interviewing process with the written proposal and the evaluation there was some concern about the program approach and how it's going to be run. >> commissioners, as far as the concerned that came out. i think what is panel was looking at was they were looking at the written proposal and they thought there was some weaknesses in the written proposal in the terms of they didn't describe well how the project would work or at least to their satisfaction. we incorporated questions specifically there to ask their contractor during the oral interview. i would say that at the end of that when we sat down with the panel review, their scores with it, we specifically asked them if they had any concern or hesitation

in terms of the contract, and no one did. they were impressed with the program. the other thing i would point out here in looking at the overhead cost, we are looking at not just -- we are calling it youth employment but also doing training out this with them. some of the cost out there with training if we hired contractors to do that, they would have those training cost with the kids out there. sorry, the kids is not the right term, but -- well, >> how much training does that take? >> well, i think what i understand about the goal of these programs are set many years ago by supervisor max well is to teach the kids to be accountable and come port them in a well behaved manner and

that they really don't need a particular skill, but allow skills that they don't have in reference to their background. in that case it's very successful. >> in terms of the ages and the times, what are the hours that they serve because obviously we would want to make sure they also stay in school and other opportunities? >> the way the program works is they are at our site at 7:30 in the morning. they do what we call physical training for the first half hour and they go to school for 2 hours and they go to school until 10:00 and then they go to work crew. they go to work crew for 6-and-a-half hours. every day we incorporate

classroom activities. >> so these are kids that are post secondary schools. they may not have their g.e. d but they would be out of high school. we are looking at youth as young as 16. it's that gap we are trying reach out to. >> that's what they do is work on their school breaks and that's when they work their portion of the contract. for us, it's an on going and they -- would i be able to share this. >> he has a short presentation that you would like to see on the program. >> i think it would give a more understanding. would you like to see it? >> go ahead. i have some questions too, let's see. while you are doing that, i want to

say i'm familiar with the program and think very highly of it and had great success in getting many of the youth involved with the program, designing and installing bicycle racks when we extended our bicycle program throughout the city. >> okay, we work with 18-26 year-olds. in landscaping, recycling, playground renovation. this is who we serve. so 39 percent from hunters point, and so forth. these other types of barriers where our participants come in with lack of g.e. d, diploma, stable housing, child care, family issues, what we are finding out is most of our kids

are having to take care of their parent now. and the list goes on. in this year that started in june, we've had a 93 percent placement rate of anybody that has been with us for 8 months. we've graduate 17 high school diploma, and these are the certifications that we pay for. this is with the budget that we are talking about, we are able to use other fund to go help pay for this that would have probably had to go for. hazmat, the day training, cpr certification. this is a typical, the next 2 slides show

two of our last participants that just completed. one is now employed as a sorter, he obtained his high school diploma and completed portfolio, fork-lift certification, drivers license, completed labor, he was a crew leader, a tool room specialist. he received a scholarship that is now paid for his union dues and all of his clothing for that. passed both cpr certified. as far as completed a day ago and now is employed at green planet. while he was with us,

he earned 140 credits in high school. that's in 2 years. a high school diploma, a tool specialist, labor workshop, he represented us at the sacramento government bay, fork-lift certified and cpr and completed his portfolio. >> okay. thank you. >> does that answer some? >> yes because it shows that it's more than just a job. thank you. >> i have some questions that just came off your presentation. how long did on average length people like victor estrada end up with a job? >> he was with us for 24 months. he just got his diploma.

>> okay. i think there is no question, we love this program in terms of supporting it and i think we think the question we have is really regarding whether there can be more youth. so my question no. 1, you said 30 students and what do you pay them? what's the rate? >> the rate we pay them is 11 $11 a little bit above minimum wage, when you tag on, it comes out to 15.62 an hour and work 18-and-a-half hours. >> the question we have obviously what you put here in the budget that we see in the staff report is a little bit of allocations. what i think our intent is to ask could you reach out and have more youth and the allocation which is of

overhead can you allocate let lest less to the port program and see more youth on the port. we are not questioning that you know and this is a great program, i think you are hearing from the other commission thaers we -- that we love the program and we want to see from the money going out to help more youth. so a question of how you allocate your overhead to this program. >> i think everything can be renegotiated, hopefully as this goes through is in the negotiation process. that's one of the things that is springing forward. >> right. so 30, the question is -- the other thing i wondered in our contract and i don't know if it's in the

