that we complete at the end of february was $35 million. we had 5 pre-qualified biders consumer construction and other submitted bids at connecticut could. connecticut could informed us they were bidding other projects and couldn't submit bids they were busy and the csa can wanted to focus their attention on the bridge construction and not this type of work. this - this project had trans group had several deduct

alternates they were approved as a part of the july project alternate 4 was added later than. it had all the for $48.7 million they submitted a bid into through that and the bids are evaluated on the plus bids and the alternates. it's recommended that we accept the deduct alternates 13 and reject 4 it provides a structural architecture concrete finish number two, of providing a set of concrete the bid parts for this particular alternate is 64 hundred dollars and

$3.4 million and this a alternate is you much more than 64 million dollar and we ask you reject this and possibility discuss it with shimming any questions and is what caused the higher prices. it's solely recommended that the project be w5ur9d to show me any questions they've submitted a fair and reasonable bid. their bid taking a look at according to what we think the reduced costs or the costs savings with the mobiletion since they're on the dock side he construction of the below grounded concrete. the market code continues t conditions this is on a critical path and it's essentially, we

you award it now for the schedule. we look at the scope of work the concrete there's no opportunity for cost scope reduction. the total bid all the time is $48.4 million it's recommend to fund the budget between the amount and program revenues this is $22 million with the contingent of $8.2 million and $33 million for the allocation and $99.4 million for the contingent and 8.7 million and the balance will be 7 three or four $.4 million.

the group will be the first pathology awarded and the c mc agreed to have the payment bonds as the shourns program to address the subcontractors the subcontractor program has several benefits and increase the composition open the project. over the life of the program it's expected to save millions of dollars and if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> any questions. >> i have just some comments and then a question. first of all, i support the recommendations to move forward. i think it's on a critical path

and even though that's a lot more money we need to move forward. i think the recommendations is right like on the other packages the disparity between the engineer estimate and the c mc estimate is troubling are the philosophy is the bilateral and engineer are working together in the development of the xylophone to come to the end with the end results of estimates far apart is the collaborations are not working go. so that's concerning with the disparity of the bids so few bids and so different seems like it is cause for concern and it would be the quality of the bid documents and whether or not

they're looking different things seems like the engineer and the contractor seem to be looking at different things it's concerning and i say that because we have a lot more to be bid whatever it behind the disparities we want to understand. the last comment on the alternates i appreciate the amount it is hard to look at the numbers so as we are developing alternatives we may want to look at more substantive things. my question i think i saw in the staff report there were 4 addendum issued can you explain to us the purpose of the timing and the magnitude of those

addendum. maybe that's contributed to the results we've seen >> i don't have the information open the and i dim but it should include the inquires as part of the package. the other information i don't have but i'll share it later on >> randy do you have that informati information. >> again may be looking at the addendum what they have in them might be lessons for the future bids. >> if i can respond to a couple of your points on the s b e risks some have risks and this package doesn't. the risk by the engineer

estimate was based on the speciality item and the market conditions are so tight it will deplete the engineers opinion that is driving the costs that's not part of this package. on the alternates are not in the bidding in this panhandle but their future alternates. the alternates number one is the opening in the roof. the opening in the roof >>was for skylight in the future that is alternate to be deleted so that's really $250,000 on alternate futures. the only thing i can share this is a good bid. had we had 4 biders or more we could sharpen our pencils but

this this is a reflection of the economy. this is quite a bit work and there's quite a bit work out there >> i did you know, i have some questions on the moving from paid performance to this insurance. but i appreciate the quick response on this. i have talked about the executive director my only concerns is to make sure that someone reads through the performance bonds for our construction manager general contractor they expect the paid performance to continue downhill

hill if this is a case if someone reads through the funding agreement to make sure that all of the similitudes would be paying performance bonds i'm previously confident that that that's a good move given we do the research >> so we have a motion and second call the roll please. also the members of the public of the public and director metcalf. director reiskin. director harper that's 4 i's and item 7 is approved. that item 8 is the minutes of the february 24th meeting >> so moved. >> we have a motion and second. >> any members of the public. >> director lee.

director reiskin. director harper. that's 4 i's and the minutes are approved >> okay. then we're adjourned. >> that's concludes our

>> the meeting will come to order good morning, everyone this is the san francisco transportation authority plans & programs committee this is the meeting of tuesday, march 18, 2014. our clerk is erica chang could you please call the roll >> supervisor breed. supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor yee. (laughter) >> thank you i'd like to thank jessie larson and others for brooet us on sfgovtv. >> item 12 the citizen's advisory council report. >> i know that supervisor kim was going to make comments about the unfortunate news of joseph

passing. actually, i was going to do any memoriam at the full board meeting i was hoping after the committee report we could have a moment of silence this is a time of vice chair flanagan used to do his report >> and bryan larkin from the cac. >> i'm sorry supervisor campos. >> i know we're going to do something at the board but i want to acknowledge mr. flanagan i know he really cared about this agency and i have yet to find anyone that is more passionate about serving people and would take it upon himself to ride the different buses and lines to identify issues that riders, you know, were dealing with and i entities appropriate to say in the context of the cac

report because for so many years emulsification the one that was presenting it so he will always be recommended. >> i would like to add i will miss him coming to the beginning of the meetings he was wonderful to work with peter from my staff as well and had an amazing wonderful heart and very thought of person that gave a lot of his life making transportation system better for all san franciscans. condolences to his family. bryan >> i'll start by saying we had 3 action items and items 4 example 5 and 84 was the fixing the quarter of a millions for 9 projects all of them looked good

