that the contractor could deliver on the contract as proposed. >> great, okay. it's going to be -- it's wonderful that this project is going to come in full under budget. what are we going to do with all that money? [laughter] >> well, as you may recall, the budget that we have was for both signage way finding and sight furnishings. so, this initial contract is going to pay for the signage and way finding elements and we'll use the remainder of the budget for the site furnishings at the various nodes adjacent to the signage. >> we're going to have a wonder -- a beautiful blue grain way. are there any other questions? i'm sorry. ~ greenway i have the same concerns as commissioner brandon ~. why pick the lowest contractor here? have we worked with this guy before? >> >> hi, commissioners. my name is tim [speaker not understood]. i work with the engineering division.

i'm the administrative engineer there. i was the one who opened the bids and one of the things that i do is a bid summary which summarizes all the bids. so, the low contractor i did contact and asked them how sure are you about this bid. and they affirmed that they would want to continue with this and that's the price that they will honor. so, we're willing to obligate the bid price that they put down. >> you know, we've had some problems with people not being able to perform the work that they signed for and we end up in lawsuits. i'm a little worried about it personally. [speaker not understood]. >> we have a couple options. the city's bidding process is we accept a low bid unless there is a reason to reject the low bid. we could reject the bids and rebid it. or you could -- i don't know, thinking on the fly here.

>> go ahead. >> certainly we wouldn't -- we can't increase the contract without coming back to the commission. >> the two bids -- the other two bids are pretty even, then you have this bid that's $200,000 less, which is huge. again, >> again, we did have the concern about the quality of the work in the sign package itself. as the port staff team working with our consultant team who our signage designers and do this day in and day out, we considered rejecting it and putting back out to bid. ~ are not our some of the concerns were we may only get one bid and that bid may be higher than the budget we have anticipated today. or, or we try to work with the

contractor. and tim participated in both meetings and so did the consultant. and we felt that after meeting with the contractor that was selected, that they had the capabilities to deliver the package that we needed and that was both for the two subcontractors. the lead is cal state construction, but the sub was [speaker not understood]. sign, yeah. >> corporate sign system? >> yeah, corporate sign systems who are the design consultant is kay keating & associates who has done work at the presidio and candlestick park, have worked with corporate sign systems and felt confident that if corporate sign systems felt they could deliver the project, that they stand by their word. and could deliver the project.

>> they're abiding by local hire and all that stuff? >> yes, they are. >> we need to [speaker not understood]. do we have a quorum? [laughter] >> okay. please continue. >> yes, i believe cal state contractors are a new local business firm. and i'm not sure if they're certified lbe firm with cmd, but they're the lowest and most responsive bidder. they met the contractor qualifications, though, as advertised as well. >> i see a dual signature here. >> yes. >> do we have any sense of their history in other projects or how they were formed or where their principals came from? >> engineering did do a background check on their references and found that they

were qualified. >> have they done any similar type work in the city or in any cities, local cities? >> this type of work is -- most of it is being subbed out to their -- another lbe firm, phoenix electric who is doing the foundation work. so, we feel comfortable with that. >> i suggest [speaker not understood], my sense is everything looks to be in place. i would just -- if we move it forward to staff, our legal team take one last pass through just to make sure that given the discrepancy, we're protected for any surprises that might come up as much as we can anticipate them. but i think we should move forward. and if we got lucky, we saved some money for a change. >> i think we should go over item by item make sure everything is covered in this

contract. i'm sure you've done that, but -- >> yes, we did, commissioner. we did review the item with the contractor and we made it -- the first thing we said was there was a significant difference between your bid and the next cluster of bids. as i said, they affirmed their bid. >> so, that means you will not be coming back with any amendments, right? [laughter] >> i can't make that guarantee, commissioner. >> i guess what i was saying was i recommend that we approve this, but i'm just asking our counsel to take one further peek at it and see if anything jumps out, then to perhaps bring it back. but otherwise if everything looks fine, i think we should go forward with it. >> we'd be happy to do that. >> okay. all in favor? >> aye. >> the resolution 13-29 has been approved.

