, there would be an element of going back out into the field and looking at inspections. you will be sometime by next month, and i can report that in the march presentation. here is a graphic that i was referring to that will hopefully help understand what this effort is building-wide from a structural standpoint. this is a full beating -- building structural health check, and evaluation criteria at the very top cactuses if -- this funnel -- if you think of it like a save, and as you work through each one of these steps, you filter out what is taking care of, or needs to go onto the next level. that is as we work through this, the evaluation criteria it was developed with the peer review panel together. focusing on items like plate thickness, corners, edges, the welding itself, plate toughness,

and the sharpie numbers that you hear me reference, and tensile stress. thorton thomas will go through this area in detail, and construction submittals, they are about 60% going -- gone through. there are 15,000 shop drawings that we have referenced, between the combination of the peer review's comments, and their own, there's about 50 specific details that they are looking at throughout those 15,000 sheets, 60% through, they think they will be through the rest in about two weeks, at that point, which includes a qc and qa documentation. if they need any additional information such as an inspection record, a welding element, any kind of a mill that would have certain materials' properties on it, that is what we are in right now. they are about 10% into that, when they expect in the next two

weeks to be mostly through that. by march 1st, we will know where we are out to, and if we need to ascertain any additional items through the sieve, if we need to go on to, if we have to or not to to, their on-site at the very bottom -- we are never -- nowhere near that stage at this point. it helps explain what we are doing from a building-wide, at a segue into turning it over to ron alameda, so he can continue on with all the items that are going on, building-wide for the review as we get to opening. thank you. >> good morning, directors, thank you, dennis, as usual. you gave good to, clear descriptions of the details that are involved as we worked our way through this evaluation and remediation strategy. i will be addressing some of the

larger facility-wide approaches and concerns. just as a refresher, a reminder, there is actually five streams of activity that are undertaking right now. the first being reaffirming structural integrity of the building, which is what dennis had described in depth. reevaluating full of fire and life safety systems, and anticipate that will come to rest in may. the third stream of activity is the review test and inspection records, and we see that trajectory going into march, and on the building management system commissioning to be completed in april. and then lastly, the other stream activity is to define the reoccupancy rating strategy and this one has morphed a little bit. i have put the focus on

readiness of the building, obviously there's lots of dimensions to it as to willingness and readiness to activate certain areas, whether it be operators or other activities within the building, so i want to focus on getting the building ready to reseed when all of those other things fall into place. we can stream right into the building. a little bit more detail, but not terribly deep, reaffirm instructions -- structural integrity as the building, as dennis had mentioned to, it is completing the engineering findings and reports, and the prp has come a long ways in terms of defining their findings. we do still have a little bit of a stream of activity around what

other areas maybe of concern, and whether we need to take a deeper dive into some of the records, or get out in the field and start peeling away other parts of the building to look at. that is the big variable out there. in terms of reevaluating -- revalidating the full fire and life safety systems, we have had a number of meetings with the fire department, as well as the building department. we have had to find parameters of which to meet to recertify those areas that were interrupted or disrupted by the activities around the girders. again, most of the systems are operational as we speak, and functioning, and are speaking to us as to what is going on with the building.

in terms of review of test and inspections, the last time, we are looking at everything, whether related or not and that includes rifling through the history of concrete placement, over 34,000 test cylinders were taken. there are 34 cylinders that have had conversations or issues around some, and we have one remaining that is looking for a certificate of acceptance, some paperwork that needs to get in hand. we saw e-mail traffic the other day nudging the responsible party to fulfil that obligation, and on the soil test and all has been reviewed. in general, ends then, again, is mentioned last month, reviewing

the fields condition reports, as well as the noncompliance reports. again, it was 4600 ncr and fcr. we have about 129 active right now. and more than half of those are on the topic of commissioning. that is reflective, that is the most active thing going on right now. so there is a few architectural and mechanical f.c.r. that still need to be buttoned up by way of paperwork, and one structural item that would be in the compliance for the girder itself. and we will be continuing this process again as we progress through feature -- future activities, or additional work that may have to happen. in terms of the building management system commissioning,

this is a refresher of what i mentioned last month. the prefunctional checks -- checklist status, all the systems are complete, or near complete. hvc is underway as we speak towards finishing up their commissioning. the functioning performance testing, it is really two stages. the contractors perform their functioning test based on the road map that is established by the prefunctional test. the contractors are near complete in doing their own validation, and then the commissioning agent comes on board, and witnesses that test again, and that activity in terms of witnessing test for h.v.c. will begin next week. most of the electrical is

