as a result of the games, the flow to the arena will be a little different then the flow to the stadium because the float to the stadium, a large numbers of those drivers are getting off the freeways along harrison and bryant street. for the arena, we expect drivers to be getting out at cesar chavez, at mariposa, and coming from the west and from the south as well as from the north. the arena, while it is further from downtown and further from the bay bridge, it does have, it does have different options for access to the arena, which will actually help spread the traffic out. that said, i don't think any of us believe that there won't be congestion on game days. our goal here is to make sure that, first of all, the surrounding land uses, including port tenants, ucsf, including the businesses in at mission bay , and residents of mission

bay, of course, are protected from the impacts of traffic, and secondly, that the people who make the choice that we are all encouraging them to make to take mass transit are able to get in and out smoothly, and are also not subject to that level of traffic. our hope is -- our plan is, which we have seen work in loss of special events around the city, as if we make that transit choice work great, people will experience it for game one and they will keep making that choice going forward. >> i think sometimes we see as you were coming in, it doesn't matter if you're coming from the east or maybe less across the golden gate bridge, but coming from the south or the north, is just even letting people know. i know when i go by by sears point raceway sometimes, way in advance, it will say, race day, and i say i am not going on highway 37 today. i know it will be backed up if i am going to napa. i think, thinking about signage much further away, so people

know, just don't go that route. it seems like you have to go way beyond because the impact is pretty immediate. i just assume that kind of communication for people to know they're not going to the game, these are people who are not going to the game, but affected by the congestion of the game, which then gets everybody frustrated. >> that is a very good point. we work very closely with caltrain who own there was a giant electronic boards on the freeways. whenever we have a special event , or even just a traffic crunch downtown, we are always working with them to find ways to give that message to drivers so they don't even try to drive into san francisco if they don't need to. >> okay. you did mention, i guess temporarily, that you have this very landing. are they going to increase the amount of fairies? do we know what the schedule is? is that something we can have? it is not part of m.t.a., but just understand how they will change their schedule or

increase it went there is combined giants and warriors games so it still looks like the first alternative is a bit of a walk, but when the mission bay is up, it will be much better. >> i think david has some initial responses, and we will do an update on the mission bay ferry landing and we will go into more detail on the schedule at that point. >> we have been working with them who have committed to serving arena events all the games, and large events that they know well enough ahead of time, the service to the temporary facility will be somewhat limited, but again, they have committed, and they are working on a service plan for the permanent facility for both a game -- games and commuter service. when we come back with an update on those projects, we can ask them both to give us a tentative look at what their service plan will be. >> okay. leslie, transit first, which you

all know -- is super second, and then parking is third? how will we communicate that is a strategy? >> i can have peter come up to answer the question about the game date ticketing and defence, and we will have tom talk about uber and lift. >> to address the question you had about technology, we are in the final phases of developing the chase center app. it will encompass many thing is, both when you're at the event center, but to your point, back to the discussions from pier 3032 and the approval of the chase center at block 29 and 32, it will help our patrons understand how they are going to get to chase center on an event day. for example, we are still working with m.t.a. we think we are close to having an opportunity to have munimobile fair bundled with tickets, which will allow someone to use their mobile ticket to board munimobile both

getting to chase center, but also leaving chase center. in addition to the question about if someone doesn't -- does insist on driving, how do they know where they are going? the lots that our -- our at our property and adjacent to the property, those are prebundled parking spaces. those people already have tickets associated with their ticket package, and they know where to go. for the people who might be choosing to drive on an event day, the plan is, and we are finalizing the contracts with several of the local parking lots to get commitments in terms of the number of spaces that would be available to us, and that would be pushed out to people as hopefully a second or third option that they could prepurchase the space. additionally, we are working with google to be able to have live traffic information and

