into that enough, you can find the answers to that. that is the kind of transparency we have promised, and i think a was delivered on the wsip, and to the extent we can deliver that throughout the organization, we should. commissioner vietor: thank you. further comment? hearing none, all those in favor? suppose? thank you, motion carries. next item. >> next item will be agenda item 10. how many of these should we try to call together? >> the next six. >> i will call items 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. commissioner vietor: in summary

would be great. >> water system improvement funded program -- water system improvement program-funded amendments. 11, discussion and possible action to approve water system improvement program-funded agreement -- amendments to agreements. agenda item 12, discussion and possible action to approve five enterprise water system improvement program-funded amendments. 13, discussion and possible action to approve three water enter -- water system enterprise improvement program funded amendments.

14, discussion and possible action to approve what -- two water enterprise water system improvement program-funded agreements. 15, discussion and possible action to approve the amendment 12 water enterprise water system improvement program funded agreement no. cs-963 and authorize the general manager to execute the amendment, increasing the agreement by $8 million for an agreement not to exceed the amount of $34 million and increasing the agreement duration by four months and 22 days for a total duration of seven years, four months, and 22 days, subject to the board of supervisors approval. commissioner vietor: thank you. >> assistant general manager. based off of julie's presentation, i am year to present the contract, which makes up the increases on the

delivery cost -- i am hear -- i am here to present the contract, so i wanted to go over the cost in more detail. when we look at the $4.6 billion, as she indicated in her presentation, $1.2 billion is delivery costs. as you mentioned, it makes up program management, project management, engineering, construction management, environmental, and those are the costs that make up the $1.2 billion. as you know, and i have stated in several cases that this is a city-lead program -- city-led program, so we work with the local unions to get the share of working with the puc or the department of public works, and we have been very successful in about half the costs.

we were able to self-perform the work for dpw, and the other half, we solicit contracts to consultants. the deal we worked out is for work that we cannot perform or specialize. we contract that out. an example of that is calaveras dam. we just do not do that type of design for some of the complex treatment facilities, or pipeline across the falls. that's the type of work we contract out. we also contract out the gtot -- geotech work because we do not have the engineers here. those are the types of services we contract out, which makes up about $6 million. the increase we are currently talking about is $33 million if you add up all the 22 contracts that we have identified. so i wanted to put in perspective one of the other things we were working really hard on, which is to break up

the contract. the wsip mix of 125 contracts that we broke down into various sizes and disciplines -- makes up 125 contracts. of this, we are asking for 22 to be modified. we're looking at 15 that have a cost and time component with them. >> does the $33 billion come out of the $161 billion? >> that is included in the delivery costs. the 161 is still the management reserve. these costs were already accounted for in her presentation, and these are support services that we need to do the certain services that she has identified. certain issues like projects that are extended in time, projects that we identified

more regulatory -- environmental regulatory oversight. these are the contracts that will help us do that oversight. some of the construction contracts, the duration of the construction contract is longer than we anticipated, so we had to modify the contract and make sure that they are out there with the contractor to oversee it. there's other things that make up the increases. you have time and money. a lot of it is the right of way. we identify other areas in which we have to lay down -- or working with the contractor, we have to have those services there as well. i wanted to briefly go over the six packages because we sort of group them in themes. the first group is item 10.

basically, those are just time only. one example is for construction management, we assume that we are going to do the water supply projects, and that has been pushed out. what we're doing is asking that contract duration to be extended to match the current schedule for that project. so we are not really adding any scope. we're just extending the schedule on that one. that is seven contracts. the second is we had four contracts, and that is really to provide engineering support, real estate services to various projects, including geotech and seismic reliability projects associated with the peninsula pipeline. this is to prepare engineering reports, analysis, and support of the tunnel during construction and right of way services. those are the four projects that will support that.

package 3 is really where all the environmental as needed contracts are, and that is to provide environmental analysis services for various projects. we basically have an as-needed, and we deploy them on projects as needed, and we support our staff. those are all the environmental contracts. package four is the engineering design services for various projects like sunol valley water treatment expansion, trader -- treated water reservoir, and harry tracey water treatment plant long-term improvements, to name a few. those are the engineering contracts to support those projects. package 5 is to provide

construction management services for new irvington tunnel and bay vision pipeline. we realize that the contractor basically -- the request for information volume was such a large volume that we had to make sure that the construction management and also the engineers were on top of this, so that was some of the reasons. and then also, the contractor for the tunnel accelerated the schedule and moved from two to three shifts, so the construction managers had to move to three shifts as well. then, the last package, package 6, is for program construction management, and this is for aecom. the plan is that we are pretty much phasing out the parsons peace -- piece, which was

program management pre- construction. we are phasing that out and moving those resources to aecom, which is the program construction management. certain services that we thought that were very valuable in the pre-construction that we are moving over is supplier, surveillance -- quality surveillance. that has been very helpful because what we are doing now is when contractors identify types or equipment being assembled or created somewhere else, we actually send inspectors there to let them know that if we approve it or we will deny it right at the site before the ship it to the site. then we will say that we do not want it or it is not to specifications. what we're trying to do is identify and to the quality check at the shops in which

these items are created. also, risk-management. parsons was doing a lot of risk management. since most of the projects are in construction, we did constructionaecom -- we did ask aecom to continue those services. those are the types of grouping, and if you want to go into more detail, they are in your package, or if you have any questions, you can let me know. either myself or julie can answer your questions. commissioner vietor: i have a question. i am still trying to understand, as these water projects moved out of the wsip to the water enterprise, i see in package -- 3, i think it is? item 12. for example, there is a contract for recycled water. we sit recycled water project. >> i just want to make it clear

