Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  November 25, 2018 4:00am-5:01am PST

4:00 am
toby. toby could not be here. i speak for both of us. i am on the board of the south beach neighborhood association and live in the neighborhood. i just want to -- maybe i am commenting out of hand here because i want to comment on the authorizations. should i sit back down? >> good evening, i am becker with the san francisco parks alliance. we were here in september and really supported this project. i want to be here personally to let you know how important this project is to the future of public space and park in the city of san francisco. we really need this project to
4:01 am
complete. i all conveys say it -- always say it is one of the pieces of property everyone looks at. when we do the tours everyone is like i hope that is open space. i am like, yes, it is. i would like to say the bid is awarded. i also want to say you have my commitment and board of commissioners that we will undertake along with partnership request the community and your staff and others to raise funds for the playground and on or ots that were taken out. it is important to move forward. we have been very successful with raising playground money throughout the city to our $30 million that we are raisings for the let's play initiative.
4:02 am
we would roll this into that let's play initiative. i want to say thank you. we support this project. you have our support to make all of the pretty pictures a reality with private and public funding. >> i am penny wells, and i am a sea kayaker. i belong to the san francisco bay area sea kayakers. it is a club of about 600 people. from the very beginning. the port is proactive to engage the community and soliciting input and ideas. the result is a design we are happy with. it has everything we want. we are here to encourage you have, maybe i should sit down,
4:03 am
too. we are here to encourage the port to also support this, to move forward and to build it. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am part of the dogpatch neighborhood association. we are looking forward to you approving this bid package. i am an 18 year property owner in dogpatch. three-pieces of good news. first, dogpatch has made a proposal to work to extend the capacity in the three year term of the current central navigation system. it is to expire in a year and-a-half. we ask the city to extend. the neighborhood wants to be
4:04 am
part of the solution. we want to play our part and hope overflown hoods do the same. we support the plan for crane cove park. we are working to provide a gift from dogpatch. in light of the removal of nick and nora, the two crane cove tops, we have initiated discussions to fabricate a light filled crane top and simple all funding. we ask you to consider this neighborhood offer. we take on fund-raising, work with the artists to confirm details and continue outreach to move it forward. allow me to cite one example. we have given back key neighborhood assets.
4:05 am
one is the dogpatch playground. we raised $150,000 over four months. we installed that park in mine months with help of mta. the project is four years old that is an example where the community works with the city departments to bring forward neighborhood assets. third piece of good news. the dogpatch towers and bombers teams are going to play at cargo way and third street. we found a way to bridge in neighborhood with the third street corridor. for consideration. dogpatch wants a place at the table to assemble funding. working the parks aligning and port we would like to move forward with the playground and return of nick and nora. >> thank you, bruce, that is
4:06 am
wonderful. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner woo ho. >> thank you for this great report. i think that you did take to heart the feedback we gave aulos time and have given what we asked for in terms of lessons learned and informations about the sustainabilities of this park. that was important to maintain it. the numbers pencil out. we will have the revenue to support the maintenance park. the worst is to see it deteriorate because there is not enough money to maintain it. that is a critical thing we learned today. we heard a lot of outreach last time with sense of whether the port supported the partly cloudy. i hope the community realizes we
4:07 am
support this but we did have questions with regard to the park. i appreciate the community comment which we know that our great support. this is crane cove part. we have three items that is to support it and as we go through the bids it is not about whether we support the project but whether the bids are appropriate. we are prepared to go through those with the items up after this next. thank you very much. >> commissioner gilman. >> i am supportive of the comments. it is nice to have a commitment from the dogpatch and the alliance. that was the question if they came together. thank you for that. that helps move this forward.
4:08 am
we have heard cloud and clear how much the community wants this moved forward and the commitments from years forward. >> commissioner makras. >> no report. good report. >> this is a long time coming. a lot of work involved. bruce, i remember when you came as president of dogpatch and we needed to put a navigation center in dogpatch. you stepped up to the plate. some parts of the city shredded lightly. we will help support. dogpatch is stepping up. i appreciate that. i am in favor of this. i think we will get there. i agree with commissioner woo ho. as far as support i am fully in
4:09 am
support and looking forward to the finished project. >> david thank you for the report. thank you for givinthank you foe permits and the out reach and bringing this project to where it is. i am happy that we just took a moment to actually look at everything and that we have come up with value engineering to hopefully make sure we can produce a world class park at crane cove park. i really want to thank the community for hanging in there with us and understanding that we want to make sure this is the best park available. we are sorry we ran out of funding. we are spending $36 million. we are so happy to have the parks alliance as our partner
4:10 am
and help us finish the park. great news how the community will you step up. i am sure this is a wonderful asset to the port. thank you everyone. amy. >> 8a request authorization to award construction contract number 2812 in the amount of $17,845,000 and authorization for 10% of the contract amount for unanticipated conditions for a total authorization not to exceeds 19,629,00 $19,629,500. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am erica peterson. i am the project manager for the crane cove park project. i will be giving the presentation.