transportation update information so people understand how long it will take them to get to chase center, connected via our mobile app. >> and you had a question about uber and lift. they will certainly be the choice for lots of people who want to get to the game. from the point of view of managing traffic and managing congestion, we don't think that is necessarily any better then a single occupancy vehicle, unless of course, the vehicle has multiple passengers and it. the approach with them is the same as he approached with the drivers who will come and park, and that is to manage the impact on the location. one area that has been encouraging recently has been we have been able to partner with uber and lift to steer their passengers to specific pickup and drop-off zones, and prevent passengers from being picked off and dropped off where they would cause congestion and double

parking. we have a few locations where we will start trying out this month i think that will be an approach that is necessary. we are creating a really -- a really good, safe pickup and drop off zone, in a place where that pickup and drop-off activity is out of the way of the big pedestrian loads, and out of the way of the transit traffic. we will work collaboratively with uber and lift to make sure the pickups and drop-offs happen in places like that. >> thank you. >> can i ask a question? on uber and lift, as someone who used that service recently, i wanted to suggest, unlike the airport, which also now has drop-off locations where you pay a premium charge, i really would encourage a lot of signage, no matter how much you work with the companies or they put it in the g.p.s., i have seen some congestion relief at the airport that i would like to see that citywide, but we have massive drop-off points, but i think

particularly for this, i would love to see signage that says, rideshare drop-off points, and some way, if possible, for technology to make it accessible for this drop-off points be in front of the stadium or pick up in front of them. that is just my 2 cents. >> that's right. there will be signage inside the stadium. when fans are exiting a concert or a game, they will see the sign, it will lead them out to that area. >> i will make one comment on related to what you are doing. i just came back from the final four in minneapolis. that is 70,000 people. i was there in minneapolis for the super bowl. it just occurred to me because being part of the 90,000 and then the 70,000, there are no hotels that are very close, and so all of these out-of-town people who are going to come to games and events, it is very difficult. i think something the city did not think enough about, that we should have had some hotels built close by it that people can walk to.

in both instances, i did not seem at the stay hotel -- same hotel. we walked to the stadium. it was a better experience. >> when the central subway open sent there is a direct subway union square, i think folks are coming from hotels will have a great ride. >> all done? >> yes, i'm done. >> all right. thank you for the presentation. i would like to focus on the ferry service. i didn't get a clear and distinct belief that it is going to be up for the first game. is that the impression that i got from the presentation or do we have an operator.

>> we are committed to doing it. the worry is provided both those entities where their season ticket holder numbers by zip code. they have completed what they think is there service areas, and the numbers look very favourable for them. in fact, in looking at those season-ticket holders, they knew there would be a demand from the east bay, but they have indicated they think there is a strong demand from the south bay as well. >> can you walk me through how

that works? who takes the permit? do we issue it? do they apply? >> we will be coming back to you likely the way that it is being considered right now is we would enter into an m.o.u. with golden gate and others on the construction and fabrication of the facility at pier 48, and then we would enter into a separate m.o.u., likely with them on the operations of it since it is their facility. we will be need to be coming back to the commission and probably in june or july with a proposed m.o.u. >> what happens -- is the deal made? what about the private sector. [indiscernible]

>> we have been looking -- working with tide line, the water taxi operator, and they have started service at pier 52 as part of the entitlement for the mission bay ferry landing, we have entitled and designed a dock that could be utilized for a private operator, however, we don't have the funding in place for that, and we haven't, the deal for pier 48 is not done. it requires both your approval, and it will also require their board approval, and part of the proposed arrangement is utilizing their facilities, should their board to be comfortable with that and to prove that, and using our landing area as real estate and water area for it, and golden gate participating in a variety of different ways. so the m.o.u. that we would be

seeking your approval for may have conditions on it that are the request of the errors and not necessarily ours. but there is an operation that is serving pier 52 today. >> i will take a crack at that. if we are going to have a dock, we want the public to use it, we should see and make make it as accessible as possible. we should not limit ourselves to one operator. it should be wide open. we should let the private sector step in and maybe take a water taxi service. the more people would bring in from that way, the happier we are from a congestion point of view. what i'm hearing seems like a deal that is already set and people know exactly what it is going to be. anybody can pull up and drop off

