>>speaker: depenn the rfp. my understanding is that the rfp winner would be responsible f the actually construction. it wouldn't be performed by public works or i don't think we have a contractor to do it. i think that would be part and linda is nodding her head in agreement. >> have you read the rfp draft language? >>speaker: i have not. >> wondering because it's this mythical language that's out there. >> supervisor fewer: , so you are saying with the rfp process we would contract out this work with a private company? >>speaker: oh hmm, okay thank. >>speaker: don't yate it when people go hmm. makes you w wrt they are thinking. thank you, i know you have been here probably since 1:00. i appreciate you being with us here today. i don't have any other questions, i'm going to move on. let's go to budget legislative analyst. fred, are you with us? good to see you sir. th is fred ruoso. he is the bla that conducted the study of the municipal fiber a few years ago that had slightly different cost estimates than whis

there was no rfp or they were not able to participate their businesses in the rfp. there was no rfi. sometimes they are announced to us in advance. we have voted on opportunities when they are presented to us. generation thing was not p resented he3e as an opportunity which just duck tailed right in between, by the way, ejust f unded $500 million with goldman sachs and cartica was the next item. same item on the agenda. >> we can verify that. that is not my recollection. there were two separate items. generation was a stand alone recommendation. i can certainly go back and verify that. it's not my recollection -- my recollection does not agree what you just stated. they were a combination or even tied together to items separately tied together. i was not at this meeting where the other discussion took place. as far as i'm concerned, we still have the board approving up to billion dollars in a p assive carbon constrained strategy mandate this we're considering completing. >> couple of things please. we can either set aside or move forward. i just reviewed the languag

we released rfp for the services. the minimum qualification was two years of experience, processing of 700,000 citations. conduent was the only firm that submitted a proposal, although there were about 10 firms attending pre-bid conference, including subcontractors. conduent's proposal was in response to the rfp. the citation processing fee will increase from 2.89 to $3.30. this increase per citation will include improvements to conduent management system and refreshment of the hand-helds with the current technology based on the smart phone and ois system. it also includes the purchases of the license plate recognition systems and various other enhancements. we arefully concur with the budget recommendations and i'm here to answer any questions. >> supervisor kim: my only question was why our current contractor did not bid on the renewal of this contract? >> we're not exactly sure why they have not bid. and we weren't offered any explanation, so we're not sure. >> supervisor kim: ok. thank you very much. seeing no que

now, when we go through our rfp process, we ask, where we first ask our rfp reviewers, our panels to say let's get some points. are these costs in line with the other proposals, are they high, are they too high, we try to give some benefits to that and i imagine in the rfp process, they could score better. also give points to what the agencies bring to the contract themselves, their skin in the game, any function they are leveraging or used to support. so we do try to reward those cost efficiencies. next, regardless of that,ain, they all bring their different costs. when it goes through to the contract negotiation process, we try to bring them in a range of reasonableness, you are never going to get truly to a $500 per client type of standard across all the contracts. >> vice president loo: i understand the variables for each agency, ok and just wondering, you know, institute on aging has subcontract with others to provide certain languages, ok. i'm just wondering for programs like they want to serve all ethnic groups of people and they can -- they have to, they don't have -- not can

we issued rfp for professional services to augment our construction management staff. and the arcadis team ended up being the successful proposer. the contract before you is a $42 million contract. and here in front of you is a breakdown of the scope of work for that contract. and you'll see in the last column that at a minimum, if not greater, 50% of the work to be completed is going to be completed by a subconsultant firm under that arcadis prime. so, in conclusion, i'm asking your approval to allow the san francisco puc to enter in agreement with arcadis to augment our staff for the biosolids digester project. we welcome any questions you may have. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. my only question actually is to ask about the committee outreach process for the design of the site in the neighborhood. >> i think even before the conception design, there was a huge level of outreach. even started when we were doing the master planning where we formed a digester task force. so a lot of that was the first metric we walked a way was move the digesters farther away f

