Front, one of the things that i here that might keep dropping is the [inaudible] okay. That covers my question. Its we pick up bits and pieces from newspaper reports, and we obviously have our own briefings, as far as our litigation strategies, and all, but its hard to see it come together in some way, and thats hard for us, and i would expect its especially harder for the public to see this at one time. I appreciate this, and i hope we can continue to do this on a regular basis and treat it as we do c. C. A. And other continues areas continuing areas of interest and concern. Thank you very much. Youre welcome. Thank you. Any Public Comment . Thank you, president caen and commissioners. Judd holtzman, 350 bay area. I just want to say that we support their push, among other things. Just as a reminder, if this proposal were to go forward, then the pcia charge which we were discussing earlier would not be an issue nor would any number of cpuc proceedings and rulemakings which are maddening to even keep track of, much less participate in. From our perspective, i want to really thank miss hale for her comment on governance. It sounds interesting but given the sfpucs experience in running hetch hetchy, we would not want to see a downgrade in participation and governance as a result of this bankruptcy. And you know would not want to see a slippage in our clean energy or climate targets, and theres no reason to think that we would. I do want to lastly just kind of restate what i said in the earlier item, with the mayor, the board of supervisors, and this commission all pulling in the same direction for i think the first time in the last 20 years that ive lived here on this issue, i am baffled that our governor is popping off with comments to huge media speculation, that maybe this Energy System that tried to poke its way into our system, maybe they should take over. Thats shocking to see as a long time resident of this city. And you know i know its complicated for the city toic at thation positions for the city to take positions. So im not sure how our staffers work for the city, but i would assume that we have a pretty substantial presence in the capitol, and i would really hope that the citys very clear wishes and desires on this matter could be made clear to the governor and to relevant staffers in his office so that i guess at the very least they might avoid taking steps or comments that would preclude our possibilities moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . So one item thats not listed, we wanted to give you an update on was Treasure Island. Barbara, you want to give an update on Treasure Island . As you know, Treasure Island, the utilities there is owned by tida, which is the Treasure Island Development Authority, and we are have an m. O. U. To operate it, and so we cant invest any rate payer dollars, so its been quite challenging to operate it when theres very little money going into maintaining it because at the same time, theyre hoping the developer put in new infrastructure. So at Treasure Island, they experience a lot of power outages, and i want barbara to come up and tell you sort of what we went through and how we were able to get everyone back on power. Thank you. Barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. So we had an outage that was first reported wednesday afternoon. The outage was it was clear that both Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island were out of electricity, so crews went out to troubleshoot and figure out what was going on. The troubleshooting, it became clear that both islands were out, and the troubleshooting focused on the oakland side of the infrastructure. So just to remind you, Treasure Island has received electric service via an underwater cable that starts in on the oakland side right underneath right near the footing of the bay bridge. The connection upstream of that is to a substation thats owned and operated by the port of oakland. And then that substation is interconnected upstream with pg e facilities. So when when oaboth islands were out and we conducted initial troubleshooting, we realized the problem was on the oakland side, and we followed a protocol to working with Treasure Island Development Authority to transfer the island to generator power, both refresh island and Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island. We have a protocol where power will be out longer than six hours. And the protocol is we go to generators. Troubleshooting and repairs continued. The equipment needed to complete repairs was procured. We whi we while were on generators, however, had a problem with fuel. The city fuel vendor could not commit to deliver additional fuels on time to avoid another outage, so we made the call to shutdown the Treasure Island generator not the yerba buena generator, but the Treasure Island generator from midnight just to conserve the fuels. Then, we got on a fuel schedule, and we thought we were in good shape. Not so much, it turns out. The generator on yerba buena isla generator on Treasure Island failed. We were able to switch the customers on Treasure Island to the yerba buena generator. We were able to identify some critical customers, in particular, the job corps dormitories, so we connected an independent generator to their building to get them power during the outage. Meanwhile, we called for additional assistance