9 b. >> b as in boy? >> boy. >> we will remove item 9b on the remainder of the consent calendar. we have a motion and a second. any public comment? all those in favor? the motion carries. 9b, commissioner caen. commissioner caen: the issue a have with this item is that a few months have passed since we discussed exactly the role of our representative back there in terms of what he is planning to do, because -- shall we say the rules have changed. i would like the outline to more

precisely before we move forward on this contract. >> i remember your conversation about that and we were thinking that it was going to be outlined in the new contract. we expect he would have multiple contenders. >> i read this incorrectly. >> do i have a motion? >> second. >> moved and seconded. the motion carries. if you would call item 10. >> presentation and discussion for the revenue bond oversight

committee annual report. >> is that time of year again. today, i have with me someone who in 48 hours will take over as a share of the rboc. next year, you'll be seeing him. he was the team share of the independent review panel that just completed a report. this is a quick summary. in order to be sustained, i am going to focus on the recommendation of the reports that we connected -- completed. the city services auditor

involving five projects, the first part examined whether bomb proceeds were expended as intended, the csa found that the expenditures were spent in accordance with the bond resolution. they did recommend that program managers regularly check expenditures with the bond proceeds. the allocation of program management expenses, they found that the allocation method, while different from other jurisdictions, complies with best practices and is the logical approach. however, they noted that the puc allocation that results in less accurate reporting. management has already changed

their practices or committed to procedures. the second project was a construction management review of the followed up on the many recommendations from the past consulting reports and was suggested by an independent review panel. to facilitate a timely review, they hired the independent review panel. there was a peer review professor to help the panel formulate a scope of work to provide comments on the report. as you can see, we as quite an extensive number of questions,

the panel was tasked with reviewing change management, risk-management, project cost schedules, and contingencies. i am not going to have gary griggs briefly on the recommendations of that panel. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to give you a brief report of the independent review findings. we came out in early october and spent a week on the project meeting with the staff as well as reviewing quite a number of the project documents and reports. we again found hope that we are very impressed with the

construction management team, our focus was the construction management team and the construction activity underway. when we found it to be a very comprehensive and well thought out tradition and of regional type of organization with the matrix input of special services working very well. in addition, the quality of the team staff is exceptional. there were members all of which had extensive construction experience and we say it is one of the best construction management teams we have been served in the industry. they wanted to look and construction management procedures, those are very well written in terms of risk management and cost schedule and contingency control. the important thing is how they are implemented. that was part of the task of going out and meeting with the project staff, visiting with as

many as we could to see that those procedures were being implemented. we can report that they are. the regional and product level are fully familiar with procedures had to know how to apply them and are being trained how to make sure that occurs. does not to say that there aren't some exceptions as always. one of the things we struggle with this change. in one case, we felt that they were extensive, but immediate action was being taken to address that problem in terms of changing of staff and strengthening procedures. we have some questions about some of the reporting, especially in terms of schedule reporting. cost is being reported a very clearly, contingency is being reported very clearly, there is a little confusion with the way scheduling was reported. we made some recommendations on

that. we see that it is being reported. they can better assess the actual schedule performance. you were asked to look of the costs of services in terms of the constructive value in a refund to be well within the industry range. we would say you are getting good value for your money in the management team. living next, the recommendations made for short-term recommendations in the long term recommendations, the question cannot as would be expected, 30 think we're going to end up at the end of the program in terms of cost and schedule. our focus is entirely on the construction management phase, so we want in a position to report on that. we did make recommendations on how that could be assessed.

the project team is doing the value analysis, and i see that included in the current quarterly report. we have already reported on schedule reporting that we made a recommendation there to modify 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

the >> >> we are not always -- we are now back in the session, on item 16 and resettlement of an item of 16. on item 18, the commission voted unanimously to appoint donna hood as assistant secretary. [applause] could i have a motion whether to disclose what was discussed in closed session. >> motion not to disclose. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. other new business? none from the commission? thank you. this meeting is adjourned.