i think this rfp is very different from the last one because the last one was only the bulkhead. this one is for the entire pier. and obviously the costs are very different today than what we looked at in 2012. so that's going to also put a different sort of qualifier on here as well. so i just think that -- i think commissioner brandon probably has the most experience in dealing with complex rfps because she's been on the commission the longest and seen what's been successful and not. but in my process, i think the scoring criteria is fine, and i think the waiting is appropriate, and the oral, i think the oral to me is not just being able to articulate well, it's also a question of developing i guess the intangible factor the trust factor, the factors of how we are going to work with this developer that are intangible that come through in terms of the oral interview that perhaps somebody can talk well but do we trust they are going to do the execution. some of that is developed not on paper but an interview process and that's an intangible that's going to reflect how the panel g

argue that that's a priority of maritime versus financial should be built into the guidelines of the rfp. it should be in the up-front guidelines. and i think this rfp in terms of including the values of the community, et cetera, is much more comprehensive than we've done in the past, because we've taken that in consideration obviously, through the waterfront land use plan and all the discussion we've had with the committee so we are trying to be very balanced with it. but i think the guidelines of where we decide if it's maritime or financial feasibility, i think we've left it open in term it is of the uses so i don't think we've tried to preclude one or the other. but i don't think it has to be argued at the end of the process. it has to be included in the front end and the panel will evaluate if there's nuance or gray area, which there will be, to decide which is the best way for the port to consider. and they should show us the nuance and gray areas but we will look at that. but i don't think we're going to have a big philosophical discussion of maritime versus other but it will be n

so if any rfp respondent can follow those values, they should be able to follow with a great development. thank you so much. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner makras. >> i have a few comments and maybe recommendations for changes to the package. for instance, when it comes back to the port for our review, and they are calling out a five-minute presentation, i would recommend the presentation allow the responders more than five minutes. it's going to be the public's first viewing of the proposal, not just ours, but it would be the public's first viewing. and you are looking at a few hundred million dollar project. i think we are due a larger presentation. and if you want to say sales pitch from the developer to the commission and to the public. i would recommend they have, i guess it's called the blackout period and they have a whole list of those blocked out on page 12. so basically they are blocking out everybody. it sounds like elaine blocked out. the staff members assigned to it that can have access to it. unless there's a reas

we have other rfps. >> and they may want to set up r the next set of pier projects. k this amended proposal works qui. >> so just to highlight a questo there's no action that day. >> correct. >> just information. everythings information. >> with an action item on the r. >> right. >> and i assume we are going tow this framework for the next two2 and when we do the northern fin. i feel like if this is a disast- [laughter] . >> i think we should reserve jul we go through this process firsn decide if this is ongoing. becaa change from the past. and let'so everything at once. >> so i would suggest we are gon and propose this process for 30e are coming in two weeks. we wonn the success, but we have said wd back on the northern historic pe non-winning proposers can go tht seems like a natural time to fi. >> we will be using for 30-32 a. >> we will be proposing that sot here in three weeks. >> any other comments. >> all in favor with amendment. >> with amendment. >> resolution 19-43 has been aph amendment. >> to remind everyone to pleaser electronic devices. item 10a, rt app

an rfq and rfp. they do contracts, management fabrication, management even set up a maintenance fund as part of that. their fee for doing that is 20% of the art cost so on a $200,000 that's $40,000 and out of 300 that's $60,000. the substantial service we provide and we have used that on projects. you will see that on the public art proposed for criminal. you saw it on the art that went in on third and cargo way last year and also port youth on the bay view rise sculpture from the silos. services of the arts commission. we have a couple other tools that they use through the downtown plan that's not one that we get involved in necessarily. they also have a public art program that puts up the policies and procedures for how artists acquire how to place, manage and how it becomes part of the city's art program. the port tries not to own art. we're not set up to manage it and maintain it. the port is home to remarkable pieces of public art. oddly enough, this is not, this is a piece that did not go throu