we do not know what the responsibilities of the rfp would be. and that actually generally concerns me. we may have a utility tax measure coming before us. you keep your eyes peeled for that that deadline is going to be june 19th. if there's going to be a tax measure on the november 2018 ballot, which is, quite frankly, rumoured to be the case. again this a tax revenue. a tax measure rather than a geo- bond for which we've already missed the deadline on. bu tax, whatever the language is would be determined by the cost estimate and the term, terms of the rfp. there are more questions than answers here and it seems pretty premature to make this capital, or spending, i priority. you heard it reflected and the public comment, is this really a priority? i lovethgoal of this project, though. and i appreciate mike for pointing out to me the utility boxes that are predisposed already to fit themselves for a fiber. i would love to see the digital divide close but i don't think it necessarily has to do with access, but also with the costs associated with p

now, when we go through our rfp prs,eask, where we first ask our reviewers, our panels to say let's get some points. are these costs in line wi the other prs,alare they high are they too high, we try give some d i imagine in the rfp process, they could scorette s give points to what the agencies brin the contract themselves,hekin in the game, any function they are ran. so we do try to reward those resf that, a,. they all bring their different costs. when it thrgh to the contract negotiation process, we tr to bringhe a range of reasonableness, you are n t trur client type of standard across all the contracts. >> vice president derstand the each y, ok and just agi hassubcontracith nstitu others to provide cin langges, ok. i'm jus wondering for programs like they want to serve all picple the can -- they have to, they don't have -- not cantonese, so they have to subcontract with another agency. i'm just wondering whether the office on aging has kind of, encourage agencies to hide people that speak the language, their clientetter and this way they don't, because if you can subcontract with a

and 500 for this group without an rfi and rfp. same issue trying to reduce our carbon exposure. >> carbon emission reduction is something that has been captured and measured for this strategy or us by goldman. they need to get data third party to measure that. i don't think that generation, actually provided that 73% q uote. >> methodology, they are both using the same vendor to determine that. >> is this something -- >> i would go back commissioner driscoll's original point. you approved up to a billion dollars and a constrain s trategy. it is not off the table that we will do that in an index format rather than generation. as a coincidence the timing of which we got the opportunity of very limited opportunity to invest in generation flag ship product, we basically said this is even better than a 50% carbon constrain strategy. we didn't say the reason we're recommending generation is because they will maintain a minimum level of 50. we basically said the combination of a $300 million commitment to generation and $500 million comm

they had plans for the capacity and they put out rfps for contracts. is it clear that they had zero plans to reunite? >> i think that is right. this is not a bureaucratic -- this was a plan to separate and the no plan to reunite. >> you really think that? >> i don't know permanent separation, but no plan for immediate reunification. so there is no plan to reunite, they never -- when i said no plan to reunite, no sort of strategy to do it quickly now that we see how much harm these children are suffering. >> i want to know what happens next? so there's the question about how to reunite the parents and the families, you're working on that. what happens going forward? they want get out of flores to do family detention and put them in navy and tent camps, is that going to happen? >> i hope not. it is absurd to know that the federal government is asking that parents and children, innocent children, be locked up in facilities with no requirements to meet under state regulations for detaining a child. that is what the government asked for. for the families to

. >> the rfp was approved at the march board meeting. we received three responses from three qualified firms after reviewing the proposal. i am very pleased to ask the board to approve bartel associates to perform the audit. the recommendation is here, it's part of the board calendar sheet and i'm happy to answer questions. >> president stansbury: questions from the board? motion, there is second. any discussion from the board, any comments? no. ok, call for public comment. any members of the public that would like to address the commission regarding the actuari actuarial au audit. seeing none, can we take this without objection. great, this passes. item 13, discussion item, the personnel committee report. >> may 9, we approved the minutes of november 1. we met in closed session. we discussed the valuations of both the executive director and the actuarial services coordinator. there will be documents coming to you to fill out and we'll be looking at having a core section in the june board meeting will be associated with the june board me

