as supervisors low -- most likely no we issued an rfp this year and we did receive responses and wassked to affect the bids in the questions that we thought were more important. those responses were due on september 10. those funds fall into two broad categories. the first is the negotiation efforts that we will undertake with the highest ranking firms. the second is doing the outreach efforts that we think will be important to the community, of provided to every customer in the program as well as general marketing when we thought we would get an onslaught from the incumbent utility. saying things that are not necessarily true. so, the budget analysts office as i understand it has recommended the release of funds for those negotiations but not for the opt out process. from our perspective that would just require us coming back again and asking for another release of reserves. in terms of operations moving forward we do not have a problem as it is presented. supervisor avalos: thank you. mr. rose? >> on page nine-nine of the report be pointed out that the issue was selected tuesday rf

they are going to provide us with some templates on an rfp and what we should look at if we were to have somebody from outside the school district to come in to look at future challenges. we are not interested in putting in dollars that we do not have into opening a new facility. >> before it is over, we will get some sort of feasibility discussion. >> we are doing preliminary conversations on what this would look like if we move forward. >> i want to go deeper into what commissioner mendoza just said and that was not part of what was said at the other meeting. it was somewhere else that you have the discussion. i want to be clear about that. president kim: the next report is from commissioner yee. commissioner yee: we overheard the action item results. one of the items as being the overview of special education and financial issues. i am going to make this quick. the result of that discussion was what was presented actually raised more questions than answers -- or it raised a lot of questions. there was an agreement for the committee to take this issue up again in a few months so that w

in july, we approved an rfp to increase the amenities and provide revenue for the department. they approved the selection of twirl n' dip. the commission approved the selection to operate at the scott street entrance from 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. a one-year permit with a one- year extension. as i noted, it will be at golden gate park right off of martin luther king drive 11:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.. the department will require approval for equipment, menu, and prices. they are required to clean up and maintain the space within 100 feet of the concession as well as offer garbage, recycling, and compost to customers. we also asked them not to serve food that is particularly appealing to the wildlife and to instruct customers not to feed wildlife as well as those cited to instructing customers not to do so. the financial projections are the following. the greater of the minimum guarantee of $12,000 or a percentage rent that is 15% of gross sales. the department staff estimates $22,400 per year and i should know that the revenue generated goes back into the marine of fund -- marin

>> two years ago, we went out for an rfp. we had a long evaluation period. we sat down with the vendor. started working things out. there were several process reviews by various city departments. we decided that we would reject all bids and that we would go out again. between that time -- because there really was not any written mou between our department and the planning department trying to figure out what people's responsibilities were and how we would develop the rfp and how we would proceed to a portion of the implementation of the project. that took several months. the mayor's office went through the last -- or the city went through the last budget process, and we had to work out kind of a different funding methodology so that the general fund would not be severely impacted. we finished the mou and had that executed. i have been working with an individual from the planning department along with the technical staff from our department, the planning department, to rewrite the rfp and the process, so we do not end up with the same situation where we have

we twice issued an rfp. we also did that in 2008 and 2009. the department was not able to enter into a long-term lease with an operator for the operation of the stow lake boathouse. on december 17, 2009, the commission approved an rfq package soliciting an entity to operate and perform improvements to the stow lake boathouse. the commission directed staff to undertake a community outreach process and to incorporate certain amendments into the rfq. both of those actions staff undertook before publishing the rfq. on april 5 of 2010, the department received three timely responses to the rfq ha

it was an rfp to encourage the placement of facilities on light standards. the industry would love to see that in san francisco. it is not a punitive measure as this one is today, but one that encourages cooperation. since the beginning, we have suggested that there be a modification of the wts guidelines, which were discussed earlier, as a way of guiding wireless companies to work with the communities. there is no community outreach at the beginning of the installation of these wireless guidelines under supervisor avalos' proposal. there is no aesthetic guidelines here. they are only inches -- 10 or 12 inches. we strongly encourage you to take a step back, look at this broadly, as the planning commission has recommended in the resolution, to modify the guidelines to include the right of way and not have this separate and parallel and unworkable process. thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent at&t. i want to thank supervisor avalos' office, dpw, the planning department, the community, as well

whenever someone has to write an rfp for something, they need to be using the correct language. i, i've seen rfps that have been written and i can see by the language that's being used, that they are not, they're not moved to this whole framework of recovery, but they're still being awarded. so we need to help people to begin to use, and if we do that, they're going to pick it up immediately because people need, organizations need funding. i believe samhsa has done a great job in, in laying the framework for, if you will, for the type of discussion that i think needs to happen. and i think it's around recovery in a system of care model that's person-centered and it's based more on the holistic approach. that it's, it's person-driven if you will. and i, i think we just to build upon that. i think that's the way we begin to have the kind of conversations where all of a sudden, instead of 200,000 recovery advocates, you're making greater head roads into the 20 million people in recovery that miss hyde talks about. so instead of reaching less then 3 million and providing services, w

i would also like to say that we have an excellent track record of increasing sbe participation throughout the project. our rfp participation goals are not set. we continue to work with out rich companies and continue to do everything we can to increase sbe percentages. we intend to work with bdi to continue outreach in order to secure additional sbe percentages. since the bit date, we have been through additional participation with some of our major contractors, managed to identify an initial $3.5 million in sbe participation, which we plan to provide to local sbe's. $1 million of that is to trucking. we are ready to go, we have a lot of experience in this type of work, and we are honored to be a part of this project. chairman ford: thank you very much. madam executive director, it is my understanding that this protest has also been filed with the fta, at this point. so it is not just the tjpa. can we talk about that protest and what were the factors? >> i think i will have cheryl address the board for that. chairman ford: one question before we get into that, sbe participation. on the top of the item, it say

rfp, they estimated the cost would be $9 million. it turns out, excluding contingencies, it is about $11.7 million. we asked for an explanation and we have an attachment to our report, beginning on page 6, which explains -- the bottom line is the airport underestimated the scope of this project. that is why there was an additional $2.7 million. however, given the fact that i mentioned cost was not considered, it does not way into the overall evaluation of who was the winning proposal. therefore, our recommendation on page five is to ame the resolution to specify that the term of the agreement is for 1095 days, instead of approximately 10 years -- not to exceed 10 years -- and that you approve the resolution as amended. supervisor avalos: thank you. let's move on to item seven. >> item 7 is a new 10-year lease agreement with the san francisco museum of modern art for 2282 square feet of retail space in the international terminal. sfmoma is the current operator of this space. they have held the lease since 2001. the original term expired in 2006, but as you may remember, many of the retail and food and beverage serv

when this lease ends, are you going to issue a rfp for this site so that other people in the community or other groups, other non-profit groups can have an opportunity? >> dcyf runs its own process for selecting its nonprofit partners, and maybe they can talk about this. this is a relationship with dcyf as much as it is with existing tenants, so this is an intergovernmental agency. they go through a thorough vetting process and competitive selection process. they have selection criteria, and they have an advisory board, and they actually recommend the nonprofit partners. one of the directors can tell you a little bit more about that. >> we went through a very extensive competitive solicitation process last fiscal year in which over 625 people, agencies submitted applications to us, totaling over $71 million in requests. at that time, we only had $20 million of available funds. within that rfp, we made selections of these four agencies to run the programs that would be housed in the sites identified through the two departments. >> so there were other bidders for these sites. these four existing tenants were the winners of the process, the