complete. the outstanding piece for electrical is lighting and d.m.c. s., and that will be occurring through next month. beyond that, it is also the closeout documentation that is part of the commissioning process, making sure we have all the warranties, on the operating manuals, and the appropriate vesting in place. we are knee-deep into that. there's about 317 submitted items, and we are expecting about 542 more items to come across for the records. that rolls us into normal operations, and continual -- just to continue operations that will, again, inform us through the alarms, and/or indicators on what is the health of the building in general.

in terms of a schedule, really hasn't changed much. some of the mechanical activities, a few line items bumped into next week, for the most part, we are holding our own, completing up, and then the lighting to follow through february with bmc s. going into march, and then again, we have the areas that are adjacent to the repair area, which we have placed for april right now, but that is dependent on progress of the repair, and whether there is additional areas to explore in the fields. that brings asked, lastly, to the readiness. again, we have met with the fire department, the building department, on site inspectors,

and building commissioning agents, and have the parameters set to walk through the final acceptance once all the areas are stitched back, and for that matter, there's a lot of areas that are not affected by the repair, so there is opportunity out there to activate if other operational elements supported for zones or floors to be activated incrementally, not unlike what we did with the original opening where you recall were called the bus plaza opened first, some of the tenant spaces were opened, so there's opportunities they are, but again, the unknown, or unidentified issues that we are trying to tease out will inform us on whether those opportunities come to fruition.

we expect to have clarity on those unknowns better so we can have a little bit more of a granular schedule next month that will give a little bit more detail as to how we are going to open this -- or be ready to open no later than june, and michael is to free and clear other areas well before then, but again, there is these unknowns, on identified issues that may or may not drag us out. with that, i can take some questions. >> any questions? >> just a comment to think staff. this is an excellent presentation, and is exactly what i was looking for in the form of a wider luck and verification of the facilities. good job. thank you. >> thank you.

>> ron, great presentation, and with the team here could you take a moment to talk about the overlap between the tenant improvement work and the facility readiness, and so how you are isolating different components. if there's a contractor working on a t.i., versus what you are doing to get the building ready, to be able to keep them separate , because they are -- they are in the same building, but they are separate courses of activity going on. take a moment. ideally, if some of these spaces , the tenant improvement work can be taking advantage of the opportunity to not do off our work, at a lower cost to, on the building is reopened, in this building will be reopened, some of these tenant spaces could be ready to open at the same time. >> yes. you are right, and again, it is a big footprint. three city blocks, there's a lot

of zones, different floors, and as i mentioned, a lot of the systems are in place and functional, and just fine, it is just a question of their proximity to the structural elements that aren't being addressed right now, and the question work about what might else be out there, but you are right, there's lots of opportunities, some of which we have already taken advantage of, tenant improvements are progressing as we speak, and the security operations center is functional way at the west end, and the loading dock is functional. conceivably, once the repair is in and the shoring is out, the bus plaza could activate as early as april or may. tjpa is building out their space , they could maybe be the first to rival in terms of tenant his, as early as april or

may, and again, the park is pretty well stitched together and about to be validated completely. and many areas of the bus deck are restitched together so we need to explore those opportunities, but the big unknown is how wide and how far this look of other elements will take us, but in terms of what is known and defined, we have a strong strategy to advance through the couple months, and be in a good position well before or after the 1st week of june. >> following up on that last comment, with the work today, had there been any indications that there are other errors that merit further investigations, i know the work is done in

progress, but what are the team finding so far? >> no new findings, no new concerns, there's been a lot of focus in the area, again. they studied the load path, and they did do the testing and the bolts in the area. there are no new, tangible, articulated issues out there, but again, we are slow walking through all the records to understand if anything was left behind, or if anything is a tickler to look for, and take another look at. >> and the building systems, and commissioning, anything that suggests there's an issue that we need to dive deeper? i understand it is a work in progress. >> there are elements in the building, parts where we are already in their. >> you throughout a lot of data

