are extraordinarily what other clients have made. we are comfortable at this particular time should you grant the application for the implementation of these is that you have an extraordinarily good opportunity to receive those designations. more than that, i can't tell you. okay? >> so, with regard to the action that we are taking today, which i'm ready to support, i noticed that the, i don't believe the staff report or resolution had any mention of the cost of the additional design services that we are directing the design team to undertake. so does that mean that whatever additional cost that within existing authorization that they have within their contract? >> you mean the cost for them to incorporate the design guidance criteria is that included in our current budget? >> and the change of the glaze

ing. >> i believe it was the december or january board meeting we brought to you a modification to the appellee contract and that match the contract budget in anticipation of several changes. so this would fit under that contraction authorization. >> okay. thank you. i guess what i would recommend, we consider along with the approval of this is that we ask the staff to evaluate, we ask the staff and design team to evaluate the possibility of designing these additions maybe not the awe ning system

building, some the package and we incorporate the value engineering process into design that way when bids come back we know the exact cost of each and maybe we have gotten from the bidder's idea ways to reduce cost without significantly reducing the benefit and then the staff and the board will be maybe in a better position to be able to make decisions about how to go forward when it goes to construction. >> just to clarify we have already accepted all the alternates in the budgets to bring cost down and we are doing your suggestion which is asking to come up with better ideas to bring the cost further down, but i think it's important for bob to speak to some of these items are not

going in as alternates like the awe ning. >> i was keeping the awe ning out of this. from the previous discussion, security was one of the larger components of the $64 million. there may be some other elements that could be bid as alternates. it would be my suggestion to evaluate to the extent that we can do so. >> we've already had a conversation with the architect about some of the components being add alternates. particularly looking at some of the door hardware, some of the density of videos is surveillance cameras of being scaleable. and other things within the perimeter protection

there is some surveillance that is a component of the cost of that. of a large component of the cost on the perimeter protection is the ratings of the individual ball ardz from the building while our current orientation is to move the ball ardz, we would have a means of calculating the cost impact there very directly from -- because we have the same types of ball ardz as type of the bids is the quantity of each

bid so we can calculate that but at this time we were envisioning not a bit alternate but to move the diameter out. we can potentially package that as an alternate if so directed. >> my suggestion is the action before us today is really just to prove this direction or this guidance for our architects. i think we are getting ready to pass that item. my suggestion is that we add a resolve clause or add to the resolve clause what director reiskin has suggested and we can make that amendment with a roll call or with a vote. i don't know if you feel comfortable rephrased

that again we can add that to the resolution. >> again, it's not directing staff. i don't think the board at this point should be in a point to directing staff what should be components or not, just to explore the elements of rb a or other elements as well that could be packaged as options that will give us more flexibility down the road. >> can we add that in the resolve? >> it would read resolve that pga staff would explore with architects and team what rva items can be packaged as alternates? >> or other items. >> does that work? okay. all right. so that will read.

>> so we will take that amendment, can we take that without objection? we'll take that amendment and we do have an action before us. do we have a motion to thaek take this action. >> so moved. >> you do have two members that would like to address this issue. >> i apologize, please come up for a public comment on this item. >> item no. 7. >> chairwoman kim and members of the board, my name is mike eleven. i'm a lifelong resident of san francisco. back when i was younger i commuted for two years and was well aware of the short coming even back then .

when i learned of the plans, i was very excited. when i saw the rendering, i could not believe how great it looked. director harper said it right, it looks either real with that glass awe ning. when i looked at the proposed change to a metal awe ning i was stunned and disappointed. i can't analyze all the details that is your responsibility to analyze and come to a decision. i have to trust that you will make the right decision, but this is so disappointing and if it in fact is a question of about 17-and-a-half million dollars, they might have over simplified it, what i get is 17-and-a-half million dollars would cover of cost of keeping the glass awe

ning with all of it's aesthetic advantage and i work where safety and security is a no. 1 priority. if 17-and-a-half million dollars would cover that, isn't there someway to have this money available and keep the original design which the architect proposed because they thought it was the best way the build this terminal. i appreciate the discussion about the metal skin and sound as pleasing as the glass, but for me it doesn't cut it. if there was a fund, a private donation, i would contribute to it. we are already at 8 and 3/4 tax, i

wouldn't be disappointed if it was raised. i was hoping it would we the be iconic structure that we saw in the original plans. the terrorist have won. security can be addressed. if the glass awe ning can be retained. let me point out about 15 years ago there were different proposals for the bay bridge which is opening later this year. and because certain politicians wanted a signature you are tower, that cost more. we are just talking about 17-and-a-half million. i think it's appropriate. >> thank you. i'm not used to the bell in this room. the first bell is to indicate that you have -- 10

seconds. okay. this is an indicator that you are coming up your near time when the final bell comes please finish your sentence. >> our next speaker? >> thank you. good morning, thank you for the opportunity. the first thing i would like to say, as you are going to hear next month we have more than to get the done. i they we should offer an alternate solution. this not only restricts -- it can be corrosive if it gets into contact with other metals

especially with sea spray. also thin aluminum can become flammable when exposed to heat and it will result in an explosion. the better alternative is a 21st century roofing material to cover large areas such as school playgrounds while allowing multiple lights. if anyone would blow it up, it's like a balloon. it looks like glass. the advantage it has is that it's a hundred times lighter than glass. so assuming right now you have a hundred -- tons

of glass, that would substantially reduce the cost of the packet. this is one of the many reasons why etfe was chosen for the center which would be the future home of the center in anaheim. last, but not least, they have access to expertise to michael stein who designed a 100 thousand square foot of the olympic stadium. last week they asked to make recommendations. this is not on the website. i have not seen

it. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm jim patrick with patrick and company. there have been a lot of discussions on this board, but i think the board needs to make policies to encourage buildings to happen around their area. i'm right around their area. to my knowledge there is no policies in place to incur this tax increase. i'm against the aluminum awe ning. we have a building near by. the pigeons love it and the dirt loves it. it will buildup and you just can't go in with a rag and wipe those out every 3 or 4 months. it's really impossible. to clean it, we water spray down and it's a big mess. i believe,

no. 1. no. 2, the pigeons love it. they will find their way in and there is a lot of areas. big problems with pigeons. so i think we really need to rethink this. no. 3, i like the visibility and the idea of being able to see action and reducing 20 percent. you won't be as visible and being able to see it and as the dirt builds up in these circles, they are getting smaller and smaller and the visibility will get less and less. i don't think it's a good idea. i think mr. clark has some great ideas, but i don't think this is a good one and i think we should reject this idea and keep the glass. thank you. >> thank you, are there any other members who would like to speak on the this item? seeing none comment is closed on this

item. we have an amended resolution. are there any comments from the board on this item? >> would it be helpful to have mr. clark to speak on these issues. on the maintain ability, i think there were some comments that might speak to that. >> can you please address those questions? >> absolutely. fred clark. let me talk about etfe because it was also raised at the last presentation. we looked very hard at e tfe. it's a wonderful material, a plastic material. if you remember the swim cube at the beijing olympics, that was etfe, the soccer stadium in

munich, very well publicized building. it's a great material. the issue is that in our experience it does not age very well. it tends to get dull and tends to get rather used quickly. so it was a material 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.