we discarded but we did look at it at some length. the issue of birds and maintenance, of course is an issue with glass as well. we have an extensive program by use of certain materials and the structure itself to ward off birds. that part of the wall though frankly is still being looked at and the aluminum scheme is still being looked at. we have to report to you at some detail. aluminum is not wrong, it does tend to pit and corrode if the surface is not treated adequately at the time of manufacture, also that might be the case to paint the aluminum rather than leaving it exposed that's one of the reasons why paint is still being looked at. the issue of aluminum being flammable that is also well-known. the alloy that we

are talking about here is less subject to that kind of flam ability to other -- alloys. that's part of our research. all of this research is very good points and very good observations and very much on our minds. thank you. >> just one clarifying question that 17-and-a-half million dollar target, is that based on the differential between the cost of the current design versus the cost of the anticipated design with the different material or does it also include the avoided increased cost to meet the design guidance criteria? >> 7-and-a-half million of that is the cost we is a void from going to glass then to metal. >> this is essentially the only

cost saving measure that we have before us that the staff feels good about and the designers feel good about. i think we have to move forward with it. i wish there were more but for now we have to do this one enthusiastically. >> i just want to clarify my role in this whole process is really not to question the expertise or really the credentials of folks in this room that are making the proposal before the board today. i'm very much a lay person, i'm not a construction person nor a security analyst. it would be hard for me to debate on a lot of the forms that we are making today but we have to trust that we are making the best decision on behalf of the taxpayer dollars and the transbay terminal and i

know how important so many of our projects are set throughout the city and i'm concerned when we have cost over runs because that will impact other projects in the city and that may delay these issues and we are in this boat where we have limited funds. of course i want this terminal completed as well in the best possible fashion. i do really appreciate all the work that goes into this. we have a motion and second and let's take a roll call on this item, >> harper, lloyd, metcalf, reiskin, aye. >> it's 5 ayes. item an approved as amended. >> thank you. call no. 8.

>> executive director to enter into place negotiations with web core on the structural steel super structural to determine if the parties can agree on the trade package. >> we also have web core and jeff peterson here as well for any questions. >> good morning board. you have a very long start to report. i'm not going through every bit of it. we had six qualification package received at the end of june last year. we reviewed and scored and only one failed to meet the requirements. we had 5 major fabricated structured steel. one was a general contractor and others did large jobs to specialized subs. we

issued the package at the end of october and the bid period was extended twice so we can answer a lot of bidders questions which were technical. we had 8 addendums all to reduce the price and to make it easier for them and get competition. the fact of the matter is that on march 7, this month we received only one bid from the general contractor, which was $259.5 million. over a hundred million more than the engineers estimated. we analyzed what was in their bid and we made inquiry and made

attempts to explain their bid and because they had 4 major subs to do fabrication on this job and 4 were the previous prequalified bidders but they did actually receive bids from the 4 qualified bidders in addition to one in oregon and one in washington. when we looked at that and the type of bids they had received there was definitely competition within here. we determined there was adequate competition but the bid itself is not obviously not an acceptable price. it's not a fair price and we would like permission to enter into negotiations. we also have inquired and have

letters from the 4 companies that did not bid and they gave the same general reasons this company had come at the same time where there is a lot of other work in terms of work and the project was too big to commit a vast amount of their technical staff, bidding staff and production on one project. so, we would like permission, your permission to enter into negotiation which we would do in the next 2-4 weeks because time is of the essence. if we come to an agreement that we all is fair and reasonable and all sides agree, we would come back to you for a price, a revised contract in price. if

we don't, we need to immediately proceed on rebidding this project which would attract more -- bidders. i have made this process quickly so we don't repeat. any questions? >> sorry to be always asking questions. just trying to understand, we saw we were getting 25-40 underestimate has come up to close to estimate if not a little bit above. we are certainly seeing that on city projects, large and small. it's not surprise that go we are looking at something above estimate. this is as you said is kind of an unacceptable level this is after there has

already been a market adjustment in the staff report. the initial estimates were 110-120. it was bumped up already on a basis of pretty significant estimate and the single bid came in at 80 percent over that. i'm having a hard time understanding what happened. one of the explanations is that it's too much work or people have other work. i think you have just said that all of the fabricators did bid, but they bid as sub -- rather than prime. the level of work for they their fact radio e factory would be the same.

