embers of the board, that might help -- >> can we add in that section specifically 6.60 line d potentially the department head like if the estimated cost of the emergency work is less than or equal to the threshold amount the department head may proceed with the work after notifying the board of supervisors rather than additional approvals after notifying the board of supervisors. can we do that? >> okay. >> i realize -- i understand the departments are looking for a way to do work in order to allow for dealing with emergencies which we frequently have i don't want bureaucracy get in the way of progress, but ultimately i want to be sure we

are responsible, there is still a process, we don't want situations being abused either in emergencies, and that being used as a way to get things done quickly i wanted to make sure there say checks and balances i'm happy to approve in order to make the current improvements to the ordinance in addition to including after notifying the board of supervisors and striking the line "without additional approvals". >> supervisor breed on the amended version of the ordinance, what line -- if you are looking at the amended version? >> page 80, line 14. >> hi, deputy city attorney,

adera, taylor. that line is for emergency work that is less than 205,000, that is for work that does not require super visors board of approval. >> i realize that. it's just a notification. >> right that notification now occurs immediately at the declaration of emergency. >> so should we include the notification because the notification is only to the president of the board maybe we should include it in that section to specifically, the clerk or to the entire board rather than just the president. >> okay absolutely i think that notification would be appropriate in 6.60 b, perhaps. >> whyokay that is fine. >> it will read -- may declare

an emergency with immediate notice to the board of supervisors so the clerk of the board. >> what is appropriate is fine. so at this point, i would like to make a motion -- >> we will wait until after public comment. >> okay. all right. >> i would say our last two recommendations we're just clarifying to establishing the need for two sections, 6.62 and 6.64, regarding job order contracts, and as needed construction contracts. moving to the policy -- >> would you like to say something to the city attorney? >> sorry to interrupt, deputy attorney. what you are suggestion for the work over $250,000, you want to prohibit the department from continuing

the work over 250 until the notice has been provided? >> yes. >> okay. got it. i don't think we can write that on the fly, but you can make the amendment we can prepare it and provide it to the clerk after the meeting. >> what i'm asking for is just notification. not like to find out way down the line when we're asked to approve. >> okay. >> mr. nuru? >> so i think, if i understand it it's something over 250, the board should be notified. just for my clarification since i declare a number of emergencies, if i have something happen friday night and i need an emergency what is the protocol? >> i think -- i don't want to speak for you supervisor but what the ordinance would say if

you have an emergency on friday night and you send notice to the clerk before you spend a quarter million dollars on the work, if you have to spend $300,000 on the weekend you would send a notice to the clerk on friday or saturday saying i declared an emergency, and proceeding with work section 6.60 this is going forward but provide notice to the board this is happening. >> i wanted to know we have street collapses -- >> could you explain how this would be problematic, or prohibit you from effectively do what you need to do what you need to deliver for emergency purposes? >> a situation like i'm describing, friday night, a street intersection, we have a collapse, me or the other agencies declare an emergency, so we will, and we notify you, and you don't get it or

something happens? >> why wouldn't we get it? >> you don't come back to work until monday. >> it's just a notification it's making us aware of it, we can't approve it we can't do anything to stop the project or the process we just want to be notified. my biggest concern i think the board should be notified eventually, it will come to us to approve of it financially, i don't like surprises, so we know from the beginning what is going on so we can do what is necessary to support it or ask questions or anything else. >> i don't think the proposed amendmentses is going to change your work, we may not see it until monday but give notification. >> that is fine if it's just

notification we will find a way to notify. >> yes. >> supervisor christensen. >> director nuru? how many emergencies over $200,000 do you think public works addresses over a year. >> not too many. i think last year we had 5-10. >> so if we made the notification effective the next business day, would that reduce -- i realize when you havage emergency, you are scrambling to try to address it if the notification came out on the following business day, would that satisfactory? >> that would be great. >> i'm thinking there may not be administrative staff on the department side there is no one on our side to forward it if the notify occurs on the next business day, would that satisfy. >> i'm okay, right now, the way that it's written there is notification but there is no penalties there is no requirement necessarily like if you declare an emergency, you

can still begin the work but the other thing is, you get to the notification when you get to the notification but in my mind the notification needs to be an important part of the puzzle, so you are simultaneously doing what is necessary, but making sure the appropriate parties are notified i'm making sure there is a notification inserted into this process so when the emergency is declared there is an immediate notification to of course the mayor is going to get notification so the board should get notification. and i'm just adding that to the process. it's not going to stop your ability doing the work, it's just saying you have to notify us basically, there issage emergency declared and you are you going to spending a lot of amount of money. >> currently the administrative

code has notification to the board within seven days. >> we're changing that. >> if you want it the next business day -- >> which section are you looking at? are you looking at section d.? >> yeah. >> i'm not proposing to change that, that is a little bit different. we're looking at section b now. >> so supervisor christensen made a suggestion i would be supporting that. >> okay. >> make it the next business day, which is reasonable to me. >> my goal is not to make it more complicated or problematic for you to do your job, mr. nuru, just to make sure there is notification given to the department. i think it's important we're notified rather than when we're asked to approve the money 6-9 months later and we had no idea what was going

on, i think a notification is appropriate. >> thank you. so let's move on. >> okay now moving to the areas of policy consideration. the first area that was outlined by mr. lopez was the sole source contracting. currently, under chapter six, there are no provisions for sole source contracting other than for the emergency provisions. that is allowed under the emergency provisions when there is an emergency, they can select a contractor and go forward. otherwise, currently the department must seek approval from supervisor to wave bidding p they want sole source's specific contract.

