of the contractors and developers do look at small business participation as one of the deciding factors in awarding their contracts and they work closely with the ocii staff to really make that effort to achieve that 50% goal. along with the good faith outreach is requiring developers and contractors, again, to ensure that the opportunities known. what that means is not only advertising direct contact with the businesses, but also conducting prebids and presubmittal meetings at least 30 days in advance. the intent here is to ensure that a small business knows that there is a contracting opportunity, there's sufficient time for him or her to respond to that. so again, we make every effort to work the developers within those timeframes. a little bit more about the small business program, is the fact that i mentioned the 50%

overall goal. it is overall, it should be known that the goal may be adjusted on a contract by contract basis, based on the availability of small businesses. a perfect example is where if there's hypothetically a contract, let's say for power driving, say it's 10% pile driving, we know the number of available small firms to perform that type of work is not going to be at a level of 50%. that's an extreme case where we'd make adjustments. it should believe known that for the past two years that was looked at in terms of the work activity, no a justments to the overall goal has been made. as i mentioned, the program is unique in the sense that it calls for private developers to implement the program and it's implemented on agency assisted

contracts, along with the development disposition agreements, land disposition agreements, owner participation agreements, so maybe, you know, a wide range of contracts basically contracts that are assisted by us, as well as direct contracts that we put out as well. there is a first consideration that is made where the project area sbes are given priority first. secondarily we look at san francisco based businesses. if there is no project area business that can perform the business at competitive rates and we go outside of that if there's no local business that can provide the requested services. a little bit about the san francisco lbe program and how it contrasts with ocii. of course, through city ordinance chapter 14b, there is

a local business enterprise program, which is an evolution also of their minority business program. it does differ with the ocii in the sense that san francisco looks at different levels of contracting opportunities to try to be as broad and encompassing as possible, so what they look at are direct contracting opportunities with prime dbes where they offer bid discounts and also do microsmall business set asides. in the areas of sub contracting opportunities, what the city looks at is establishing sub contracting goals and those goals are set on a contract by contract basis. again, based on the availability, so the premise here is if there's no available dbe -- lbes, then a goal of even 10% would be meaningless

because there's just not that availability. while the contract monitoring division with the city, those work with city agencies to establish goals and again, it fluctuates contract to contract. the city also defines in its effort to look at all possible contracts, they define them at three different levels. they look at formal contracts which are contracts that exceed a certain threshold. for construction it's graded in 400,000. for other services and products, professional services as an example, it's $100,000. under those basis they do set lbe sub contracting goals for formal contracts. they look at informal contracts, those that don't require formal advertisement

for competitive bidding, and informal contract and what's unique here is that if the dollar amount is less than 50% of 400,000 in construction, the awarding agency can award the contract with three lbe bids so they go out and get lbes and they can award it strictly on that basis without formal advertising and competitive bidding. they also set aside contracts for micro lbes as well. they also offer big discounts so if there's a small business firm that bids on a contract their bid can be adjusted by up to 10%. what that means is that for bid evaluation purposes, the awarding agency or the department would lower the

small business bid by 10% of the lowest non sbe bid and they would evaluate the bids on that basis, but they would award the contract at the original bid price so that's an incentive for an awarding agency to utilize an lbe. of course the ocii outline does not have that policy in place. what's also different about the city program as compared to ocii is the way small businesses and lbes are defined. the ocii it's simply defined as a construction firm who's three year annual gross revenues is below 14 million for professional services, 2 million; for supply it's 7 million. for the city, again, they look at a much broader and more -- how will i say -- more defined

classifications. so they would define and lbe and three size classifications, one for micro, one for small and one for sba with different levels of varying revenues. they also look at shown on this screen their micro business is at a $7 million level and the small business classification is at a 14. and then they also look at sba. that's the small business association, where they define small businesses based on the industry a firm is in. under general construction, sba defines a small business as $33.5 million for the year average. the difference between ocii and the city of san francisco, you should note that for

professional services and architects and engineers there is a difference. in general ocii has followed the city's small definition for construction and suppliers, but in the area of professional services it does differ. ocii is 2 million, as opposed to the city at 2.5. because of our past practice of conforming to the city, the commission may want to consider amending the policy to conform to the 2.5 and we can have a discussion about that if that's warranted. so because of those differences it makes comparing performance on an apple to apple basis difficult because of size differences, discounts, things of that nature. what i've provided up here for you is an overall summary of

ocii business performance. essentially for projects that were active as of january, 2013, so what we looked at was all projects on our books as being active as of that date and went back and gathered the information, both for design professional services, as well as the construction that was taking place. with the numbers up here, represent all projects that were active in the dollar amounts that were associated with those particular projects. so shown are professional services, along with construction and supplies. in the center column is the sbe dollars that were awarded to firms within the classifications, professional and construction. about 35% of ocii's awards went

to small businesses, out of roughly $1.2 billion in projects. i mentioned earlier that it's difficult to make a direct apple to apple comparison with city agencies, but i'll provide you some statistics in terms of what has been reported. the contract monitoring division has recently published their reports for fiscal year 2012 and 2013 and under that basis they reported 413 million in contract awards, of which 243 million were to lbes, or roughly #59d%. 59%, but that is limited to what they consider to be five of the largest awarding departments within the city. there are many others not captured within these figures.

