30-32, an estimated $8 million project that i will describe in more detail. the lba provides two options. supervisor chu: sfg is requesting you put your presentation on slide mode. thank you. sorry for the disruption. >> ok, so the lease disposition agreement provides two options for the work to get executed, one, that the port would execute a contract with a general contractor to perform the work and two, that they could accept assignments of a contract entered by the evened the authority to build these piers 30-32 improvements. by way of background, the event

authority was planning for the better part of the last year to do a large project, it the $5 million project. it had gone through a competitive selection process for local contractors. to perform that work. following procedures that the city had proposed as part of the disposition and development agreement. essentially, looking at a field of qualified bidders, knowing that field based on qualifications to two bidders and making the two bidders bid on the project. they had completed that process. the two qualified bidders on that project work howard -- were power engineering and dutra. power engineering and process. because they have done a lot of

sight due diligence and are quite familiar with the plans for this site, that they would enter a contract. i think the port's strong preference is that the port manage the contract for that work, so the assignment would allow them to be managing the work of power engineering, if that is the path that is selected. as i will describe in the presentation, we have a preferred alternative to that approach that the ordinance permits. it waives certain competitive bidding requirements to allow us to use our previously bid contract to do a lot of the work, or it allows us to accept assignment of the power engineering contract from the event authority. the proposed amendment of the

whole today -- we wrote the initial version of the ordinance that was introduced at the board of supervisors rather broadly based on some other waivers that had been drafted in the past. i think that we are sensitive that the amount of work we're talking about here purchase $20 million worth of construction work. and the -- approaches $20 million worth of construction work. rather than just a wholesale waiver -- the original ordinance waived these competitive bidding rules and talked about an informal bidding procedure -- the ordinance amendment before you today clarify the informal bidding process that the port would propose to use. they eliminate certain waivers of code sections, particularly the environment code. we have eliminated those

requirements for those waiver requests from the ordinance because we do not believe that we need those waivers. then, there is a new provision that we propose. current law permits a general contractor using the construction manager general contractor form of contract to directly negotiate for 7.5% of the trade work of an overall contract. in this case, we would see the ability to allow our general contractor to self-perform some of the 7.5% of work just to expedite the project. that is an overview of the amendment as a whole. i can answer any questions you have. we also have the city attorney's office who can talk about the amendment as a whole. finally, i have edgar lopez of

dpw, who is an expert in this form of contract think we can answer the committee's questions. supervisor chu: thank you. is the amendment as a whole substantive? >> it is not. this clarifies and refine some of the existing language. >> back to the presentation, i have got on the slide a depiction of the work. but he is required to hold the team basis at the site for 2013. i tim ball is building a highway-agreed driveway that can support trucks and buses. about 90,000 square feet of debt

and pile repair -- deck and pilot error in the area shown in green to support various industrial activities along with a crane to with both in and out of the water -- boats in and out of the water. this is the work that the event authority proposes they enter a contract with our engineering for and that we accept assignment of that contract. i think that we have another recommendation that the ordinance would permit, which is that if the port under the terms of the ordinance enters a contract or contract amendment with turner construction to perform this work, turner construction would bid this, and we would propose to bid it to

the finalist that the evened up 40 vetted -- the event of authority vetted through their process. we would go through a quick bid process using this two previously qualified bidders to ensure we got the lowest price for the work. this slide provides a lot of detail about the projects that we have to execute now using the ordinance. it also describes a few projects that we would execute with existing contract authority, so i just want to go over that we think that there's about $6.8 million worth of work at the site that we had previously counted on the event of authority to fund and

deliver. the ordinance permits confecting flexibility with two line items in this list of work. the site grading and storm water improvements -- a portion of that work is authorized under the existing contract. a good portion of it is not in the contract site grating, which makes up most of the cost. we need to install a new wall on the end of the pier, and that work is not in the existing contract for the cruise terminal. i have talked about the piers 30-30 to work. starting with the public access

improvements, we have a need to substantially rebuilt the pier 19. it is red-tagged, and it is supposed to be dedicated permit a public access. we estimate the cost of the project at $3 million. we are having to deliver pier 19 to the event authority by july 1, 2012. this construction activity is necessarily going to extend beyond that timeline. we do not have a firm completion date, but part of the purpose of the ordinance is to speed up our ability to get into a contract for this work so that we have less overlap between our construction activities and the event authority occupancy of the pier. the same issue relates to the pier 23 handrail on this slide, a $700,000 project.

