what was the tjfpa response to the request for the excuse me the rva. mention this safety and security part of the program from its inception. they have retained a series of world class design and engineering risk professional and they were peer reviews that were engaged in by the individuals for the extreme knowledge and the explosive management and seismic management, this is not a single individual or a single firm's recommendation. i'm a spoke man for many, many people and many, many organizations. and it used a rigorous government best practice process the fema documentation, and this is the process used and advocated for by the federal government. and it is a highly structured process and only can be successful if knowledgeable people were involved in it and that is what was done. so trying to move into that area, the original assessment was performed in 09 and there was an update done in 2011 and 12. it addressed the building, what does that mean? >> we had a conceptual design, you only know the building to the extent that the building was evolve

great. >> on the rva, he described the effort that went into the rva and the attention that was paid to each one of issues. in some cases that resulted in us doing considerable additional analysis that in some cases did not result in additional costs for construction. and in other cases there were more substantial cost for construction impacts that perhaps did not prior the same level of analysis. but in the aggregate, these were all areas of focus, and attention during the rva process and as i mentioned earlier, aggregate, impact, or estimated impact on the construction costs budget is 64.3 as reviewed and assessed by the design team. so going into a little more detail working down the legend, which is on the right-hand side of the pie chart, and represented by the wedges within the pie chart which move in a clockwise fashion from the top. center from the 12 hour. the first issue was bus, train, and other fire event management, we did do a note only with the subject matter, but in conjunction with the san francisco fire department, at the end of the day, those analysis did not resul

. >> so i understand the team does not want to cut on the rva analysis, again, i do not want to second guess that. so how about being presented with options that get the number down that the team believes would be constructive? >> we actually we are going to present you on this. >> as part of this presentation. just a reminder to everyone, we are on march 25th, we will be looking to present to you is an action item to recommend to allow to give the design team allowing to move ahead for the rva and we have to move on the rva because the construction documents are due may 31st and the longer we put that off the more expensive this project becomes and it defeats everything that director metcalf is looking to do which is save money. the seconds thing that we are going to come back to you on march 25th. was a recommendation on what to do further with skanka, do we ask the board to allow us to negotiate further? reject the bid? and they will have a recommendation for you then, we are not coming to the board on march 25th, with the recommendation to adopt the reserves and contingencies we ca

and we have to move on the rva because the construction documents are due may 31st and the longer we put that off the more expensive this project becomes and it defeats everything that director metcalf is looking to do which is save money. the seconds thing that we are going to come back to you on march 25th. was a recommendation on what to do further with skanka, do we ask the board to allow us to negotiate further? reject the bid? and they will have a recommendation for you then, we are not coming to the board on march 25th, with the recommendation to adopt the reserves and contingencies we can at this point because we need to give web corps times to relook at the whole structural steel, do we repackage everything? do we redesign the steel in some way to be able to give the response that you asked for. so march 25th, would be allowing us to move so that the design team could finish and that would just include the direction on the rva and the direction of what to move forward and that is it for march 25th and changing the facade from the grass to the metal and we can do that present

it is on par with the cost impacts of the rva. and it is reflective of what we are seeing in the current market place construction market place. and it is consequences for our estimates and for our construction budget moving forward. i know that the big indicator that we are seeing a shift here was with the substructure bids that came in and what we are seeing is an increase in activity in the construction market in the bay area, particularly around issues of steel and concrete. that is having a consequence for us of fewer contractors pursuing some of these packages. and where two and three years ago, contractors were pursuing work at little or no profit margin. in order to maintain a deployment of capitol resource and personnel. now, there is more of a return to normalcy in the margins that subcontractors are pursuing. and those are having consequences for us in terms of decreased competitions and higher bids going forward. so we are expecting, we are looking at the super structure package where we anticipate receiving bids next

also, and dvs, in the role of our design and of the rva update has been working as the tjpa as the owner's representative, urs, and i will introduce the science who led that team and acted as the consultant to recommend the design criteria and the dvs led the consulting to the tjpa to make sure that the recommendations coming from urs, were reasonable and prudent. and did not not over or under address, the concerns and the nature of the facility and more appropriate for the nature of the facility. widening the associates and specializes in particular, on structural and blast analysis, and vehicle force protection. they have one in 64 years of experience, in that arena since experience with federal laboratories, courthouses embassies, as well as working on the pentagon and many of the same facilities in the city of new york, where dvs has addressed general security issues. they have focused on blast and force protection on those facilities. also as part of the peer review and consulting team to tjpa is code consultants ink. cci, and they focus particularly on fire protection and fire life s

to expand on, they look through each element of the building and the same types of categories as the rva went through and so to have a full certification for the facility, each of those areas needs to be addressed. that is possible to have certification of systems within the building, but not the building as a whole. but the certification process would look at each of the systems and elements of protective design and they would look at what was recommended and was that implemented. do you have... >> right, and i should add the director to further respond to your question. the reason that we updated the risk and vunerbility assessment was not to obtain safety act designation and certification, it was done because of the reasons that were presented in the last board meeting which we will not go into because of purposes of time it is the right thing to do and based on fema guidelines and we were at a point in time where we did the first rva analysis where we were in the schematic phase and the design was not mature enough when it got to that point, we did the update again with urs and the o