4:11 am
this is an action item to award the park improvements and 19th street to gordon and ball the lowest bidder to the invitation published on may 15th. it is $17 million for a total of $19,629,500. i will discuss the copy of the project in a couple of slides. this complies with the goals. it will be a major new space of the southern waterfronts to preserve the resources to provide the opportunities to the bay and open to public in the industrial shoreline. it provides opportunity for
4:12 am
local business enterprises and meeting mandates for local hire and construction projects. it is designed to 28 inches of sea level rise as recommended by san francisco bay conservation. design include best management for stormwater management, water efficient landscaping and energy efficient lighting. the site is 7-point did you acres at pier 70 near 20th street at the southern end of the site. the port commission approved the plan in 2015. currently the project is divided into satisfy contracts. it was originally three contracts. when all of 2781 bids were rejected it was slip to be more
4:13 am
cost efishtive. 2781 would have performed most of the work. the port opened bids in 2017. three bids received auld exceeding the engineer's estimate. 2781 was sub packaged into smaller contracts. construction of the food contract 2740 and cytopreparation is now complete. 2810 is underway. i will talk more in a couple slides. it is to keep the budget in check under it is listed on the staff report and the slide. as david mentioned, based on feedback at the september 11th meeting the staff performed additional outreach to to
4:14 am
advisory group and committee on the status of the park. they additionally brentted at dogpatch. the presentation included review of current design, cost control and establish future expectations regarding partly cloudy improvements. this slide -- i'm sorry. this slide compares bids for 2781 and it was $19.7 million. the lowest was $27.3 million that was 40% more than the estimate. for this contract 2812 the engineer estimated $17.5 million and lowest 17.8. that is within 2%. we can compare how close the
4:15 am
bids were. first contract it was 40% over and this time 13% over. this with the fact the lowest bid was within 2% shows the ports efforts tovey vice resulted in more accurate cost estimates. the copy of work for 28821 on the site plan. i will go counterclockwise. 14 northern shoreline improvement, northern uplands. blue is the limits of work not in this contract. it is the purple. that is the limits of work on georgia street which is part of a different contract. the 19th street parking lot and the plaza and 30 relocation. i will turn this over to tiffany
4:16 am
to discuss outreach with the invitation to bid. >> good evening. i am the outreach coordinator for the engineering division. i am here to outline the efforts to 2812 crane cove park rebid. the invitation was published may 15, 2018. prior to atvertisement and during advertisement we contacted 384 firms. of the 384, 209 were certify you had lbe, of 209, 119 were from district 10 and 99 from 94124, bayview-hunters point. the project was posted on the port website, office of contract administration website. we take advantage of the flee
4:17 am
advertising opportunity provided by the board of soups published monthly in several san francisco papers. the copies were available for review at the southeast community center in bayview. we arranged for the chief engineer to meet with the african-american chamber of commerce to reach out to members and bid on the contract. on may 24 an optional prebid meeting was held in bayview. 17 contractors attended. as a result of our efforts all of the lbe firms on the subcontractor list were contacted by port staff. now back to erica. we will be available to answer questions at the conclusion of
4:18 am
the presentation. >> thank you, tiffany. the city public works requires contracteds to the lowest responsible bidder. the responsibility is based on the prior relevant experience. class a with five years experience, three civil years projects in the last five years and safety history. minimum qualifications are barriers to small firms. we strive to develop minimum qualifications that are inclusive to lbe firms at the prime or subcontractor levels. they perform in the level for you bids. delivery requirements and subcontracting requirements. on june 21 port staff received
4:19 am
three bids for crane cove parks and the 19th street parking project. the estimate was $17.5 million. the final bids are on the slide. the city administrative code 14b the lbe nondiscrimination in contracting ordinance establishes bid contracts. ntk construction is the sole proposeser is entitle town 2%. gordon and balls bid was the lower and responsible bidder. for construction contracts over $600,000 the contract monitoring division sets lbe subcontracting requirements based on availabilities of the firms. 21 purse of the goal for this project also 30% local hire
4:20 am
requirement imposed by the office of economic and work force. mcgee and yolanda,tory are all minority own. team north is a woman owned business. gordon ball is above the cmd requirement, post bid they increased contracts by 86% as second tier contractor. they are planning to use mb for tracking. 100 to $500,000. this is from 24.54 to 27.34. gordon and ball commits to 24.54% of the overall contract to certified local businesses. gordon and ball the lowest
4:21 am
responsible quarter is headquartered in alamo. they participated in many bay area public works projects. for peer 98, the street improvements and the shoreline improvements and grading. 2017 gordon and ball was the prime contractor four the san francisco public works 6.8 million street scape from when we received positive feedback. additional projects are on the slide. they have worked on eight projects in bayview-hunters point. they perform outreach during the bid pro projects. they contacted the 94124 zip code. six of those are from the