from hetchy and modesto irrigation district to help with the repairs. So i just want to give a shout out to hetchy and modesto irrigation district and c. D. D. All of whom helped us to get the power back. Ultimately, the power was restored on sunday afternoon. The generator repairs continue. Theyre in progress. We need to make sure we have that back up generator repaired, as well. Ultimately, the cause was a dig in on an underground cable. One of the cables that go from the port of oakland substation to the foot of the bay bridge appears to have been dug into at some point and then covered up and asphalted over and ultimately failed. So we you can imagine the the effort it takes to identify where in particular the outage is under those circumstances, so it took a bit of time to identify the specific location and to commence the work, but we we were successful in getting power back up. We will have an afterincident conversation internally to the p. U. C. To see what went right and what went wrong and how we can improve on our performance under these kinds of circumstances and with the city of division of Emergency Management and with the Treasure Island Development Authority to make sure we work well as a team when circumstances, incidents like this occur. Given the state of infrastructure on Treasure Island, im pretty confident that circumstances like this will recur, so we need to take the time to see what kind of lessons we can learn from this experience to upgrade the performance, and with that, im happy to take any questions that you may have. Thank you. So what, then, are the protocols or are their new protocols are there new protocols in place, like, when any digging is happening around any sensitive areas that an inspection is done or something has to be done before you cover up . Is there any protocol in place for that . Yes, they were, and none of them were observed, apparently. So things were in place, they just were not observed. Yes. And this is a little bit of a different circumstance for us. Were used to dealing with the permits within the city, and this is you know, now were talking about permits that are issued by oakland and potentially the port to the extent that some of this happened on port property. Our port. No, im sorry. I should be clear. The port of oakland. Thank you for that. So we were you know, one of the things that we need to talk about as a city sort of now that powers been restored is what sort of investigative efforts should happen to address the parties at fault identify and get redress from the parties at fault. But typically, when anyone digs, they call u. S. A. , underground service alert, so they can be there when you dig it up. And typically, when you dig, thats what would happen. I dont know what happened because were not the owner of that line and were not called in to mark it, right . Ill have to doublecheck whether that was port of oakland line or our line. But now that we are dealing with this because tida now, we have taken over the responsibility well, we have taken responsibility for operation and maintenance and keeping the lights on, but we dont have authority we dont own the facilities, we dont have the Capital Planning and budgeting responsibilities. We can make proposals to tida to the Treasure Island Development Authority and hope that they will agree that that the approach were taking is right and that theyll fund it. They set the rates. The Treasure Island Development Authority sets the rates and levels the service for the customers there. And that is for the current one, but when the new development happens, they those will be our customers, right . Right. One the islands are both redeveloped, the infrastructure will be handed over to the city power, water, sewer will be handed over to the city and those cust they will be treated just like the hetchy customers. But in the interim, weve got some issues to deal with because that may be a while. Correct. So quick decision i mean, decision, quick question. And it sounds like you guys just did a wonderful job getting in there and troubleshooting and everything, and there were a lot of decisions to make. I know that pg e, you know, when they were starting to do the shutdowns or whatever, ultimately, as a p. R. Piece, the c. E. O. Was just taking the heat himself and saying im making the decision, were going to shutdown here at this time and shutdown here at this time. Just curious from a Department Point of view, who made the decision to say, from 12 00 to 5 00 at night, this is the best decision. Who made that decision . Is that a Team Decision . Thats a Team Decision. As the folks closest to the ground knowing what the capablity of the generators are, what the fuel spend rate is, we came to tida, department of Emergency Management, we had a consult call to say heres the circumstances, heres the recommendation. But i just want to make it clear, it wasnt a decision to turn it off. We were running out of fuel, so the question is when is the best time to shut it off . Right. So now, are there underground fuel tanks . Are we looking into that . What because as you mentioned, it will happen again. Yeah. So absolutely, as part of the afterincident report, well identify things like that. Whats the sufficiency of generators to help us with the issue . Whats the sufficiency of the transport of fuel . It wasnt that there wasnt fuel