>> item 11 a requests authorization to enter into a one-year contract with the san francisco conservation corps in the amount -- >> go ahead. >> okay. item 11 a requests authorization to enter into a one year contract with the san francisco conservation corps in the amount of $285,000 to provide and administer the port's youth employment program. >> good evening, commissioners. elaine forbes, director of finance administration. i'm here with andres [speaker not understood] and [speaker not understood] who worked on this contract. i'm also here with tom carter, the deputy director of maintenance division, ann cochran executive director thev san francisco conservation core, and troy henry who also works with the conservation corps ~ and the representatives from the subcontractor team,

jamie fountain from the [speaker not understood] and sales bryant from the a. philip randolph institute of san francisco. so, the item before you would authorize the port to enter into a one-year contract with the san francisco conservation corps to provide paid work experience to at-risk youth to help maintain the port's property areas and public right of ways. the contract would be for $285,000. by way of background, since 2005 filing competitive procurement process, the port has contracted with the san francisco conservation corps which is a community-based nonprofit organization to provide such paid employment opportunities for at-risk youth. this contract is part of the port's youth employment program. as you know, the port sponsors a number of work force development efforts targeted at youth and young adults, including this proposed contract, the maritime

internship program, americorps [speaker not understood] and various college opportunities. regarding the selection process -- you heard the selection process last time you were here so i'll make it brief and there's quite a bit of detail in the report. but the last contract with conservation corps expired june 30th, 2012. on july 5th the port commission authorized us to advertise the rfp which was issued on december 20th, 2012. on january 29th, the due date, the port received one proposal from san francisco conservation corp with [speaker not understood] as a subcontractor. the port convened an evaluation panel and after scoring and reviewing the proposal, the evaluation panel recommended a contract with the san francisco conservation corps without reservation. on march 26th we came to you asking permission to enter into this contract. you provided us direction 09ctionv proposed term of the agreement, asked us to continue

to negotiate and come back to you with some changes ~. specifically, you wanted to see the percentage of the budget supporting youth participants to go up. ~ on the you wanted us to developer formance metrics we would use to evaluate the contract. report back geographic representation of the youth served. you had concerns about the contract term. we were proposing a four-year term on march 26. regarding geographic representation first, san francisco conservation corps did provide a breakdown of their participants for 2012 and it's in the report and you'll see that more than half, 57% of participants in that calendar year were from bayview hunters point and visitacion valley neighborhoods and about 82% of of representatives are coming from the southeast neighborhood to san francisco. and there is a wide variety of neighborhoods served. larkin does not have [speaker

not understood] because they're homeless, but they provide statistics. we spoke to the conservation corps about how they reach at-risk youth across the city and they let us know they have a network of resources and referrals. and the best resource is bayview they're serving now and graduates. and also to address geographic representation, larkin -- i'm sorry, the san francisco conservation corps is recommending adding an additional sub-consultant partner, bayview hunters point based provider, the a. philip randolph institute of san francisco. the conservation corps straits that this qualified local nonprofit will provide services very similar to larkin street. ~ states and the geographic location of the nonprofit may reach more at-risk youth in the community. we reviewed information about the nonprofit and concur that adding an additional partner is fine and good thing to do.

regarding the budget, when we came to you with the original budget proposal $265,000, 96,000 or 36% was allocate today youth salary. the contract allocates $16,000 or 41% to youth salaries. so, this is an increase. it also bumps up service hours from 6800 with 7400 with base larkin and consr. vation corps and adds an additional 730 hours with ran doll. ~ randolph. [speaker not understood]. it reduces the indirect cost which the commission was concerned about from 15 to 11%. port staff did some due diligence regarding this indirect cost rate looking at controller's guidance. other city contracts for similar services and found that 11% is reasonable and also that this contract will dedicate a higher proportion of the budget to youth salaries and

supervisor salaries and a lower percentage administrative and direct costs and other city contracts. so, we feel comfortable recommending this. regarding the contract term, we have first proposed a four-year. we are instead recommending a limited one year contract with the terms starting august 2013 as soon as we can get the contract executed, to 2014. we are proposing to start a new rfp concurrently for youth employment around about october. we'll be here asking for permission to advertise so that we can have a new contract up and running when this one-year term expires. we're recommending this one year term so we can get the program going and getting these opportunities to use and are have continuity of services. at the same time we realized a new rfp we can broaden our outreach efforts and ensure that new providers have entered the market and have an opportunity to respond. and we intend to do a very wide

outreach. so, we're all here to answer any questions you might have. so, thank you very much. >> thank you. can i have a motion to approve this item? >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? good afternoon, commissioners. i'm james bryant. i do want to correct a small little piece. jacquelyn flynn is our executive director and, so, i take no credit for the great work she's doing because she's doing a fine job. [speaker not understood] may want to come up. dick came to you all a few months ago with some concerns. obviously -- obviously we are

now in the village, so to speak, talking about how we can make things better, talking about how we can get outreach services to the people who need to have job opportunities the most in this 16 to 24 age group. ms. brand can tell you a little more about the [speaker not understood] i think some of you are aware of our long-time existence in the community. we would like to thank our partners constitution corps and aaron larkin services for joining with us and we'd like to thank the commission for having the wherewithal to consider us to help out with a program that obviously started by sophie maxwell and i would love to see it flourish. so, ms. flynn.

