here we go. >> l. katz: and then so previously they would have been responsible for six, the one that is half over the water? >> building 6. this is a demo. this is building 111. yeah. >> but under our prior rfp, that would have included taking responsibility for building 6? >> the prior was -- building 6 was optional too. building 111 was optional. >> in our prior rfp1, both the buildings were optional. i thought it was clearly stated, the responders came in as if it was their obligation. this one we're clarifying the expansion option if they're at o take on the additional facilities. >> that's what i was trying to get at. what changes we made versus i guess more of a clarification. >> more clarification. we have some nice pretty pick pictures that demonstrate what is optional and what is not. >> any other sweeteners for prospective bidders? >> being a tenant in the port of san francisco. >> the asset trance per. >> the asset transfer -- the asset transfer. >> the proposal could be dry dock 2. it has to sa

. >> l. katz: a couple of questions. when -- thank you for your presentation. glad we're going to see these piers move towards getting rehabilitated. but in terms of the solicitation that went out and the way the respondents replied, on the financial piece here, it's here somewhere. you have it broken down so there is the estimate, their bid for 29, and 31½. then you have it broken down for 31½, and 29. did they break it down themselves? or did they bid on 31½, and 29 and added the two? >> the bid form in specific lines then we added it together. >> the question i have is, and i know this might delay the process a bit, but it seems to me that that might be an inaccurate number, because the economy of scale so so they've broken it out for two separate piers, it would be different than in they were bidding on the two simultaneously. they would order materials at a discounted rate and get all the benefits of that. what i'm concerned about is if you added up their numbers, that may not actually reflect the cost by adding the two together as opposed to if we had sai