available, it was there wasnt a truck to bring the fuel to the generator. And it turns out, in all of the city departments, there is not a tanker truck apparently. The department of Emergency Management already identified that as a deficiency, and they have made a request a grant request to purchase one for the city, you know, so steps like that thats a problem that apparently hadnt been identified in the past and steps are being made to cure it . And the question is, is there anything we should be doing to help make that happen faster . Yeah. If something happens to the bridge, then that doesnt matter. So it seems to me some underground storage also something to consider, yes. Thank you. Public comment . Oh, thank you. Is there any Public Comment . That was quite an ordeal. Yeah, it was, it was. Im sitting here thinking, can we reverse the m. O. U. . Yeah. I just feel very i feel sad for the residents out there. I mean with all the construction and the ageing of the structure and just the commitment to not keep it up to repair, they keep experiencing this problem. So thats the end of my short report, so thank you very much. Quite a report. Yeah. Okay. Madam secretary, the consent calendar. Clerk item 8 is other new business. Oh, thank you. New business . None. Clerk item 9 is the c consent calendar. All matters consisted here in are considered to be routine and will be acted on by a single vote of the commission. There will be no consideration unless a public or commissioner request, in which case the matter will be removed and considered as a separate item. Okay. Commissioners, removal of any item . Okay. Public, request for removal . May i have a motion . Ill second. All those in favor . Opposed . The motion carries. Next item. Item 10, approve the selection of cdm smith, incorporated for an amount not to exceed 15 million with a duration of six years. Good afternoon, commissioners, kathy how, assistant manager of infrastructure. Were asking for a staff recommendations for you to approve staff recommendation of a contract with cdm smith subject to board of supervisors approval. This is an old treatment plant. Were also building a substation as part of this project, and so cdm smith also has aecom has a major sub under this particular contract. Any comments . To the public, any Public Comment . May i have a motion . Ill move it. Second. All those in favor . Opposed . The motion carries. Next item. Clerk and i will read items 10 and 11 together im sorry, items 11 and 12. Item 11, authorize the general manager to authorize an installment Sale Agreement to secure a state resolving loan in an amount not to exceed 132 million with a principal for givenessme giveness amount not to exceed 48 million. [agenda item read]. Good afternoon. Richard morales, manager at the p. U. C. Today, youre being asked to consider two separate items to provide low cost state Revolving Loan funding for the Wastewater Enterprises Capital Spending program. Although the s. R. O. Loan programs youre being asked to consider are almost identical, they are two separate items, and they cover two actions, so theyll be presented as two separate items. Quickly, the presentation will provide a brief background of the p. U. C. S involvement with the state Revolving Fund loan program. Ill also describe the two proposed loans under consideration today and finally, ill summarize the requested actions. So p. U. C. s involvement in the state Revolving Fund or s. F. R. Program dates back 20plus years when we executed 30plus loans totaling over 280 million. However, those loans did not provide some advantage to us. Recognizing this is an issue for the sfpuc as well as other borrowers inful california, t state revamped the s. R. F. Program to reflect more advantages for borrowers. For example, the Interest Rate terms were made more favorable by having the rate set by the state on one of the states most recent general Obligation Bond issue, which is generally a low Interest Rate. So in 2013, they paid off the old loans, and then in 2015, we received permission to obtain new loans under the new s. R. F. Program. Since then, weve executed four ssip projects totaling 94. 6 million and a 186 million loan. I should mention that this includes principal forgiveness. Whats that . Well, the loan is 186 million, but we only need to payback 171 million of that. When comparing the s. R. F. Loans executed to date versus revenue bond financing, we saved the rate payers a combined estimated 168 million over the life of these loans, so these truly are lowcost loans longterm loans. So today, youre being asked to consider the approval of two s. R. F. Loans, both for ssip projects. The two is a loan for the biosolids plant project. You may recall back in july 2018, the p. U. C. Executed a loan in the amount of 699 million for the biosolids project. This s. R. F. Loan will pair with that for approximately 65 of the 1. 6 billion project. The other is a 54. 3 million for the o. S. P. Digester gas utilization upgrade project. This will fund 100 of the o. S. P. Project cost. In terms of the loan, each will have 30 years of maturity with an estimated fixed rate of 1. 3 . This compares against 3. 