4:22 am
bayview neighborhood. gordon and ball has 20 years experience. they received positive comments from san francisco public works and other references. this project is funded by the 2008 and 2012 clean a neighborhoods bonds and capital. if you approve this today we will issue the notice to proceed in january and apes substantial completion in january 2020 with time contract completion in march 2020. in order to deliver the project in budget there is a plan to exceed the 10% contingency. staff will work on delivery methods and phasing to determine if certain work should be left to the end to descope for cost
4:23 am
overruns. they will monitor progress during construction through construction management services. i want t to apologize there is n update. it says dpw but we will union port staff to allow four more oversight and attention. we will value engineering to determine if there are recommendations for cost savings during construction it will be reviewed by port staff throughout. in conclusion we request you award the crane cove parking to gordon and ball $17,084,500. not to exceed $19,629,500. that concludes my presentation. we are here to answer any
4:24 am
questions. thank you very much. >> can i have a motion? >> second. >> we have public comment. tracey. no tracey. mark. how come i can't read the cards. no mark here. what is your last name here? >> morey. >> i am mark morey. i am a member of kayaks you have been limited. we are on port property and we thank you very much. our mandate is to get people out in the water, and we do that in a variety of ways. it is a cooperative club. we have a highway barrier to
4:25 am
entree. we just try to get any members of the community out to the water with access of the water where they live. we fully support this measure and we encourage you to authorize it so this can be the crown jewel of the waterfront. so many members of bayview, hunters point and mission and dogpatch don't have a way to access the water and to get out and find out what it is all about, and to have the ability to just have water exercise and get out and enjoy the area. that is why several members are here. we ask you to authorize this. thank you very much. >> thank you.
4:26 am
>> i am larry beard. i am also a member of kayaks unlimed. i was on the working group on the revision of the port plan. obviously, we don't need to convince you this project is a good idea. we would just like to see you make this a reality by funding it. something that hasn't been mentioned the blue greenway. this would be a key part of the san francisco bay bay trail, which is a project -- i am not sure you are aware of it which will enable people to be able to
4:27 am
paddle the entire circumference of san francisco bay and san francisco has very few access points for this project, and the proximity of this wonderful beach that we worked really hard to get in the plan to the two restaurants nearby, the ramp and the mission rock resort will be a real boone to people participating in travelings the bay water trail. again, i urge you to fund this project, to fund this contract to make this aeriality. thank you.
4:28 am
>> good afternoon. i am hall stuart, the president of gordon bawling. i have been leading the firm since 1995. i have more than 20 years experience in the industry. it is hard to say this. i actually have 40 years experience in the industry. commissioner, adams, to your comment, i am excited and proud to be here today. we are the right company for this project. i often tell people we are big enough to pull-off and build a project like this, but we are small enough to be very hands on in how we operate. that is how we operate. we are very hands on. one you have the reasons i am here today. we have the experience and knowledge needed for enthusiasm very complex project. we would not be in this position
4:29 am
without a lot of past experience on similar difficult projects. our experience on the new bay bridge, new tunnel, the double slide tunnel, hunters point mass grading project, and just recently finishings up at the transbay terminal will provide a solid foundation to build upon for this project. we have crews and managers ready to get the project started. when logistics allow we will have multiple crews and firms working at the site. we have assembled a team that not only has experience and knowledge, but payment are composed of local and diverse firms. some of those are here today to
4:30 am
support me and your decision to get this project going. thank you for coming here today. i appreciate it. this team will about local residents to create the park and will work with the pride that comes from that. knowing that we are developing the historic site and building a park for all residents of san francisco. statement i am sure many friends and families will be using that. we will show that pride in construction. i commit we will complete the vision, any ideas your planners have been working so very long on puttings together. you have the right contractor. we are set up to go. i will personally see that we
4:31 am
build this project to the very best of our abilities. i am proud to do that. that is my job and that is what i do. i will add one more thing. i will offer to come back at some point in the future just tell somebody and i will come back to give you an update report and a project status report from the contractors perspective. if you want me back, i will do that. >> thank you very much. >> i have one more thing to say. i really think it is time to go to work. >> jones, phillips.