again, related to public access and making sure that people are safe. we would like to complete those construction activities as soon as possible. they are going to overlap the event authority's occupancy somewhat, but we would like to minimize that. with both of these projects, we are exploring a potential path, and i think we have not arrived at a conclusion on this where our general contractor could secure the supply is, basically piles to rebuild the pier 23 south apron and fabricated railing. and that potentially port maintenance staff would be best qualified to actually do the installation work here. we have several pile rigs. our deputy director of maintenance is here today if you

have any questions about the approach, but we think it might be one of the more cost- effective ways to deliver those improvements. next, we have two full removal projects. pier one-half removal. it is a red tag parking lot structure. bcdc has removed the facility as well as some remnant piles. those projects total $1.6 million. that in-water work is work that we would like to get done before the next winter season where it may be hard to do construction activities during storms. you will see on this slide dredging. i want to be clear that the

increased contract and flexibility we are reflecting does not apply to this dredging work. the port previously been a five- year dredge contract. dutra won the competitive process. we have fixed pricing under the contract, a rate of about $23 per cubic yard for dredging and disposal. we would use that contract vehicle to perform this additional dredging work. so that is the end of the slide presentation, but, you know, i want to close by saying that we are committed at the staff level to use a competitive process here. the construction manager, general contractor form of contract that you have in the administrative code is a very

effective form of contract and that the city has developed, and it allows the competitive process to choose the contractor and further competition among subcontractors for trade worke. it has been highly effective. if the board approves this ordinance, we would finalize negotiations with turner construction, who is our general contractor on the cruise terminal project. those negotiations would go to really three items that they did as part of their previous bid on the cruise terminal. in general contractor's fee, general conditions fee, and hourly rates. when the port bid the contract and awarded it to turner, it was in the deepest part of the recession for construction activities in the city. we got excellent bids on the

contract. turner did a 2% general contractor's fee. they have already agreed in concept to maintain that for the work that is before you today. they have agreed in concept to maintain the same hourly rates that they did previously as part of that prior process, and we are still negotiating with them as to the general conditions at the -- fee. it was 4%, but we expect it to go up somewhat with respect to the proposed work because this work is substantially in-water construction work, and it is subject to a higher degree and more intense environmental regulatory conditions of construction activity. then, if we succeed with turner, we would use the bid processes that i have described to bid the various jobs that you see on the list before you.

if we do not succeed in entering a contract with turner, we have two other options. we could go to the other bidders who are qualified under the project and try to negotiate directly with them, or we could accept the power engineering contract on assignment from the event authority, as i talked about earlier. i think i left out one piece, which is that the orbit its permits the port -- the ordinance permits the court to enter a sole source contracts for the design work, and i want to explain that. right now, even the authority is paying for final construction drawings for the revised work here yesterday, the commission had a resolution requesting that staff had reimbursement to that work to the lease disposition agreements that you approved yesterday.

the design consultation need does not end with final construction drawings, so we did the final construction drawings, and we have a general contractor in the field building improvements, say, at a location like piers 30-32. routinely we find new conditions in the fields that require changes to design drawings, so what the amendment as a whole clarify as is that we would be able to enter into sole source contract with ae com who will have come up with the final construction drawings, and we estimate that to be about 8 $240,000 cost, assuming a five- month construction period. with that, i should be able to answer any of your questions.

supervisor chu: any questions from the committee at this time? supervisor avalos: just a question related to the last item before us, which was passed out with my support. that was the issue around the check on the local hire requirements. were you able to do that? >> i was not able to do that, but i do want to state with respect to this ordinance provision that the lbe requirements of city code, local hire requirements will apply to all of this work, and i can speak to what we have seen, but -- supervisor avalos: if we could follow-up on that would be great. supervisor chu: thank you. we do not have questions, why don't we open up for public comment? are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

>> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak in favor of this ordinance. it is obvious this is a world- class event, and i would like to stress two items that relate to the improvements being planned here. one is that, according to my reading, the event will be televised probably around the world, so whatever improvements we make, you have to factor in that there will be a very innovative use of cameras and ankles to cover this event, so we should keep in mind that whoever is going to broadcast this will be needing certain up to date improvements to broadcast it innovatively. second is that whatever improvements we make, we have to continually emphasized and do

not scrimp on the fact that we have to protect the city and the surrounding area against foreign and domestic terrorists. obviously, this is a high- profile target. everybody knows that when you have so many of the super rich in one place, somebody is going to be tempted to do something stupid. so whatever improvements we make, you have to emphasize that there is going to be utmost security against foreign and domestic terrorism. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on item 10? seeing none, public comment is closed. quick question to the port with regards to timing, we scheduled the item in the committee today simply because it was a request from the port because of timing issues, so we did accommodate that. we are not ever have a really to

see an item come to us without a budget analyst report, though, so i would like you to, at least for the public and for all of us on record, why is it -- say why it is we are in this tight timeline. explain your timeline there. >> time constraints are twofold. on the schedule we are on right now, the first read of the ordinance if the committee decides to pass out the ordinance to the committee of the whole next tuesday would permit a first vote on the proposed ordinance, which would be april 3. the port commission acts on the 10th, and the commission would have the benefit of the sense of the board that it does have the contract in flexibility under local law to either use turner or another bidder on the cruise terminal project to perform this

work, or as an express term of the lda accept the contract. it does not have that legal authority. the port commission does not have that legal authority just by virtue of the lda. that is one time pressure. the other is just the need to perform the work. the real driver here is piers 30-32. the minimum estimate for the time to complete the 30-32 improvements is about three months. walking through the timeline of the ordinance, if the board of supervisors has a first read on the ordinance, april 3, and then a second read april 10, the mayor could sign the ordinance as early as april 10. there is a 30-day window before the ordinance would become effective, bringing the dates to may 10.

that is just a few days after we expect the issuance of a major permit for the piers 30-30 to work. we are still working with the regional water control board to make sure they can permit within that timeframe. and that is about the time when we expect to -- i think april 27 is the current due date for the final construction drawings. that would allow informally us to bid the work for 30-32 and potentially start the work around may 10. accounting for three months from may 10 -- that is in may, june, july, early august -- it is conceivable that we could have the 2012 world series event, the first of the two 2012 events, at piers 30-32 if we are

effective with that schedule. it is possible that we would not, even with the expediting of the action from the board, be able to complete the improvements in that timeframe, but we would certainly hope that for the fleet week event, the is planned in october now, that 30- 32 would be ready. that is going to be the major televised event, and it would be good to have the team basis at that site rather than pier 80. those are the reasons for the request. supervisor chu: are there any races and events in october, fleet week? >> i apologize, mike martin would know exactly the date ranges for august, but i believe august 15 is the start of the racing in august. supervisor chu: thank you. so our timeline gets us to a may 10 potential star rated we are able to nail everything else down, and three months out, we are in early august, and some

races could begin by that time. >> that is right. supervisor chu: colleagues, we have heard public comment on this item. i wonder if the committee would consider a motion to send the item out without recommendation at this time, given that there is a time constraint but also given the fact that we do not have a budget analyst report. i did not like to see items coming before us or us acting on it without a budget analyst report. i would prefer for us to send it out without recommendation. we should be getting a budget analyst report to the entire board today or tomorrow, so that will give us time to review it in advance of our tuesday broke -- tuesday vote. we do have an amendment as a whole we have to take ahead of time. we will do that without objection. in terms of the amended version, we will send that forward to the full board without recommendation -- or do that without objection.

thank you. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.