guests to come into the city and go to the game. >> okay. , i can bring that to our partners. >> thank you. >> david, peter, tom, thank you very much for this report, very detailed. it's hard to believe that the new arena is opening this year, which is so exciting. i hear what everyone is saying, but i kind of feel like the first couple of months, just stay away. [laughter] >> just do not even try to go into that area because, you know , you guys spent a lot of focus on surrounding the arena, but it just does not seem like a lot of thought and consideration has gone into the existing communities and to the existing traffic and what we're dealing with today, which is what we are

going to deal with when this arena opens. such as the tee line, the tee line has serious issues serving its existing community, and taking, you know, more resources away from that to go towards this is not helping existing communities, and i know that for the baseball games, people come from the south bay, east bay, and they use the existing exits like mariposa, like cesar chavez , like downtown. all that is just going to increase. so i think, for the first couple of months, the city will be shut down until we work out the kinks , but i do hope that with all these changes, we do take the existing communities into consideration, and those of us who live in san francisco, you have to get to work, you have to get home, that we are really -- it would really be helpful.

one does the central subway open >> we're expecting to have public service in early 2020. >> that will be some relief. with your community outreach, i was also hoping that you would go to this other waterfront advisory committee because they will be affected by all of this too. thank you for the presentation. i'm going to wish you guys lots of luck. >> item item hbs request approval of memorandum of understanding with the city charter recreation and park department for rent free use for property consisting of of an eco- sensor adherence at the located at 32 jennings street for a term of nine years.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i am the environmental affairs manager and the port charge of planning and environment commission. at your meeting on february 26 th, you heard an informational presentation about the eco- center at the park, and the port such a proposed memorandum of understanding with san francisco recreation and parks department, to operate the center for public benefit. i will do a very brief recap for those who were not here for the informational presentation or are unfamiliar with the park. the port constructed the park in 1999. it consists of 7 acres of restored habitat and a 14 acres upland. visitors in joy walking, viewing , fishing, birdwatching and picnicking, and since it opened, the port has been supporting environmental education and volunteer

participation programs in the park. the eco- center was constructed by a former report tenant, literacy for environment of justice.

>> they started leading the green-agers programme who live or to to school this district 10. the proposed mou would enable rec and park to operate the eco centre which would allow them to

integrate the programmes they are providing in the park with programmes inside and related to the ecocentre and allow rec and park to build on resources that it has on other rec and park facilities and programmes. it would allow them to build over exist existing long-term relationships and to continue existing partnerships and programmes that are going on now in the ecocentre. rec and park has committed to the staff five days a week, including weekends when most visitors are there. and the port will be contributincontributing to add e first operating year. it was how much it cost to

operate the eco centre and there are two categories of expenses related to operating the ecocentre. one iit's plumbers, elect and rg things that need to be repaired due to wear and tear and the labour expenses average $27,500 a year. operation and maintenance as the waste water treatment system also requires specialty contractors, including laboratory analysis of waste water samples weekly, inspection and reporting by a licensed and specialized in waste water

treatment system operations engineer and semiannual servicing by a certified technician and those specialty contractors, the cost averages approximately $42,000 a year. it will remain consistent with those in the informational presentation. the only significant change is that instead of a five-year term with two two-year options to renew, we recommend executing the mou with a nine-year term. it will give the opportunity to fully develop the programmes and it takes awhile to gain traction and for school and other groups

in the community to understand and know the programmes that are youred and how to access them. so i thinit would provide rec as established by an operations and programme plan so port staff and rec and park staff are working on that now and include specific goals for rec and park in terms of the type and quantity of activities that are provided, the type and number of visitors served and regular reporting to hold them accountable to meeting those goals. and the port will continue to be responsible for building maintenance and repair. and with that, i conclude my presentation.

