>> >> authority completed the project and the right-of-way certification and selected a traffic management consultant. we are expecting at the end of this month the e76 or the federal highway authorization of approving the funding to move into construction, and with that we would award the transportation authority the construction management contract. with the board approval we will execute the moa's award the construction management and the contracts and award it november of this fall and beginning construction in january of next year. i can take any questions you may have. >> colleagues, any questions?

okay. much appreciated. we don't have a budget analyst report so we will move to public comment. no public comment so it's closed. colleagues, can i have a motion to approve these items? >> mr. chairman i believe there is a need to amend the title. >> okay. actually -- >> chairman farrell can i ask a question? >> please supervisor mar. >> i know in my conversations with the city administrator there have been discussions whether this project move forward like a private public partnership like dial drive project and other approaches and i am wonderings if you could talk about that. >> [inaudible] construction project by the federal highway bridge program. just to speak to the amendment to the title of the item as well. the original

title to the item cited a project combined value for the project of just over $50 million. that was referencing the peak annual reimbursement under underneath the construction moa and not the aggregate for the moa and for the right-of-way and the combined value as presented in the amended language. >> i really appreciate the presentation. i know it's one of the most hairy and dangerous ramps, and i know as the bay bridge reopens hopefully very, very soon that how timely and important this project is but thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. colleagues, any other questions? so we have an amendment of the whole here to provide retroactively and

change the title so can i have a motion to accept the amendment on a whole? do so without opposition and the new amended item -- can we take that without opposition also? so moved. okay. mr. clerk can you please call item 19. >> item 19 resolution authorizing the finding for sign to the metropolitan transportation commission committing any necessary matching funds stating insurance to complete the project and authorizing public works to exspend $17,026,221 in one bay area grant program grant programs. >> hi. i am rachel with public works. this resolution would authorize us to spend just over $17 million in projects a

-- approved by the metropolitan transportation commission and for the one bay area grant program and known o bag and this here we were able to award funds for several eligible project types, bicycle and pedestrian improvement, safe routes to schools and street scapes projects and were approved by you sitting as the transportation authority board after a rigorous process and the commission requires a resolution of local support be passed by the sponsoring authority with specific language which is why we're presenting this to you. the $17 million will be allocated as follows. six $77,000 for the safe routes to six project and improve pedestrian safety in district

11. funds for the safe routes to school project for el taylor and in district 9. funds for the chinatown broadway phase four street design project and increase the improvements to columbus avenue to the broadway tunnel and powell street and completed in three phases. finally funds for the second street scape improvement projected which will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, add landscaping and furnishing and improve the area. i am joined by the project managers for the four projects and we are happy to answer any questions from you. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? mr. avalos. >> i thought there were other programs and -- >> yes and the mta is responsible for the projects

right now. >> colleagues, any further questions or comments? thank you very much. we don't have a budget analyst report and we will move to public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward without opposition? so moved. mr. clerk can you please cull item number 20. >> item 20 resolution providing for the sale of certificate of participation and interest in the right to receive certain rental payments to be made by the city under a project lease finance capital projects at the port of san francisco. >> okay. could you also call number 21 up. >> item 21 and certificate of participation for the jurisdiction over pier 27 from the port commission to the general services agency real estate division and from the city back to the port commission upon full payment of debt

approving a memorandum of understanding between the port commission and the city controller regarding obligation from the certificate of participation. >> great. thank you. >> thank you supervisors. so federal law securities impose on the city the obligation to ensure it's documents are accurate and complete and applies to all members of the governing body and the disclosure documents as well as city staff charged with preparing the document. in 2012 the board of supervisors approved the delivery and sale of certificate of participation up to $45 million to finance improvements at the facilities for the port commission and those also include the janes [inaudible] cruise ship terminal. the project when approved we used commercial of $35 million to deliver the project. as you know it was completed and it was turned over to the events authority so they can continue to use it. when

you approved it at the time it was [inaudible] but since that time the board approved the document that had a section called appendix a that talks about the city financing process, the government structure, budget process, property taxation, expenditures, laborer relations as well as will employment benefits and retirement costs so what we're doing now sup dating that to reflect the changes in terms of the city's financial condition as well as approving the hearing that is required under federal law for this type of transaction. it allows -- by approving this you're facilitating the tax exemption and certificate of participation. when you approved the transaction last time it approved a public hearing that occurred in

april 2012. since then we had another hearing because it expired due to the lag of when it was approved and now issuing a year later we were required to have the hearing which we did hold in april 28, 2013 so by approving this you're approving the public hearing that occurred. in addition we're also -- the second item is an administrative process. when the certificate of participation were approved we had used a portion of laguna honda as the pledge and security for the transaction. what this does as soon as the cruise ship terminal is completed the lean would move from laguna honda to the cruise ship terminal and stay with the transaction through the term and revert back to the port of san francisco once the terminal of certificate is ended. with that i am happy to answer any

questions. we know the commercial paper -- thank you to the board for extending that and increasing the amount. it's good to have that opportunity so that key with continue to lead on the project. >> >> thank you. colleagues any questions? we don't have a budget analyst report for either item? >> [inaudible] from the port. >> do you want to come up and speak? you have been waiting here. >> good afternoon supervisors. elaine from the port. we are appreciative that the city agreed to use this with the project and we we the city has a higher credit rating and this say win for us and we are thankful and you previously approved the issuance and as described this is the documents and et cetera to allow for the sale of the projects to take out the commercial paper. >> great thank you. we will continue working on that rating improvements on our end.

