>> this is -- let me -- at the may meeting presented a mitigation plan that would allow us to fund construction of the transit center by phasing the park and utilizing the contingency reserves, $60 million from the reserves, $30 million from the construction contingency to mitigate the difference between our budget and the estimate we received in february 2014. since that -- with the trade package we presented today this is a summary of what the estimate is -- i'm sorry. this is a summary what the estimate

is and what the bids presented to the board. it shows that the roof top crane is 2.4 $8 million [inaudible] estimates. the temporary facilities $1 million below and elevates 2.9 seven and escalators -- [inaudible] and the mitigation is $2.5 million over what we anticipated at this point. the chart that we shared with you. this is a chart that we shared with you as sth of mitigation if we stay on average within the estimate. it shows that the remaining reserves would be $15 million --

[inaudible] and the remaining construction contingency which is addition to the construction contingency and the [inaudible] would be $72 million, 72 and a fraction so right now we're off target by 2.5 million dollars. the assumption is if we're within the estimates on the award of the project we would have $50 million in reserves left and $72 million in construction contingency left. >> so if i may? i guess so you're looking first of all at the sum of the value of the five packages relative to the estimate, but if you look relative to the budget and we're working from an approved budget from last year this is -- these are 50% higher than the budget. >> yeah.

>> so that's just one concern that the budget for these items is in the low 30's and the sum of the items is somewhere around 50 million so we're off considerably there. in may i think there was 300 something million worth of work still to be bid and these five packages represent about 10% of that work. we're using about a quarter of the program reserves just on these relatively small items and it's really the big ones that are coming in october so it seems that -- it doesn't seem to me this we're just 2 million off of the may plan. it seems now we're on a trajector. if the mmp come in as high as these have relative to budget that we're going to be already far beyond our current or the mitigation plan that you

reviewed in may and we still have three years of construction left so we're not accounting for any or minimal accounting for unforeseen conditions or the real construction contingencies so i -- i don't know if there is a question there and maybe you can tell me if my observation is not right. >> does this slide that i see shows on your -- this is the slide i presented in may. it shows compared to the budget the estimate is $134 million above in direct costs and $153 million in total costs and the mitigation plan presented to you mitigated to [inaudible]. it did assume -- the plan assumes that the bids will come in on average with the estimates. obviously that hasn't happened yet and the market continues to

be very competitive and we haven't receiving the amount of bidders. we pre-qualified quite a amount of bidders but this plan is contingent of getting three-four bids to get a competitive value. the three or the five trade packages, the middle stairs and elevators and escalators and elevators one bidder, and escalators one bidder and middle stairs two bidders so we have realize the true value of the packages if we had three or four more bidders. you mentioned the risk. there is quite a bit of risk moving forward because the market continues to be hot and we don't know if we're able to get the number of bidders we need for them to be within the estimate but whatever we presented in may was based on that estimate that was completed in february.

>> so the fact that we're only 2 million off from the csmc estimate from the 50 million work -- i guess you're suggesting is reasonably assuring in terms of if that same percentage overage comes in for the balance we would still be somewhere within the margin of what this mitigation plan anticipated. >> i didn't say only 2.5 million dollars. it's quite a bit of money and it's 10% of the work and that is quite a bit but the basis of the plan was for the bids -- >> on a percentage basis -- >> i agree. >> so it's 5% off of the plan. although the mitigation plan we now understand includes deferring the rooftop park so if we bring that back into the fold we have less to deal with. >> absolutely. >> we wouldn't bring that back unless we identify new funding for it. i think the team is

doing a herculean job of staying on schedule. we're still on schedule. they're doing a incredible job mit gagging in this environment. i think the board can be helpful and when applying for grants and with tiger and go to oregon and washington and discover new years for gr -- and i ask for assistance in tiger and supporting us there and any other grants that we apply for because it's going to be needed. >> i want to clarify the approved budget from last year includes the rooftop park so as far as i am concerned the board