terms. you have done a great job of attracting people. what if it ends up you only find 2 people. is there some kind of accountability metrix where you can go to a certain number. if we can find whatever reason you end up only attracting 5 people and yet we have all of this overhead we are paying for 5 people. >> there is a minimum and that's 10. >> i think you said up to 10. >> it's up to 10 but it's refreshing group of youth. so that's why they got up to 30. what we are asking here today is for you to approve a -- to enter into a contract. it looks

like we've gotten some clear direction to go back to the proposal for this rfp and look and perhaps change the allocation in the budget and look towards the accountability measures in the proposed contract and come back to you that's what i'm hearing unless you feel comfortable with the terms as proposed. >> yes, the other aspect since the port is -- we have this for 2 year budget cycle. what's the magic behind 4 years if we are committed in our budget for 2 years. so 2 versus 4. is there some other reason that we are 4? >> i think it went out for a 4 year term to have stability in the program and to provide for several years of service rather than due 2 years which is the same as the biannual budget. we

knew it was an on going practice that has wide support so we wanted to have some length of term. >> i think there are up to 4 years like up to 10 kids. >> so maybe a suggestion would be -- >> that up to 4 years is the reflective language we into ed to not to commit to future budgets but to ensure the program is continuous, not necessarily with the same vendor but to make it successful. >> maybe an alternative is that we would say it would be renewable after 2 years and if at that time whatever metrics you decide that this program is satisfactory we would renew for another two years which gives us a 4 year stability.

>> if the goals are met. >> okay, so just to summarize, i'm hearing direction that we go back and negotiate further with the preferred respondent and look to allocating more to the direct salaries for youth and increasing the number of youth in the program and look to shave off either operating expense or indirect charges. i haven't heard any direction that the field supervisor staff ratio is at issue. we are really looking at the operating expectations and the indirect as the areas to save. that we look to some accountability metrix to look over the program in the next two years and look at the set of language for up to 4 years and 2 year initial term and opt for additional 2 years should that metrix be met. >> i think to convey the

commission, this is a great program and we would like to support it and this is an area to demonstrate that and we want to make sure there is an opportunity to potentially expand it. thank you. >> so, my sundaysing understanding is you would like to continue this item and we come back to you with addressing your questions. thank you. >> okay. before we move on just assuming there is no time constraint, that we are under for approval to wait for the next meeting? >> no. >> item 11 c accept the contracting for 2012-2013.

second quarter through december 1, 2012. >> good afternoon, commissioners, andre acevedo. i'm here this afternoon to present the latest quarterly report on contracting activity here at the port. this will be through october through december of 2012. the report toed today i'm going to present to you is four components. delegating

authority, participation by local businesses enterprises and port contracts, as needed contracting in the use of cso or contract service order and our local hiring compliance effort. during the reporting period executive director authorized the approval of one professional service contract with the leadership for management coaching services. the amount of $10,000. during the same period of time we issued 2 contract service orders for existing as needed contracts. one with kaiser for pier 70 negotiation report for the $90,000 and baseline consulting for storm water monitoring services, a little over $50,000. local business

enterprise contracting participation. so this is really for the first half of the fiscal year. during the first half of the fiscal year, this is starting back in july we awarded 5 contract with the cumulative of not to exceed $687,000. to date they have achieved lde goal of 50 percent. out of those contracts, 2 had participation and others were exempt from that $250,000 of contract work as part of this project. to put you in comparison, the best

citywide average i can come up came from annual report. the citywide average was approximately 16 percent. we are ahead of the citywide average. 3 contracts were exempt. one was exempt by board of supervisors's action. the pier 29 fire for engineering services for that that was exempt. the other two contracts were exempt because they were below the 200,000 threshold or lbe requirements. one of those contracts, one of those 2 had a 50 percent micro set aside. in the case of micro set aside is that really goes to the prime and the reason for that program or what they are trying to accomplish in that program is

moving lbe's that have been traditionally subcontractors and prime contractors. certain contracts we have had the monitoring division which used to be part of hrc established micro lbe. even throw isn't an lbe goal, we met that a hundred percent. more details on contract payments for this quarter for lbe. the overall payment reached 21 percent. these are payments made on all active contracts that had lbe requirements with all the existing contracts. the total payments in this quarter total 21 percent are $5 million. broken down between as needed,