4:32 am
>> good evening. i am speaking. i work for yolanda. she is out on an unexpected medical leave, and i am here to say that we support gordon ball on this project, and as they have mentioned, they have full faith that they are going to about small businesses and communities here today. that is it. >> thank you. >> tony phillips. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i aii am with the express.
4:33 am
i am here. this contract wasn't awarded to the president of gordon and ball, it is committed $2,500 for turkey dinners to the bayview-hunters point community, and even though he hasn't received his contract yet, we need people like hal in our community. bayview hunters point and dogpatch would benefit greatly from this park. please award this to our community. thank you. >> maureen. >> good evening, today i am speaking for both the san francisco bay area water trail and the san francisco bay trail. the blue and the green and the
4:34 am
blue-greenway. i want to say i am here to extra super-enthusiastically support award of this contract. we have been working with your staff, with david and others for many years going to the bcdc commissions, designer meetings, going back to the community as they make tweaks in the project. as you well know it is a long time coming. we are excited to be here where you are to award the contract. thank you and congratulations. >> any other public comment on this item? >> katie ladell. i will keep it short. i spoke with toby on the phone.
4:35 am
she couldn't be here. we agree with can say sea wagis excited about this. please award the contract. i want to say a huge thank you for david for the years of hard work. we really appreciate it. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner woo ho. >> i am not going to talk about the fact we all support this project. i had a couple questions. we heard the presentation earlier and we did hear voluntarily efforts to support the community before. whether they are advanced or some other communities on community -- other communities.
4:36 am
we would encourage part of the think you go process. that is the direction we are going to. that is a suggestion to have mr. that is a fairly substantial project and does qualify for that type of idea. the only thing to ask. i am not questioning you have done the best to award this bid. i would like to understand when you compared the bids. where was the difference, labor cost, material? you want to make sure we minimize the number of change orders so we don't go to contingency funding. since we have known in terms of estimations have changed. we have had changes in costs. what was the difference in the
4:37 am
comparison since we are interested in maintaining this within a tight framework on the financial side. >> i feeling like i don't have a good memory of the comparison between the cakors. i know that gore -- between the contractors. i know that gordon and ball are very good at creating the parking lot. i don't want to tell you the wrong thing. i would be happy to respond at a later time. >> 2 we will put it in writing o you understand the difference between the bidders. >> we can minimize. we would be happy to do that.
4:38 am
>> are you asking for this bid or the prior bid? >> no, we have this has been painful. comparing this to the other bids, the differences and w we e trying to minimize. there will be unforeseen circumstances that you have to address. this has been a long time coming and we have to work this through. >> there won't employee unseen activity -- there won't be unseen activity. >> under budget on time. (roll call).
