such process will follow standard city's policy and procedures. come included an initial screening of the proposals. we initiate the rfq and they submit their proposals. and an initial screening to check if they meet the minimum qualificatio qualifications. if they do not, they are out. and next a panel will be empanelled to meet the proposals. they will score those, and they need 70 to advance to the next oral interviews. in the case of the oral interviews we will take the top six of those. if we have more than six that score 70, we will only take the top six to oral interviews. the same panel will conduct the oral interviews. and they receive a score and

ranked and the top three, we will sit down and negotiate our contract with them. so just briefly, the timeline, we have coming out there, starting out with the authorization we are requesting today. next will be the civil service commission, which is scheduled for june 3. once the civil service commission approval is granted. we will issue the rfq probably the next day. submissions will be due in july. and selection process which includes reviewing the minimum qualifications. and scoring the written and the oral panel will all happen july. we will come back to you in august. this will be after we finalize negotiations with them. for authorization towards the contracts. and we expect then for the new contracts to be in place by september. this concludes my presentation.

>> thank you. is there any public comment? hearing none. comments/questions commissioner commissioner commissioners? . >> do we have in-house environmental people now? >> we have environmental staff of six. and what we use these for is because we are looking for specific skills and expertise that we don't have in-house. and that either doesn't exist elsewhere in the city. or if it does, there is such demand for it, that we can't get it in a timely fashion. often we use the contracts for things that we need a quick response to. >> yeah, i know with the planning department it takes forever to get the environmentals done, for years sometimes. would you provided you pick the proper company and you do all the vetting on that.

would you put a time on that? the turn-around time? for them to come up with the report? >> yeah, depends on the project. >> we need a response or depends on the scope of the project. >> there are environmental surveys of the properties or potential clean-ups, things like that. believe, correct me if i am wrong, when we a project that needs an eir, the department works with department of city planning. okay, we do not pick the consultant ourselves. this pool is like the eir, and carol you can give the type of

work. >> and is this a renewal of something we have done in the past? or is it a brand-new selection process here? >> right, good afternoon commissioners. i am carol bach, and this is not exactly a straight-up renewal. but it's a repeat solicitation process. we have had a pool of as-needed environmental consultants available in the ports in-house. environmental staff for as long as i have been here. it's every three or four years we have to renew this process and get a new pool of three firm to work with. and the kinds of services we need, because of the really wide range of activities that go on here at the port. there are very specific specialties that you may need only once, every three years.

but it's something that only a few people can do. so some examples are underwater sound monitoring during pile driving. that is a highly technical type of sound monitoring. we have to do marine mammal monitoring during pile driving. during almost all projects we need certain types of construction inspection and -- what is the word i am looking for, monitoring during construction to ensure environmental compliance with regulations. for example, dust monitoring, you need certain equipments to collect ambient dust to comply with the city's health code. there is a really broad range. many projects that involve

construction require characterization of the contaminants. so we need consultants and laboratories with the equipment. >> these are part of construction? >> we would use the services during construction in many cases, yeah. >> thank you. >> so i had a question, given that we have been hearing about some of our other litigation issues. we had some issues, not necessarily with the consultants that do this work. and i see that references are discussed in the oral interview. it would seem in the initial side you want to get satisfactory references whether they work with the city departments or private agencies. so we have a sense of satisfactory performance with other parties or the city as part of the selection criteria. >> yeah, we review that, it

comes in, in the final phase. when we go through the oral phase, we are going through the other process, and eliminating people on there. and we are following the standard city policies and procedures. on how they -- >> which means you only do it at the end? versus asking them to provide up front? >> we do it at the oral interview phase and that's when it's scored in those phases. and again we are following -- >> is that mandated by city policy? or something that we have -- so we can exercise judgment in terms of how we want the process? >> you want to answer that? okay. >> good afternoon, commissioners, elaine, support staff. it is not mandated, we have discretions of how we treat references. one is to treat them in the

process of minimum qualification review. wherein you score, administratively score whether the firms can advance to the oral interviews or alternatively have the staff provide a check and provide to the panel so they can score it and use in the scoring evaluation. i prefer the latter, and that's how this is structured. administrative staff will perform the reference check and provide to the panel to use in the evaluation. >> okay, and that administrative view and not that we want the details. but it seems like we have learned from previous issue. and to be sure that we understand. this is not related to the technical skill but we have other issues in terms of how they perform, and if they are ontime in budget on contracts.