colleagues any other questions? seeing none public comment is closed. anybody wish -- >> >> and could i have a motion to move these to the full board? do so without opposition. mr. clerk can you call item 22. >> item 23 i believe. >> excuse me that's right. item 23. >> item 23 resolution authorizing the director to execute the agreement with alstom transportation incorporated for vendor inventory services not to exceed $39,158,000. >> okay. thank you very much. i believe we have the mta to speak on this item. >> good afternoon chair farrell, supervisors avalos and mar. virginia harmen for mta. historically it's been our

practice to purchase parts for all divisions by using competitive bids for all items using a purchase order process. this process can be administratively burdensome given what we do for our division. it can be challenging and complicated identifying reliable sources to provide age parts for the aging fleet and we have been negatively impacted to provide parts on a timely basis. the contract before you today, the vendor pilot is an initiative to have a supply chain for parts and supplies and cost parts on a cost efficient basis. the pilot is modeled after the contracts with the administration for the purchase of office supplies like through office depot or staple and it

is purchases for public health for hospitals and clinics. currently it takes 80 days on average to get materials and parts and the vendor must achieve a 80% fill rate and all other parts within 30 days and would result in the liquidated damages of thousand dollars a day. beyond the benefits of a reliable supplier of parts and there is additional cost savings in parts and we don't need to stock pile parts like previously. [inaudible] during the course of the pilot. overall we anticipate cost savings in addition to supply chain efficiencies. finally i want to emphasize that this is a parts procurement contract. we are not out sourcing jobs here. the point is timely obtain

parts and supplies necessary to repair our vehicles. staff presently assigned to that division will be reassigned to buses and facilities with the intention of improving performance for those divisions as well and staff will continue to function in the current capacity. we assured our employees and respective unions there are no jobs lost as a result the pilot and thank you for the consideration and ask that you approve this contract. i am here with contract manager angela harmon and we are happy to answer any questions. >> colleagues, any questions? supervisor. >> yes, i guess the union will ask the same questions and you say it's want out sourcing but streamline and make efficient and timely our procurement process, but my understanding is

that the purchasing order process involves staff that currently are processing hundreds of requests, and with this it will be contracted out to a company that will do that, and i am just wondering how it's not going to impact the existing staff within the mta? >> well, we have a tremendous need in terms of purchasing parts for both the bus and rail divisions and we've had increased difficulties in purchasing parts begin of the aging fleet. >> >> as parts are obsolete we have to search for sources to find them and taking 87 days from request to obtaining a part is too long. we have vehicles out of service for parts. additionally we are facing increased demand for service. given the increased demand for service and our aging fleet we really need to look at alternate methods of doing business. this pilot will allow us to test an

alternate method in a risk free environment where we anticipate a more effective supply chain. we anticipate cost savings and we are committed to no job loss. >> and -- okay. but still there's the work currently done on the po system and that work is not going to be there anymore if it's contracted out to them; right? >> and there is additional work that need to be done to improve the performance in other divisions and particularly the bus division where we have vehicles out for parts. >> and the suggestion i think within the mta it's an inventory management system problem and the solution could be fixed internally as opposed going with a new process and i am just wondering if you could respond to that. >> i'm not sure that i

understand that. this as i mentioned it's a procurement process -- >> so it takes three months to access critical equipment and is it not -- or explain why it's not an internal inventory management system problem? >> it's not an internal inventory management problem because there is a backlog for the rail and bus side and in addition for our facilities, and as we work through those purchases we're making an effort to reduce the backlog of purchases required. >> and then as the mta staff and the santa clara valley transit authority manager had the different proposals. could you talk about the process to choose the vendor? >> sure but i would ask the contract manager -- he actually oversaw that process to provide

you with that information. >> good afternoon. mr. patel, contractor for procurement. we used the standard process in evaluation. we received two proposals from the advertising of the rfp. we had a panel of -- panel members who evaluated the written proposals and they scored the proposals based on the rite identified in the rfp and points associated with that. once we did that with the panel members we then asked the two proposers to come in and do a presentation and present their products and their services to us which was also scored by the panel members, and then the highest ranked proposer was selected. >> is the vendor compliant with the equal benefits ordinance? >> that's correct. the vendor

is compliant and has all of the rules and there is a enterprise goal i believe 17% local enterprise goal and that is the local businesses participating in that percentage are listed in your package. >> my last question are there strong controls to prevent an office depot by over charging us $6 million from a few years ago? are there controls in place to prevent from happening again? >> what we did with this vendor they guaranteed a fixed cost for everything in the contract for the first two years and after that if we exercise the option we negotiate the rates and currently the fixed rate they