5 , which is what we would get in a revenue bonds. We estimate a combined savings of 84 million to the rate payers over the life of the loan. So if you approve this, we expect to close them with the state before calendar year end. So were asking the commission to take two actions today to approve the srif for two ssip projects. And with that, i will entertain any questions. Questions . Comments . A question. So where do they get the money from. So they very good question. So they actually get their kind of seed money its called a capitalization grant, and all state or most states have an ssip program. So they take that, and then other s. R. F. Programs, and they create these s. R. F. Funding programs. But the other is capitalization grant from the federal government, so specifically, the e. P. A. Thank you. Youre welcome. Okay. We are to vote on this separately, as i understand, so i would like to call for Public Comment on item 11 first. Seeing none, may i have a motion on so moved. Second. Its getting late. Its hard to get this all those in favor . Opposed . The motion carries. Moving to the next, is there Public Comment on item 12 . Okay. May i have a motion . Ill move it. Second. All those in favor . Opposed . The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Next item, please. Clerk item 13, approve the deappropriatetithe [agenda item read]. Barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. As we mentioned, the city provides affordable housing, recreation, infrastructure. The disputes with pg e on the connections are summarized and reported quarterly to the commission and the board in a written report. To understand this opportunity and prepare the offer, the city, acting through the City Attorney, contracted for services. Funding is needed to continue this effort, both to fund staff time and consulting time and City Attorney time. Weve been briefing the commission throughout this effort on both disputes and the acquisition efforts in closed session and ill just remind you that any question you have today thats appropriate for the closed session can certainly be addressed at that time, and we can then return to open session for consideration of a vote on this item if thats deemed necessary by the commission. So you can see that were anticipating funding of 17. 2 million through the end of this fiscal year. Thats a substantial sum, and what you see here are the functional services that we prepared to execute on the offer, to be prepared on the offer, and that includes the Engineering Services for the separation of pg e, the financial needs, and to be ready to operate the newly expanded power services. So where are we proposing the funding come from . What you see here is defunding of projects. We had a board action that appropriated 4. 5 million towards this effort, that when the effort succeeds would be refunded to the two the eraf. And weve identified a shortfall of a little over 10 million. The project the appropriatation request is the sources where we propose we reach into our budget to close that gap. These are projects that are complete that were completed for less than appropriated, or theyre ongoing, and we can release some funds, and theyre projects that are ongoing but delayed. So funds can be requested back when theyre needed. Lets dig in a little bit on that. So what you see on this slide is that list of the appropriations requested, and the only area identified here in green where we expect to come back to you at a later date to request those funds again is for the Alice Griffith Candlestick Point development area. We are progressing well on that project. We have more funds in that project than we can spend at this point. Youll you have proeapproprd in Capital Funds for this project, and the tenyear plan continues appropriations. We plan if spending goes apace with the pace today, well be coming back to you in 2026, requesting funding to be re that 4. 5 million to be reestablished in our capital pl plan. But at this point, we have the funds, we know were not going to spend them. We recommend those projects that you see listed here be deappropriated, and we expect it will not present any lost opportunities. There are no critical projects that would be delayed or cancelled as a result of this. For example, fire safety, mountain tunnel repairs, station line repairs and replacement projects, street light levels projects of service, all of those things would continue. This request would be a temporary Cash Management exercise of moneys that would otherwise be unspent this fiscal year, and we will continue to monitor the cash flow needs of this these projects and of this project to ensure that critical projects remain on schedule. With that background, im happy to answer any questions that you may have. So i have one question. I dont quite understand the 4 millionplus for Alice Griffith, and what does that mean . That was a very important project to so many san franciscans as part of the crazy redevelopment thats taking place or not taking place down in that neck of the woods in bayview and hunters point, so im just wondering what the 4. 4, whatever the number was, actually represents . Yeah. So we have appropriations in our spending and are continuing to work on this project. Is this just utility stuff . Its just utility its just electric utility components of the Alice Griffith and Candlestick Point redevelopment. Weve already invested and reconnected much of Alice Griffith, so the work progressed. We know we will have further work down the road, and the capital plan the tenyear capital plan has a continuous funding stream for Alice Griffith Candlestick Point to meet the spending pace. We know that between now and the end of the fiscal year, were not going to spend 4. 