hasn't taken action to take that out of the budget so i think staff has to come back with a revised budget or scope -- >> absolutely. we need a revised budget to add the elements that we need but in order to keep the project moving we presented a mitigation plan in may and we awarded half of the park infrastructure to date so it's want like we're not building the park and yes we would come back with a plan and a solution. we are working with the mayor's office on that and it would require board approval. >> just to confirm the mitigation in may was an informational item. >> yes it was. >> we didn't take action on it so the board didn't talk about taking that out. >> it was an information item. that's correct. >> i guess one request is with the board's concurrence continue to ask board to continue to

look for other scope reductions. i know you did a lot of analysis but i think given the trajector we're on we should continue to look -- >> i will tell you we are continuing to look but is there is no where else to go but removing walls and ceilings. we have done about everything that we can do and don't want to have false expectations here and we will brief director nuru on that soon. >> i'm sorry director i didn't know if you finished your question. before we go director harper has some questions and comments. >> yeah, the idea of the six packages we're 2.5 million off is not what bothers me. with each one the variation was substantial. in one there was a

50% differential between the estimate and the cost and that is something -- even though they evened out by the time we got to the bottom we still have major misestimates on each one high and low and they started canceling and the management has to start looking at this and start asking why is that that in march we can't figure out what's going to be bid in june. >> the assumption -- >> may i interrupt for a second. it would be helpful if staff can wait before they respond and not interrupt. >> i'm sorry. >> he just interrupted. >> the estimate was based on us getting three-four bidders or more. if you look at the middle stairs issued it in january we

received one bid. we rejected the bid. it came in tripled estimate. rejected the bid. we did additional outreach. we increased the pre-qualified bidders and opened it up and only received two bids so we're not getting the bids that we need to be able to estimate accurately . the elevators, we received one bid each. the board allowed approval to negotiate with each bidder and reduced the price but dealing with one bidder we don't have the luxury of having three-four bids. for us to realize the competitiveness of the bidding environment we need to get three or four bidders. you get one or two bids there is a margin of 10, 20, 30% above what the package should cost. >>i will note that the biggest contract here is the temporary

facilities and there was only one bidder i believe and that recommended award is less than the estimate. >> yeah. this is a timing materials contract. >> director sartipi. >> if the highest risk is the number of bidders what do -- when we interview the contractors that picked up the package what is their responses to why they're not bidding? is it not value? is it difficult? is it complex? or they're busy someplace else? >> they're saying they're busy someplace else but let me bring in webcore. they directly talk to the contractors. i could use a life line here. >> so mostly it is the fact they have other opportunities in the market place elsewhere that they find more attractive. for

example, the metal stairs we had nine pre-qualified bidders and the first time we only had one, and that was significantly above the budget, and we looked at -- we explored options. could we add that scope to the steel package or the below concrete package. that didn't work. we reelected to rebid it and reached out and received two bids. actually the results are in my opinion not entirely unsatisfactory. it is primarily the bidders have other opportunities in the market place. we have done everything we can do to make this project as attractive to bid as possible. we're doing extensive outreach efforts with the bidders during the prequalification period and the bid period that we have a good list and comfortable working with us if they don't know us and view trans bay as an

attractive project. we have been doing other things in conjunction with tjpa. the payment cycle has improved in the last months. we're trying to get that word out to the market place. we want this to be an attractive project for the subcontractors and we're working hard to make that happen but again i think the fact is some other project -- there's a lot of projects in the marketplace that the subcontractors have an opportunity to propose on and many times they find others more attractive. >> director harper. >> yeah, i think what interests me in your evaluation or the team's evaluation is this going to continue and for how long, this really tough market? i know just within san francisco there's a lot of -- that's me. sorry. i have to kill that. we have mission bay. we have our own things going on. there's a

lot happening and i kind of want a feel is this going to end soon or just be throughout the duration of the project? >> i don't think we really know the answer to that question until we receive the bids on bid day. again we're doing everything we can to attract the right bidders and the right number of bidders and we don't know the results until then. >> yeah. but i mean isn't there a way -- we know what is happening in san francisco; right? we should have a good grasp on that and i presume just right here there is our main competition for subcontractors and i am not being -- i'm not that familiar with what's coming online from hunter's point and everything that is happening in san francisco so i would just like to get a feel from the staff just to looking here is this something that is going to change because we're coming out of the ground now and that's an advantage, so are we lapped