i want to share with you the goals of that rfp also the goals that's going mandate and direct our department for the next five years. so number one, children and youth are supported by nurturing communities and families, children and youth are healthy and children and youth are ready to exceed in school and they are ready for college, work and productive adulthood. we cannot reach these goals by ourselves. everything we do we do through the lens of equity. we have taken on a very robust training moj l that we've taken our staff through and we are going to share with our communi community-based organizations to ensure that we work together to create more equitable access to the opportunities and services that all children, youth and families need to have for opportunity and happiness. in short, those with a higher need receive maximum benefits from our funds and to the maximum extent feasible distribute funds among services for all age groups. these are our priority populations. you will see this is not new to you. you've seen this before. we are prioritizing the neighborhoods, our african-am

so just last week we saw an rfp put out for an additional 15,000 beds in family detention facilities. and these are not warm and fuzzy places. i've been to them. it's essentially a prison with some blue paint slapped on it to make it feel friendly and family-like. these are prisons. so even though the families will not be separated, which is a good thing, we're putting families in prisons. we're putting these young children in prison-like facilities. so if we think about what that does to these people who already have suffered so much in fleeing their countries that are ridden by violence and murder and they're coming to the united states to seek safety, this is a travesty, and we can't stop now. we have to keep pushing forward. >> victoria, i know we're going to be checking in with you. you'll be monitoring the protests. i'll look to speaking with you over the next couple of hours. meantime, what is the president doing while all the protests are underway including across the street from the white house? we know he's tweeting a new message to those who want to abolish ice. we'll talk

estimated cost of the project by over $12 million last year, so those documents were issued with the rfp to bring on the cmgc team. clark and their team delivered this estimate in mid-january with an unpleasant surprise of a $30 million overbudget scenario, which we have taken on since then through cost reduction and value engineering to reconcile the budget. on april 30, i presented to the capital planning committee the work that we've accomplished which reduced that $30 million overbudget scenario to just under $7 million, and that led to -- with some escalation added to that to buffer some of the value engineering exercises that we still have to go through with a request for additional funding coming from the capital planning for just under $9 million, which would be -- was met with support. we have value engineered the building twice now, and part of the presentation was that to close that last gap would only be done through program reduction from the facility, and it's -- that is not something that was supported by the police department and the capital planning committee agreed that

we've been talking about this since 2016 when we issued the rfp, and we presented to you last year the results of the r.f.p., and we got some requests from our commissioners in emergency room itshey would like to see going forward in terms of the preliminary results. today, we will have a presentation of that recommendation, and we also have representatives from the mayor's office of housing. >> our favorite people are here. >> good afternoon, miss simms. >> good afternoon, chair mondejar, commissioners, executive director. i'm pam simms, i'm a senior housing specialist in the housing division, and i'm here to present on 5-e which is a certificate of preference for the programs survey. just to remind the commission, david merman from survey research partners and i were here last sept to present the initial findings covered by the survey we reported that 891 individuals received cards on the survey, and 191 responded. we went on how we can extrapolate the needs of the c.o.p. holders from the 114 responders. we r explained that the purpose of the survey was to better understand who the c

and post review the rfps will be available for inspection on-site in the event any of the commissioners would like to see them. we anticipate a formal recommendation to the board in n august or september depending on any additional due diligence and site visits and reference checks to the recommender. and i think that concludes my report. >> don't be surprised if it is four and not just three. don't be surprised if it is just two, ok? >> when you talk about finalists? >> semifinalists going to the committee. >> the administrative staff is here. just a question of information for service to the members, i had a member call me yesterday who said i'm going to go see a financial advisor. do you think i have all the information on the website for my benefits and is there some -- sufficient information on our investments on the deferred website? and i think -- and what -- this person has been around for a while so he referred to the blue book. remember the bluebook? i'm just going to ask you, did you think, that on our website there is sufficient information that they can just download it and