under the proposed amendment the department would allow sole source department contracts under the specified provisions outlined here which have to do with proprietary reasons there is only one source available. the follow on contract work, when they award to another contractor would result on substantial cost unacceptable delays, or warrant or statute of government regulation or expedited process to make sure federal or state funding is available. we say this is a policy decision currently under chapter 21, of the code which deals with commodities and services sole source provisions are permitted. and under some

federal guidelines, sole sourcing is permits, this would be another con straks contract in the city. the second area we consider for policy decision to the board is the threshold amount. the threshold amount written in the code is currently 400,000, it does have a cost of living adjustments every five years, as a result. the current threshold is 440,000. they're proposing this go up to 600,000. the threshold amount is used to determine a number of things. one who does the work? currently under the threshold amount either city employees can do the work or the work can be contracted out. above the threshold amount, the work needs to be contracted out. the second

area is whether formal or informal bidding requirements are imposed under the threshold, informal bidding, and above the threshold, formal bidding and the third ayeah, who can accord the contract under the threshold amount, the department head can award the contract above the threshold amount the mayor if it's dpw or the commission is required approval for the other city departments, those are the main areas having to do with the threshold amount, however, there are lots of prosituations in chapter six, that give reference to threshold amount with task force or as needed contracts all of those would go up similarly. on page 22 of our report there is a table where based on data provided by the departments, in 2014, we looked at for public works, puc and the airport

contracts if the $440,000 threshold was in effect for 2014, 31 contract would have been under that threshold amount, the dollar value is small, it's only 1.63%, that is because when you get above the threshold, you get a couple of projects you get one project like the rebuild of san francisco general, that is a billion dollars, and it skews all of the numbers but if you look up actually in terms of the number of contracts in comparison if in 2014 if the threshold had been 600,000 40 projects, rather than 31 projects would have been under the threshold. so instead of 22% of the contracts, 29% would be under the threshold. as pointed out before not in chapter six

or in chapt ir 14 b, with the city's administrative code of the lbe there is set aside 60% of contracts under the threshold amount are set aside for micro lbe's therefore increasing the threshold amount would result in potentially more projects be able to be done by city employees more opportunities for micro lbe set aside participation on city contract contract contract contract -- construction contracts and more informal bids, on the other side i would say the threshold amounts currently allow for a cost of living adjustment so they have been able to be increased over time, and would continue to be whether they're the fur hundred 40,000 or the 600,000. it would allow for more informal bids,

which would be more efficient, but on the same time may not allow as much exposure because they don't have the amount of time they are advertised for bidding. currently, chapter 21, with commodities and services has the 440,000, with the procurment of general and other services the other issue, when we asked why 600,000, why not 500,000 or 700,000, there really was no why this specified level so i throw that out. it's not a reason to approve or not approve it. it's just that there was -- we got the data that we show in data on page 22 that shows you what the impact would be then the third area is changing

the cost criteria not less that 65% to not less than 40% of the overall evasion this is for the design build and construction manager contractor contracts. as mr. lopez stated these contractors are only bidding on approximately 10-12% of the project or contract so the balance 88-90% would be subcontracted and would be based on the low bid. one of the rationales for changing the construction contract we were given to make costses from a majority position to a minority position. is that contractors know to bid low to obtain city work, they did low,

then come in subsequently with change orders so ultimately, the cost of the project may be significantly higher. that the department want to secure higher quality work and felt if they could, the criteria, for quality was higher than the criteria for cost they would be able to do that. however i would note just that changing the criteria, does not prohibit contractors, from coming in with change orders later. the other two points that we made is that there was a 2014 may controllers report that found that city departments currently do not adequately assess contractor performance as

was recommending that chapter six be amended to require contractor performance evaluations. that is not in the proposed amendments that are before you. while we support that we felt we couldn't make that recommendation because the departments indicated they are currently working on that. then lastly i would note that currently, the criteria are not less than 65% to weight costs, when we look at the last four construction design builder contracts which is public safety building, the cruise ship terminal and the office of the medical examiner which are currently ongoing, those four projects are thus far being delivered successfully and are tracking to budget and schedule,

