status. >> and miss fong mentioned of the non-lbes you have contacts in san francisco and could you explain what those kinds of contacts are, like a presence in san francisco? >> the contract requires that all bidders have an actual physical presence in the city in terms of an office as well as show room capability and assembly and etc.. and so, the natural consequence of that is that it benefits employment. for the city in terms of the actual staff for those offices is generally going to be living in staoet and in our store, every single one of our 20-plus employees is a resident of the city and the sales tax implications. >> thank you. >> okay, thanks very much. >> anybody else from the public wish to comment on item three?

>> please come on up and if there are any other folks, line up against the far wall and we can take you in order. >> good morning, supervisors my name is sandesh and i am a principal at sfp data and we are part of the joint venture with corner store and we teamed with them and a handful of lbe contractors, for the larger tier one a and level work because we want our business to grow and oca, had deemed us qualified to handle this work. and there is a few things that i want to make sure that i touch over with you guys. through this process, that this is, there is a pool of firms that are being selected to be allowed to compete in the technology market place. and via the open purpose orders and this is a contact for award

for the specific jobs that you guys are that you have in front of you today. a couple of things that you guys have brought up previously is that i want to make sure to address, is the very structure of this procurement in the 18-year-old lbe ordinance, placed our team at a significant competitive disadvantage in three respects, the contract over $10 million, the process does not award lbe firms like us bonus points. we received no bonus points and as a result, we were not an attractive partner to two of the larger firms that issued contracts. and we approached them, and because we are not large enough to because we are large enough to compete as a prime contractor, we are not attractive to them as a partner, that we may pose a threat to them. so, it is hard to see how we can get a fair shake as an lbe.

and there is one more thing that i would really like to make sure that i point out, but did not make sense to me is part and parcel of the over all rfp and appendix g, in the technology market place, it allowed for a special class of lbe to earn, two percent bonus points, while we were allowed zero. and i don't understand, why the process would include a preference bonus for larger lbes and when smaller lbes like corner stone don't get a preference, and so, just in conclusion, what we would like to ask for is just to be allowed to compete for jobs in san francisco. and without procurement rules and thresholds that hurt us rather than help us, thank you for your consideration. >> thank you, next speaker please? >> good morning, supervisors my name is wane perry and i formed

corner store in san francisco and all of the employees are here and so i am happy to be here as the only lbe prime cap able of going after tier one contract although it was not intent the process is a little unfair and it does not make any sense for larger sba, lbe firms to receive preference points when assembling their teams but as a smaller lbe within the lbe ordinance, 14 b, we don't get any preference points. so, the result is that when as i, or as the managing partner of our joint venture, when i go out to put together a competitive team with some of these larger firms, and some of them outside of the city, they come to us and they say, well we go to them and they say to us, well, you don't bring anything to us and we say that we have eleven years with this experience with this contract. but you don't bring me points,

no we don't bring points, do you fall in the category of a larger firm, no we are too small for that, well we can't use you, we have contracts like the city of san francisco, all over the world and we will wow them with what they are able to do and we don't need your local experience. that effectively is the impact to us and i know that there are changes under way, for 14 b that will help this, but it does not help us right now. i am not here to bash oca or the process, i think that the process is not perfect, but it is what it is and so i am not here to address that issue, i am also not here to ask that you, you know, don't award the contracts to some of the other firms. and i am also asking that you don't reject the whole process, i am just asking that you consider allowing us to participate in the contracts process. and all lbes in this room, all that we want to do is to be able to compete at level one and we don't want to relegate

it to tier two and three, and the reality is that without those bonus points, we don't have the capability of being attractive to those other firms as the partner said, the two solutions are that we recommend that since there are 14 b, ordinance changes under way, we recommend that we either wait until all of those changes are made in 14 b and then consider the process, or two, that the city, consider using the language that was in the rfp that allows them at that discretion to add firms like ours and finally we would just like to request that we be able to this direct oca or the staff are the supervisors would do this to immediately use that language to go out to create another tier one a category so that we can have a chance to compete. we can't go back in the past to fix a program and that we were not able to get the points in