have annually is approximately $550,000 less than we have been paying for individual parts competitive process that we go through. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, any further questions? okay. at this point we will open to the budget analyst report mr. rose for item 23 please. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee on page 67 supervisor mar as a further clarification to your question about the present staff handling this work on page 67 we note that the sfmta represented that staff purchasing materials for the rail maintenance division will be assigned purchasing duties for other divisions, rail maintenance division, because according to mr. patel they have a backlog of purchasing requests ranging up to 1,000 requests every two weeks and staff is

reassigned to reduce the backlog and support other sfmta services like trolley buses, sustainable purchases and we asked that question and we were satisfied with that response. on page 68 of our report table two shows the contract want to exceed amount of 39.$2 million over the contract of the contract and include the two year term and the three additional one year options -- the option terms, and we also note that the according to the sfmta the fiscal year 13-14 budget of 8.7 million and this is reported by them. they estimate savings of $48,000 less than the estimated less of 7.8 million toand supplies unde

city's regular competitive processes so our recommendations -- we have a recommendation to address that because that is an estimate we think the board should get more information given this is a pilot project which we believe is a good project but we believe there further information and page 69 we recommend that you approve this contract and in the period listed and amend the legislation for the option to extend the two year term is up to three additional one year terms at the director of transportation sole's disresidence and not to exceed amount listed. on recommendation three there is a typo there that we say to amend the report. we amend to say "amend the resolution" to require sfmta to report to the board of supervisors on actual savings realized as a result of

the proposed contract based on mta's contract valuation at the end of the year fiscal year and that is the specific recommendation i clarified and we recommend that you approve the legislation as amended. >> okay. supervisor avalos. >> thank you. mr. rose, why would this necessarily be a prop j contract? services previously conducted in house and was handled by civil service employees and why not a prop j? >> supervisor i think that is a valid question. it's between the department and the controller to determine if a

prop j was needed. maybe she can clarify that to the committee? approximate. >> i recall in >> i recall in22009 and we were told it was for staff here at city hall and we were told no one would lose the jobs but they had to do a prop j and that was for work previously conducted and seems like a similar situation we're in now. >> correct. i am from the controller's office. we haven't been in contact with them and whether it meets the requirement of the mandate. we can look at what the duties are. it sounds to some extent there are some processes that would be

implemented and performed by this particular contractor but it's something that we need to analyze and also check with the city attorney >> i would like to hear about the response was from local 21 and 10 two onea and i understand there is cost savings involved. >> our part is determine whether there is savings to satisfy the charter section and we generally advise departments whether i a particular change in practice, in operations, would result in a

prop j requirement, and we would be happy to take a look at that. >> perhaps mta offer you a chance to comment on the items, both in terms whether you evaluated as a prop j matter with your attorneys and supervisor avalos' other comment and the meet and confer. >> [inaudible] management -- procurement. we did not communicate with our city attorneys about prop j specifically. the project was approved by the city attorney for advertising and so forth, but from a job and a job's function standpoint the current purchasers that we use on the assistant purchasers. their function when they conduct any purchasing activity they go through the city's process like getting three quotes for any items under $100,000, doing a formal bid, whatever that

maybe. the type and product they purchase doesn't matter. they still have to go through the quote and the bidding process so the four purchasers that we have currently purchasing rail parts would now be purchasing bus parts or other opposite supply parts. they. >> >> would go through the same process of bidding and getting quotes from vendors so we felt the job functions are not changing but instead of rail purchasing they are purchasing other parts. also over the course of years we do change purchaser's duties from purchasing rail parts to bus parts and purchase from bus and moving them over to rail, wherever the demand is higher we will shift those purchases around so that is one of the reasons the functions were not changing. it's just they're

doing something else. >> that is for employees that were doing the rail parts purchase. now they're still doing -- in the maa and in house and doing other purchasing. butd function of purchasing rail parts is contracted out to a vendor to do. correct? that's what is before us, meaning that previous work that was done by in house employees is now being contracted out. now, that to me is something i think could trigger -- maybe approved through a prop j resolution which is typically before us in the budget process, and i know it might seem different, but in fact i think it's pretty similar. it would be great to have -- i hate to hold it up and i think it's important to get a little more information about whether it would meet the threshold. it

doesn't seem like it was analyzed as much as it should have been. >> can i make a suggestion and unless there are other comments and i want to respect that but perhaps we can continue this item for a week and give us a chance to have additional -- we're not meeting next week. i'm going to reserve -- retract that comment, so why don't we try and have a further discussion here. ma'am. >> i am angela carmenhouse with sfmta and we went to the commission for this pilot. just to clarify this is a purchasing contract. we're purchasing parts. the job that the existing staff is doing -- they will still continue doing for other work within the agency. we still have an enormous amount of work for other departments that those staff will be doing.

this in many respects is similar to -- virginia mentioned the contract