4:39 am
>> i would like to have you come back in six months. we work for the community. they are our bosses so their support. you have my support. >> thank you so much for the presentation. thank you for the extended outreach to our lbes. i think that we are extremely lucky to have such an experienced firm help us with you this project. i know since we have valued and cut it. it is going to come in under budget, on time. beautiful. we are really looking forward to working with all of you. thank you for your patience with us. all in favor. >> resolution 1861 has been
4:40 am
abproved. >> request authorization to advertise four competitive bids for crane cove park building 49. >> i move the items. >> if you could exit the room please. >> goo good evening, commission. i am the port project manager for cane cove park project. i will be giving the presentation this. is an action item to authorize building 49. this is bid package five as discussed in th september 11th. it is to perform rehabilitation of building 49. when this is complete the port will have fulfilled the commitment for delivery of crane cove park. based on feedback from the
4:41 am
commission port staff has been investigating alternative methods and contractor procurement to facilitate mentorship of local community contractors. since this had completed design we are limited t to procurement. we performed research to alternative, had public work staff present and review the bid documents from the city projects that utilized best value this. is the first at the port and excellent pilot project as the cost estimate caliphals within 3 to 5 -- the contract falls within 3 to $5 million. i will discuss more in the presentation. >> as part of the partly cloudy this complies with the strategic goals. building 49 is in the crane cove
4:42 am
park. 7.2-acres located at pier 70. it is at the intersection of 18 and illinois streets. the scope of the project is outline order the slide as part of the rehabilitation of the building demo monthlition -- installation of pile caps and steel caps. exterior and interior painting and restrooms and structural steel and roofing and other items listed here to make it better for future development or lease. the hazardous materials is in construction to prepare the building for this contract. the final engineered construction cost is $3.9 million including the 10% contingency is 4.3. the cost estimate is higher due
4:43 am
to escalation and increase in material costs. while the engineers estimate was evaluated the real estate department was issuing the development opportunity. they have been using a previous cost estimate for 49. we are pursuing methods to reduce the cost of construction. they should not pursue a developer. they have update you had the project project to include the estimate for building 49. based on the final engineering construction costs funding based on previous projects are not sufficient. staff addressed this in two ways. first is a revised budgeted to use port staff for construction management.
4:44 am
for this contract the roadway work and park improvements i in the park improvements. the previous budget with the department of public works would provide cm at additional cost. using the staff will save $1.5 million. there is a potential risk that the port will not have staff to provide construction management services for building 49 and roadway contracts. there should be time to plan staff availability. the second method to save funds and stay within the budget is to include the construction contract. port staff will include restrooms as bid alternate and specifications to include others. $1.5 million to the budget for
4:45 am
building 49 this is fully funded at $4.3 million which includes 10% contingency. the contract monitoring division the lbe subcontracting based on the firms for this they have set a goal of 23%. sport safwill work with the staff to outreach to the trades represented. they are list here. this contract is represented at the meet and greet in bayview and the minority mixer at pier 1 in september. phone calls and e-mails, newspaper advertisement posting to the contractors assistant sister and the introductions at the pre-meeting. there is an opportunity to ask questions regarding the efforts
4:46 am
to men tore and higher local contractors in the specification. the city administrative code defines best value as procurement for construction services whereby contractors selected on basis of objective criteria to determine the best combination of price and qualification. the bid documents contain the questionnaire. they would be scored by port staff. the bid price divided by the score and the contract with the lowest number is the best value. you can see on the screen two bids. one with higher cost is better the bidder received a higher score on the questionnaire. it does take more time upfront than the low bid method. time is required to review it. the contents of the
4:47 am
questionnaire is project to contract. they contain safety, labor compliance, competent and financial condition. for this contract we plan to include questions regarding safety record and mentoring efforts in the contracting community and possibly record of meeting previous contracts. this can encourage community. they are working at the port to determine acceptable questions. port staff feel procuring the high-quality contractor will offer benefits to offset the extended procurement time. the project is fullly funded by the 2012 clean and safe general obligation bonds and capital. if you approve to advertise today we plan to advertise in
4:48 am
january. completion in march 2020. in conclusion we request you authorize construction contract 2814 crane cove park building 49 to advertise four competitive bids. this concludes my presentation. myself and other port staff are available four questions. >> so moved. >> any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. >> i support this project. i want to let you know that i will vote. >> i have no questions. >> in your comments you said that the city will undertake the construction management compo meant. we are going to save $1.5 million is that right? >> yes. >> that is a large percentage of
4:49 am
the contract for construction management. >> i want to give a little more clarification. what erica said is absolutely true. dpw charges for construction management and put an overhead rate to reimburse them. it is not direct, it is direct with overhead. while we save the funds we deploy our own staff resources. we will add operating budget to the construction management work from the portside, and we performed this work on other similarly sized projector similar projects. we feel confident we ca can do t here. >> walk me through. usual leap it is 10% of the job for management. if this costs if we go to dpw is