been working with them since november of last year, and, in fact, they were part of the panel for the rfp evaluation panel, and we continue to work with them initially in the scope of the contract. we set a 12-month time line to complete a baseline assessment, but yesterday, as resolution urges us to move forward in four months, and we're working with a aramark to meet that. >> you also spoke about coffee services. does that mean we don't provide that today wrn t-- within the current contract. >> we do. we have current feedback from the inmates about what they like, what they don't like about the hot meals, the food in general. we're always trying to incorporate customer feedback and coffee service for inmates will be new. >> that will be new? >> yes, ma'am. >> great. thank you very much. we do not have a bla report on this item. at this time, i am going to open up for public comment on item no. 14. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. can we take a motion to move this forward with full recommendation to the board. mr. clerk, can you please call i team no. 15. 15. 18047

from local small businesses from around the city and the region, then, we'll be able to go out with rfp's for our historic district, so we're hoping to see some major or them.ent in these piers and a of course, you know about the seawall program. i will nonto it in detail. many of you have already been briefed, but of course our seawall was constructed over a century ago. it has seismic and sea level rise risks. we are working hard with all of you, with our ste and federal partners, to plan for a project that provides a safer waterfront in the near term and to prepare for sea level rise in the long term. the budget includes funding for the seawall program to keep it going, and i'm very pleased to say working with the city, we have identified sources not in the bank yet, but identified sources for our first phase which will tackle life safety issues. >> supervisor cohen: good. >> yes, chair cohen? >> supervisor cohen: i said that's good. >> okay. thank you. onward to the ferries, and other maritime improvements. i do want to let you know that we're working on the mission bay ferry landing,

budget, i -- i don't see -- yeah, what you're talking about in terms of the money for -- to begin an rfp process for a special study. so am i overlooking that? >> no. part of this was i -- you know, trying to determine specifically what studies we're going to take on and what money we would need, but i'm certainly happy to look at a line item that -- that talks that? we have an estimated remaining balance of 51,000, which we can carry over, but i'm definitely open to a line item because it does look like we're going to proceed with work on the studies. >> supervisor fewer: how much were you suggesting to give back to the city? >> at this point for the next fiscal year, we had 24,000 that we could give back. >> commissioner pollock: 24,342. >> supervisor fewer: 24 -- i concur with supervisor ronen and supervisor pollock -- i mean, commissioners, that we may want to draw on that money. i actually don't feel an obligation to return any of that money to the general fund. i think we should keep it, considering we didn't last year. we gave some money back, but we didn't have -- we hadn't gone

they started putting out rfps for contracts. is it clear to you they had zero plans to reunite? >> i think that's right and you're hitting the right point. this is not a bureaucratic snafu. this was an intentional plan to separate and purposely no plan to reunite. >> really? you really think that? >> i don't mean necessarily permanent separation, but no plan for immediate reunification, so now when they claim they were ending family separation, of course there's no plan to reunite because they never -- when i say no plan to reunite, no strategy for doing it quickly now that we see how much harm these children are suffering. you know, and i -- >> no, i also want to know what happens next, right? so there's the question about how to reunite these parents and their families, you're working on that. what happens going forward? they want to get out of flores so they can do family detention and put 20,000 people in navy bases and tent camps? is that going to happen? >> i certainly hope not. i mean it's absolutely absurd to think that the federal government -- to know that the federal

restarting the organization all over again, and although we got multiple bids, we did not follow specific rfp process, and that was one of the takeaways that we took back after sigtarp recognized that, is that we're taking a look at all of the policies and procedures and seeing how we can tighten them up. >> ms. james, considering only three houses have been demolished in three years, i don't think that's an issue yet. but when you do sta expending that money, i highly encourage that. mr. farmer, do you have an oversight program in place to make sure that contracts are fairly -- >> we are not actually operating a blight ogram. that's not one of the ones we run in our state. >> will you? >> no, we do not have an intention to run a blight program at this point. >> ms. romero, you've been looking at the administrative costs. have you also had not just the blightog but other areas where contracts have been let, and do you have any insight into whether or not these are getting adequate oversight? >> so, in my opening statement, i identify one of the top threats as anticompetitive conduct, and we'r