>> thank you. there is public comment. patrick rum. i'm from the environmental justice and we got the facility filled. i had the opportunity to be the park's first naturalist and programmes manager in the 2 thousands. 200s. 2000s. i think this will see its full potential. i have a lot of confidence in

the programming that rec and park provides. i'm very excited about the presence of rec and park because they also have natural resource management experience, which i think will be good for the park. i think this is a really great thing. i think this is a really great thing for bayview, a great thing for the future of india basins and the idea of collecting that area to the future india basin development and i strongly encourage the port commission to approve this. thank you. >> thank you. >> brinda cartagina. >> good afternoon. i'm by the san francisco recreation and park's department, the volunteer division that will be overseeing the programming aspect of the ecocentre at the park. so i definitely want to continue to relay the same information

you've heard. we're excited to be continuing on and extending our participation with the port. we want to leverage our partnerships with the programming we have at the ecocentre and it takes a lot of time, a lot of groundwork, developing and communicating with different organizations to make this happen, so the nine-year term will help us, so this first year we'll be continuing with the existing programmes that we have and just this first month, our unofficial first month in keeping the ecocentre open, we've already welcomed and visited and had about 437 visitors in the ecocentre and so we know that once we make it official, things will continue to increase in terms of the people we're able to serve in the youth and community. so thank you for this opportunity and i hope you move forward and adopt this plan and thank you for your time. >> thank you.

>> is there any other public comment on this item? i see none and public comment is closed. commissioner? >> thank you for this report. it's really been a pleasure to see how this ecocentre over time, since i've been on the commission has proceeded to where it is now, where we have a really good working model and i think i can remember when we had some debates about how to operate this in the past. but i think i'm here to support it and i think we've come up with a model with rec and park and the right partners in the community and i'm very supportive. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> i support this. >> commissioner gilmore. >> i'm excited and i support the item. i think it's a great investment, particularly out of the youth programme out of d10. >> thank you so much for this report. so as far as the port maintenance responsibility and

expenses, is this the same set-up we have where wore we're responsible for the expenses? >> it is. >> and then the $40,000 is just for the first year? >> right. >> and then after that for the next eight years. [ laughter ] you. >> right. >> right. rec and park has committed to adding staff to serve the ecocentre but during this transition period, there was just a need for a little bit of assistance from the port. >> thank you. commissioners, all in favour? resolution 1912 has been approved. >> item 9a requests authorization for four contracts to one lotus. joint venture, ryan and joyce for a joint venture and mcgovern

engineer's joint venture and four terra engineers for engineering related professionals and in an amount not to exceed $3 million. >> good evening within commissioners. this is the port's contract administrator p. this is an action item to recommend approval for the ports as needed, engineering for qualify casequalifications. they are parson's ryan, stand-tech, mme joint venture and tera engineers. each contract has a value of $3 million with four-year term and an option for one additional year. this complies with port-wide strategic goals, including utilizing engineering services to implement infrastructure projects that maintain the

official strength and maximizing the value of port property and increasing revenue. also increases the portion of funds spent by the port by lbe firms. due to on-call services, it's not needed to define a special scopscope inadvance of the propd contract. we enter into master agreements to issue contract service orders. the specific scopes will vary with each differing project need but port staff anticipates the same types of services that were utilized under previous as-needed agreements. these services may include but are not limited to mechanical engineering, electrical engineer, landscape design, transportation engineering, naval architecture and many that fall under these contracts. port staff entered as-needed

engineering services in fiscal year '16-'17. those contracts were valued at $1.5 million each and slated to last through september of 2020. those funds have nearly all been expanded in advance of the contract expiration dates. with your approval on november 19th of last year, we issued a request for equa qualifications for a new pooling of engineering. we held a proposal meeting at pier 1. over 95 individuals attendantedd that meeting and we convened a three-member panel, a construction engineer, nicholas keen, a project manager with the department of public works and a list of the selection panel was provided to and approved by the contract monitoring division.

