part and parcel of the destine process they have the budget to design two we want to make sure they understand what we want and they, make modifications to the system. >> so as a result of the outreach we're looking for the rebidding competition with the tennis of reattorneys in may of 2014 we'll be working to create the criteria and generate as much interest as we can with the biders to get this within budget. >> the next system was the t g82. >> this is the same images the first inlsz showed the t g one

initialing it was part of the package but we changed in the middle panels there was a decision made by the a collaborative team that objective to be separate so the w-1 is at the second level sits the weighty wall that runs around the perimeter of the transit center and to describe the ironic nature of the building. this is a view of it i that you've all seen it before this is looking down north america to him street it has the prim rose perforated windows we'll should the contracts that will allow them to likewise bring the same

kinds of their own systems their own ideas to ways to e misses to the best cost effective way as possible. >> those were h.r. were not received on the bid date the budget as of july 13th was 24. million and the engineers estimate was 28 point plus millions we received no bids. >> subsequentially horrify subsequential to the bid we answered into the pre-qualified biders to find out why they didn't bid one bider decided at the last minute not san francisco bid because of the

liability of the system but was presented in the design build specific. two of the biders didn't bid the metal structure but the glass plates by not bidding the job at all. one bider didn't bid because of the prequalification process he was upset because the original biders were bidding. they expressed concerns about the complexity of it and that was the major concern not to bid as well. so as we did that the glazing system the same outreach wore the potential biders and looking at the best way to repackage that >> again, the repackaging of

the design build i talked about earlier with the design and the basic materials established we have the same kinds of performance the symmetric and wind and blast and those criteria can't be deviated it has to be built with a high-level of safety their allowed to bring their own systems and apply it to the system to make it attractive to them to bid and build. so >> so the goal is to readvertise in may of 2014 to main the schedule for the project. the third package was the t g8 bus ramps. the bus ramps i'm sure you're

aware of connect the structure to sunbather 80 west of the bay bridge that's a 2 thousand foot structure this is a portion of it over howard street. the bid date was march 6, 2014 last year the budget was 48 million plus and the engineers he estimated 42.4 to 4 million we have an estimated goal and had 7 prequalified biders they were received in a percentage of 52 to 87 million. as we received those bids last week we're currently in analysis of the bid results and will give a recommendation to the board in april. thank you

>> so the directors do you have any questions otherwise i'll - >> thank you. i have quite a few. first was that material part which what was put in the packet or posted >> no, it's part of my report it wasn't. >> it would be helpful to see there's a lot of detail and trying to look on a little screen it would be helpful to get that in advance and the public as well. i'm sure the substance i guess the question is how do we not foresee any of feel there's a pattern and part of it was over descriptive and part was complex but part of the professional services we're buying to construction review and market review and we have a lot of

folks that are vesting presumably those pathologies and it seems like one after another we're surprised by biders dropping out or really high bids. i guess i'm curious have we not caught some of those things before we went out >> i'll start in the design process. again, we had specifics requirement we had to meet and insure with the systems we were proposing could meet the requirement so even though we had characterized those design build to make sure we met the requirements. that became a number of factors it's not one factor we're

actually together with tjpa and ourselves and turner and web core we're looking at all the factors that play into why the bids have come in higher for all 4 birders we're going to mitigate that going forward with other systems. we've got a market that's exploded in the bay area in particular. we have a lot of new buildings coming online and construction activity i think one of the things that steve could speak to we've heard back from biders they're two busy when you reduce the number of bidsers on a package those that remain know they can take advantage of the situation where they have very little that competition. it is a fact of life and we're

trying to make sure we're not contributing to any of the conditions that caused those to go up >> i'll add that our 95 percent cd estimate that was the basis of the budget those bids are being compared to say over two-years old and we've completed a cd i estimate it was submitted about the same time those bids were you received. we didn't reestimate the bus systems or the concrete because we were ref bid at the same time but updating the estimate so we went back and looked at the cost q and a circulating procures web core is not surprised by by the concrete bid we're in line with