they also qualified the statement by looking at specifically 14b covered contracts, so 14b are those that are funded by the city directly. so in terms of the departments that were reported, they were the san francisco international airport, the department of public works, the port of san francisco, the public utilities commission and the recs and parks department in san francisco and their performance really range from 26% with the san francisco airport, to 89% lbes with the department of public works. it does vary. i mentioned that not all city departments are included in that cmd report, that is the case with san francisco, municipal transportation for example. apparently they report separately and directly to the board of supervisors so they publish a separate report, not

through cmd, but directly to the board of supervisors. i've recently found their report and as of march 22, 2014, they've released a report -- again, this makes a comparison difficult because their report was for january 1, 2012, to december 31, 2013, so where cmd looks at the city fiscal period, san francisco mta reported for a two year duration. anyway, they reported an overall lbe award of 22% against roughly 152 million that was awarded and approximately 33.6 going to lbes. we have not yet been successful in looking at figures from the mayor's office of housing and community development.

we feel that is probably the most comparable in terms of the types of projects that are in relations to ocii. again, the summary here is that it is difficult to draw a comparison. i have to say that the ocii performance of 35%, while below the 50%, is pretty satisfactory overall. i want to give you some statistics on a project by project area basis. what's shown on the screen now is the breakdown of sbe percentages by region or by area. so for bay view hunters point, those really consist of low income housing. the professional services had a sbe rate of 59%.

construction at roughly 59%. ly 49%. so overall about 50% in the area. and the hunters point shipyard, candle stick point, the professional services is extremely well on that basis. on construction at 42% and overall at about 56%. for mission bay -- i won't go through each of the numbers, but overall it's 29%; transbay is 38, and for others -- others are really lingering projects with [inaudible] being a center as example, recon at 28.8%. i want to mention in the bay view hunters point area, that roughly 30.4 million was awarded to local area businesses. this comprises approximately 24% of the sbe awards in the area.

when i say local area businesses, it's those that are within predominantly three of the zip codes that we focus on. in looking at a slightly different in terms of by project phases, there's at least some good trends that i can see. what's shown on the screen currently is the breakdown of percentages for completed projects and projects that are in construction or in design. for the completed projects in the bay view hunters point area -- and i'll skip the details of professional service and construction, but overall at 56%, hunters point at 54%, transbay at 42 [inaudible] for projects currently in construction and in design, there's an upward trend that i

want to note. for bay view hunters point it's [inaudible] why is that lower. i want to caution with hunters point, many of the projects just began so in the 2013 period there were very limited small dollar amounts. in fact, i can tell you specifically what the project that was completed, it was the welcome center. so -- but more importantly, in hunters point shipyard, currently construction and design, those identify with blocks 50, 51, 53 and 54, $99 million were at a upward trend in that basis for professional services and construction services of course, is still ongoing. mission bay, it's at 31%, upward trend from 22, transbay at 37 and others with 27. there is areas for improvement.

we have identified specific construction projects that lend itself for additional sbe participation. again, many of these projects, such as mission bay block 41 and 12 are somewhat early in their construction stage and i can assure you that both george and i will be looking at these very carefully. stepping aside briefly on work force programs. for ocii of course, we've always had -- i can't say always, but we've long had a program where we call for hiring of residents of san francisco at a 50% level. we look at good faith efforts to employ san francisco residents. and these are really

negotiating on a contract by contract basis. again, with private developers. for the hunters point shipyard priority is given to resident area residents. and we have three large major phases that are currently being monitored, that being the hunters point shipyard, mission bay and transbay. in march 2014 we entered into an agreement with economic and work force development to administer the work force compliance program. for the city of san francisco, the board of supervisors enacted a local hiring ordinance in 2010 and that calls for a mandatory employment of san francisco residents, initiated a 20% level and gradually increasing 5% annually up to the 50% level.

it should be noted that currently it's at 30%, while it should be at 35, pending addition of review of statistics. the city also has a [inaudible] harming program where good faith is looked at in terms of hiring san francisco residents at a 50% level for new positions and both of those programs are administered by oewd. i think one of the benefits of entering into an agreement with oewd is getting behind the efforts rather than creating separate referral systems and so forth, we can build on oew's successes in terms of academy, and the referral process. in terms of work force comparison in particular, and that's what we looked at for this report, construction work forces, what i've put up on the

screen is briefly comparison of the ocii program and the city of san francisco's construction work force program. the payment of prevailing wage, as i mentioned, is unique and [inaudible] in the sense that many of ocii's projects are not publicly funded, per se. they're private projects, but we do require developers to employ prevailing wage requirements. with the city of san francisco those are public contracts and by definition, those projects are subject to prevailing wage. we have a work force requirement that cost an overall 50% work force hiring of san francisco residents, city of san francisco of course has a graduated system of 20 to 50%. but again, what's unique with us is that there is a first consideration for project area residents and we make every effort to work with the