on the submittal deadline, january 18, we received 13 proposals. by comparison we received six proposals for the same solicitation three years ago. i would like to personally thank and commend our panel members as it took a great deal of effort and diligence to review and score the submittal responses. most of the narrative proposals were over 100 pages in length. in addition, we held 11 oral interviews that lasted over two days, city staff volunteered to serve on evaluation panels in addition to the regular workload without any additional compensation and this evaluation process was a heavy lift and we want to thank the panelists for the hard work. the first step is for the compliance of the minimal complications. all 13 firms meant the mqs. one firm was deemed nonresponsive by the contract

monitoring division for pre-award lbe requirements. the lrq is in two phases. the written proposal was worth a total of 100 points and 11 of the 12 firms scored over 75 points and were invited to oral interviews. the oral interviews were worth 10100s. the most qualified had the highest combined scores. the slide shows the final scores. we are recommending contract awards stand tech mme, parsons rjrsd and tara engineers, the fourest highest ranked proposals. three teams include new joint venture partners, parsons is the sole returning incumbent and l u can see the rating booms play a sit role in winners. additionally, the port has become an attractive target for

consultants due to the increased in contract amount for 1.5 million to 3 million. also, you know, working in partnership with our seawall team and increased and targeted outreach, very competitive bidding environment for this opportunity. we are presenced and excited to engage. it's working on the mission rock development and pier 70. parsons is also here and they've been operating in san francisco since 1948 and they are currently managing one of our as-needed contracts and this time they'll be partnering with ryan joyce structural design and

newly certified microlbe firm that has experience with the exploratory project as well. stan-tech has partnered together with on-call contracts and this is their first as-needed engineering contract with the port and our highest ranked properpropers andproposers and d lbe firm. tara firm is a firm in sanfrancisco since 2003 and have experience on all contracts with the department of public works and east bay mud, representatives from tara are here and here to answer questions at the conclusion of my presentation.

>> the contracts have a $3 million value with a four-year term and i'm available to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. can i have a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed.

commissioner? >> i'm supportive. if i recall, they have to perform seven years within the past ten, yes. >> joint venture partner has it, does it carry it? east venture partner must meet the minimum qualifications. however, the lead had serv had d ten and we reduced that to five. so we originally issued the rfq with a combined minimum qualification and at our pre-proposal meeting with opened it up so this they would have different qualifications for the lead and the joint venture. >> ok, thank you.

>> commissioner, gillman? >> i have to comments. i'm supportive of the item. >> do we have individual contracts not to exceed 3 million or is it one bucket of money, 3 million, which could be awarded to each of them? >> we will enter into four $3 million contracts. >> so this is $12 million for four years. >> and did we know in the beginning, when we -- refresh my memory because i don't remember when we approved the rfq, were we seeking four? >> up to four in return. so this was not a result of the scoring that said, oh, there's a good pool here. we were looking for four?

we've had previous iterations, we have had three firms for our as-needed umbrella and decided to extend that to four. >> the previous group that did have or used up all funding. there's no commitments being made under that pool. so it now transfers over to this pool? >> correct. >> given what we know, you mentioned about the seawall and other things, did this look at the specific sort of, i guess, skills and expertise of these firms versus what the future needs are? i know that you gave us a laundry list of the skillsets which is everything to look at, which is the different types of things but did we cater sort of

saying we'll need more of this and that and therefore, we decided that this firm met that qualification better? >> so prior to scoring the individual proposals, we sit down and this goes over the scope of work and explains what the services will be used for and what will be coming in the future and you know, for instance, nicholas keen, an alternative delivery methods looking at for projects in the near future and that was the experexpertise he brought to the table so he begin each solicitation review with an overview from the chief harbour engineer of what we're looking for and then we score based on the evaluation criteria we've set out in the rfq. >> so of all of these comprehensive services, which ones do you think we'll feature most in the next few years.