. >> when you say pier 20 and 32 on the rfp coming out. >> on the rfp? do we have an update on that. >> that is scheduled. it's coming for you november 12th. we'll be here on pier 30, 32 and seawall at:3 at:30 to at 3:30 tp to go out and we're working on the community on what kinds of things they like to see and working on our trust values for that rsp and on the restaurant sitting vacant lots come forward. to know which one you are referring to. >> thank you. >> i have two things. i would like to have if possible an open session update of what is happening with our lease negotiations with the photography museum or the photo' non-profit. >> also, i'm just hoping you can get schedule before the end of year. commissioner made her request to bring our rules of order forward, she also made a request which i was a little unclear of the content but having the city town come back and talk about ethics and the value of the ports and i'm hoping we can do that. >> hopefully we can have an update on pier 70 and how it's going and the brockville take over has effect

[inaudible] this was a competitive agreement with an rfp. where we advertise for cisco retailers. coverageone scored the highest of these three beaters. the term of this contract would be for three years with two options to extend for an additional two years for potential total of seven years. the not to exceed amount is $65 million with no minimum commitment. this is based on our historic spend of 10 million per year on cisco products and services. the contract will be available for use, if needed, to all city departments. we are asking you to approve the amended resolution, and the contract which creates greater opportunities for local business enterprises. we will talk more about that. the scope of the agreement. we are anticipating 22 departments working together, and the expected annual expenditure would be around $10 million for cisco products and services. this is what has historically been done since 2014. what cisco does is they build the hardware and software, basically the plumbing for our network, our communication systems and access to the internet. it is telecommunic

we spend six months putting out an rfp. industry spends six months responding to the rfp. then we spend six months doing a source selection and industry spends a couple of years protesting the source selection. and, at the end of the day, we spend three years before we get under contract. i don't know. i mean, you guys can do the math. it's a long time. and when we go fast, what that means is we got to do things differently. so, instead of nasa purchasing, owning and operating the hardware, what we're looking at doing is buying the service to get from the gateway down to the surface of the moon then back to the gateway. and, that is what we have put out in what we call a broad agency announcement. a baa. and, right now, we're in a blackout period about how those proposals are coming back, but i can tell you this, there's a lot of interest. i think, during the course of this week here at the international astronautical congress, i think you're going to see a lot of announcements regarding different companies and organizations that are interested in going to the surface of t

. >> did the other scooter companies -- and i didn't see the rfp, did you require them to offer helmets? >> we required plans for how they would encourage and distribute helmets. hhelmets are not required but law. >> they changed my law to effective lobbying in sac sacramento. do you see there's room to improve their process within the appeal's process? >> maybe i'll take that. i don't want to say anything that might biased the neutral hearing office * officers. >> are there ways people can ameacan ameliorate the process. >> it's based on the hearing officer determining whether the director of transportation based his decisions on substantial evidence. >> what are some of the issues lacking in information? not scum' skip's but in general. they have to have what? >> substantial evidence wouldn't determine previous actions, determined based on the straight document. >> the application kwrufl itseld pull up the slide again and our so application had eight primary categories listed here in the bullets. the safety and device standards, the pricing, the operation's plans to make sure scooters

state street was selected after a competitive rfp procurement process with six a bank. their proposal represented the lowest cost responsive proposal. the key terms or for your time and an annual fee of 0.32% or six on a $40 per year over the four-year term. an option to extend for an additional year, one additional year as long as the fee doesn't exceed $800,000. the bank was selected because of its strong ratings and credit this is my favorite part of my job, i would like to report that state street proposal is -- there fee is lower than the fees before it and berkeley has been charging for the facilities that are about to expire. by approving this facility we will be saving ratepayers about $100,000 annually or $400,000 over the term of the agreement. today we are asking you to approve the agreement as shown on the side. i will not to read them. state street bank not to exceed $200 -- to million dollars for the wastewater capital program. -- $200 million for the wastewater capital program. sets forth the disclosure question and answers that we now routinely present t

a year ago, we ran an rfp process and we had a lot of architects respond and we put together an amazing team of the best architects in the bay area. we've had a series of workshops with those architects to all work together. s.o.m. was a master architect who helped give us guidance and cmg helps make sure those designs were coordinated and they attended all those workshops. you will see the two affordable and gonzales and som with edmunds lee those will be in the next block, the second half of stage one. on the right, you see stanley behind the admin building and the block we're focusing on today we have handdel architects and perk inson and david baker architects. here is another view of stage one. our methodology was to build out one entire block. so we'll have the ferry complete, the waterfront plaza or an area just in front of the ferry complete in front of the admin building. the cultural park and then the entire block so it feels like one finished area so if construction going on on either side at least that whole area will feel finished. this ised garage entry off the 7 seas and