5 million on Alice Griffith. We will get another infusion of funds for Alice Griffith in the next fiscal year. So if somebody says youre taking 4. 5 million from Alice Griffith, that is the economic answer. Whats the how do you fuse a political answer . Yeah. The project is not going to be the project progress is not going to be impacted negatively by our asking for these funds to be reappropriated today a better way to look at it is a cash flow, so if we have money that were not spending, why not ask for money when we have it . So were just knowing that we dont need it until later, lets spend what we have, and when the budget cycle comes, well just ask for the money, i guess, next year. Mmhmm. Thank you. Mmhmm. Youre welcome. Couple of questions, if i could. First of all, of the projects that you have listed there. Yes . I think i know the answer, but i just want to make sure for the record that theyre right. Hetchy assets are classified as water power or joint, and water assets that are either water or joint have funding contributed by our wholesale customers. Are any of these projects classified as either water or joint . No. So there is no impact on our wholesale customers on the balance of the account or any of that . Correct. No impact on our wholesale or retail water customers. Okay. Thank you. Could you talk more about opportunity costs of using this. It explains pretty well why its surplus or why its available. Could you talk more about allocating this to this use and why not other uses . Correct. When we decide to spend money on x, were choosing not to spend it somewhere else. So thats the basic question. Do you want to spend it on this, because if youve spent it on x, its not available for something else. Here, were talking about taking dollars that were already appropriated to power energyize project and put it to another power energyize project. So we look at it as expenditure of funds for downtown, if you will, power projects. Okay. The id suggest that the opportunity cost is real; that in the normal course of events as the Capital Program goes forward, there are projects that come in low and make Funds Available. There are some that come in high, and they need some more money. And part of the management of the Capital Program as a whole is you make surplus Funds Available to Fund Projects that needed additional money. By allocating this to this project, those moneys are not available to deal with excesses in other projects. Correct. Which is just kind of the arithmetic of it. Right. Weve also heard today that, you know, hetchys fund balance is below the reserve level i should say below the low end of the reserve level that was established by policy. We also heard that we would be hearing in the nottodistant future about a need for more money for wildfire mitigation. We also and every time we do a Capital Project or a Capital Project, there are projects that we just cant get to with the available funds, and those are put out either beyond the ten years in some cases, if its big money, theres not necessarily a plan for how well go and ever fund those things. And weve had some work and considerable testimony in front of the commission that challenges that hetchy has Going Forward in maintaining its assets and maintaining its market positions as well as the Financial Health of the entity. So i am concerned about the opportunity costs. I also you said that it was a a temporary Cash Management device. And im fine with that as long as it comes back to us at some time. If were surrendering it forever, i need to be more clear on what those opportunity costs are. Could you talk about how we get this money back . Well, first of all, the way i look at it as an opportunity cost is right now, the Current Situation is not working. We cant hookup new customers because were in this constant battle with pg e, so the revenue that weve estimated will come in, were not obtaining that. So the two sides of the equation is were produce the power but were not able to sell the power. So thats why we based our estimate on the budget of how much power we can sell. So this is not working, so were looking at ways to to be able to sell our power in a way that we feel that we can sell the power or hetchy power to our customers or to new customers. And so a lot of this has sort of, i would say, tied to opportunity costs to our business line of, you know, being able to freely sell our power to these customers. However, there is a component to our business that we have city departments that could be paying more. And so that is something that were trying to address, as well. And then, there is just the future of the city wanting to move from independence, and so im you know, so we are looking at all phases of how we can try to move in that direction. But what i just want to point out is we had to do something. The Current Situation were in, thats the position that were in. We just cant afford to continue in our current status, where we cant move to get more customers, or if a customer that we currently have want to upgrade, then theyre faced to going back to pg e, and its something youre well familiar of. So we should talk more about it. Maybe closed session, but i would