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 a 1-way thing

that says here is a bunch of companies, probably 154 whatever, facets that i could make a budget paper, two, i have done it in the past. next thing is when you get a person assigned to it, it is all fine and dandy, but when it comes down to sitting down -- director ford: please finalize your remarks. >> the only thing to get down to, understanding what they have to do, you have to kind of work with them. you have to tell them what to strike, yet to tell them what they can do. that is not done in this job. director ford: all right, thank you. now we will hear from the staff. no other public, enters before we hear from the staff? ok, thank you. >> being mindful that what we want to do here is create jobs. we recognize that. so you do not count vendors and

suppliers at the same percentage that you count and actual subcontractor because you recognize that to buy materials and pass it on to your subcontractor is not creating as many jobs as putting someone out there with a hard hat. if you look at the actual subcontractor participation, they are nearly identical. granite is at 11.15% for actual subcontractor sbe's and dbe's. when you add in suppliers at a discounted credit, so to speak, setting the competitor up to 23.3, and it also brings granted up to around 17%. i just want to know for you some of the high percentages. the largest participation comes

from trucking. there is an asian theredbe and a black -- there is an asian pacific dbe and a black lbe. all of our packages so far, without mandating -- all of the trucking on all of the packages so far. director daly: so staff is now telling us that the dbe purchase a patient for granted is lower than -- for granite is lower than balfour? >> correct. our first order of business was to evaluate the bonafide good faith efforts of the low bid and determine if in fact they were

bonafide. as a secondary measure, after staff report was prepared in order to be able to answer questions, we did look at the 2nd low bid to make sure that their numbers either were or were not actually what they are saying, and we look at some of these businesses to see whether or not they were store fronts or whether they were subcontractors. our calculation of their numbers brings it down significantly from 25%. we are not actually looking at a $15 million or $20 million difference in sbe participation if you are comparing the bid that way. director daly: b 3 million additional -- >> that has not been added into these calculations. director daly: what did they find? >> i would have to ask.

>> [inaudible] director daly: which b brings it up about 2% to a19-point- something. >> i also want to understand. i'd improbably over sharing my thought process on this, but the problem with the lake, as i see it, is not the impact of a month. if we are not prepared to move forward with the low bidder, i cannot imagine a scenario where we would just go to the second bidder. i think in that case, without compromising our lawyer's position or anything else, the low bidder would have a pretty

legitimate set of issues, particularly given some of the numbers that have been laid out to us, and i think we would more than likely be looking at a rebid situation, which probably would lead to a fairly significant delay in the project. it is very helpful, the numbers you have just given, and i want to make sure i understand as well. on the apples to apples basis, for the elements of the program that i think everyone, including public, enters, acknowledges is the most important part, which is not on the supplier side, but on the subcontractor side, balfour beatty is at 11.2%, and granite is at 11.5%? >> 11.25% and 11.15%. >> after balfour was suggested

to adjust down their number in your diligence, and in light of the bid process, we did the same thing, and based on that apples to apples due diligence, they come out about the same, maybe a little more. >> correct. >> i'm intrigued, i have to say, with director daly's suggestion -- director daly: it is not a suggestion. [laughter] >> i think we need to look at going forward, whether we can repurchase some of the concerns that continue to come up, but based on the analysis, as i think i understand it, i think i am prepared to vote in favor of this item now. director ford: thank you very much. >> with that, we will go ahead

and take a roll call vote with no other members of the public wishing to address you on this item. cohen aye. daly aye. 3 ayes and one no. item 8 is approved. we can go ahead and move into your next calendar item, item nine. approving an amendment to contract 08-04-cmgc-000, authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to award a trade subcontract thereby increasing authorized direct costs by $1,699,000 and increasing the authorized construction services be by $139,318. >> directors, we have someone to

report on this item. >> this contract is water improvement along howard street. 100% sbe for this package along with all the other side utility packages. being that the water improvements need to occur before the shoring all, this work is on the critical path. happy to answer any questions you have. director ford: it has been moved and seconded. can you spell of the issues regarding sbe participation? i know there were questions about things that need to be changed. >> as it relates to this contract -- director ford: it is good we got to 100%. i just want to better understand the issue. >> the idea is that all the site

relocation work were 100% sbe. the particular item which identified were just trying to identify qualified contractors to bid so that we have as many bidders as possible. director ford: right, we only received one bid on this, and it came under the engineer estimate. >> you have one member of the public that does wish to address you on this item. >> my name is stuart mitchell. i just want to introduce myself to the board and thank you for considering us for this project. i want to thank webcor/obayashi for qualifying s, giving us the chance to bid on the project. we are excited. director ford: thank you very much. >> that concludes that. no further members of the public

have indicated they wish to address you on this item. director ford: it has been moved and seconded. all in favor? >> great. item nine is approved. item 10 is approving an amendment for contract 08-04- cmgc-000 authorizing webcor/obayashi to award a trade subcontract, thereby increasing authorized direct costs by $2,115,000 and increasing the authorized construction services fee by $173,430. >> directors, guy hollands will also report on this item. >> this trade package, again 100%, this covers water and sewer along first-rate that, and

again critical path work. again happy to answer any questions you may have. director ford: do i have a motion? move, seconded. all those in favor? ok, motion carries. >> item 10 is approved. moving to item 11, authorizing the executive director to execute a contract modification #12 agreement 08-08-dm-000 with evans brothers for additional construction services required increase in the contract by $1,195,000 for a total contract some of $12,747,640. >> good morning. turner construction, construction management oversight. this modification is represented by two change orders, one for additional removal of asbestos- carrying materials, which was

previously unknown to the contractor, and the second is to install temporary shoring on the east side of the street to facilitate the final demolition of the eastern building and allow webcor/obayashi team to start debauches california removal and the butchers work. is there any questions? director ford: motion to approve. it has been moved. moved and seconded. all those in favor? >> item 11 is approved, and no members of the public indicated they wished to address you on that item. moving to item 12, authorizing the executive director to execute amendment two to the intergovernmental agreement two with the city and county of san francisco, department of public works for such additional services of $575,000 for an aggregate amount for all services under agreement no. 2

not to exceed $1,174,500. >> this amendment covers inspection oversight and acceptance services from the bureau of construction management as well as additional design as it relates to the current design. that covers the items in this amendment. director ford: ok. what is your pleasure? move, seconded. all those in favor? no posers. motion carries. >> alright, no members of the public indicated they wished to address you on that item. moving into item 13, adopting board policy 016, advertising policy. >> we looked very closely as