, adding this contract to the p.l.a. and that would then go into the r.f.p. >> am i correct, typically we don't get to do that when we are awarding contracts. p.l.a. -- we don't have contracts that say you will be part of local 38. >> the p.l.a., i'm, i would defer to staff on the details what the p.l.a. says. generally requires the use of union labor. >> right. >> i don't know the specificity about the local. >> i think we have to build in that language right now the p.l.a. is only for construction and does not deal with operations. >> ok. >> can i ask, add one other thing. so, we are looking at the facility not just for people to come in and operate it, but a training facility for our own people. a lot of these types of small plants are actually going into a lot of developments in san francisco over the next 10 to 15 years, and we are going to have to create a strike team that knows how to operate these smaller plants, and this is a good opportunity to have like a training facility where we can put in the contract that

so with that, just a very short update, quarterly for the p.l.a., and if there are any questions? >> questions from board members? >> thank you very much. >> chairwoman: we have one member of the public who would like to comment on the p.l.a. update. mr. patrick. >> good morning, directors. jim patrick of patrick and company. i want to talk about this project labor agreement. i appeared before this board and spoke against it when it was adopted, i'm going to say five years ago, when this project was in inception. it called for paying the highest price for labor. i have a purchasing department in my company. i go to them and say, get the cheapest price. this board says, no, no, no. it has gone to their staff and says, please, get the highest price per labor that you can get. and they did it. and we're happy they did it. that's what this project labor agreement has done. notice, i have a shoe here. and if i turn it this way, you'll find a hole. i think we shot ourselves in the foot. it's clear, if you take $2.1 billion and divide it by the total number of workers, as reported here, t