definitely want to and i appreciate your comments about the revenue implications of not Going Forward, and that is certainly part of the equation. This is part of what you can do in the corrective actions in the bankruptcy if it will ultimately be successful. This is a not insignificant amount of money that were putting forward on the hope that it will solve a problem, and i support doing it. None of what i say should be taken as a reluctance to go forward. What i would say is we should be aware of it, and what the risks are, and by doing this, we dont foreclose solutions to other problems. It would be the height of irony if we were to sacrifice our own program to obtain assets of something that has not been maintained well. So where that leads me is a conclusion that we need to be able to get money back, and we need to make sure that as part of our budgeting process, with you deal with the kind of we deal with the kinds of issues that you were talking about, the number of services that were providing to the city and not even covering or costs. Its not covering our costs. Its not about making cost, its about covering our costs. So as we proceed with this, assuming we do, i will be looking very carefully, and will be willing to help in any way that i can to make sure that the budgeting process Going Forward needs to make sure that this is made whole. This is not free and found money without purpose that we need to be made whole on that. So two things that i would point out. Back in the day before prop a and b, i believe. Hetchy used to just generate money and give to general fund. 500 million. We cant afford that anymore. So i would rather say, instead of give me the money back, lets come up with a plan where we can be solid business because quite frankly, the money that they would give us back, id rather them do other things. So we can talk about that. Okay. And part of why im talking about it is that i dont want anybody to think that this is just found money, that you can just go to hetchy. You need 17 million . No problem. Here it is. Thats not the case, and we do ourselves and everybody else a disservice if we allow those kinds of perceptions to persist. So i care a lot about that. And there may be other ways of dealing with it. Im very glad to talk about it, but the one thing im not willing to do is pretend that this is free and found money, and that this isnt costing somebody somewhere. It is. Thats true. And probably the clearest version of that is just the the you know, the Fund Balance Policies that we have. What were saying is, we could pay that off a couple times over, get into policy compliance, if we allocated some of this money to that purpose. But by choosing to do this, we are choosing to violate our own policy, and that cant be viewed as an insignificant thing, and im going to be looking to the creativity of staff and the Mayors Office and the board of supervisors to make sure that this does not compromise or Financial Health. We cannot allow that to happen. Fair enough. I quite agree with you, but i have a question of a different nature. Mmhmm. The 17. 2, is that the bare minimum . I mean, have we were going to be financing the project acquisition, i should say, but we really dont know the outcome. So we have to look over a number of years, i would imagine. Yeah. And wed be happy to talk further in closed session about sort of the different pathways and what the years could mean. Okay. Im somewhat inclined to put this over to the next meeting, i dont know. Closed session, or well, dont we have to vote on this . Is this an action item . So to the extent we can answer questions in closed session, and we can reconvene after closed and address this if youre prepared to at that time. So id suggest you keep your options open after the closed session and revisit this item at that time and make a decision as to whether it needs to be held over or whether theres comfort in voting on that today. Okay. Does that make sense to everyone . Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Clerk you want to call for Public Comment . I guess well call for Public Comment when we return to the item. Okay. Next item, please. Clerk item 14, adopt the final mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and the findings as required by the california environment cal quality act for the mountain tunnel improvements project, project number cuh 10221, mountain tunnel improvements project. This action constitutes the approval action for the purposes of ceqa. Kathy how, assistant general manager for infrastructure. I can answer any questions. That would be fine. Are there any questions . We dont have to have a presentation on this. Any Public Comment . May i have a motion . So moved. Move it. Ill second it. All those in favor . Opposed . The moel the motion carries. Next item. Clerk item 15, approve and authorize the general manager to implement safety prequalification procedures to qualify Construction Contractors to bid on sfpuc public works projects. Hello, commissioners. The item before you is the proposed safety prequalification procedure to qualify contractors to bid on sfpuc Construction Contracts. Randy parent will present this, but i just want to give a little background. He has over ten Years Experience as a deputy City Attorney, and he is the City Attorney assigned for all sfpucrelated issues. We keep him exceptionally