>> sure. so civil and structural engineer are always principal, but there is a laundry list of different scopes of work that can include -- i can defer to the chief harbour engineer, his expertise, but within each of the different contracts in the past within we use a wide variety of multidisciplinary teams. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm chief harbour engineer. i think we'll always be looking strengthen the underside of the piers to support gravity loads. the one thing i noticed was that we had little access to coastal engineers. as a port, i think it's important we look at things like sedimentation, the morphology,

our port maintenance department right now, we're in the middle of supporting them, looking at building a new pile-driving crane barge. we need architectural support. i have schooling. it's been a long time since i practiced. i think this is another significant project that we need to move forward and so, when i was outlining the tasks or the projects that we're looking forward, those are some of the items i was talking about with the team. >> so i guess, basically, you would say we got the best match for all of the various things and these firms are not skilled in every single item here but skilled in certain areas on the list? >> the way we structured the rfp and at openhouses, i think we

mentioned that we wanted as wide a breadth of services as possible. it seems -- i think i've mentioned this before that we seem to get stuck on the weird things that happen that we have trouble with our own little port engineering department covering and it's this breadth that helps us to cover things that come up, one-off items that come up. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you for this presentation. i think it's great that we got so many respondents and that all of the respondents have so many lbes and sub contractors that are a part of their team. i'm just wondering, wsp, they have the highest scoring written proposal, but yet, didn't do well on the oral interviews. so i'm wondering what happened with that one. >> that's a good question.

the first six were within four or five points. they didn't answer all of the questions they to them and that was where they fell off if the oral interview phase. >> any other questions or comments? all in favour? resolution 1913 has been approved.

to increase the contract by $2,087,500 due to un-foreseen conditions and tenant occupancy resulting in a contract amount of $12,075,000 and authorized the contract to be $228,750 for a total authorization of $12,303,750, as well as extend the contract duration until january 31st of 2020. >> good evening, commissioner. my name is jonathan roman, the project manager for contract 2790, marine structure 4.

it includes access to areas that were inaccessible for assessment. the purpose of this presentation is to request amendment number two to 2790 with pour power engineering. this will be in the inaccessible areas to be assessed as part of amendment number one. amendment number two will authorize areas deemed critical before the document of elections moves in mid-july. amendment number 2 will support port objectives of productivity and stability. the substructure repairs will

make 29 an attractive lease that will support multiple piers. at piers 31, it's the incoming tenant, 15 windows in the area are in need of repair to prevent water intrusion. ththis is a map and drawing cira 1900. in 1900, the ferry slip was built at what we now know as pier 29. they pulled into berths at a concrete wall on to the amendmenembarkadaro.the remnantd access for inspection and assessment. the bottom left-hand corner is t pier 29 scope of work and

awarded as amendment number one in 2 29 extends to the top of the page. all callers were under amendment one. the dark green is already in progress and completed without need of amendment number two. the white and gray areas represent the inaccessible areas behind the remnant wall and number one authorized to inspect and assess the area. the purple box is the location where critical electrical equipment sits. as part of amendment number two, port staff is proposing to defer or descope work in the areas that are light green, yellow and red to officially address the damage in the inaccessible areas. and any remaining funds will be applied to the referred areas. the cost of amendment number one is followed by work done in --

the cos.this is the electrical t providing power for the characterize ship terminal as well as for pier 29, 33.5 and 33. the left side or above the white line in the picture is the location of the inaccessible areas. as noted, it's supported by this substructure and they support the critical electrical equipment. there are several types of repairs but this is a basic concept. let's go over a brief view of the process and access hold are cut into the deck as needed. that's the top left-hand picture. scaffolding is installed. all of this work is under water. the damage concrete is shipped away and hauled off and that i is -- you can see the

representative of the debris in the top right-hand picture. the rebar is cleaned and new one is installed and replaced. new concrete is poured and scaffolding removed. in most cases material and debris are hand-carried. port staff is requesting adding rehabilitation of 15 windows after pier 31 and amendment number two. it's on the left han side of the page and pier 31 extending east towards berkley on the right. the department of elections will be the tenant as shown. the port has been preparing to rehabilitate under a separate contract. however, it's prior to when the wins can be repaired. the black-out periods can be done three months before an election and one month after. if we do not repair this by august 3, we will not start to

complete the work until 2020. this could leave the equipment and records vulnerable to water damage. port staff is to repair before installs or facilities. $10 million is awarded under the original contract and under amendment number one. $11 million was authorized. the estimated forecast of work already completed is approximately $9.8 million. we are asking for amendment number two for $2,287,000, as well as a 10%.

