May 25, 2006
(For Board: June 9, 2006)

REPORT OF THE BUILDING AND OPERATING COMMITTEE/
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Honorable Board of Directors
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway
  and Transportation District

Honorable Members:

A meeting of the Building and Operating Committee/Committee of the Whole was held in the Board Room, Administration Building, Toll Plaza, San Francisco, California, on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., Chair Eddie presiding.

Committee Members Present (8): Chair Eddie; Vice Chair Reilly; Directors Boro, Hernández, Martini, Moylan and Stroeh; President Middlebrook (Ex Officio)
Committee Members Absent (1): Director Ammiano
Other Directors Present (4): Directors Cochran, Murray, Newhouse Segal and Pahre

Committee of the Whole Members Present (12): Directors Cochran, Eddie, Hernández, Martini, Murray, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Reilly and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Moylan; President Middlebrook
Committee of the Whole Members Absent (6): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Dufty, Kerns, McGoldrick and Sandoval

[Note: On this date, there was one vacancy on the Board of Directors.]

Staff Present: General Manager Celia G. Kupersmith; District Engineer Denis J. Mulligan; Auditor-Controller Joseph M. Wire; Secretary of the District Janet S. Tarantino; Attorney David J. Miller; Deputy General Manager/Bridge Division Kary H. Witt; Deputy General Manager/Ferry Division James P. Swindler; Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer; Public Affairs Director Mary C. Currie; Executive Assistant to the General Manager Amorette Ko; Assistant Clerk of the Board Patsy Whala

Visitors Present: None

     
1. Approve Actions Relative to Change Orders to Contract No. 99-B-5, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit (Phase II), South Approach Structures, for Repairs and Painting
     
 

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported on staff’s recommendation to approve Change Orders to Contract No. 99-B-5, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit (Phase II), South Approach Structures, for repairs and painting.

The report stated that Contract No. 99-B-5 is the construction contract for Phase II of the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project.  Phase II construction covers structural retrofit and utility modifications at the South Approach Viaduct, the South Anchorage Housing, Pylons S1 and S2 and the Fort Point Arch.  Prior to construction, most areas on the south approach structures were not readily accessible to facilitate determination of the condition of the existing structural elements.  Upon installation of the construction access platforms in conjunction with Phase II, the District investigated the condition of the existing members and discovered that some of the existing elements not scheduled for retrofit have experienced corrosion.  It has been determined that the extent of the deterioration compromises the ability of these structural members to carry forces imposed by a major earthquake, therefore necessitating repairs. 

As reported by the District Engineer at previous Committee and Board meetings, the District requested that the Contractor provide prices for contract change orders (CCO) relative to the additional work and District staff has completed negotiations for four CCOs, as follows:
  1.
CCO No. 70 will include repairing and painting designated steel elements in Span 4 of the South Approach Viaduct.  In addition, the work will require installation of 20-foot-high work scaffolds on the existing work platform and construction of containment systems for the preparation of steel surfaces for painting.
  2.
CCO No. 91 Supplement 1 will include repairing and painting the Fort Point Arch spandrel columns and cross bracing at Arch Panel Points A, B, A' and B'.  In addition, the work will require installation of 200-foot high work scaffolds and containment systems at each Panel Point.
  3.
CCO No. 101 will include the removal and replacement of deteriorated concrete at the concrete cross beam walls between the east and west legs of Pylon S1 and Pylon S2.  The work will require installation of complex work scaffolds capable to accommodate placement of reinforcing steel, installation of special concrete forms and placement and curing of concrete.
  4.
CCO No. 102 will include the preparation of surfaces and application of two coats of MC-Tar paint to the steel plating installed inside Pylon S1 and Pylon S2.
 

The work associated with each of the above-listed CCOs is described in further detail in the staff report.

The report also stated that the work associated with these CCOs will add approximately 40,000 man-hours to the construction contract. District staff and the Contractor have agreed to a time extension of 221 calendar days to Contract 99-B-5, which will change the contract completion date from July 15, 2006, to February 22, 2007. Staff compared the CCO prices to the bid prices for other large steel bridges in the Bay Area and estimated the cost to perform this work under separate contract. Staff concluded that the cost would be much higher due to the additional cost of mobilizing and demobilizing the new contractor’s forces. Based on the evaluation performed, staff found the negotiated prices for performing this extra work under these CCOs to be favorable to the District and recommends that the work be authorized.

