and questions from the bidders and questions from various contractor in corresponding those issues in satisfying the needs of the puc to make sure their equipment fit within the rooms that we had and then to re-evaluate their equipment the building inspection in their final analysis required an additional tower to be added interests not one specific thing that happened a variety of issues during the process and the commenting and review process in incorporating those documents and changes into 9 documents it just took a while to get through that i'll say the set that was issued the a s i took the information and updated it

contractors their estimates have been based web coerce estimates and our e commissioners, on that motion estimates were bans the hundred percent documents so those changes that occurred during the process just caused you know the changes in the costs and the kwntsz we see i don't know if you have any more to add to that. >> no, i really don't from our standpoint we try to quantify the differences why the changes are made i can't elaborate further. >> okay. so it appears that there are because of details we need not hit itself higher point in thees causation but a bunch of scope increases or shifts because work was being done in a different sequence and

anticipated there are numerous mratz there and an ability to court reporter the equipment and it turns into million dollars dollars so the details in getting the program finalized it got us into a higher costs added to the work because of the changes in subsequence in understanding your documents; is that correct. >> not so much changes in subsequence we need those contractor on board to court reporter with we're blocking out slabs for the curtain wall system and starting fire proofing soon and need the parish contractor on board to we would clips to steal beams and things like that before we fire proof not to have come back costs later we really are at a critical

stage where if we don't award those contract we'll have significant costs additional delays we're not going to be able to do that effectively going forward. >> because of that we have thoughts for the patching of fire work one half a million dollars and installed out of sequence one million dollars i'm not suggesting we shouldn't be do doing that but a compounding of impacts of getting the designs for the work the contractors on board. >> we bid the bandage as soon as we felt we had the completed set of documents the alternative would w have been likely change orders speaks to the importance of getting those people on board

now it didn't get cheaper as we move forward. >> and then on the glazing it is $3.8 million associated with the design guidance criteria loads does it over and above a more typical blast design so if we want or went to a more typical blast design do we knock 8 point plus million dollars. >> typically we would but not with the design for the project. >> and in light of not having the money to build the project at it moment should we revisit. >> i'll ask my colleague and their recommendation on the blast balance design comes

through this guideline criteria to ankle a change 24 this is the board making the will direct change i couldn't recommend my view is public safety first and $3.9 million is if you're going to save one life denice will explain. >> i'm denise the guidelines is based on a level 4 facility a high value go target the criteria that goes into the criteria i'll explain in a minute are buildings greater than hundred and 50 thousand square feet with more than 4 hundred and 50 employees in house at any given time the high-level of public assess those are gsa standards we use the federal standards to protect life in those facilities

there are no private sector or public standards so we rely heavy on the gsa standards for them this particular building is a high value asset a high value target as a transmitted center especially in phase two design based introduce threat for if building was established to protect the building from blast which does occur there are historical facts that support that that is why those standards are put in place true and accurate factor is the balanced design which is if there are a blast event the mechanism that hold the glass in place will fail in a particular manner so it will not have as

many fatalities or injuries we have caused the glazing to be more expensive it is a standard way we protect life in a building of this nature very unique building so i would not recommend that i relax that rp a the guidance criteria further i've spoken with 3 blast companies that don't blasts throughout but itself that are very highly regarded across the industry stone consulting and wide linger and blast none of them would recommend that the design guidance criteria be removed from a facility of that nature. >> i was urban aware we had that choice to reinvite in your

opinion we don't but from a design standpoint is there something that - because i think getting into this high security post 9/11 was a big mistake i think a lot of that preserves this is how big the mistake has been i was presuming there was this from a construction design standpoint that at this point that could be gained by reviewing that but this board knows that was a mistake from when i got back on i wasn't on the board when the decision was made it was a policy decision i presume that the board at a time was fully briefed on you can spend all the money in the world on safety it is a question really costs us a lot of money if, in fact, there is a revisit

this is productive i'd like to know about it the board should say okay. here's the architect and turner look in you revisit it there's a net gain possibility up i want see that. >> one thing to take into consideration of the curtain engineering have been done according to the criteria if we go back and redesign that costs additional costs and details many months there is additional costs for the system we're late in the game to be rethinking that. >> that's my thing i want to see from the architect agrees if it is a point also experience it is point less. >> i wouldn't character it as