throughout the presentation, you talked about a june date for things to be done and maybe april may for all the validation work, we need to have those paths cleared up before we are ready for a full reopening, and there maybe pieces ready to go before that, and given we are still waiting on some of the pieces on the validation to see if there's anything we need to do, is a correct to think about it, as at least past june, early june, that we are talking about for early reopening, but we don't know exactly when yet, is at the right way to conceptualize it? >> i think the real variable is how much more do we need to look at, and what is the trajectory of reactivating areas, and that will be different for new tenants versus reoccupying the

park, and reengaging some of those activities. the trajectory of reanimating the buses on the bus stack floor, m.t.a. versus a.c. transit, maybe different. those variables need to -- we will be informed on when we will really be opened, and that is why i am focused on what are the elements to secure occupancy readiness so we are not the barrier, and so we are focused on making sure everything is being addressed in the most expeditious and thorough fashion possible. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. i also want to echo and express my appreciation for this presentation. i know i am not as technically inclined as my fellow board members, but i was able to follow and appreciate that you pick what i realized is this is really good, but i don't have a sense of -- i know we are

tracking the cost and the reduction in your costs and expenses, but when will you daylight the budget-specific -- budget specific to this remediation, and what is going on with all the consultants that are on board to, the peer review, we have seen pieces of it. >> you are right, and we have worked together for many years, and that is a strong driver. and how the cash flows work. i think that focus will start engaging next month, once we have the schedule, and we have the repair behind us, and we have a clear understanding from the lab and the peer review, all the elements and drivers to what got us where we are. i think there is an item later in the agenda that speaks to some of the past implications on the oversight.

we fully intend to, once we understand that, i put it as we will be reconciling the account and accountability starting next month. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you for the presentation, it definitely gives a path and some timelines that we have to meet and hopefully get our station open. thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. call you next item. item seven, citizen's advisory committee update. >> good morning, chair new route, directors, and eight special congratulations to matt haney on being elected and sworn in as a supervisor of district six. my name is bruce, i i'm the

chair of the tjpa citizen's advisory committee. my comments today are focusing the following areas. first, governor knew some's comments regarding high-speed rail from the state of the state address was of concern, not only regards to high-speed rail, but any impacts they might have on the downtown extension. of course, however, clarifications from the governor's office received over the past 48 hours, and what we have heard this morning from director lipkin, along with quotes from yesterday's chronicle article, from sfcta commission chair peskin, in that article, a quoted, our responsibility has always been connecting santa clara county to downtown san francisco by bringing caltrain to the transbay terminal, and we will continue to do that with zeal, and from state senator scott weiner, high-speed rail is going to happen, and it will connect san francisco to los angeles.

we are very reassuring that this work will continue to move forward. in regards to the staff report, as executive director -- as executive director mentioned, the review period was completed on january 7th of 2019, and now that government offices have reopened, we look forward to the rods being issued in a timely manner. we did, on tuesday night at our c. a.c. meeting, we received an update, a detailed update from the sfcta on the progress of the review of the alternate -- the alternative oversight and governance models for the management and delivery of the d.t.x., in addition to his previously scoped task to advise on the properly delivered -- delivery methods on resolution 1902. we were pleased to hear of the approach. three teams, 15 experts, and alternates looking at best practices, delivery methods, and

governance and oversight. with that said, we are disappointed to hear that the target date for completion of this work is now targeted for the end of may, instead of the original target date which we were hoping was early may. we encourage this work to move forward with a sense of urgency to ensure the completion of these deliverables by this new target date. in addition, we requested regular updates at our meetings, and recommended that these updates be provided at our tjpa board, and the sfcta commission meetings as well. we also request the status report on the work being conducted by the controller's office. we were also pleased to hear that contact has been made to initiate a best practice review, and the lessons learned that can be used for phase two, and that this work will start in early march. we recommend, and are hopeful

this review moves along forward with a sense of urgency so that the deliverables of each of these studies, the controller's office can be presented at the same time, outlining conclusions, and recommended next steps. next, we continue to encourage a project team to bring the pennsylvania avenue extension to the board at an appropriate time to incorporate that phase is as part of the tjpa program. without step work on scoping can begin, and once completed, environmental work can commence. we encouraged encourage this to move forward expeditiously, as many stakeholder groups would like to see the -- see these phases integrated as soon as possible for a variety of reasons. as we heard this morning, it was shared there is interest for the remaining retail space is still not under contract, although not at the same level as before the shutdown of the center.