4:50 am
5x what the market would charge. forgive me for saying it. we use them with that disparity? >> the $1.5 million is between all three of the contracts. road way and building and park improvements. 1.3 is partly cloudy improvement -- the park improvement. that is around 10% of that. >> this is 200,000? >> $4 million. >> about $200,000. >> that is 7%. that makes sense. okay. tell me, do we know by name and
4:51 am
some type of framework on time. have we done five jobs like this in the past five years of this dollar volume? >> for construction management? >> bob, can you give examples? >> chief harbor engineer. the contracts that the port staff are working on now. we have pier 94 which was a $7 million project, i believe. port staff construction managers are working on that project. we have a staff of three construction managers and two resident engineers. they are working on all of our
4:52 am
projects. that is their job. >> i guess this is more directed to the director. when we undertake it internally, have we found any problems when there is a dispute with the contractor that we do that portion in house? >> no, we have not to date, but we do have a partnering set up where we escalate disputes through a partnering framework. that would be the way to resolve disputes. we have not found that us versus dpw is any better positioned in the framework when we enter the dispute. >> i may have a few offline questions. i would like to explore best value procurement versus low bid. is this the first time we are
4:53 am
doing it? >> this is our first pilot project. in the city it is more important for safe work practices. this is a method to encourage that, and we have heard from the port commission the desire to get local community more involved and trained. as we look into it, this is a way taway to encourage support. best value due to demand os staff time is more effective in projects with a construction project of 3 to $5 million. we saw this was within this range so a good example. >> have we modeled how much more it could cost? is there a cap or is it undetermined dollar amount that could separate from low bid to best value? >> we haven't looked at that in too much depth. from our discussions with dpw
4:54 am
who has a little experience with these contracts, they did not think it was going to increase the cost too much. >> have we -- the staff explored putting the bid out we can pick low bid and best value and pick collectively from that? >> we have not explored that. i don't know if we are allowed to do that. we will think about it. i am not sure. >> everyone would be bidding for the same thing. everyone would have the same set of rules. we would have the opportunity not to have a 10% differential in the cost. >> the reason that we are proposing best value. we received advice from the general manager kelly the best value is the preferred method to
4:55 am
pursue the social impact values we are trying to advance, that we will have more ability related to mentorship, partnership, reach to the community and in a low bid contest we are completely -- price dictates everything. we are able to express other value us to compete. price could go up. not substantially or in a way they couldn't manage. >> i support the benefits that we are looking for from best values. where i have a problem. where i caution us and i will support this item this time, but it is a slippery slope not knowing what we are paying for things, and if we are choosing
4:56 am
best value to do business. we should know what that is costing us at a minimum. we should have no blind spots on what the component costs when we are the decision-makers in funding these projects. >> the city attorneys are conferring. i don't think there is a prohibition on put you go it out into ways. it may discourage bidders. they are discussing if we can put out two methods to select. >> i am suggesting they would bid both. there is a distinction. if you have two that you have to pickcho of the two and have someone match them. >> i see think that we need if this is something the commission wants to have us explore i we
4:57 am
need to take it offline and think about it more and make a proposal how we might do this. i am curious if the best value process does allow us to price the various components so we know the pricing like we know a low bid. >> when we receive the bids it is the same as low bids. they can give their prices. we can compare to the engineer construction cost estimate as a basis on how to judge if it is within the reasonable realm of costs. >> i am not slowing this down and i support it. there may be some work on making it better. from my point of view we should now the cost of everything. we are opening up the door to do
4:58 am
very good things i support. i also want to know who we are paying. >> where is there an additional cost? >> it is monetizing it. if they mentor 12 kids we need them to mon ties that. if it is 3% before that is ask what i am hearing you say. >> that is not part of any of the requirement in the questionnaire. we haven't fully developed what the specific questions will be. we will ask questions about the efforts they do and the future efforts to mentor the community. that is not included in the bid. >> that is what they are already doing. >> i am trying to understand why
4:59 am
if we did it this way the cost may be more. >> go back to your slide that shows the low bidder may not win. >> if you could go back to that slide. >> through president i would like to remind every one to speak into the mic so the comments are captured by our colleagues at sfgovtv. >> a bid might come in higher but be evaluated as better value. that is something up to us to determine if we are rejecting bids or not, right? >> the key is the low bid contest price is everything if they meet the minimum competition. it is 100% on price.
5:00 am
this is best value. a bidder may come in higher than the lowest price point and win this award. >> it opens up a door for protests to have more legs on them than just a raw low bid. >> i am not certain that is the case. in professional services we don't do price only. it is qualifications. price is either a factor or not a factor opened at the end and you negotiate on price. we have protests but a very well understood ability to base contests on other qualifications than price. >> general counsel. one you have the requirements for doing the best value is set forth in the administrative code.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on