was that because of the understanding is that our advancing, the design contract to incorporate the rva stuff would result in additional expenditures and that would provide some contacts and remind us of other ideas out there. this budget discussion today was meant to be part of the discussion, the whole discussion will enter details with a full detail with slides and look at the expenditure side as well. am i correct that this is here for context and we are not discussing the revenue and expenditure item today? >> bob, go ahead. >> you are correct, director, that these were provided for context as kind of additional component of the budget discussion that we weren't able to touch upon in prior meetings, but to provide the board with some background. in making the decision particularly as it relates to the rba, we are not committing to the budget increase at this time, but we thought it would be helpful for the directors to have some context of the types of revenue and potential amounts of revenue that we were planning to pursue to augment the current budget. >> right. it's helpful and

and we have to move on the rva because the construction documents are due may 31st and the longer we put that off the more expensive this project becomes and it defeats everything that director metcalf is looking to do which is save money. the seconds thing that we are going to come back to you on march 25th. was a recommendation on what to do further with skanka, do we ask the board to allow us to negotiate further? reject the bid? and they will have a recommendation for you then, we are not coming to the board on march 25th, with the recommendation to adopt

on the rva, last month, you heard from bob ducabela. he is with the bbs security. he is the d, in dvs. and he has an extensive experience in the security industry, and has been responsible for protective design solutions at the world trade center site and the pen station, and the monahan station and washington's union station, and the amtrak and the command and control center and the portable in new york and the airport and the un and work with the nypd counter terrorism division and new york protective design standards. also, and dvs, in the role of our design and of the rva update has been working as the

also, and dvs, in the role of our design and of the rva update ha

on the rva, last month, you heard from bob ducabela. he is with the bbs security. he is the d, in dvs. and he has an extensive experience in the security industry, and has been responsible for protective design solutions at the world trade center site and the pen station, and the monahan station and washington's union station, and the amtrak and the command and control center and the portable in new york and the airport and the un and work with the nypd counter terrorism division and new york protective design standards. also, and dvs, in the role of our design and of the rva update has been working as the tjpa as the owner's representative, urs, and i will introduce the science who led that team and acted as the consultant to recommend the design criteria and the dvs led the consulting to the tjpa to make sure that the recommendations coming from urs, were reasonable and prudent. and did not not over or under address, the concerns and the nature of the facility and more appropriate for the nature of the facility. widening the associates and specializes in particul

allowing us to move so that the design team could finish and that would just include the direction on the rva and the direction of what to move forward and that is it for march 25th and changing the facade from the grass to the metal and we can do that presentation as well. i would ask the board to consider maybe starting our meetings at 9:00, we have a very complex project and i understand, we have never had a time limit for when this board meeting would attend but it appears that most need to leave at noon and i would ask for consideration that we could start earlier, i can start as early as anybody can available and but we really need to start thinking about starting earlier, because there is a lot and it is a huge project and a lot of material and we don't want to keep disappointing the public that we are going to present something and we don't have the time. please allow us some consideration. >> i think that is an important request. any other... i am happy to start the board meetings at 9:00 a.m. if there is no objection, we can certainly. >> and i want to apologize to those of you who

. >> before you move on to the rva. >> i just want to check in and see because there that was a lot of information, if the board members have any questions? >> director metcalf? >> i got it. >> dr. reiskin? >> i had a couple of questions. >> sure. >> one of them, so in 2010, we got $400 million to build the box, and we increased the budget by exactly that amount and it looks like... >> yes. >> and at the same time there were 100 million savings of ve and some shift of scope from phase two to phase one and there were energy efficiency additions to the scope. there was whatever came i guess from the architectal vision that was incorporated. so did everything else just wash out exactly and that is why the increase to the budget reflected just the $400 million of the grant? >> yeah, just the $400 million of the grant application was developed in conjunction with looking at all of these other moving components of the estimate. >> so it is not just the cost of the box per se, then? the $400 million grant was looking at the cost of the box in terms of the hard cost and the design cost and the

through some of the issues that are influencing our budget perspectives looking forward, including the rva, a risk and vunerbility assessment that we performed on the project and the status of the reserves and the over all schedule for design and construction and some potential recommendations that we may bring in the future to adjust phase one budget. >> so, the initial phase one budget, in june of 2006, the tjpa board, adopted the phasing strategy for the transbay program and broke it into phase one and phase two and the funding at that point to move the first phase into final design and eventually into construction. >> in 2007 we concluded the competition and we began the negotiations with pelly clark pelly to become the architect for the transit center and it was in november of 2007 that the initial phase one base line budget was adopted by the tjpa board. at that point in november of 2007, the phase one budget was 1.189 billion dollars. and it was based on a top-down construction approach where we would build the foundation systems for the transit center and the above grade portions f