this is understandable, but we have confidence that a heightened level of interest will be renewed once there is more clarity on when the center will reopen. with that said, we look forward to seeing updated plans outlining refinements to costs of the transit center, along with revised revenue projections. we know this is of interest to all stakeholders, and of specific interest to them might -- major transit operator his big wave asked questions regarding the opportunity to reopen the center and in phases, which i will discuss for -- in further detail later in this update. on the last item at the meeting, was an update on the transit center, and we too thanks for the project team for the comprehensive update, and we are pleased to hear that repairs are now targeted for completion by june 1st. we did provide some feedback. first, add additional detail and clarity into the schedule to show when the various elements

of repairs will be repeat completed. for example, forging steel, other elements of production, and installation readiness, and the actual installation. additional refinement regarding the inspection work of the drawings, and other critical design elements of the building, that will be done to ensure there are no other items requiring additional inspection or repair. lastly, the last item we discussed, resulted in a unanimous recommendation from the c. a.c., and that is to reopen as much of the center as soon as possible based on the opinions of experts, recommendations of the project team, and of course, board approval pick specifically referring to the salesforce park, rooftop park, the food trucks, and other pop-ups as appropriate. these amenities were so successful prior to the closure, and with a comprehensive communications plan, we believe that this will start the process

of rebuilding community, neighborhood, and passenger confidence in the center. thank you for the opportunity to provide this update, i am happy to answer any questions. >> any questions from board members? thank you for your reports. >> i will call you next and. item eight is public comments. an opportunity for members of the public to address the authority on matters that are not on the calendar. have mr jim patrick. -- we have mr jim patrick. [please stand by]

>> that comes under the motion of mutual aid, so i don't believe we're able to say we're fully secured in a worst case situation. maybe if we had an umbrella. do you see the problem here? we just can't cover it all.

an example is on the east cut -- west cut district, we have a real estate person representing this district. we should have a security person trying to bring security together all around. in the worst case scenario, i think we have a problem. >> clerk: okay. that includes members of the public that wanted to comment. >> okay. [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read].

>> second. >> clerk: the first and second. [roll call] >> clerk: that's seven ayes, and the consent calendar is approved. go ahead and call your next item? >> yes, please. >> clerk: okay. [agenda item read]. >> director, this item will be presented by andrew fremier and

dr. engelhart. >> good afternoon, director does, andrew fremier. we were asked to provide an independent peer review of the beam failure and strategy at the salesforce transit center. in november of last year, we convened a chair of experts chaired by michael engelhart of a panel of experts, including brian cozy, bridge expert from the fhwa in steel bridges. the team is rounded out by

thomas sable and robert shaw. we have also provided expert technical advice and support in that area at the peer review's request. i'd like to thank steven wolf of the m.t.c. staff who has really shepherded the communication of review between the jtpa contractors and the independent review panel. we designed a very specific set of tasks to study and comply with the mayor's request. we have continued to provide updates to the two mayor's on the status of the work as it progresses. i'd like to mention that in order for the review to be ex-predishes, the review panel that's given verbal approvals of various stages of work while minor details of work goes on. each task will be closed with

correspondence from the peer review panel declaring the completeness and closedness of each task. in terms of the review, our study primarily focused on the failure of the fremont street location, but the panel is following leads that have been determined from the preliminary cause of failure and followed leads on where those presented. that path includes the familiarity of work at first street. in order to complete the investigation, the panel has asked the j.p.a. team to examine the contract drawings for locations that might have circumstance characteristics of the two main crossings. in the next few weeks, the panel hopes to identify any additional areas that my merret further investigation and potential remediation work. until that work is complete. we can't really forecast a full scope of the work to be done on

the structure, but we are in sync with the presentation that was done by dennis. i'm also served that the tjpa team has been very responsive in terms of the request of the panel and the work has been very collegial in terms of advancing the efforts of both parties. we look forward to issuing concurrence and reports that do not impact the schedule of the opening of the terminal, and with that, i'd like to introduce dr. michael engelhart who will provide a more detailed scope of the panel's review in scope and in progress. >> good morning. my name's mike engelhart. i'm a professor at the university of austin. we met back in december, and i'm serving as the chair of the peer review panel. what i'd like to do is just