ahead of all the other projects so now they're looking for people we're done with dealing, or is it something that all these successes finishing ups we're going to be in the same situation? i have no idea what the answer to that question is. >> the market is very, very busy and there are many competing projects outside of san francisco include silicon valley, some large projects there we're competing for the same subcontractors on. >> we're doing all of our bidding -- the bulk in the next 12 months. i don't think there is any reason to see from what we're seeing this situation is going to change. >> all right. >> that's true. >> any other questions? >> i have a suggestion, in addition to coming back with possible scope reduction ideas and i think it would be good to have the designer here for that

discussion maybe following director sartipi's question it would be good to come back and get a report are on the implementation sailor report recommendations to improve the bidding environment. i think we got a snapshot of that but i recall they had a pretty good list and interest in that to see that report. >> yeah, we can do that and fred is here, the designer, and he can speak to but there is no place to reduce scope to do that and we're a buy america project and given the heated market so i don't want to provide any fuls expectations here but there anyplace we could reduce that kind of money. we have to get the station built and i think the board can be helpful to me and help identify new funding grants and sources for the

project. >> thank you. >> no i'm sorry. are there other directors because i had questions? director nuru. >> i sent questions to staff regarding the bidding and the packages and what type of penalties we might be facing as a result of these bids, so i'm told next week i will get that so start looking into those packages and maybe getting a better sense of what is coming down the line. >> just a couple of things. i was going to touch on what director reiskin said. we have two board meetings where we talked about the consultant evaluation how to make our bid packages more attractive so i know that is a discussion point. i know the market is incredibly heated. unless the economy drops i know there tons of project in san francisco and

this part of san francisco that will continue to bid in this market so i think the question is if our bids are attractive and contractors are saying that there aren't issues with the contracts why are they choosinglet other projects to bid on? you can say there are a lot of projects out in the market but it doesn't explain at the end of the day they are bidding on other projects and not the terminal and i think there has to be a level of honesty in the discussions even amongst ourselves to get additional bidders into the market and again this isn't my area of expertise construction but i am that community a lot and i hear talk about why our project is a little more difficult to work with, so at this point i feel there has to be a level of honesty among one another and keep this project on budget. i also want to

reiterate what director reiskin said we have approved an augmented budget which includes the entire park scope and my -- the direction i would like to move in is stay within the budget and the park as part of the project. we can talk about grants and the mello roos but ultimately we're talking about phase two which is the important aspect of this project, the terminal needs and the [inaudible] to be a transit hub for the region and as much as possible fix the problems today by taking away tomorrow but that's not exciting to me and going to dc and competing for other projects in the reason and it's a hard pill to swallow and i think we need to reduce the scope and budget so we can complete the project in the budget we approved last year.

>> okay. all right. and now i would like to ask our next presenter dennis to briefly present the pla. >> good morning directors. second quarter labor project agreement report. i will go through administration labor updates, progress on the students, veterans and adults and ends with the apprentice reporting trends. administration we had our tenth meeting with the joint administrative committee on may 15. went through construction progress of upcoming trends and the veterans programs. regarding the labor. there was no work stoppage or labor incidences that affected progress. on june 18 there was impact from the iron workers but no impact to us and we had a strong and decisive response from the iron workers and also

michael o tearo and dennis meek an and we are are a pla project not to be touched so it was a good test to show there was complete unity on the project then. skilled labor needs have been met and steve reports from monthlies we had four recordables from the last summer. summer interns are behind us. i am excited to work with them this summer and to show them what we do. regarding progress on veterans. our subs are diving into how they can recruit out to veterans and anvil builders and others and have been a strong advocate bringing veterans to the project. also each of the labor unions have been trying to strongly recruit as well and of