the cost that should be for the glazing systems we think there's opportunity for improvement there >> if we were at 95 percent two years ago why did it take two years to get the bid out obviously two years ago we would have been in a best position. >> it was reconciled between our teem and the web core team and that's the two year temp at that 95 percent large in the project the determination was made to go back and have a second look at the risk certain things in the thread and vulnerability realm caused us to go back and revisit the decisions we've made two

invasive before that even. the whole process of going back and we do it carefully and thoroughly we went through the security consultant of what we have today and what they recommend and what impacts those recommendations had on the building and what this would do to the cost thought that process took two years. unbeknownst to anyone we were at the bottom of the trough with the recession cycle the rest of the country slowly has been rambling up the bay area to our detriment has been taking off a a lot of competition >> it seems like the timing when we were at the 95 percent

it hurt us so the costs we talked about last year didn't even get for the two year delay to the cost of this is significantly more. it's behind us we can't do much about it at this point. the engineers estimates on some of the slides had pretty good big ranges what accounts for that why not a significantly engineer estimate >> we had a couple of schools of thought and one anticipated some impacts under the s b e participation. it was something we didn't and were not able to reconcile between web core and ourselves so what that range is accounted for quite a bit of the difference between the two engineers estimates. we showed them there was some

question about that we're actually looking into that and will be reporting back if there are and what kind of impact the s d e requirements have on the bidding. it's something in the works and process but not completed yet >> maybe in the april discussion we can better understand that. and then just so couple of on the glazing packet i think we heard about why some folks dropped out but a 3 year delay i think the slide said 2011 people were depositing out before the economy heated up do we know why people were dropping out my there were from the design standpoint when we started the glazing we had the glass panels

so you could see through them we had contractors proposing supporting structures we felt were detrimental to the overall design of the project. when we went to the metal panels we decided that in particularly in light of what's happened with the bids we noted to relax our bids that the sub structure was wasn't going to be as detrimental and we're inviting contractors back as i said that have their own unique patented systems so we're being a lot more flexible with entertaining and accepting those kinds of systems and designs. >> okay. >> just to add my understanding is that one of the 3 biders dropped out because they didn't

could not combli with the project and the proprietor systems didn't meet the design intent so that left the two biders you remaining. >> so on to the design intent you're saying i guess i'm trying to understand what would be different you're going to be having performance criteria i guess wasn't the case and here the budget how do you know that criteria can be met. >> a lot of what we're doing at this moment we're meeting with the contractors and explaining what we intended our design intent was soliciting their ideas to take into account into setting up the new packages. we're not taking a specific contractors system and putting it in but we're understanding

what their systems are and having them understand what our issues are and trying to, you know, actually just market the project to these contractors this is a good project you ought to participate we're willing to take into account your ideas and here's issue budget can we work together. they have to extensively bid and meet the criteria. the design 27b9 is something i think we'll bring back some of the ideas we're doing when their fully developed but it allows for more competition in the process and bids. you know, we're doing everything we can to get those bids in line we have 1.8 million so we

understand the bid >> are reevaluating our performance to change that or even allow biders to bid on alternates instead of this much light you'll get this much light. >> a couple of the symmetric those are code driven we're stuck with that but we are revisiting some of the rda to make sure we've begun beyond but to having a safe building it par monument we're balancing the requirements and make sure we've interpret them correctly and put those things in the new performance criteria so the

contractors can you know take advantage of the economies that are there. >> and are we also looking at the scope the glazing for example, you said is a glass coverings for the elevators e.r. escalators that are up top from the sketch the bus level had a glass enclosure although art closed at top. >> we're looking at because of the glass requirements it has to be fairly thick laminated section we're looking to change those out for lesser expensive but to main the protection for example, the rain doesn't get into the elevators. it's important to note all the

things we're evaluating have are the underlying requirement we don't create issues down the road we've got a number of panhandles that are awarded we don't want to make changes that effect those because the change order is coming no to degrade the contractors in the room by we were looking at the those unintended consequences and looking at the long-term maintenance and operation of the building we don't want to build a building okay. we got to done but it will cost so much to maintain it is a balance we're looking at all of those things into the greatest detail as possible >> okay. i guess my final question looking at steve's report and the construction