good evening, everyone. first, i wanted to thank you all for allowing us the chance to be here today. and i did prepare a couple of words just to speak on behalf of our organization. historically apri has been serving very low-income minority communities and engaginges are debttionv and public participation and voting activities. and since our inception, our capacity has grown to include work force and youth services. every year apri offers summer internship opportunities and year round volunteer based youth chapter. our services support the mental growth of young adults from low-income communities. city-wide, we do target all youth, but there has been specific targeting of the bayview where we have the highest poverty concentrations and our youth are plagued with negative social influences. this year our kids describe their own neighborhoods as dangerous, negative in places

where you have to watch your back. it's easier for them to live a life in the streets than to work hard and influence their community to change. our program inspires youth to further their education, set career goals, discover pathways to those goals, and links youth to resources that enrich their learning experiences. we're honored again today to be invited by the port and the conservation corps as well as larkin street services to explore a partnership and offer youth programming that includes youth from the communities we serve. and we are committed to investing in our youth and their futures. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? good afternoon, commissioners. good afternoon, director moore. i am actually thrilled that you asked the questions that you asked -- >> state your name, please. sorry, ann cochran,

executive director of the san francisco conservation corps. i'm thrilled that you asked the questions that you did because, in fact, i think this is a stronger proposal at this point for a couple of reasons. one, we have been able to increase the number of hours that the young people actually benefit from in doing this contract. secondly, the corps has always served very low-income at-risk young people for the same reason that ms. flynn referred to. we have the same mission. but we also are stronger when we have partners. and, so, we're thrilled that larkin was part of a original proposal. and just like the corps being the best kept secret in town, it shares that distinction. so, one of the things we agreed after this is over, we will continue to figure outweighs to partner and work with each other. ~ out ways and we very much appreciate the port's support over the last period of time. it's been wonderful learning opportunity for our young

people. in fact, we've had so many young people go on to work as -- in the labors union, to work in ecology, to work in san francisco -- sorry, the department of the environment. ~ laborers so you can be assured the work the young people are doing for the port is providing them with skills. and, in fact, they are going on to making living wage jobs. so, we're thrilled and appreciative to have this opportunity. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? commissioners? >> well, i'm very happy with this program. i think it's a wonderful program. thank you for your presentation. you know, i like the way it's going to be staffed and supervised. it's very important. and also that we're not spending all the money on

administration and staff costs. actually the money is going to the kids. i would like, you know, private sector and anything else these kids need to be supervised. there needs to be somebody with them at all times and need to be given direction. i'm curious, i'd like to come out and when you do implement t i'd like to come out and visit and see how you guys do it. i think it's great. >> i share commissioner murphy's comments. i think this is a really, really good starting point. i want to commend elaine for t director moyer. i think that the port -- this is the premiere port in the world. this is a world class port. how dare we not have something like this for our community. we should give as good as we get. and i think this is a great

starting point for doing this and for those young people. we never know where those young people one day will end up. all sometimes people need is a helping hand, some positive role models and it's just a chance. and, so, i'm clearly in support of this and i know my other commissioners are, too, because we all started somewhere ourselves. and someone along the way gave us an opportunity. so, you clearly have my support. i along with commissioner murphy will come down to see what you're doing. when you came last time, i have to say this, i have never seen you. and i thought, i said, why did he only come this time? i hope you keep coming down to the port because there's one thing you need to know about the port of san francisco. we are a community partner of yours. we're a friend. and show up at these meetings. sometimes people always want to be like monday morning quarterbacks.