course webcor is outreaching to veterans as they get on base too. anyway possible to get the word out. progress today with the adults. the unions -- basically mike mckenna and peter with the unions and the apprenticeships and they're ramping them up to meet the need and joseph scott with the laborers and we heard the same thing and they're looking for more people and michael o tear i don't reported they're happy with the core curriculum program is starting this fall at john mcconnell. our apprenticeship craft hours. we're above our goal and at 19% with the majority at 34% coming from san

francisco and the rest with the east bay coming following up. we have our trend graph that we show here where laborers we have been down a little bit in the last months and with the sub trade package we have broad it to their attention and getting the numbers up and the operator apprenticeships have been going well and exceeded the goals so with that moots my report. any questions? >> any questions directors? thank you. and we have craig boyer if you have questions on the quarterly financial report. >> any questions? there are none. thank you. >> great and finally there are just two last items. i am pleased to report that the amendment that you approved in

may was approved and that is good news. you know it recognizes the formation of the community facilities district and authorization to sell cfd bonds and funding for the project. you will recall the amendment allows to pursue bridge financing and we're in the organization stages and working with gold man sac i will bring you that information and our community meeting on the 16th on mission and our community meetings are held the third wednesday of every month and that concludes my report. >> thank you and i also just want to thank all of our summer interns that came to join us today at our board of directors meeting. it's really great to meet you individually and hear about what you're learning in summer internship. it's great to know that we have san francisco natives that are part of building the new skyline and i hope many of you go into the

work of continuing to build the city. it's just very exciting to see you all here so welcome again so seeing nothing else for item five we will move on to item six public comment. >> item six is an opportunity to address you on items not on the agenda. [calling speaker names] >> good morning directors and executive director kaplan. i am ht tran and work with anvil builders and a minority owned business in the bay view district i want to thank you for the opportunities you made available to my company and for me a disabled veteran of the iraqi war. i want to stress how important it is to engage veterans and business owners. we are grateful for the transit center projects. we were

awarded a nine proint $2 million contract and hoist for the project and we pursued this project and built with other veterans at the outreach events of the tjpa. as an entrepreneur and veteran i can't tell you how important to get a meaningful opportunity for this project of this caliber. we grew from 10 employees to 50 now and we have other competitive contracts that we experienced here in the city and county of san francisco meeting with other contractors large and small who are becoming our teammates and clients and i want to mention webcor/obayashi and turner construction have been incredible mentors to our firm. working with this program has help us overcome the challenge of working on large and complex projects and we were able to hire additional veterans to work in office of economic and workforce development and

on the trances bay project. >> >> so i want to know the tjpa is making a difference to real people to veterans looking to serve the country in a new and meaningful way. i want to thank director kaplan because without your commitment to this project we wouldn't have grown as much. i hope other agencies in san francisco will follow her lead and support veterans in our community. >> thank you. thank you for attending our meeting. [inaudible] lawrence. >> ladies and gentlemen of the audience and commissioners, chair kim and maria ayerdi-kaplan good morning. i

am mr. lawrence and been in the city and county of san francisco for 45 years. i have been a taxi driver for the last 16 years in the city. i am not here to disrupt the meeting or so-called financial issues but i am here to present facts that in five observations at this commission that i have noticed there isn't one discussion of the taxi issues. number one is this is that over the past four years the sfmta has taken over the taxi commission and we have chaos today. anybody that wants to get into the car can be a taxi driver and go up to the new terminal and pick up passengers. if you look around the area and the hotels and taxi planning never took place. the only

place i see it in the city and county is sfo and partially in the embarcadero but not completely. i consider this trans bay project equivalent to the embarcadero center, one, two, three and basically where you have no taxi plan whatsoever. two, is briefly i make this statement because i have applied for the taxi director position four times in 10 years and -- [inaudible] to this commission but you're talking about kronism is taking over the sfmta. mr. reiskin can ask you about cost over returns as he triples the prices for taxi drivers in this city and we don't have a level playing field. i come also as a veteran and not hard hat vets or working