mistake we're constructing a very safe building of the high levels it is costing us money but i think we're going to have a building as mare are a alluded to earlier a safe heaven a place people go that knows with a degree of certainty they're safe. >> well, if it was wasn't a mistake it was a mistake in the underestimating; right? >> costs are a song of a gun to get to that's right. >> i guess my general question is it seems like that at the delay in the complexity of the design is responsible for significant part of the costs escalation so i'll wondering what accountability is in the contract of the designer to have

to completed those designs at certain up to this point in time to a budget like the previous approved budget $310 million over the accrued budget what kind of accountability from the other stakeholders my sense is that we are where we are with the costs their competitive bids you wouldn't suggest we don't move forward but in translating it to the budget conversation the project is being really kind of left holding the bag and the other parties account i appreciate the extent you've negotiated i applaud that effort and i think that the contradiction seems to be going well but again, the project and prepares translation the city

ultimately or other parties are ended up fully account for this even though we have strong contractors to get this design done to get it done in a way to get it built so if you can help us understand all the other wise. >> thank you, director you're talking about the design team their contractually designed to the budget and we have mark and other council so mark. >> we you wanted the budget limit to the packages we'll be doing this fall updating the budget limits based on the scope of work and the escalation factors and compare to the

awards eave received and determine whether it was within the budget load or not the contracts with the design team with the 6 budget was 65 percent and identified all the engineer measures within the percent. >> you continuing increase the fixed budget limit. >> it was set at values with the contract was signed back in july of 2010, i wanted to say you have to escalate it as you trade the packages we have to update it based on that. >> i'm not sure i understand. >> if i could too and the other question was also on timing the timing is compounding increases in costs are there other liquidated damages with the

completion. >> mike you can address the legal questions please. and director there was an initial 6 budget in the amount of and top down we added the costs to the project that was - >> that i understand. >> okay. >> good morning directors with respect to the fixed budget limit the obligations of the design team are relatively clear design the project plus or minus as the construction estimates are done and the trade packages are awarded that shows the fixed budget is exceeded the designer has an obligation to propose we design and value jerking items and also deduct the alternatives

to bring the costs back in line with the budget that obligation is to make those proposals to tjpa they're required to cooperate with the design team and the tjpa ultimately has the final approval on any of those upgraded design changes that is how the process works the limitation on what the designer is supposed to do hover which is proposed value engineering propose deedee ductable alternatives is not limited if 9 reason the redesign is necessary because of negligent errors acts or omissions on behalf of the design team so the process to bring the fixed the costs in line about the budget limit is an ongoing

process throughout the course of design and construction and they have the obligation to redesign throughout the process but if it becomes apparent the costs overruns are because of negligence and the architect their additional ramification for the architect and those are your standard contractual remedies negligence with 4r0ib9d damages and the contract has fairly standard provisions from the design on remedies. >> so for a schedule status no accountability for discriminated on the contract. >> there is a design schedule that was part of the original contract i'd have to look at the

details but that was when first awarded a different project and i'd have to go back and see if that scheduled was a, in fact changed from a button to a top detain approach i'm sure you're aware of we'll have various milestones issued for construction those dates have been pushed and have extended which to our point i believe is forced us into this time when costs have continued to escalate. >> looking at the breaks down of the added costs walls added it looks like 2 and a half millions of walls adams perhaps after the hundred percent construction documents doubled the number would those are

categories tied. >> i don't know why the design changes were made to speak to that it would have to be looked at. >> those things might be worth looking at the project is left holding the back and extraordinarily factors that none can have controlled but something is not lynn up in terms of the accountability with the parties. >> so randy talk to the question about director reiskin talked about the alexander of the walls. >> that was the list i was referring to before clarifies the building inspection the towers add and things like that that added the bracing that was originally part of the steel package that got taken out of the steel package and into the

glazing package to be able to have the glazing contractor who was proposing alternated ways of doing the w-2 system basically, all the glass scombloeshz around the retail areas and the second floor and have their own coordination of the steel bracing with the structure rather than have a steel contractor provide bracing for the original design and when the design was modified not work you know lost money. >> but we can look at what you just indicated. >> yeah. i think that building and fire code >> it is. >> and if it took time and costs that it is contributing to the construction costs worst reviewing you you know who's responsible for those costs.