we respectfully request your approval. thank you for your time and i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> can i have a motion? >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner? >> this is technical and it's hard to ask questions.

and sounds like we got surprised along the way so that we now have a major new amendment, and i guess part was that we didn't see the substructure deterioration and then we're surprised by the fact we have to have these windows ready. is that a good summary? >> can i speak now? >> absolutely. >> in october of 2017, when we acts to advertise for bid, we brought up the inaccessible areas as a part of that work. that was part of the scope. that work was started and the actual work was not started until december of this year. >> so if we view this as something since we do want to get this part of the pier in the long-term up and running, i guess this is a major down payment in the infrastructure here?

>> major. >> yes, that's a good way to describe it, a major down payment and the un-foreseen conditions, the poor substructure underneath the electrical equipment is just something that we can't defer because of that electrical equipment on top and that's capital where the inaccessible area happened to be. so we had bad luck. the condition was just much worse in the inaccessible areas than in other parts of the project. >> so i'm going to ask a financial question since i can't discuss the engineering side of itvery well with expert experti. i assume you're figuring out how you're going to put this in the capital plan or budget or whatever? >> these funds are already budgeted, so the funds have been approved. i believe there's a table -- jonathan, is there a table that shows the various funding sources? >> i don't have it under this presentation. i sigh, on page number 7 of your

staff report. >> no further questions. >> no questions. >> thank you so much for this report. so we originally did this in 2017. we didn't know then about the un-foreseen conditions. >> we knew the area existed and needed a construction crew to be able to peek behind the curtain. >> what do we do between 2017 and 2018? >> we went to bid --

>> we asked for an amendment before we did anything? >> that's correct. >> we came back for an amendment. the initial amendment -- well, the first amendment was for pier 29 and that included the inspection and assessment. we needed a construction crew to be able to cut holes to be able to see what the assessment is. so we're kind of a catch 22 situation. we used maintenance to open up one hall and there was some tea debris but they weren't available for a full assessment so we had a catch 22. we couldn't come to the commission to give a full assessment because we couldn't get behind the walls because we didn't have a construction crew. >> and then when we did the contract, we didn't include the windows? >> that's correct. that's an item that's been added out of expediency since we're doing work at pier 31.

>> but we knew we would need windows. >> i will defer to ryan at this point, then. the windows were recently added. now. >> but i'm just wondering why it wasn't in the original contract? >> so, i'm the chief engineer. the windows were going to be a separate contract. it was a window and wall repair project and the bids came in much higher than what we were expecting. the occupancy of doe was looming in and we are still going to do the rest of the windows and wall repair projects and we're still figuring out how to split that up so that we can address it efficiently, but these 15 windows for the department of elections are critical. so we thought because the

contractor who was preparing the substructure was on site and they could sub this out to a window repair subcontractor and meet this deadline with the doe. >> so i have -- on the windows, it strikes me every time i've gone out to see orton and talk about thework on windows. and have we compared their cost and what we're doing here. this seems like they have a lot of experience with restoring windows. >> my understanding is that there is one local contractor in the bayview district whose experience and expertise is repairing these windows and i believe power has gone out to the same contractor. >> because i just remember they were somewhat surprised and they had to do a lot of work and the

before and after is amazing. >> yes. just to add, we did look at replacement costs, as well, and still turns out that repair is less expensive that replacement. it's a descope and remaining funds would be applied towards finishing the original scope and woe stop if the funds were exhausted. >> maybe we can understand what we originally funded to where we are now on our second amendment. >> if we can go back to the slide, i can talk about that.

so this is pier 29 and this original included all areas, dark green, yellow and red. and then the inabilit inaccessis we could open that up and do an assessment. currently we're finishing up the dark green area and any additional funding left over from any fundings from the assessment would be applied to the light green area first and then toward the yellow. we don't think that we have enough funding to complete the last two without the red area. >> so the original contract was to do the entire, the red, the green, the yellow, the dark green, light green,ing. >> ing. >> everything. and now for $14 million we can only do