waterproofing of the area. shoring work needs to be completed before we can move into excavation. we have looked at the critical path submitted by webcor. that represents a day for day delay on the delivery of the project. if we were to wait one month to vote on the item, we would be delayed the entire project by one month. also, in the event that there might be a delay, looked at the baseline schedule to see if we could we sequence work to take this off of the critical path. we have got through exercises and found that there is no way to get the shoring wall off the critical path. at this point, any delay is an overall delay in the program. >> which means money in the

project. chairman ford: the overall project length? >> seven years 255 days. >> yes, but it is still money. as you know, we are tight on monday. there is no reason to delay it. -- on money. >> while construction does not begin in june, we're looking at a two phase of notice. the first would happen immediately after your vote, should you vote to approve this contract. balfour beatty would need to be ready for construction. it would then have its mobilization. it basically needs to start next week in order to meet the june physical start, in order to keep the program on schedule. >> the engineer's estimate was

$2.6 million. that was in our budget for this project? >> that is the engineer's estimate for the budget. chairman ford: we were 10% below are budgeted number, so any one month would drive us to what additional cost, in terms of this bid? >> we have not determined the actual cost of the one-month delay. chairman ford: but it should not exceed our original estimate which is in the budget for the original project? >> i could not tell you. >> we are on schedule and we do not see a reason to delay. director cohen: i am interested

in hearing from my colleagues. my instinct is, one, low bid matters. two, my understanding is this is an important part of the project. 3, i have great deference to the merits of the bid protest. so for all of those reasons, i would be strongly inclined to move forward with the contract right now. in a perfect world, we would have scheduled a closed session based on the potential litigation so that we might have had the opportunity to push on council a bit harder. that is the purpose of that particular provision for closed

session. i'm not convinced that delaying a month would have a truly material adverse impact on the project, but i'm also not convinced that delaying a month so we have a closed session at the end of the day -- i will probably still be differential to the opinion of the city attorney on the merits of the claim. i at least wanted to share with my colleagues that is what my thinking is, but i am quite interested in hearing what they're thinking is as well. director daly: i agree with director cohen. two things, and this is just estimates in terms of money. it seems that not accounting for the granite bid having more vendors, sbe dollars included,

which are not as valuable in terms of work on the ground, but it seems as if there is about a $15 million difference in the total amount of money going to sbe and the bids, but there is over a $20 million difference in the bids. i think that if the numbers were flipped, then you would sort of have to judge what the value of the higher participation is, but in this case, you could actually take $15 million, giving it away, and still be, you know, the low bid. given that, i think we should go ahead and move forward with the staff recommendation as amended, but i do think moving forward perhaps if there are other areas where we can get higher levels

of for dissipation of the -- higher levels of participation of the sbe's, we should try for that. >> it was clearly pointed out to us that this was the most costly contract in this project if i heard the staff correctly, and for us to start off with not reaching our stated goal in terms of 24% sbe participation, it bothers me. to me, it is a slippery slope. once we start with something of this magnitude and immediately, we kind of move away from our values, as it relates to sbe participation, recognizing the fact that the economy is in the state that it is, and contract like this or opportunities like this do not come too often. with that, i'm willing to entertain a motion. we will, i guess, let the board

decide which way to go with this item. >> i would move the item as amended or move the amendments and then the item. >> it has been moved, properly seconded. >> no members of the public have indicated they wish to address you on this item. director ford: we have two members. please come up to the podium. give us a public comment speaker card. >> thank you again, mr. chairman, members of the board. there is one point here that keeps coming to the sbe

participation. vendors sell something. we are contractors. we perform work. i think there's a difference here by saying that one contractor has obtained 17% sbe participation by using vendors -- >> that is -- sir, can you clarify for the speaker? director ford: let's hold this time. >> i would like to clarify a couple of items. they submitted the bid was 21.5%, and we took a close look at the numbers and calculating that some of those were in fact suppliers and vendors instead, we recalculated their percentage at 17.3%. we took a similar look at the 2nd low bidder's numbers. he came in at 26.5%. if you do the same calculations and account for brokers, it appears they also drop down

below 20%. i also want to remind you that this is a subcontract under the cmgc contract, which will still have a 17% goal, so the individual percentages are all to enable cmgc to come in a 17% or more on their overall contract. 24% not met here will still be expected to be made up elsewhere on other packages to maintain or exceed 17%. >> do we have the granites recalculated number anywhere? this is the first time i have heard it is under 20%. >> i have a spread sheet here. one second. director ford: thank you. why don't we let public, enters

finish and then we will have staff respond? >> it seems difficult to me to think that within san francisco and the surrounding areas, a prime contractor reaching 24% small business. we have a lot of contractors in san francisco that to all types of jobs, and it seems that it is not -- when i think of it and listen to the numbers again, they sound well, but when you are talking about vendors needing a percentage while there are contractors that can meet that percentage and they are not offered the opportunity to do so, then the system is failing. director ford: ok. thank you.

>> my name is stan rogers. i have a letter from the san francisco african-american chamber of commerce, and it is addressed to the board. it says it has come to the attention that the transbay transit center contract has an apparent low bidder that has not met the contractual stipulated sbe participation. yet, the second place team has exceeded the percentage of participation required, of which 5% corresponds with an african american subcontractor. as for the letter of november 10, 2010, to the trans bay joint powers authority, the san francisco african-american chamber of commerce is concerned about the gross lack of for dissipation of african-american firms in your program. we would ask that the tjpa prior to awarding this contract demonstrate a commitment to the diversity programs. we are further concerned that

your waiver of goals further demonstrate again to the agency does not take the sbe dde program seriously. awarding this project to the apparent low bidder who has not met the goals which show that the agency has ignored achievable participation of qualified local endeavors companies, we would hope your agency would send a serious message. sincerely, frederick jordan, president of the chamber. i am a subcontractor, a vendor who has put in a bid for this project. i represent 5% of the contract will agreement with granite, so i'm not just a vendor. i'm actually a contractor. hopefully, that means something to the board. director ford: thank you.

>> i'm also a subcontractor consultant doing work with granite. basically, i have been -- my previous experience has shown that i have fought for live companies when i was on the other side of the fence working with these companies on large infrastructure projects, big ones dealing with the bay bridge, dealing also with the golden gate bridge, everything, and i have been having to deal with trying to achieve these goals. i have been privy to the rebuttal. i find it to be inadequate. a lot of paper. it looks good. i have to admit that we did the same thing. you get a database of things. you can hire somebody that says

they will make use of supply, but i can certainly say from the bottom of my heart, it is not a bona fide effort. it is a pro-forma effort. this complete disregard for your policies, which i read thoroughly -- when you go through some steps and it tells you -- it does not say you have to because there is always language that lets you wiggle out of the whole thing. the language allows you to say best effort as opposed to you have to reach it because there is no language in there. we are very conscious of it. i'm skilled in knowing contractual requirements. there is obviously wiggle room in the first place that allows you to get away from the real compliance, but the honest truth is when someone comes in and seize eight steps that you have to try to go through and basically set our