come down here, hit the mic, say something, and always say, there is abissue out there, if you have a better solution, bring it forward. people always listen to reason. thank you. >> thank you. i'll echo my colleagues' comments. i would love to see a. philip randolph institute as part of this new program. i've worked with all three organizations in a variety of different capacities so i'm especially pleased to see all three working together to help the youth of our city. i think this is the way things are supposed to work. i think where we take a look at the opportunities and see where they're going and figure out ways to improve them. i want to thank elaine and her staff to can come up with what are better solutions for giving opportunities to our youthv and thank our other port staff and also my colleague commissioner brandon who i think really asked some of the tough

questions last time around. and i think we all are benefited from t. particularly our youth are benefited from it. i want to thank all of you and i'm very pleased. i also would like to come down, something i think is very important. let our youth know this is something we care about. it may not be one of our largest contracts you but i think it is one that is important to all of us. we know the significant impact it has on our city by bringing everyone into the fabric of our communities here. so, thank you. >> thank you. ~ also. and we'll all be down. >> not a quorum. >> all right, two at a time. elaine, thank you so much for, you know, going back and negotiating the better contract. and i really appreciate you taking the time and making this work. i just wanted to ask, you know, the numbers have changed a lot. i was just wondering why larkin

street piece went down. and i know that this program was up for -- up to 10 kids to be employed throughout the year. so, i'm just kind of wanting to figure out how the partnership is going to work, who is responsible for what, and how the funding is attached to that. >> okay. i'm going to start the response, but then turn it over to ann to provide more details about the partnership. you're right. when we came for the first review, larkin street had a larger share of the budget but were reduced and higher than the prior contract. and in order to provide more staff hours, i believe that conservation corps needed to cut back a bit on larkin's hours and direct those dollars to more youth hours from the san francisco conservation corps is the best way i can describe it. but it is a larger share than in the last contract for larkin street. i understand that larkin street is happy with the budget as

proposed and we did achieve the goal of getting more hours to the youth. but i think ann can provide more detail to how the allocation will work. >> actually, elaine explained it perfectly, which is that in order to serve more of the conservation corps members, we had to negotiate a difference in the contract with larkin. and as elaine said, it is greater than their share over the last four years. so, how the partnership is going to work is the conservation corps is the lead agency. so, we have our own crews of 18 to 24 year olds and they will be doing projects as assigned by the port of san francisco. larkin is a separate subcontractor and, so, they will have also their own crews. they have a separate job training program. and they also serve a younger

cohort of 16 to 17-year-olds, which is something else i know that is important to the port. because anyone under 18 cannot use power tools based on workers' comp and california law, they will be doing different projects, but they will be assigned those projects also by the port. we will not have influence on what it is that we're doing or what they're doing. and same with randolph, they will be getting projects directly from the port and be working within the parameters of their program so that it fits with all the other services that they provide. and, so, we are sort of the fiscal agent, if you will. and, so, we would make sure that we're all in compliance with the city's minimum wage ordinance and that kind of thing. but really, the direct relationship between the projects and the young people is individual to each of the agencies. >> okay. so, so, each agency will have a

certain amount of hours versus youth employed? >> well, they go together, actually. >> right. >> and, so, you know, what we committed to with the revision was between larkin street and ourselves, is 36 young people. and if i recall correctly, randolph is -- help me out, 5? yeah, yeah, 5 young people. and, so, the port will determine what the projects are that need doing. we go out and say, okay, so, here's a scope of work and here's how many young people we have. here's how long it will take. so, it gets adjusted according to how long the project takes. and we've gotten pretty good at estimating. sometimes it's less, sometimes it's a little more. >> okay.

that sounds better than up to 10 youth being employed, more like 40 sounds a lot better given the amount of the contract. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> any other questions? >> no, no more questions. but i just want to thank all of you so much ~ for putting this partnership together, for increasing the amount actually going to youth. and hopefully with our next rfp we can get even more money to the youth. so, thank everyone. ~ for that. all in favor? >> aye. >> resolution 13-30 is approved. >> item 12 a, informational presentation on the port of san francisco's leasing practices.

>> thank you, manny. we had to wait for manny. what would we do without manny and his friends from guest services? we wouldn't be here with all their presentations. they're here before we start the meeting and they're here long after. so, thank you all, manny. good afternoon, commissioners. susan reynolds, deputy director for real estate. and i'm here mostly at your request. over time you have asked us what actually is the process to get a lease. and i understand that the staff report is very textbookish-esque. hopefully my presentation won't

give you a 40,000 foot view of the leasing process. and to compare the port metaphorickally to a business, [speaker not understood], we get everything ready and we manage the revenue stream, a large part of the revenue stream ~ and fill up our properties. so, without our tenants, none of us would be here. and, so, the leasing process starts with an application process and prospective tenants contacting port staff to find out what is available and if what they are doing would fit into port property. so, first, you have the