the beginning and we would like to treat it and disadvantaged i would like to say. >> thank you very much. >> any other member of the public wish to comment? >> working with corner store, and i think that there is a point that is getting muddled and i would like to highlight it, we are hearing from the city staff, that there is no 14 b does not allow any preference points whatsoever for tier one folks and in the ifp there is a two percent reverence and in that 4 tier and the preference given to a different category and you can't say that it is possible that we didn't give it to you and you are treating them differently in the exact same category and i think that that is adds insult to injury for my guy. and i want to make it clear

that is actually in the rfp. and for an lbe, thank you. >> and what are the members of the public that wish to comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> a few questions, i just the city attorney, mr. gibner to be clear there is an lbe reverence for the 10 million plus contracts but it is bifercated, could you articulate what that is? >> i am not get thating off of the top of my head, but if you have questions, i could just check in and report back specific number of thresholds. >> okay. >> thanks. okay. i guess without the history here and the revisions being

contemplated right now, and maybe for those who been around the block more than in city hall when this was enacted do you recall the dialogue around the bifercation here? >> monique from the controller office, it is a long standing practice, and $10 million back then was a lot more money than it may be worth now. that threshold was developed and approved by the board of supervisors in the code and has been in practice for a long time. and there has been testimony today about some of the impacts of that, that may be less than what had been originally intended they are required to adhere to the existing laws and requirements and i could review the history of that, with the contract management division, and the purchasing office and

report back, but at this point, the department has been adhering to our laws, and requirements of the city. >> got it, and yeah, and no fault on that, and i am just curious about some of the legislative history if you will, and i obviously fault and did not dig into that before this meeting today. and supervisor mar? >> yeah i don't know if she could answer this or someone from the office of the city administrator, but in public comment, it was mentioned that an amendment to the lbe ordinance, is currently on the table, and it would increase the threshold from ten million to 20 million, could you give us background on that? >> and when, like what the time lines are for that amendment change? >> again, supervisor, mar, that has been in the process and in the discussion for a very long time, and it starts over the years, and there is another effort anew, to try to clarify some of that. and update the language, and

again, the ten million dollars threshold was considered a lot of business from the city that would allow, those bidders, to compete. and with other large companies, that is not so much the case any more, with inflation, and the changes of the commodities and so forth. but, i think that the contract management division and the purchaser's office can work together with the controller and provide you with a little bit more information. >> i understand that you are abiding by what is in our laws, it is something that i would like to support and it strikes

me as the options and i would like your opinion on them in terms of implementation and one, i pds that there is amendments drafted right now for 14 b and that will be considered by this body and the full board, and so with could either, i guess, the question becomes if we wait and maybe that is too long, for that law to pass, then you could potentially include, corner stone is the one that is speaking today and understand, that though, however from the corner stone perspective, partnering from the larger firms it has impacted them for leading up to this process and i don't think that this is something that we can fix here, we are talking about the years in the making at this point. or, there is, and maybe this is a city, and the question, the ability to do just proactively put the corner stone as the one kind of complainant into this process as a board ourselves and i am a little bit less

hesitant and less political and policy based but if that is the easier solution, to get to the policy any way to this body, and it is something that i will be open to. mr. city attorney. >> that is not an option before you. the board has three options, one is continue the item, one is approve the contracts that have been proposed by the department and the other is to vote down this resolution. >> okay. >> i would add supervisors, that there are opportunities mr. perry mentioned to vendor

and we could add through additional processes and be added into the store. >> okay, supervisor mar? >> i think that sounds like a reasonable approach. like supervisor farrell and avalos, i have questions about the process and i don't want to second guess the process, and i feel like for the top level, ten million and above teams that some kind of preference to lbe, should have been included but i am not going to second guess, again your process. but i would like for consideration for adding later additional teams like corner stone, and so i would support that motion of approving the contracts, but, for your office to work with the corner stone's team to try to see if they could be included at some time in the future, and if we have a process like this, moving forward in the future, that lbe preferences should be considereded or bid prernses

should be considered in all of the tiers but that is just my opinion. >> maybe, colleagues, i will suggest this is what we can do, and a motion for approve this item and also, as this next item comes forward, this legislation and amendment comes forward, if it is a threshold of $20 million, that is something that is considered we can implement that and also, discuss and you can have the clear direction from us or whether it be in the ordinance or not, that to any, firms or recently award a contract that were excluded because of the delta there between the ten and 20 million that you seek to work with them to participate in the additional rfp and the intent of this body and the full board and all other contracts that we want this to go forward and the current folks that are awarded in the process you ran and also you give this opportunity and suppose that i would suggest that, and have that motion to go forward and we can work together with the purchaser office. >> so moved. >> we have a motion by