give an update of where we see things stand from the peer review panel point of view. this is a slide similar to what we had in december, just kind of outlining our process. so our marching orders are to be independent, expeditious and thorough, and we've been doing that, continue to try to continue doing that. we continue to interact with the tjpa, the design consultants and their team. we have many meetings every week, so every though we're not leading the investigation, we're peer reviewing it, and trying to be active in every step of the way so that we can keep moving things forward quickly. it's been a great working relationship. we've been getting great cooperation from all involved. this slide lists the major items that we were deelg with. one is to look at the temporary

shoring systems on fremont and first street, to look at their structural integrity. the second was the sampling and testing plan of the material taken from the fracked fremo fremont ---fractured fremont street girters. girt and looking at other areas that potentially may be concern for brittle fracture. so in terms of where we stand, the first item shoring, that's been finished. the sampling and testing plan,

that's been finished, and we've concurred. because of failure, i'd say we have a broad understanding and a -- and a concurrence with the cause -- the technical cause of the failure, and injure looking at this point to wrap up some final things from the tjpa consultant, l.p.i., on some of the analysis they're doing, but we feel we have a very good understanding of the cause of failure in that the cause the is he appropriate. the impact of the fracture on adjacent elements, that's still ongoing, but that should come to a close reasonably soon. we don't see anything major coming out of that, but we still have to wrap up that particular item. the repair of the fremont girters, that's essentially -- we're complete with that, so we concur with all the details, the plans. and there, we've been, like many other things, interacting

with the tjpa team. we didn't look at okay, what's your repair plan, there's been a review, discussion, concurrence, so that's complete, and then, search for other areas susceptible to brittle fracture. one other item we've thrown in there that doesn't quite fit in there was the retrofit of the first street girters. we didn't have to search for those. we knew they had been out there from the very beginning. our understanding of the cause of fracture on fremont also caused us to understand why it did not occur on first street, just some of the differences in how they were built did not lead to the same conditions that would cause brittle fracture. but i think everyone felt it was just prudent to go ahead and retrofit those as -- just to be very cautious. and so the details on first are slightly different than fremont because the middle of the

girter's still there. we're at the 99% concurrent stage. we're still working on some of the very fine details, and that should be wrapped up within days at this point. the last major item which is still an unknown is the work, looking at are there other possible locations in the transit center that may have similar conditions susceptible to brittle fracture, so that work is on ggoing. we had a lot of input from the tjpa so we understand what has occurred and what was going to be done about that. the repair lead by thornton

thomasetti. the other items are either done or are closing in to be done, but the search for other items is the one that's sort of still very active and ongoing, and we'll have to see where that takes us. so that's, i think, all i had, and i'd be glad to answer any questions. >> director reiskin? >> yeah. thank you for the report. thorough work, and very helpful. two questions. you say that you're close, just pending the final report, to understanding the cause. will the finalization of that determination lead to an understanding of culpablity and accountability? >> so our panel is not tasked with addressing that issue.

our goal is to understand the fracture, not who caused it or what caused it. will our determination lead to some determination of who was liable? that's difficult to say because our focal is purchasely technical, not legal. >> can i direct that question to our executive director, then? >> i think what -- director reiskin, once the report is out, we'll be able to interpret and find out what should have been done differently, and that will tell us what happened, and that will tell us who's responsible for us. so we think the report will have enough information for us to be able to determine the responsible party. >> okay. and it sounds like that is soon, to have that determination. >> we expect a report to be presented to the board at the march 4 meeting. and at that point in time,

we'll be able to share with the board what the -- our conclusions based on the -- once the peer review concurs with the technical findings on the reports. >> okay. >> i will add a comment to that that as part of your scope of -- our scope of work, trying to determine who's responsible is not within that, but something the m.t.c. has asked us to do when we're all finished with this, is to make recommendations to what the industry should consider for improvements to cogent standards to prevent this type of failure in the future to reduce its likelihood from occurring, and so that we will be. we will be pointing to where we think there are weaknesses in our current code standards and practices that might prevent this sort of issue in the future. >> okay. thank you. and then, the second question has to do with the review beyond fremont and first, and i think what this board was intending was kind of an overall review of the integrity