so as needed contracts, we had about 16 percent, with the total amount there of $105,000 and change which works out to all the as needed contract payments made 16 percent for the quarter. part of that is lower than we try do, we try aim for 20 percent goal. it's really based on what this initial contract sets a minimum goal for each of those contracts. but those can vary and they do vary, but we try to keep a port wide overall goal of 20 percent. that is our understanding of the commission's policy decision on that part of that was driven because are the lawyers project. the mayor's office asked us to bring in a subcontractor on one of these that is not an lbe but we are

working with a contractor to get them back up to their l d e requirements and also in conversation about other options that we can use for that but we'll have more on the next quarter and we can give you a better update on where we are going with that. moving on with construction we have 22 percent overall in the quarter. 3 contracts had lbe participation rate about 3 percent for the quarter. the pier 33-and-a-half bail project and construction management and general contractor contract. we did have 2 construction contracts that are not meeting their lbe goals at the moment for the quarter. when we are talking about lbe goals, when

we issue contracts sits down with us, we review the scope of work and they come up with an appropriate goal for that particular contract. the contractor has to meet that level of lbe participation by the end of the contract. we are not being judged on a moment by moment space of what they have. they can have a 20 percent goal and all through that contract they have a 5 percent but because it's a construction contract, as long as it's at the end of the contract, they have met that goal, they have met their contractual obligation. we monitor it to keep an eye on it and make sure we spot problems before they come up and address those before the end of the contract. we have 2 contracts that we

have concerns about. that was based on the assumption on a certain amount of upland disposal where we are dredging material that needs to be deposed in a landfill as opposed to being dumped in the bay or the ocean. it's a good thing that we have not had any of our dredging projects where we had to do upland disposal. it expensive but most of it is coming out as clean and we've been able to do mostly ocean disposal. we have not had the opportunity to truck this up there and that's where the lbe's were going to be used for this contract. we have on going discussions about that. the second one is the valley, cmd has determined the contractors

likely not to meet the lbe requirements. they are in negotiations with us and with them and to try to address the program and implement changes to try to get them compliance before the end of the contract. those are object going negotiations and we'll have more on that on our next report. professional services were at 19 percent. i should point out that payment for all professional contracts exceeded the lbe goal, the c m d set lbe goals. with one exception t branch project had a 9 percent lde spent for the quarter. the project most of the lbe work was done early in the project and right now they are

supporting the construction. they are basically on call to work with the construction contract and answer questions and solve problems so they don't use much lbe on that. overall they are at 22 percent. they have currently met their goal on that it's where you are on a project , the lbe will go up and down on that. local hire for construction projects. local hire is a new program for about a year overseen by the economic development. we had representative from that office come down and give a formal presentation from that program. we were hoping to do it at this time but we couldn't align our schedules. we will schedule something soon and have them come down and give you a formal presentation on the

project. the program went into effect of on march of 2011. it requires a specific percentage of work house by san francisco residents. it's the hours worked and broken down by trade. it gets complicated because there is a lot of different variables in here but we try to give you a comprehensive view of it in this report. the first year, the contracts were required to have 20 percent local participation, local hire participation in that. that went up after the first year. it went up by 5 percent and goes up annually until it reaches about 7 percent. it's required to have a 50 percent local resident participation in

any position they offer. in the second quarter of this second quarter we had 4 projects that were covered by the local higher ordinance. since all were issued, were advertised before march of 2012, they still had the 20 percent goal requirement. 2 projects are trending to meet their requirement. again this is where the office of economic and work force development will come in at the end of the project and evaluate whether they met the goal or not. so 2 currently we are looking at these analysis also came out with discussions with representative from o e w d on whether the contracts were performing and we have 2 in

yellow where there is concerns about. both of them are in discussion with the office of economic work force development to address those issues and there is a variety of ways they can address them and specifically they have requested waivers from oawd, and there is a variety of waivers that their staff can issue on that specifically what we are looking here is specialized trade exemption. one of the specialized trade that is exempt is drivers. they don't issue waivers at the beginning of the contract, they issue once the contract has been in there. even though in the case of bran on street there is a significant amount of driving, they don't record

that. they ask for a waiver once the contract is in place. the second thing is the city build program participation. this is another waiver that the contractor can request. if a contractor can't get the staff they need locally, they can sit down with the representative from o e w d and kind of negotiate how they can do it. so one of the issues they might have often is getting apprentice level. if we are in a st e for a particular trade and they are working on another project, you just can't hire them because they are on another project. so we can negotiate with them and contractors will sometimes say