Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Port Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors approve port financing; some object to large contract amendment for Pier 27 project
Summary
The board approved bond appropriations and authorizations tied to Pier 27 cruise terminal work; supervisors questioned a sixth amendment to the design contract that raises its total to roughly $11.4 million and voted separately on that amendment, which passed 9-2.
The Board of Supervisors approved multiple port-related measures on June 4 to continue work on the James R. Herman Cruise Ship Terminal at Pier 27, including appropriations and bond authorization. The items were considered together but Supervisor Campos asked for a separate roll call on the contract amendment (item 15).
Supervisor questions focused on Amendment No. 6 to a professional services contract for architectural and engineering design services for the Pier 27 terminal, which the item described as an amendment "not to exceed approximately $11,500,000" and part of a cumulative contract that supervisors said had grown many times beyond its original competitively bid amount.
Megan Wallace, budget manager at the Port of San Francisco, said the amendment "is actually true to the original scope for phase 2" and that the port staged contract work in steps so the total appropriation and scope could be addressed as the project evolved. Port Project Director Kim Von Blahn explained the project phasing: early consideration of reusing an existing 1965 shed proved infeasible, cost estimates favored a new building and the work proceeded through conceptual and schematic design phases; subsequent events such as the America's Cup affected timing and phasing for Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Deputy City Attorney John Givner told supervisors that the city attorney's office advises the port on contracting and that construction management contracts can be structured and phased in different ways, although he deferred to the project team for project-specific decisions.
Supervisor concern centered on whether the phased amendments yielded the best overall price and whether separate bidding for discrete projects might have yielded savings. Supervisor Yi (Yee) and others asked whether the work constituted a single project or multiple projects that should have been bid separately.
Following debate, the board approved items 14 and 16 together (ordinance and bond resolution) on first reading and adopted the financing resolution; item 15, the contract amendment, was taken by separate roll call and passed by a recorded vote of 9 ayes and 2 noes. The record shows some supervisors supported the project but opposed the amendment process; the amendment vote tally was recorded in the chamber.