and the ultimate safety of the building. and it looks like your task seemed maybe a lot narrower than that, that it's just looking structural and one potential failure mode of structure, but is brit -- which is brittle failure. so am i interpreting that right, that you were just ta tasked with looking at potential other areas of brittle failure but not the structural integrity or overall integrity of the building? >> you're correct. our task is to look at issues related to the failure on fremont street and are there other similar conditions elsewhere? we are not under taking a complete, you know, foundationed roof structural review. that's not within our scope of work. >> okay. then i guess my question may be to executive director or to

dennis or ron. what i think this -- i guess my first question, is there something that tjpa or staff is doing something beyond this brittle fracture review? and if not, should there be something? because as you know, what the board has been seeking is kind of an independent review that kind of gives us a seal of approval so that we and the public know that the building is safe to reoccupy. >> absolutely. and what i've been speaking of kind of the wider view has both been structural and nonstructural. you'll recall that we had a full peer review prior to the original peer review, and that was revisited and looked at again, and they were made available, and some dialogue, i believe, occurred with the current p.r.p. so we haven't seen or heard from any of those parties

issues to take further. >> so director reiskin, we went back and consulted with that original peer review, the peer review design before construction started and during the design process, and they've given us insurance that they feel the -- assurance that they feel the design is solid. we went back and looked at the concrete founders. we wanted to make sure that the concrete that was placed in the transit center reached the strength that was acquired in the specifications, so we went through all the concrete tests to verify that everything was done per specifications. ron and the team went and looked at the fire life safety elements, as well, to make sure they were done proper. really, we just went through a comprehensive review and made sure that was done again. even though we had a quality

control process, we know from the quality control process that things were inspected. we went back and looked at the inspection records again, just to make sure that things were done correctly. we were assured -- by going back to the design, we were aassured by the design review that the review was proper, and we'll be able to stand behind it. >> so we'll be able to say with full confidence, a recommendation at the time of opening that we've rereviewed all the aspects of the safety integrity of the building such that we can say with confidence that it's really for opening? >> yes. once the peer review panel with m.t.c. under the direction and chairmanship of director engelhart concludes on the review of the building, we will be happy to bring back the review panel -- we can bring

them back for the -- on the ones that did the -- the ones that did the original review of the design to give a presentation to the board. but we're confident at this point that the only thing left is to finish the investigation. >> okay. just on the point of relying on the initial peer review of the design, i think what happened here, as we don't have the final cause, is things that happened after design, whether it was fabrication or installation or things that happened even after the peer review folks saw the initial design drawings. so i think reliance on that initial peer review, which may have been done 100% in accord with industry practice, and it may have been fully sound, i'm not sure how relevant that is. if they say it's good, i think that's fine. we don't need to bring them back, but now, we have an as-built building. i think what we need to be able to convey to the public is as it has been built, after

design, but after fabrication and installation and testing and inspect, that it's fully safe to operate and occupy. >> yeah. i think what i wanted to convey is we wanted to go back and rereview any way. it's hard to explain. we went back, we wanted to look at the design, as well. so we did that, and we're looking at the inspection records. so when we're done, we're going to be able to determine what was designed, what's bid out, what's constructs, and that's the call that we're trying to make. >> i'm quite confident of that. just to put a finer point on that, we're seeing the perceived gap. the original rephrase was based on design, and they also informed the p.r.p. on certain

elements of design. we're taking so much time to retrace those steps and have dialogues with the inspectors and the special inspectors so we can understand what areas of concern or controversy or conflict may have occurred during that period, and we do see information about a lot of chatter and dialogue around access holes or not access holes, so that was an ongoing controversy since 2014. other than that, there really hasn't been any other, say, crawl -- you know, something that's just burning at the craw of an inspectors. and again, we've retraced those steps with the individuals as well as the inspectors, so i am

confident there are no other identified issues to take action with. >> all right. thank you. >> i'd like to add to that if i could. >> yes. >> i'm sorry to beat the horse, but what was -- what we were told was that there would be an independent review for the structural integrity of the building. bullet .1 on your slide 12 -- bullet -- i would request a review on the building, what's happening, who's doing it? >> again, it's just slow going through the reports that we've been speaking of, i've been going of the last two months.