industry spent six month responding to the ir i, and we spent six was putting out an rfp and then industry spent six months responding. and we spent six of us source of election, then industry spent a couple of years protesting the source selection. and at the end of the day, we spent three pictures before we get on contract. you guys can do the math. it is a long time. when we go fast, with the means is we better do things differently. so instead of nasa purchasing and operating the hardware, what we are looking at doing is buying service to get from the gateway and the service of the moon and back to the gateway. that is what we have put out and what we call a broad agency announcement of daa, right now we're in the blackout. period, that's how those proposals are coming back. i can tell you of this, there is a lot of interest. in the course of this week, at the international astronautical congress, i think you are going to see a lot of announcements regarding different companies and organizations that are interested in going to the service of the moon. so i think the timeline is still v

. >> did the other scooter companies -- and i didn't see the rfp, did you require them to offer helmets? >> we required plans for how they would encourage and distribute helmets. hhelmets are not required but law. >> they changed my law to effective lobbying in sac sacramento. do you see there's room to improve their process within the appeal's process? >> maybe i'll take t

. >> you say he would sitd on the process you mean the rfp would go outgo with changing the scope of work and there may be a new contract without changing the scope of work? >> and speaking based on our understanding from what we've heard from ice but the latest update that we received was that they were putting out a request for proposal and so they had not provided a new update on the status of their revision to the statement of work. >> does that concern you? >> i think based on the little bit i know about how contracts are done iou think it's importat to have a clearly defined statement of work at least in mind when you go through that process. >> thank you. >> mr. johnson, what is the status of the plans identified by ms. shaw? >> as michelle stated where thee middle of a plan to increase or make the neededd improvements in our statement of work has been drafted in the current competition or in the new competition and we are expected to work within the next two months. >> will you commit to finishing or revising the scope of work before finishing the process? >> yes. the new req

what we're seeing with the rfps and the itts coming out, that's something that they're stipulating and what i want to understand is the segregation of data even within their organizations. >> i want to thank you for participating today and thank you to the audience for the great questions and we look forward to interacting with you through the rest of the day. thanks a lot. [ applause ] >>> thank you very much for a great panel. now it is my great privilege to introduce to you the last, concluding session for our first-half day here. our fireside chat will include ann neuberger and general akasoni named her the new director of cybersecurity at the nsa and directly reporting to emperor nakasoni and he launched a new cybersecurity directorate which she will lead. it will become operational so this is a very timely fireside chat that will be delivered and run by milu howel known to most of you a longtime cybersecurity investor and executive. so if those of you who are on the sides can come in, we look forward to a great fireside chat and we will now begin. so i'll turn it over to nilu. >>

you just have an rfp for it? >> there's two different issues. it's around the credit issue any conflicts of interest. the other issue of in places looking at the pilot program to join reviews and we have our oversight and the incredible organization as we do the review of the hospitals at the same time and were not to be getting that. we'll see how that goes. >> out of thank you for all your work and especially for the work from the da are because as you say, particularly for small pharmacies what we need in this country is devastating so i i thank you and i yield back. i >> want to thank our witness for her participation in today's hearing. i want to remind members that the committee rules they have ten business days to submit additional questions for the record to be answered by the witness will appear before the subcommittee. the administrator verma, i agreed promptly to these questions should they be received at with that the subcommittee is adjourned. >> thank you.

we have other rfps. >> and they may want to set up themselves for the next set of pier projects. so i think this amended proposal works quite well. >> so just to highlight a question. so there's no action that day. >> correct. >> just information. everything is information. >> with an action item on the recommendation. >> right. >> and i assume we are going to then follow this framework for the next two rfps. 30-32 and when we do the northern fingerling piers. i feel like if this is a disaster -- [laughter] . >> i think we should reserve judgment until we go through this process first and then decide if this is ongoing. because it is a change from the past. and let's not commit to everything at once. >> so i would suggest we are going to come in and propose this process for 30-32 because we are coming in two weeks. we won't have seen the success but we have said we want to hold back on the northern historic piers so the non-winning proposers can go there but that seems like a natural time to figure out. >> we will be using for 30-32 and 33. >> we will be proposing that so we can