Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Boilers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee forwards SFO emergency boiler resolution to full board after airport cites hot-water failures
Summary
The Budget and Finance Subcommittee on April 15 forwarded a resolution concurring with the Airport Commission's emergency declaration after boiler failures at San Francisco International Airport, and recommended approval of a purchase contract for replacement boilers; committee members raised procurement and cost questions.
Supervisor John Avalos, chair of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Subcommittee, on April 15 forwarded to the full board a resolution concurring with the Airport Commission's emergency declaration after boiler failures at San Francisco International Airport and recommending approval of a purchase contract for replacement boilers.
Peter Nardoza, representing the San Francisco Airport, told the committee the airport declared an emergency because the usual procurement timeline would not ensure heat and hot water for travelers. "Had we not declared an emergency... we could not ensure that we would have heat and hot water next winter for those traveling and using the San Francisco Airport," Nardoza said. He added that while the airport has entered a purchase contract for the boilers, the construction and installation contract will be procured separately and competitively.
Mr. Rose, a budget analyst, summarized the legal basis for the procurement path. Citing Administrative Code section 6.6(o), he said an emergency declaration allows a department to use a limited or "informal" solicitation rather than the city's full advertised competitive-bidding process. "In this case, the airport did the informal competitive bidding, directly with the contractors," Rose said, and recommended the committee approve the resolution.
Committee members pressed for clarity on costs and the procurement process. The transcript contains inconsistent figures: Rose referred to a purchase amount of $2,400,000 and described a remaining project balance of $2,700,000 for construction and installation; Nardoza referred separately to an installation contract "another $2,000,000" that has yet to be let. The committee did not resolve those differences in the subcommittee meeting and forwarded the matter with a recommendation to the full board.
The committee recorded no public comment and forwarded the resolution to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration at the next board meeting.