it's the design team, the inspectors, and our team members, and informing the p.r.p. where questions arise. so we can address that at a further detail, as well. >> thank you. >> director lipkins? >> sounds like you're going back and reviewing some of it along the way and then focusing in on some of the coninfluences of circumstances -- confluences that happens on fremont street to make sure this doesn't happen again. is that an -- >> let me -- we've gone the design plans. we made sure -- went back and

made sure that everything was correct. everything was inspected before it was placed. so we know the bolts in the design plans were in place in that building. we can go back and look at torque records of the bolts. that's fine. we went back to all the concre concrete cylinders. what were there, 34,000? we went back -- they've already been inspected. we went back to another round just to make sure the records made the p.s.i. that were requested in these specifications. we know the girders that were released, the size of the girders in the shopping drawings, that was done. we are going through the records, but at some point in time, have you to rely on the record -- you have to rely on the records, and move forward. i'm not sure what other path we can do. i'm looking at director gee. you've looked at a lot of

records on buildings. can you shed some light on what else we can do? >> director gee, yes. >> no. i mean, i was just going to kind of, from a high-level standpoint understand where we are and where we are headed. for a high level, the structural engineering team, tjpa formulated a level basis of design. that design was peer reviewed to make sure that was correct, and that exceeded building code because of the uniqueness of the facility, building code, seismic, the whole nine yards. the design team was selected, engineering was scheduled to start. another peer review panel was convened to review that design of that design team to make sure that dine adhered to the basis of design, and they said yes. the engineering drawings were

formulated, approved, put out to bid. and if i recall, there's something like 200,000 tons of steel and millions of bolts and 50,000 concrete cylinders. so the issue that's in front of us right now is not the design, but the execution of that design, and was it executed and with the quality consistent with what the design and specification said? and that's what you're doing right now, is starting with going through the records, and there's probably on this particular project, thousands of pages of records from mil shirts to welding certificates to concrete samples to compression tests to verify that the quality of the design and quality of materials were executed. and until that's completed,

there's nothing else to look at. >> exactly. that's well articulated, and as i said, we've revisited all that document. we've just touched about every document. in terms of third party, do we want toen list another party to peer review the peer review or rifle through the drawings? but we've got our c.m.o. out there, reviewing everything, underscoring the controversies. there was a confluence of circumstances that brought us to what happened where it happened. and the other thing we're not seeing is a similar confluence of circumstances. and what would inform us of such a confluence is if the records and the meeting minutes and the q.a.q.c. of where

they're reviewing is were there other points of contention or stress points between inspectors or various fabricators or contractors? do the records show difficulty along certain lines of activity with q.a.q.c.? those are the things that we're looking at and trying to validate? again, we do see a line of record that speaks to the confluence of circumstances, i think began to swirl around, if you will, as early as 2014. this exercise is informing us to what occurred in that confluence, and it is also informing us that there are no kind of overarching systemic problems out there to kind of follow those threats. >> to follow on -- or director

hursh, i want to let you finish your comments. >> no, i would just like to get the reports that finish the entire structural integrity of this facility. i'm not diagnose for nasa to come -- asking for nasa to come in and redesign this facility. >> if i heard your presentation or update today is that -- let me back up. when i look at the project and when i walk the building, the situation confronting us is rather unique, long span, a hanger column, that is not typical of the rest of the building. let me just start there. is that -- >> correct. the conditions at fremont and first are unique to those four locates, two girders in each. they are not a -- there are not a similar set of circumstances from our perspective anywhere else in the center. >> that was my opinion walking

through the building. the second piece is did i hear you correctly when you said the fabrication of the girders are different in those two locations, where the coninfluence of one was not repeated at the other. >> correct. there was a very slight difference on how things were put together, and that slight difference was one of the things that contributed to fremont fracturing and first street not fracturing. >> but in an abundance of caution, we're doing some comparable work just as an abundance of caution. >> when you say other location, are you talking about first street or other -- >> first street, just in an abundance of caution. >> let's just not say in an abundance of caution. we all felt there were certainties, but it's very appropriate and prudent to do that retrofit. >> and in your work so far

under i think it was the brittle fracture, that we will receive a full report on in march, are there signs to anywhere else in the building to date -- i know the work's not complete yet -- to suggest there are other problems in the building at this point? >> well, it's too early to say because that work is -- >> still ongoing? >> -- not far enough along. it's not far along enough to say. >> and then, my last question is not meant to be offensive. i'm trying to be p.c. -- i'm just going to put it out there. as we've talked about different peer review panels, and you know some of the engineers on those peer review panels like i do, they're very reputable engineers. but at the end of the day, if your peer review panel concurs with all the work, it says the building's okay,