contractors to address that specific purpose. for san francisco in terms of statistics, oew did release the report for the march 2014 period. what's shown on the screen however, is a aggregate of all figures of hours for the three years that the program has been in existence. so rather than provide the details that the oew report provide, what we did was aggregate . for ocii we're currently

running at 33.5% and when i say running, again, i want to preface that by saying those are for projects active as of january 1, 2013 and have either closed or are currently pending, or currently still in construction. on area by area basis with the bay view hunters point, the employment of local residents is 46%, hunters point shipyard at 40%, mission bay at 30% and the other areas at 28. i want to say the utilization rate for projects that is currently in construction at the bay view hunters point is currently running at 51.3% so the contracts that are currently construction in bay view hunters point is a rate of 51.3% of san francisco

residents. i want to say that approximately 1/3 of that work is being performed by area residents, those residing within the zip codes of 92104, 107. so we're currently running at 51% in the bay view hunters point area, with one-third of that being local residents. the other project areas in mission bay, transbay and other areas are currently running at about 30% with projects currently in construction and of course, we're continuing to monitor that as those construction projects progress. i do want to note that the presentation for work force is somewhat brief. we did enter an agreement with oew on march 4 and because of that recent relationship we'll come back before you with a

more extensive work force report at a later date. that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> great. thank you very much. any public comment on this item? >> i have no speaker cards . >> thank you. any public comment? thank you very much. commissioner rosales, take it away. >> well, this is a great report. thank you so much for your individual and george's individual and everyone else's collective effort. this is a ton of information here. i just wanted to ask a couple of kind of, if you will, overarching questions so i frame it in my mind correctly. when we report on our sbe programs, just want to be sure that i understand and everyone understands that we say sbe for the agency and this commission, we're talking beyond a reasonable doubt san francisco, right? >> that is correct.

>> san francisco, right? >> that is correct. >> part of the definition for sbe in our program calls for even [inaudible] so it could conceivably be an out of state firm as well, but i have to say that the majority of the firms are local within the bay area that's been reported. >> okay. so when comparing our data with san francisco's data and san francisco is reporting on their local business program, it is a little bit of apples to oranges comparison because they're reporting on san francisco based firms and we're reporting on sbe firms that are inclusive of san francisco citizens, but not exclusive. >> that is correct. and in the attachment what we

attempted to do was break out specifically those awards to san francisco based sbes. >> mm-hm. >> and you'll find that in your attachment a. >> i -- notwithstanding that distinction, it sounds like [inaudible]. [laughter] if we're doing this as a report card, there's [inaudible]. >> i had a brief conversation with one of the staff members. they're familiar with the process. with other areas such as mission bay, transbay, there are multiple different types of developers so there's an educational process that we have to go through and some of the emphasis might have been

lost, i guess, in some sense because of the learning curve that's required to try to get them on board. so i would agree with you, a developer in that area is very familiar with our program and has been very cooperative. >> i would add there are additional resources we've negotiated through the phase one and two dda that we've put upon that master developer, lena, the construction assistance office, the technical resources on bidding, bid software, all of that is available in the southeast. and then the leveraging as mr. lee indicated, with oew and the additional city resources that are brought to bear in district 10. going back to your first question, commissioner rosales in terms of comparing ocii programs with the city from an sbe point of view, that first

consideration to project area, district 10 is impacted so when mr. lee presented data on bay view hunters point, it's actually ocii facilitated projects, [inaudible] gardens, the grand opening on friday, hunters view and other elements you see in bay view and hunters point where there has been a particular focus in terms of dollars, staff and resources, not just of this commission, but city ride resources. not to say there hasn't been a focus as in intense in the other areas, but i think the key distinction stems back from the purpose of redevelopment, i mean, no one lived in mission bay proper. it was fill. no one lives on the state parcels so it seems appropriate, given that it's embedded and impacted community that there would be a deal of focus. >> and i should note that from my understanding of the city's

local business demographic analysis in terms of where local businesses are concentrated, bay view hunters point happens to be an area where local businesses are headquartered, essentially. so there's capacity and availability there. >> particularly within the construction field when you have to store equipment, as an example, it's rather expensive e elsewhere. and it's expensive never theless within san francisco itself, but that's correct, yes. >> you know, i'll stop asking questions and others can ask, but i wanted to make sure when gathering or capturing data, that it's not just at the award stage, but also at the payment stage. are we tracking it in that fashion, not just when contracts are awarded to sbes, but they're actually performing the work, scope at the

conclusion of a project that we're verifying that the dollars have actually been awarded. the report that you have currently are awarded data. we are making efforts to track payment data currently with elations and other types of shows we're looking at. >> that was the only other question i had immediately is what is our technology? because some of the reports, this one in particular from local hiring policy for construction, i was shocked at how in depth it was. very data driven by ethnicity, by the departments. it sounds like they use elations. >> that's correct, yes. >> but this is of course on if labor side, but on the business side, does elations have that technology that allows us to track payments. >> elations does have the payment side to it as well. currently ocii does not subscribe to that interface,