and that's something that we need to keep learning from so we can get smarter about it. >> absolutely, and one way to be responsive to your recommendation is to ask specifically reference checks from another municipality or government agency. so when we call, we can learn about their performance from another public entity. and we can add that to the requirements. >> thank you. >> can you tell me, what are the minimum qualifications? >> what i can share with you is the minimum qualifications from the last contract. which we are in the process of reviewing. but probably will establish, use most the same ones. we are sitting down with staff and amongst ourselves and see figu ing if we are going to change them. and the prime consultant and the jb has at least seven years. and the key personnel of the

teams appropriate safe california or other required licenses. identify single project manager or program manager as the primary point of contact for the port. they demonstrate knowledge of current, local and state, and federal regulations. demonstrate experience with regulatory or personnel in a vary of regulatory agencies, that would impact the port, such as ecdc and fish and game and air and water resource boards. those are the ones we have right here. >> could i suggest, i am probably cautious here. but given what we have experienced lately. is it possible that we can ask who bids on it, to disclose that they are a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation? >> we can, we can add that as a

qualification. >> how would you score it? there is a difference between asking for it and scoring for it. i think that the city has a rule about that. >> we can ask for that information, disclosed. and we have on other procurements and not score it but get that information as advisory. >> i assume that all of these studies are for development projects. and who pays? is it the developer or the port? >> these aren't just for development projects. >> what kind of projects are they? >> it could be if we are just doing a standard construction project and we find there may be hydrocarbons in the soil. and have someone come out and test there. if we are doing certain work like driving piles out to a pier for repair. we need to monitor the sound, so we are not disturbing whether

it's marine mammals. if we are going to be doing roof work, we need to inspect that there are no nesting birds out there, that are covered by international treaties. or if there are, we need to get a plan to remove them. some could are related to preliminary development work. but usually if we are in with the developer, that's usually part of the -- >> the developer performs that work. so these would all be for our own account. >> okay. >> one thing we noted, we have the 22% lbe subconsulting goal. but given the small size of these contracts, this is really an opportunity i think for some smaller businesses to get a foot hold in performing this kind of work. i know that 22% is our goal.

but i would like to say it would be nice if we could really encourage whoever responds as well as who wins the contract to really consider expanding opportunities. to bring in businesses so they can build up their resumes, so to speak, for this kind of work. but these are the sized contracts that enable that to happen. >> yes, commissioner. >> i was going to ask, i know that the respondents will receive incentive credit for names lbe's. but what we are doing to know that they are actually hiring b -- lbe's and meeting the goal? >> we monitor them a quarterly basis, every invoice, and monitor on a quarterly basis in

terms of how that comes in. and as part of the cso process, we identify the subs and who are lbe's. when i sign off on a cso, i am part of the signing process. i am looking at how much lbe credit they have done. how much lbe they are putting on that particular cso. >> cso is? >> contract service order. each time we ask them to work, we ask them to issue a contract service order. and that's the process. i am looking at that, and if i am not around, simbar is around and will review those as well. >> and cmd and rh are? >> contract monitoring division, which is kind of what the human rights commission, the enforcement portion of the human rights commission for a lack of better word was spun off into

the contract monitoring division. >> i think that's great. but i think what i am trying get at, i think we do a great job of monitoring and hoping to make sure they meet and exceed the goals. but sometimes they don't. i want to be sure that we are not continually giving firms the opportunity that are not meeting their goals. i don't know if there is something to do in this process. >> it's something that we can look at. >> also add, when the respondents coming in with their proposals. they will have a team of identified lbe consultants. and they will see that they are responsive to the 22% goal, which a requirement. and upon entering the contract they will have a team of lbe's

for the scope of the contract. and each scope of work is executed, we will look to see that participation throughout. so if they are not responsive, if they do not come in with a way to meet that 22%, goal for local business enterprises. >> i have a question, carol mentioned sometimes you have specific environmental consulting needs. since three firms, two questions. one, how competitive is this field? i don't know. do we have 50 firm in -- firms in the bay area you and select three. and it sounds like you award the contract to some master. and if they have to go out and get the specific expertise that carol mentioned in the example. they have to contract out to someone that specializes in that environmental assessment

analysis. i am trying to get in the past, what is your response rate. is this a wide field? very competitive or 10 firms? >> yeah, so these tend to be very attractive contract opportunities for environmental consultants. environmental consulting in the bay area is extremely competitive. and many environmental consultants like to work for government agencies. and particularly for the port of san francisco, because they consider our projects sort of hallmark projects and very visible. and they like to have their name and expertise attached to the kind of work we do here. it does tend to be very c competiti competitive. i am trying to think, the last time we did this, four years ago. we probably had a dozen or more

respondents for the pool of three. >> but they have to have general capabilities. and then be able to subcontract out. >> yes, they identify those subcontractors up front. and then they go out and find somebody. they have to bring their whole team to the table during the selection process. >> so you outline to them the kinds of things you are looking at now. >> exactly. >> the inventory of needs at the moment. >> exactly. right. >> any other questions? can i have a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second. >> then this resolution no. -- >> public comment. >> oh, sorry. oh, i am sorry. i am today -- public comment. i don't see any public comment.