busy. On average, San Francisco advertises 30 to 35 Construction Projects worth about 350 million worth of projects a year. In 2020, we already know that we have five contracts that will total more than 300 million. Starting as part of the ramp up of the water system improvement program, sfpuc had a question regarding one contractors safety record. As randy will discuss, the city is making safety on Construction Contracts a type priority. I would also just like to give special recognition to my colleague, greg lyman because he has spent an uncounted number of hours shuffling the information and projects with many contractors that bid on sfpuc contracts as well as other chapter 6 department of public works contracts. So now im going to hand it over to randy parent. I have a question before the presentation. Who did you say the stakeholders were that you brought in to speak to . Could you repeat that list again, please. Absolutely. We worked with other city chapter 6 departments, we worked with Safety Experts steve bowers, we worked with city Risk Management office, we worked with two city contractor offices, a. G. C. And ucon as well as ucons safety expert, and we reached out to other contractors that bid on city work as well as other chapter 6 departments. I thought i heard you say the word a. B. C. In there somewhere. No, sir. Okay. A. G. C. Did you one more question. Did you reach out to any of the, say, unions that represent workers that do so much of the work at the p. U. C. . No, sir. Let me begin. Im randy parent. Im a deputy City Attorney. Ill try and be as brief as i can. This is reasonably complicated. Mr. Parent, we i dont want to have a i dont even think were running out of time, so if you can make it as brief as and complete as possible. I dont want to lose my quorum. No problem. I will trunkate what i had planned to say as best as i can. Lets go to the first slide. Historically, the city, going back before wsup, transferred through contracts all responsibility and liability for safety to contractors in order to avoid liability to the city. With wsup, the city adopted contractual provisions mandating safety and greatly improved construction safety where it was 50 better than average in the industry. Go on. Sfpuc is responding to an Auditor Report from the Controllers Office recommending that the chapter 6 departments be more proactive on Safety Measures on Construction Projects, and in particular, be more proactive in the procurement process on the determination whether a contractor is responsible. As you know, we need to award contracts based on the lowest responsible bidder who submits the lowest responsive bid. In the past, the p. U. C. Has not looked in depth at the safety issue in part of its responsibility determination. In august on the m. T. A. Tunnel project, a contractor had a fatality, and he received an osha citation for that. A couple months later, the board of supervisors audit and Oversight Committee convened a meeting to look into how the chapter 6 departments vet contractors on the safety issues prior to procuring the services. In particular, the chapter 6 departments got direction from the supervisors in that meeting that that those supervisors on the committee would like the chapter 6 departments to take a more proactive approach in looking at safety issues in the procurement process and the safety determination. The chapter 6 departments as a whole tried to get together on that. Its a difficult proposition, resulting in because p. U. C. Had more big projects online, p. U. C. Stepped forward and took the lead on developing a procedure to go forward with and we have the agreement that we adopt the resolutions before you. Based on we roll it out, make any tweaks that we need to make, but im fairly confident well have all the chapter 6 departments on board with that. Randy, just for folks to know what chapter 6 departments that have contract that is right that can go out and do Construction Contracts, so i just wanted to put that out there. We were able to retain a consultant whos internationally known on safety. I wont read the slide to you. Hes got very impressive credentials working for intel construction as well as a number of high Profile Projects here in the city. So in your agenda item, the procedures are written down into a form that contractors can fill out. Its a threepart exercise. The first two parts are based solely on information thats in an osha 300a form. This is a mandatory form that contractors must submit under penalty of perjury to osha. The first two parts deal with the first part deals with if its in the osha 300a form, the nonfatal injury and illness rate, the contractors report. The second report is the lost work rate that contractors report to osha. Lost work rate is when injury results from days away from work, restriction or assignment away from work due to the injury. Part one on the nonfatal injury report, theres only three questions. If the contractor can answer based on osha, they dont have to go further. If they dont prequalify, theres a part two, with four questions, and if the contractor can answer no to all four of those questions, they can prequalify. For those contractors that dont prequalify on those two steps, we developed a consultant with the experts to evaluate a contractors safety performance and
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.