-- i think i am making it clear that infrastructure will deliver the projects. we will have the contracts and issue the contract. it is just, for example, the siting. that is a political thing, but we will work on it, but whatever choice you plan to actually site the facility, we have the project manager. we have the designer. we will work with dpw. we will implement and report on it. what we wanted to do was move them all together so that water -- enterprise can really be more involved and -- in the planning aspect and the overall managing the planning, but the implementation is with infrastructures in these contracts we have with infrastructure. commissioner vietor: i think that makes sense. infrastructure still manages it, but project managers over atwater enterprise for some projects? >> we actually have all the

project managers and program managers in infrastructure. the client. we will work closely with the client. basically, julie will not be the client to water enterprise for these projects. that is why she will not report on it, but we will have a new project manager working with the water enterprise to actually work on this. that is my understanding. commissioner vietor: right. i think that makes sense. still trying to figure that out. commissioner caen: mr. kelly, did you say the five projects will go from the same time line? >> from my understanding, yes. it has been very difficult in trying to cite the recycled water. the golden gate park. we started the design because we are designing things at risk. maybe these projects are not

good projects. the environmental impact comes out, and you cannot even do it there. these have been very challenging. >> i have been reticent to continue to work on designer risk for designer plans and golden gate park. to russia those projects to try to meet the overall wsip date and get it wrong did not make sense to me -- to rush those projects. while we have not change their schedules, it would not surprise me if they change in the future. the siting of recycled water in san francisco is going to be a difficult thing. if i may suggest, i think we need to keep the same deadline. what if it needs to be changed, it should be changed. we do not have any type of timeframe, it would be unfortunate. >> if you could refresh my memory, when are we going to

resolve the issue? >> you have asked us to come back after you had conducted some out reach. to make sure we can do that, we thought again, as opposed to rushing it and trying to get it back to this meeting, that we would do it over the next month or two. >> that was anticipated. i think having that discussion will be -- it will be very useful to really understand what we're looking at in terms of meeting our yield commitments and the level of services, what the unit costs are at the various options, and, frankly, i think one of the questions we need to ask ourselves is what the difference is a. a lot of the technology and costs are the same, and we need some way of thinking of them that makes sense. that is the discussion that we can have. i think that having the issue

after that is appropriate. >> and we can use any help anybody wants to give us. >> so there are items 10 through 15. they have been called. is there a motion to move these items forward? >> dhs -- what is that? >> dhs. >> item 12. >> health the room for graphic engineering.

>> in the back? >> traffic engineering? >> i don't know. that is the traffic engineer. >> i did not know the long name. i just know the abbreviated name. >> great name -- eagle in editing. >> we need to hire them. -- eagle eye editing. commissioner vietor: ok, so items 10 through 15. is there a motion? >> so move. >> second. commissioner vietor: questions or comments on any of the items we have heard about?

commissioners? public comment? hearing none, all those in favor? suppose? thank you, mr. kelly. >> madame president -- pardon me. i believe that brings us to agenda item 16, discussion of possible action to approve increase of contract cost in the amount of $1,600,000 for water enterprise water system improvement program funded contract wd-2552 and authorize the general manager to consider and for pre to approve the modifications to the contract for a total amount of $36,727,065. >> this is exactly the kind of transparency kind of item we were talking about, correct? >> absolutely. i do not have a presentation for this. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. commissioner vietor: is there a

motion to adopt? >> so moved. >> second. commissioner vietor: questions or comments? any public comment? all those in favor? opposed? thank you very much. >> madame president, i did not believe there actually is any closed session item at this point. if you would wish, you could move directly to 25, other new business. a commissioner at this point has any new business before adjournment. >> i have one brief comment on the calendar. i just want to make sure the sense we do not have a regular commission meeting in august, that anything we might need to address appears in july or september if we could put it off. but if not, that we address it at our next meeting. >> that is our intent. >> just as a reminder, there will be no meeting on august 23.

other commission business? >> i had a question. in the paper the other day, they talk about new construction and the windows that birds fly into. i was wondering if we had made any adjustments for the -- for that? >> it was interesting, i read the same thing. the windows that we have -- part of the idea and part of the problem is that we can see all of it through a building, but that is exactly what you want to do for like harvesting, as they call it. most of the south side of the building, you would have to be a pretty strange bird to get into the building appeared on the south side, it mostly is handled by that. the building also has glass so that on the outside, it looks more opaque, and a slightly greenish blue, which also reduces the heat transfer into the building, but from the inside, it looks like clear

glass. if you are a bird looking from the outside, you will see a reflection, and you will not see it quite clear. i will be happy to find out if there is more than that, but that was my first reaction, anyway. >> secondly, since i was not here, i wanted to comment on vice-president moran going with the association of california water agencies. i think it is a splendid idea. is there anything we can do to help accelerate that? >> you did pass the motion, and that is what we are required to do. we believe that it is mostly a formality with that in mind. >> if you did anything else, letters of recommendation -- [laughter] or support, let us know.

than any other commission business? hearing none, this meeting is adjourned at 3:55.