so there is that argument on the other side. i would be happy to entertain any questions. >> any questions? >> i have a few. i'm not sure who to ask. >> supervisor [inaudible]. >> getting back to supervisor breed's question if i can. i think the intention is to try to give the board greater control over what constitutes, an emergency and the time and money presented for the emergency -- we have had emergencies, 6, 8, 9 months, old, about money that has been expended -- so what constitutes an emergency the amendments are asking the board be notified in

a timely fashion 60 days that something does constitute an emergency i think we got that, the next thing is are the repairs going to be over $250,000, in the budget analyst report, if a street gives in we may not know that day or next week or the week after, what it's going to take to repair the street adequately. so our question is the relative occurrence of the expenditure to repair the emergency versus the approval over that. the expenditure is prior to the approval at a point we have no authority. i can't see the

notification after 30 days is going to alter shg the money -- when the board has oversight about that expenditure, that is not being addressed in in way. is that correct? >> city attorney john gib ner again. it's a good point. when the board receives notification the board member can contact the department head to find out what is going on. a board member can call a hearing all before the department requests a provl and even potentially before $250,000 of work is being done. you you are right, it doesn't speed up time in which the resolution will get to the board and potentially be approved at least, it allows the board members members to use the board's power

of inquiry to find out more. >> may i ask a question director nu rv u, the budget analysis said 60 days, derequired because it can take that long -- what can can you tell us on the day of an occurrence versus three days later, or two weeks later? >> i think you spelled it out whennage emergency happens we don't really know what the full costs are involved in the emergency and we won't know for -- it could be a week, sometimes it could be longer depending on what the emergency is. when you have an emergency that is above $250,000 it is a serious emergency. and to complicate things those types of projects but notify you, does give you the ability as we hear from the

city attorney's office to ask questions, or talk to the department handling the emergency and get a sense of what the nature of the emergency is. >> so it would be more of a heads up, it might be an emergency over $250,000 or are we likely to get notices if five emergencies over $250000, that you do know are we going to get noticed every week now? >> they do happen you are talking about a process you informed, these costs, the department heads they make judgments and the benefit of the city and the people they serve. so we have to once we let you know, we're willing to review what types of costs we're looking at or what emergencies we're faced with at that time.

>> thank you. >> supervisor breed? >> thank you supervise christensen brings up a good point, again my goal is not to get in the way of the ability of any department to address an emergency, but you more importantly to make sure that the board is properly notified especially when we're at a point we know for certain, over 250,000 is going to be spent, we should be properly notified, we're aware what is going on so we can poerptly inquire and deal with it proply, with that mr. gibner, do you think the language i'm proposing to address that particular issue? because the point is -- iffage emergency happens you don't know at the time of the emergency what it might cost but in some instances for

example, with the firehouse we know that is definitely know that is over $250,000 i don't know if it's appropriate to suggest how would you you immediately know? i don't know. what do you think the appropriate language is in order to address this issue when it is that particular threshold? and how would you even though when it will be? some cases you know right awap, some cases you don't as director nuru indicated. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. as to what the best policy answer is i don't think i'm in a position to say the proposal you are making to amendment ordinance would -- actually, the ordinance that is before you you would require to notify the board when the emergency happens, however much

the amount is the department heads, and the board members can work together to figure out a way to talk through the likelihood something is going to be over 250. the ordinance requires -- or the proposed amendments require that the department submit a resolution to the board to approve the work within 60 days, that's not -- that's the outer limit so if there is work that is done, and it's clearly going to cost millions of dollars, the department head can submit a resolution. the next week. and it could move through the board process quickly that is really something that i think the board could impress pom department heads is important to you. >> just for clarity, the other thing is i don't know if it's more appropriate po put in the language, if there is a clear expectation that this emergency

could potentially be over the thresholds that's when we want to be notified. i don't want to be notified if it's below the threshold is that better to insert into the language if there say reasonable expectation that the amount will exceed or a reasonable chance it will exceed is that better language to make sense for the threshold? >> it's a policy call for you. the current proposal has the benefit of providing a bright line, there is a lot of discretionary -- choices about what constitutes an emergency, whether there is something to put out there to bid what you are proposing is adding another

level, does it feel like it's going to go over 250, by the calculation the amendment proposed by the budget analyst. to tell the department clerk every time. there say benefit to that too. it's a choice the board can make. >> okay and the last question to director nuru, you said emergencies happen 5-10 times a year, how many emergencies happen under the threshold annually? >> several. >> there's a lot. >> lots of elevators, lots of stuff at the hall of justice we have lots of emergencies every day people never see. >> okay, so i'm not certain i want to go that route. i'm going to withdraw [laughter]. but i will add under section 6.0 i

will add that the immediate notice to the board of supervisors so not just the president, i would prefer that under section 6.60 b that notice to the board of supervisors striking the president of the board. then i would be fine with that. >> i think we're in agreement with that. >> supervisor? >> i think that satisfies my question. >> okay. thank you. i will save my comments for later, any public comments at this point? come on