milestones it's hard to see which package lines up but many have xeroflo i don't know if this float column is days. for example, we have 35 days of float on the exterior curtain wally assume we're there before we do the rebidding which will exceed 35 days of interiors to 35 days of float. i'm not suggesting we shouldn't we bid but how do we recover the schedule because based on those new bid days we'll be in the negative >> we'll rescheduled to determine how much time for redesign and bidding and not

delay the project. based on our face track effort with the design team to get those on the street we've made jachlt that won't result in the delay of the project. there are other by simplifying the design is reduced the amount of time of the fabricating and construction but there are other things that are being looked like the procurement and installation as well >> so at some point will we see a revised this is january 27th will there be a revised schedule. >> yeah. the schedule will be updated in the next month. i imagine the most end update for april will reflect those changes and we're certain we have the time to rebid it so

long as we rebid it >> okay. thank you. >> any questions? >> i appreciate your line of questioning. director reiskin and i know you've imagined capital projects. this is a complicated project made more complicated by the rda and we're in a very bad bidding environmentalist is there anything else you think we should be thinking about doing >> i think if you look at the escalation charts and if you look at the skyline things wouldn't change but the quicker we can get the paged out to get the bid the better.

we have quite a bit many, many panhandles to go after those 4 we were talking about and if we can learn lessons and be clean and not to directive. other than the scope issues we don't have 80 time to redevelop the whole building but give alternates in the bids that will hope to stay within the budget later today, we will be asked to draw down reserves but this will go quickly before we're into the beautiful construction. >> that's a concern. >> getting things out face to bid is important. >> is there a question.

is there anything we can do to clear the way for you to try new things? or do you have what you need >> i think we have what we need we have clear direction from marie and the rest of the tjpa staff we have the budget we need and we have to do what we have to do it's a balance of performance criteria the maintenance, the budget. we'll get there. we're in reenforcing april 1st we're delivering a hundred percent cd e panhandle and additional cost savings things we'll issue after the april 1st so we're very much in favor of getting this out into the market

as quickly as possible. so i don't see the changing in the next few years >> will there be a estimate accompanying the cd e. >> would you repeat and will there be a new cost estimate. >> we have a revised cost estimate that was submitted in january yes. >> that's what we'll be presenting next month. >> i have - i want to echo a couple of the things that ed was saying. i think definitely as you breakdown the packages and you're going to put out budgets, you know, it's going to be all the more critical your cost estimating be very good otherwise your self-daef you're

going to say that's too high and that's two low we have to show real expertise. you should have heard revisiting the rda be won't be objectionable. the thing on the glazing when there was a glazing was talked about not wanting to take on design liability and we're still throwing those things out in a design build way. now is that going to continue to be a problem because i prime paling will i park and paling will i are still the design of record and all things will be reviewed by them and say that's

a sdpien that's okay they're the design of record i don't understand why the concern >> i think the concern for the contractors was although it was described as a design build they were giving a design they were to build and they were being asked to take responsibility for the liability of this design. we're saying our design intent is to, you know, build a building here that meets the criteria but if you design our own system and detail you urn system and design the bid for our system we have to have that bid where we need to be. they have on their staff typically engineers and all that who have engineered their own

system they take the liability that that system works and we review them but they have the responsibility and liability for that the system they've designed and jergd themselves. it's a fine line distinction >> you guys gave us a bid you designed and i want us to be responsible for it created anxiety. >> so you're going to be sending out less detailed packages so then at that point the design liability will be more likely in terms of they say - >> they'll take it on with their own system that's a prove that system in the market. if they can't take it on they shouldn't be bidding >> well, you, you know, those

things don't perform everybody is brought in and someone who's overarching can say don't worry about we're fully on the hook anyway and sometimes donates the project architect they're saying we're in the game maids. the other things i didn't since this is design build you've got issues with respect to supply and installation. i can see where installation is a local problem everybody's got work that's your problem but is it possible in some packages you can save so much ongoing to a supplier from the midwest or

whatever who meets the criteria and an installer here and maybe be able to rather than say you go are going to supply and install that that case wherever the supplier is they'll have to interact to a supplier who has plenty of work that maybe something that you can do somehow and figuring out whose - who is able to install it and who's on the job likes we talked about before. because of that preexistence in relationship they're able to say i can look at the document and bid it more