Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seawall Resiliency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves amended recommendation for $39.9M seawall planning contract amid funding questions
Summary
The Port asked the committee to authorize a nearly $40M, 10‑year contract with CH2M Hill for planning, engineering and environmental work on the Seawall Resiliency Project; the committee endorsed the item with amendments after BLA noted only $5.6M in available funding and staff discussed multiple funding strategies and a CH2M/ Jacobs potential merger.
Katie Petruciani (Port of San Francisco, Director of Finance and Administration) presented a request to approve a 10‑year professional services agreement with CH2M Hill for planning, engineering and environmental services for the Seawall Resiliency Project not to exceed $39,900,000.
Petruciani described the seawall as critical infrastructure constructed 1878–1916 that supports piers, transit (BART, Muni, ferries) and utilities, and said deferred maintenance and risks from earthquakes and sea‑level rise drive the project. The Port described a two‑phase plan with an initial near‑term program estimated at about $500,000,000 and additional work over two decades approaching an estimated $5,000,000,000. CH2M Hill was selected from five proposals; the Port highlighted 21% local business (LBE) participation and the firm’s relevant experience.
Petruciani disclosed CH2M Hill's contemplated merger with Jacobs Engineering and said the City Attorney advised that because CH2M is based in Colorado the award does not violate Administrative Code Chapter 12X; the proposed contract includes language committing the contractor to "make reasonable and good faith efforts to refrain from performing any work in any state that is on the covered state list." Sevin Campbell (BLA) noted only $5.6M is currently available for the contract and that the remaining ~$34M depends on other funding sources the Port described (a proposed $350M general obligation bond, community facilities district, infrastructure financing district, state and federal funding). The BLA recommended approval but noted an amendment to delete a one‑year option to renew.
Supervisors asked whether approving the contract would obligate the city to the full amount if future funding failed; the BLA and staff said the contract is subject to Board appropriation and availability of funds and would not obligate the city to pay the full amount absent appropriation. Supervisor Tang moved to amend the one‑year option to extend; after adopting the amendment the committee voted to send item 10 as amended to the full Board with a positive recommendation.