no speaker cards here, any public comment on this? otherwise i have a motion to approve. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> resolution no. 1317 has been approved. >> item 10-a, information on projected port revenues from the james r. herman cruise terminal operations. >> good afternoon, deputy director of finance. today i am joined by nate cruise, one of our financial analysts, and peter daley of the maritime division and john daul. the three of them make up the team for pier 27 cruise ship terminal. so as the commission is aware, the first phase of construction of the james r. herman project

is complete. and the authority is using the facility for the village. and phase 2 includes a build-out of security offices and other maritime improvements. the building is 90,000 square feet. it has an upstairs space and downstairs space over two floors it has ground transportation area of 400 parking places. and will have 2.5 acre public park, thanks to the san francisco voters and security gate and public access tip. the reason i am here today is to present the commission an understanding of the factors that will drive revenues up and down. this is in preparation of the port commission management

agreement in the summer. commissioner murphy, for your information the port staff has issued a proposal for january of this year. we will be having informational presentation from the two respondents, that is scheduled for may 14. and port staff plans to come back with a request to negotiate the highest ranked proposal from a panel process on may 28. so four operational and security special event and cruises cannot be held at the same time. and you will see throughout this presentation that really maximizing those two uses is the key to increasing port revenues. both of these kinds of events require advanced bookings, often up to one year.

starting with cruise calls of estimating the revenue. first the operator will pay the port a terminal operating fee. that is for the right of services. the operator will collect fees for service from the cruise line. we will collect dockage and a passenger facility charge directly from the cruise line. the terminal operating fee will represent fare profit sharing between the terminal operator and the port for the earnings they receive from the cruise lines. we presented two scenarios here. a low scenario of what the facility can learn. and a high scenario. on the low scenario anticipating 66 cruise calls. on the high scenario, 80 cruise calls. in both instances 80% are at pier 27.

and the 20% at piers 32 or 35. in terms of how aggressive this is, the average is 57. we had a high of 98 in fiscal year 2005-06. we have strong bookings for next year, i would say this is a conservative, reasonable estimate but not aggressive on the high side. in terms of passenger volume we assume 209,000, and the passenger facility charge we are looking at a rate of $5 to the $12 head charge and the $6 at the high. the port terminal will determine the pfc. the cruise revenues that the lines pay the port is $3.1

million to $4 million annually. the passenger facility is per passenger charge. and they are driven by the number of passengers on the ship. docket charges is driven by the number of ships that call. the trend of the lines, if you have larger volume of passengers on ships, directly improves port revenues. and now to special events and parking. we have long considered the new facility to have a secondary use of special events. because we have understood that the facility will not be used for the 365 days a year for cruise and cruise calls. and for anyone in the facility, it's a tremendous space for special events. to get a sense of what we would earn, we looked at 2009 ae-com,

report used to analyze what could be used for special event and parking. and specialize what the rates would be. we assume 52% occupancy rate, meaning that days it's available is booked 52% of the time. this is what ae-com used. and we looked at musckone, and their low use rate. and ae-com, reduced that. >> can you translate into number of events? >> the sure, the average event is 1.5 days, is that right? i will give you on the low scenario, special events is taking up 107 days. not rented is 100 days.

we assume that all of the rental fees, the operator earns 72% of those earnings would flow directly to the port. we assume this because we learned in looking at other models that there are other ways to earn revenues from special events, organizing the catering services, organizing other types of services. for example, at treasure island and they can profit directly from that. and then we discounted what it would cost to manage the special events, which is in the ae-com-report. what we will actually earn from special events is subject to interpretation. but we felt this was a good estimate. and we have a lot of experience with parking and estimated that the post-tax parking revenue is paid directly to the port. so on the parking and special events. on the low side we are looking to earn almost $2 million.

on the high side the estimate goes down to 1.7, and you see because cruise calls go up. so the number of available days for renting the space for special events declines. on the low side as a proportion of what is cruise and special events, 42% is cruises, and 58% is special events. and then the high side numbers. because of the plan per passenger charge and the volume of passengers into san francisco. cruise earns more in net marginal revenue than the special events and parking. the average cruise call with a three-day turn earns about 19,000 per day. the average special event earns 15,000 per day.

so the report says as the plan for this to function as primary cruise terminal. if you make an economic decision you first maximize cruise calls for the facility and then maximize the number of days for special events and parking. here is the whole estimate. it not only looks at total revenue but net revenue to the port. the difference between the low scenario and the high scenario, the high increases the number of cruise calls, and increases the passenger facility charge. and increases the terminal operating fee that will be paid at the port for the exclusive rights. and increases security costs. because security costs, there is a marginal cost associated with ship calls. and there a reduction in maintenance costs and reduction in parking and special event

revenues. to walk through and looking at all revenues, minus the new maintenance obligation. operator is anticipate to pay the port between 1.2 million and 1.5 million. the cruise line is anticipated to pay the port 3.1 million to 4 million, for total revenues for 4.3 to 5.4 million. we have debt service associated with the new facility. totaling 3.5 million. which doesn't change regardless of the share of cruise calls to the special events. we have dredging that is fixed in terms of what we use the facility for. and security costs. so we are looking at on the low side of a subsidy of 611,000. and on the high side of a profit of $528,000 annually.

we have been talking about utilization of the facility. and in the low scenario as in the high scenario, more than 50% of the days are not actively used. so you see not rented is 27% of days and special events is 29%. and cruise calls at 14%, and that assumes a 3-day turn. getting more active days in the facility is critical to changing, increasing port revenues. the report looks at different options. one is decreasing the term time from 3 to 2.5 days. and increasing the special event occupancy from 62% to 65%.