maybe it's not that constructive at this point. it's such a big number, 80 percent -- over an already revised estimate. it makes me concerned that if there is something else here we are not seeing. i don't know if it's even a question. i'm just expressing a concern and i don't know if there is an answer or thoughts on what else might be able to explain this. >> another question i had was whether our process, our rfp package is comparison or more onerous? >> i share your concerns which was why we would like to see a different reduction. this price is not -- the other request

for qualification, are not very onerous. it's the size. you have to prove your financial ability. we are trying to -- what they have shared with us so far and the details, there were some variations of who bid what. they in fact divided it to 4 packages, it took 2-3 bids on these packages. i got one before. in fact they got 2 that were not on the list at all.

they shared with us reasons why. there was always room for negotiations. one of the reasons they were worried about the financial capacity. they went into chapter 11. a bid substantially lower, so there was a good reason. >> would you respond to the question of the rsp project and whether it was onerous not ? >> yes. the process for us here is in some ways very similar to past ones but also unique to

this package. we have to look at a general set of conditions that are put together for rfp's and we start there. it's a larger package and larger risk and more complicated. as we think through the things and elements to control and take risk on, those are the things we go ahead and packet into bidding process. what we did learn from getting 25 questions, that there were some things in there that they would rather not do. they would rather not go ahead and maintain the toilets. there were thing in general conditions that maybe they don't have a responsibility. but you are the only one there and maybe the only one to take care of it. that's what brian

was referring to earlier. as we got on the feedback to them, where they thought it wasn't appropriate. we thought we can find another way to work through those. we tried to hit that spot that would work for most. >> thank you. director harper? >> i don't know what the trade off is between the time delay and this, but we are way apart. and it just seems that unless you've got some good notions right now as to how you can even begin to bridge $120 million differential, i don't know if it's worth the effort because you are way apart if you are still believing in your 144. >> the two meetings we've

already had, the contraction came up that provided a list on 12 items where they thought they can reduce the price . we need to go through them and see how much can really be done and they also were prepared to consider their own negotiations with their subs and bring them in. i don't want to make a long thing out of this. i think it can be done in a week or two. we learned in this process to what can be date of done to bring the price down. if we come up with a number that is substantially lower, i can't start getting numbers at this point because i'm asking

permission that we go into negotiation. you don't into negotiation where people telling you where you might move without going into it. >> i don't know if it's a follow up but my suggestion in given what you said is the timeline that you can come to some pretty reasonable determination is that the board not only authorize you to do that, but also if possible preauthorize the follow up if it can't be reached to your satisfaction. although i don't know what this number would be, the timeframe -- when is our next meeting? >> next month. >> i'm looking at the recommendation and i didn't see that. >> it doesn't have to be in

there. if we don't come to a reasonable resolution that is fair, we will reject the bid. >> which of the options would you be taking? would you be breaking the package? >> we are investigating that in parallel. >> that's my question to see if we can do as much as we can. >> we can't lose time. >> well then i have no problem. >> metcalf? >> director metcalf. these recommendation make sense to me. i want to ask would you be going back to the design of the structural system, not between the subs? >> there are certain designs on

specification changes. the structural engineer are part of these meetings. >> okay. >> okay. so seeing no further questions or comments, i think there is a general consthaensz consensus that we can move forward. i would like to take public comment on this item. >> thanks again for the opportunity. the first thing i would like to touch on is increasing the size of the pool. in case you have not heard europe is under going a recession right now. the industry is hurting really hard. there is lots of people that would be able to help you out. scan ska is extremely successful as it should be. i'm

going back to s t a p. it goes like this. last was discounted as an option due to the weight of the glass. it should result in a strangulated. the contractor was deeming a light weight solution because of the terms of these construction. what is that bias, basically what he's telling us, we are looking at this building, the core is nothing we can do about this. this is a design to support possibly hundreds of tons of glass. if he addressed this, we maybe looking at aluminum and make a massive

savings. i think that's what scans a should be looking at. it would be an expansive laboratory research made that indicate that efg would last at least 40 years. >> thank you. any other members of the public? seeing none, public items is closed on this item. >> i move. >> we have a motion, a second. why don't we take roll call. >> lloyd, metcalf, reiskin, aye, kim aye. item 8 is approved. >> great. much luck to the notions on this team. any more

items? >> seeing no further items, meeting is adjourned.