we had minimal discussion and passed that approved that unanimously. your item 5 about the roving the final report we again approved it unanimously and chris asked there be some clarification on the illustrations that were included it was a little bit difficult to tell where the station it so the staff is looking at that. we had public comment from a gentleman who said while staff indicated and stated that two tracks the bullet train service the high speed rail system wouldn't be effected and next the transit study we had

pedestrian access and the availability of funding sources we were good and passed that unanimously too. regarding joseph flanagan he passed away since our last cac meeting and we found him to be a strong and articulate popcorn for the disability community. i sat next to joseph he was combined to a wheelchair he could get away from me so i and the rest of the committee members will miss him greatly >> thank you very much mr. larson. i see no other comments supervisor kim. >> i was hoping we could have a moment of silence for his leadership and participation and the process and his dedication

and commitment to our city. (silence) >> thank you, everyone. >> one last note for those who are interested joseph memorials is wednesday at the 1 o'clock at the 1500 howard street. >> ms. chang open this up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. ms. chang call the next item >> items 3 to 5 this is consent calend address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda >> any motion on those items. moved by supervisor campos and seconded by supervisor kim.

i see no comments. open this up for public comment who from the public would like to speak. it's on the minutes of the meeting so >> consent calendar for items 3 to 5. >> oh, so we're not on the approval of the minutes. >> that's under the consent calendar calendar so we'll consider items 3 to 5. >> so let me just say we have a couple of cards on item 4 so - >> so we've sever it. >> yes. items 3 to 5. >> do we have a motion. >> do we have a motion it's moved and seconded by supervisor yee. colleagues, we should do a role call >> supervisor london breed. supervisor campos.

supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor yee. items 3 to 5 pass >> thank you and we're on item 4 if there are no comments let's open this up for public comment. (calling names) and then if you want to speak please come down. >> commissions aaron i'm here representing san francisco tomorrow and the park a coalition one was the 19 prop k funding due to the contributions are very unbalanced for what project we have a lot of projects out there and two of them 70 state we don't have a firm commitment in terms of how much money is contributed and no

plan. the problem of the location of the systems they've stopped and don't show adequately how far we have to go to reduce the traffic and impacts on the west side of the city we've talked to reps about the different connectivity to make the detriment the costs involved. the other central subway we're concerned all those box projects we have a lot of developers looking for money but where are we going to connect and why not look at the trolley we have a rail that could go out why double up the systems and tunnel our way to the north beach when we have a trolley >> thank you, mr. goodman. next speaker

>> morning. >> i'm lance. i'm a resident of north beach and i've been watching carefully what's the north beach construction variance and one of the items on the list even if proposals is $173,000 study to extend that where it is crossing washington street to the wharf and the proposal is for a study to see if that's feasible and if it would be done. i'd like to, you know, i'm guessing that all those items are going to be up and down, you know, so but one request i'd like to make if you could i see the sponsor the seduced is sf ct a if you could offer direction. i can the title of the thing is to extend the central subway to

fisherman's wharf but there are alternatives that could be studied. for example, itch i i was in baltimore muscular dystrophy so they have free buses to take people around and relieving the traffic congestion. so, you know, so that my bottom line is to encourage sfmta and sf ct a to look at surface solutions thank you >> thank you, mr. karen's. next speaker >> i'm steven i'm here on behalf of spur and russian hill neighbors i'm the transportation chair. we strongly support the funding of the subway estimation for years we have been of the opinions that the northeast part

of the city has poor transit. it is while there's a lot of these lines because of the he congestion we have and the density the existing service is slow and overcrowd and unreliable we need to improve the transportation into the northeast part of the city. we also are of the opinion that phase two of the system we support it it has a major flaw it extends only to chinatown where a subway that extends all the way to the north beach fisherman's wharf would be a more efficient use of the expensive asset so we strongly support this study and look forward to working with the c, d, and a the mta as this study goes forward >> thank you. next speaker.

>> howard wong good morning. i'm a lifelong muni rider. we object to the $573 for the motion to strike for the subway study. it's been very secretly put b.a. before you. the neighborhood groups have no knowledge there was money available for the study. we urge that neighborhood organizations and transit advocates be allowed to weigh in what to study in terms of the improving transit. the central subway projects is not in the mayors transportation task force recommendation proprietor projects and for good reason. given it's ridership low new

ridership numbers and it's taking away so moved so much money from muni and the decrease of the transit in north city because of the expensive costs many people in the northeast and throughout the quadrant have opposed the center project but certainly any extension forward. san francisco's total vehicle split is already pretty bad 17 percent only on public transit much better promotions can lead to a integrated citywide system neighborhoods need to weigh in for study one hundred and 73 thousand is not a small sum if we were to study the improvements for the city projects that could be

implemented quickly and the instead of the studies that were cut >> city anyone else who wants to speak please step forward. >> i'm for the central subway and i want you to approve the funding for it. and also expanding to north beach and inform fisherman's wharf. i live on the f line it's crowded with toufrtsdz going to fisherman's wharf so this is ideal for it to go to fisherman's wharf. i find it funny with the north beach people have opted the central subway and they still come out and how far rank you guys about the subway that's wrong the subway is going to be built and we should go favorite to north beach and into fisherman's wharf. thank you

>> thank you anyone else who wants to speak. seeing none, public comment is closed. i'd like to ask if on the central subway i know we are litigating here and on the north beach folks bryce is here can litigating talk about the scope. my understanding it's going to look at 3 possible alignments and it's purely an initial study i think to the gentleman that mentioned alternatives it will look at the 3 possible alignments but other ideas for alternatives as well >> good morning, chair mar and commissioners i'm litigating the interim so far the planning at the transportation authority. on the initial study it's just that an initial study to look at what's out there and under the