>> yeah. >> i have sort of a related thing the one thing that's not mentioned in any of those course of the trial shuns bad estimating from the get-go i mean contract after contract comes in at 50 to hundred percent over the estimate is and i'm wondering i mean don't we have a right to previous lynching in the estimating if we now we're at this point we're having to find someone to the tune of $250 million if we had known two years ago when this stuff started happening it seems to me although we could have two years ago said the supermarkets nobody needs work that's the essence nobody needs the work so we're having to pay a lot of money to get it that is, i think the big thing

but why wasn't that actually applied to the future to the future of packages from the get-go when it was realized that was the atmosphere we were working in because it seems to me what happened is we just get along one after other oh here's another 20 and $30 million this and that that is going to continue we have a right to have for sighted from the people who is responsible for doing this i don't think that is the design i don't think is the issue except for the super safety but i'll give the most egregious estimate when you have 20 to 25 foot walls to be masonry duplicate and don't realize it takes scaffolding

that is bad estimating that was not a lot of money only $2 million but we had a right to know that the cost exterminates were doing that would understand when we were looking that the subcontractor might need scaffolding those sorts of things you know have gotten to me and i think we've got fine with having the deficit we have but the relayed problem we're 6gd outburst so late we have that deficit we've got two or three two to three years to make up that money rather than 2 to 3 months is a problem. >> a couple of comments on that you know it's the overhead estimate is never going to be

perfect what we missed something like scaffolding we're not afraid to say we made a mistake but the estimate that was produced in early 2014 the cost of the actual bid awards is 16 percent higher than the estimate overhead so we have packages especially recently that came in much higher and unable to identify the reasons it wasn't not a bad estimate but reflected the value of the estimates at that point in time and assumed bids would be awarded so for a variety of reasons that time has gone on longer and the market conditions change and our admittedly driving up

prices more we would have anticipated a year ago. >> i guess i was going to ask i agree with both ed and director harper the question i have for i from now to trying to get the project on schedule how much room do we have to do any kind of shaking of the project or scrubbing and valued engineering to come up with a savings in terms of where we are right now. >> we've gone through the multiple engineering efforts being the completion of the cd estimate we as a team identified many valuable engineering opportunities incorporated into the design with the bid packages that were issued for bid this year

we asked for prebid engineering. >> when you made engineering decisions who made those decisions and how you know what stage so i said. >> well, there's ultimately tjpa decision what to accept and not to accept we can propose ideas and their decision what they're willing to accept and not the team as a whole have been good at working together and coming up with ideas as a group some are viable and some not we requested the prebid vaeshgsz it reduces the cost of the project that savings is applied against their bid and we'll put them in a more executive position we've had some prebid preevaporations and we also sit down with the post bidders award

and again review the opportunities for jerking we've had a couple of cases with good suggestions made those have been accepted and the change orders ordered we'll continue to do with with the prepackages and sit down and look for opportunity we are very late in the game the design is complete and at this point it is hard to realize you know reductions in scope or vaubd engineering decision that will change the dollars. >> i'm assuming all the bid numbers are in no way we know what those numbers are. >> yes. director nuru the only one is the panel if 2016 we don't anticipate any problems. >> so between now and the

budget time i've heard your earlier answer i think from the scrubbing and shaking out can happen. >> we would like to be kept informed as you made those decisions and what options we have in making those decisions. >> supervisor. >> i just wanted to add in my concurrence to some of the comments that were made by my colleagues i can't put as itch technical finally feedback but over the last two years it is a sentiment i had it didn't feel last week we'll have a finite budget we've looked at the budget to make an important promise we've committed to our taxpayers with a hub that connects us regional and throughout the state the

downtown connection is important to make that much more than a bus term as we move forward with the phase one costs my worries increase and escalate we've not meet our dowel of phase two those dollars is spent on the physical structure of a bus terminal i question a lot of the things we're putting in for the architecture and design we have to act like this budget is finite we have to go make 53 really, really difficult decisions i'm not seeing the option prevalent to this board i would like to see to really, really reduce costs on the phase one portion i know one thing i'll say that you know, i look at private developer projects all the time

granted some in marginal scale i can't tell you the number of times the planning department and i are a disappointed by the escalating costs that was promised to the neighbors and community and the developers that have fun it budgets can build they understand the difficult decisions that need not have a phase budget i budget to take away money from but lirmd to the project before them i want to see the level of urgency and importance placed on the designs and bids placed before us. >> we're on soft. >> mark you want to finish up? >> we're soft costs and the

soft costs went down $2.3 million we showed the number last month $9 million and that was the result of reductions in the fee for the c mo contract this assessment as i mentioned we did the fta on the risks moving forward we've completed so far and there is no objections to utilize the moving forward what we presented to you last month, a 40 percent and so that reduces our contingency balance to hundred and $33 million this is a chart that shows the comparison between the revised budget and you'll see that the revised budget has