supervisor avalos and we can take that without objection. >> we are going to take one item out of order. could you call item 13? >>ordinance modifying the requirements of administrative code, section 6.68(h), to authorize the director of public works to issue requests for proposals to pre-qualified construction managers/general contractors (cm/gc) and their teams of pre-qualified core trade subcontractors to design-build the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and exterior building envelope scopes of work for the traffic company and forensic services division proje >> good morning, i am representing the department of public works and we are joined by the department and lieutenant walsh along with the colleagues, garis and wire and in case that you have the specific questions, and the item before you, is an ordinance that is project specifickive that will allow us to hire a general contractor and a construction manager along with the team of

prequalified trade contractors to build a new, forensic lab. and remodeling in the way that they are done throughout the bay area and you hire the contractor with the specialized subs and the specific group of them so that they can work with the design team, to develop the project in a way that will meet future accreditation standards in a nutshell that is what we are asking, is project specific and if you have any questions we are here to answer them. >> okay. >> colleagues, any question at this time? we will move on to this budget analyst report. >> on page 22 of our report, we report that under the current city policy, qualified subcontractors are awarded the

contracts as submitting the proposal at the most responsible bidder and by using the design of the model, nine cost factors are considereded for up to 35 percent of the total score. on the other hand, using the design and construction and design, the contractors may be on the project and potentially resulting in receiving more bids and lower than (inaudible) and according to dbw, potential lawsuits, which over all might recall in reduced cost to the state and so our conclusion on page 22 is our recommendation is that we consider this matter to be a policy, decision, and the board of supervisors given that the proposed use of the design and construction procurement model would apply as the department to this one project and the police department and traffic control

and the division project and could be increased or decreased to the state and qualify that we are not negative on this legislation, and the dpw is the expert, in this area. there are as you know, two other models and they feel for this project that the model is the best that we could not put a number or a fiscal analysis on what might happen. and we defer to the board and say that it is a policy matter for the board. >> supervisor avalos? >> take the question for mr. lopez? >> and i am just wondering, we spoke on sunday, and you mentioned how this model could actually serve as a framework for the future projects and just how real is that? and if that is the case, it will be, and i think that it will be important to be able to hear back about how this is actually kind of tossing the dice, but i just want to hear. >> yes. >> and it is to talk about what the history has been, and

anything similar to this, and that has already occurred in san francisco. >> okay. >> thank you, supervisor, and yes, we are currently working with the controller's office to evaluate chapter six of the admin code to see if we can recommend a set of changes to that chapter six, including this particular project, delivery for the future projects. the industry is shifting in construction and specialized subcontractors are wanting to operate in a design built basis, and in this ordinance will allow to us do that. and in the hospital and the project that you are familiar with, we have a similar model that was also approved by an ordinance that some 7 or 8 years ago, that has been extremely successful for us, the project and on time and on budget, performance, and so, you have in the past taken

similar actions and not the way that this one is drafted and approving on what is learned and we do expect a copy for you, and in the near future, with the recommendation that this will be an option for all future projects, that meet the criteria of complexity. >> with the general fund dollars, the year before, the design build, you know, process. >> the board, did approve the bond. correct. and so you did fund, $25 million for the project development which was very strategic and allowed us to do the preplanning phase of the work and scoping the project and that has obviously had a huge impact and allows us to see the unforeseen conditions up front and did not run with property ject. >> and what do you see is the main difference between that, and it seems like we are using and we improved upon the building and so it is actually

paying for the work and... for the general hospital. >> correct. >> and this is just a question for the controller, because, it sounds like you have been helping with the dpw on this, and just your and any response to mr. rose's, you know, what says that they are going to be an increase or a decrease, and we are not clear, and clearly you see a value in this type of model going forward. >> mr. chairman, and supervisor, avalos, from the controller's office and we are working with all of the departments that do construction on the chapter six provisions for construction contracting, and looking at ways to enhance the process, and make the process more efficient, as well as flexible for the departments. and the design build concept is one that has been used for a

number of the latest, geo bond, construction projects and again, it is approved by the resolution, by the board of supervisors on a case by case basis, and we are going to be looking at a number of areas for reform or changes, or enhancements. and we are currently working very closely with the public works department, and as well as the airport and the puc port, and the recreation park and others, that actually administer the construction contracts, and working obviously with the purchasing department, and the office of the city administrator to put the recommendations forward in legislation. >> you see the real value in the cost effectiveness for this approach. >> absolutely, in terms of accountability, in terms of time, and certainly, we have seen, the advantages in terms of cost. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. thanks very much. and so no other questions, we will open it up for public

comment, anyone wish for item 13? >> item number 1 3? . (inaudible) standard guidelines, and (inaudible) law imposed upon us, and (inaudible) >> okay, thank you very much. >> anyone else wish to comment on this item?

>> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> motion to move this item forward. >> i motion to approve and move forward with the recommendation. >> we can take that without objection. >> could we go back to item four? >> item four,resolution approving and authorizing the execution of modification no. 1 to the lease and use agreement l10-0097 with united airlines, inc., at the san francisco international airport to increase the premises by approximately 92,331 square feet of exclusive use space and with a minimum rent amount of $10,745,068 per year and a total amount of $75,215,476 over the remaining seven years of the term, expiring on june 30, 2021. >> okay, thank you. miss widner? welcome back. >> thank you. good morning, chair farrell and members of the committee, with the san francisco international airport, we are seeking approval to modification one to the existing lease with united airlines in order to increase the amount of exclusive use space by approximately 92,000 square feet. and this modification will come with an annual rent increase of $10 million, and as you know

the airport has recently undertaken a series of capitol projects including the renovation of boarding area e, in the terminal three at the airport with the completing of the portions of these terminal projects and the opening of area, e, in january of 2014, united would like to now increase its exclusive use space within the terminal, and in order to accommodate additional terminal space as well as a new airline club and the addition of some baggage carosels. >> originally in the airport commission, approved the increase in annual rent over the term of the lease, and we were using rates based in our fiscal year, 13, 1 4, rates and charges, we now have the fiscal year of 13, 14, rate of charges and it is appropriate as recommended in the budget analyst report to increase the

projected rent over the next 7 years of the term of the lease. to reflect the updated amount of 93 million 694,849 dollars, that is again, over the remaining seven years of this lease. and if approved i will submit an amended version of the resolution, to reflect that higher number this afternoon. >> okay. i can answer any questions that you might have. >> thanks. >> colleagues if no questions, we will turn it over, to your report? >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page seven of our report, we know that in fiscal year, 14, 15, united will pay the airport, 11.3 million for the use of the additional square feet of exclusive use space that is from july first, 2014, to june, 30th, and that is shown on table three on page eight of the report and then on page eight, we also report that

over the remaining seven years of the existing lease which expires on june 30th, 2021, the airport estimates that united will pay, 9.7 million, for the use of the additional square feet of exclusive use space, for july, 2014, to june, 2021 and that is shown in table eight in page 4 and, supervisors for your information, we have revised the numbers in our report, based on the latest information from the airport. and so when you look on page 10 of our report. the number of which we did have, of 92.6 million, should now be 93.7 million. and the 10.2 million which is in the original report has been revised to 11.3 million and so the recommendations on page 10 are as follows. and we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution, on

page one, 1, and 6 line, to be changed by the rent to be paid for the use of the additional 92,331 quair feet from $75 million, to 93, 6849, over the remaining years of the lease, and on page 2, change the minimum rent of 10 million per year, or 75 million, 25476 for the remaining seven years of the lease, to that is to, 11 million, 33912 per year, and that 93 million, and 694 of the remaining years of the lease and recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as recommended >> thank you. >> are you in agreement with those amendments? >> absolutely, and i will submit the amended resolution this afternoon. >> you know the drill.

and you no other questions we will open it up to public comment. >> anyone wish to comment on item four? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we will have a motion to approve these. >> move the amendments. >> and amendment. >> without objection as well. >> madam clerk, could you call number five? >> item five,resolution approving amendment no. 1 to the cellular service equipment sites lease no. 09-0051c between t-mobile west, llc, and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, extending the term for five years through june 30, 2019. >> okay, thank you. welcome back, miss wiyner. >> thank you, chair, with the san francisco international airport, we are seeking your approval to our existing lease with t-mobile in order to extend the term of the lease for an additional five years, and to increase the annual rent paid by t-mobile by 25,000 for a rent of 475,000, and t-mobile, and in addition to three other wiress