The combined cost of Change Order Nos. 70, 91 Supplement 1, 101 and 102 is $4,686,500. To finance the cost of these four CCOs, staff recommends increasing the Seismic Retrofit Phase II Project budget by the same amount, which will be funded with federal grant funds programmed for the Seismic Retrofit Project. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/MARTINI to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:
     
 
RECOMMENDATION
     
 
The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors authorize execution of Change Orders to Contract No. 99-B-5, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit (Phase II), South Approach Structures, with Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture, as follows:
  a.
Change Order No. 70, in the amount of $2,547,819, to repair the floorbeams, sway bracing, top and bottom chord members, and prepare the steel surfaces and apply a three-coat paint system, including a top coat finish of “International Orange,” to these members in Span 4 of the South Approach Viaduct;
  b.
Change Order No. 91, Supplement 1, in the amount of $1,518,100, to repair Fort Point Arch Panel Point A, B, A' and B' spandrel columns and cross bracing, and prepare the steel surfaces and apply a three-coat paint system, including a top coat finish of “International Orange”;
  c.
Change Order No. 101, in the amount of $400,000, to remove and replace
70-year-old deteriorated concrete at the cross-beam walls between the east and west legs of Pylon S1 and Pylon S2;
  d.
Change Order No. 102, in the amount of $220,581, to prepare steel surfaces and apply MC-Tar paint to the pylon plating inside Pylon S1 and Pylon S2; and,
  e.
Authorize a budget increase in the Bridge Division Capital Budget for the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase II Project in the amount of $4,686,500, to be funded with federal grant funds programmed for the Seismic Retrofit Project, subject to the concurrence of the Finance-Auditing Committee at its meeting of May 25, 2006;
 

with the understanding that the above-listed Change Orders have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration and are contingent upon the availability of federal grant funds.

Action by the Board – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

     
 
AYES (12): Directors Cochran, Eddie, Hernández, Martini, Murray, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Reilly and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Moylan; President Middlebrook
NOES (0):  None
     
 
[Note:  The above recommendation was forwarded to the Board of Directors meeting of May 26, 2006, for action.]
     
2.
Approve Actions Relative to Contract No. 99-B-5, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit (Phase II), South Approach Structures, for Construction Administration Services
     
 

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported on staff’s recommendation to approve actions relative to Contract No. 99-B-5, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit (Phase II), South Approach Structures, for construction management and inspection support services and for necessary budget increases to administer an increase in scope and time of project.

The report stated that the work associated with various contract change orders (CCOs) to Contract No. 99-B-5 will change the contract completion date from July 15, 2006, to February 22, 2007. The added construction work scope and corresponding increase in contract time necessitate a similar extension in the resources for managing and inspecting the construction activities during the extension period of 221 calendar days. In accordance with the District’s Phase II Construction Contract Administration Plan that was approved by State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), construction management and inspection services for Contract No. 99-B-5 are performed by an integrated team of District staff and consultants. Staff has reviewed and defined the level of contract management and inspection effort required for proper oversight of the construction through the new completion date.

The report also stated that, under the terms of the Ninth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement, HNTB and its subconsultants are providing consultant construction management and inspection support services for the Phase II project. HNTB consultants augment District staff with construction inspection services, cost estimating, scheduling, hazardous materials monitoring, surveying, traffic control oversight and claims mitigation support. Additionally, under the terms of the Sixth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement, Jacobs Civil, Inc., and its subconsultants are providing engineering support services for the Phase II project as the project’s design consultant. The extended scope of work provides for preparing final plans, specifications and drawings for CCOs, indicating approval status for contractor’s technical submittals, providing responses to contractor’s requests for clarifications and providing recommendations for the resolution of field issues. Furthermore, under the terms of the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement, the Duffey Company and its subconsultants are providing environmental compliance monitoring services for the Phase II project. The extended scope of work provides for monitoring construction activities for compliance with the conditions listed in the environmental documents, as well as submitting quarterly reports to the permitting agencies.

The report further stated that the total cost of the additional construction management and inspection services attributable to the extended scope of work and time is estimated to be $2,205,000; therefore, a budget increase is proposed to finance District staff and consultant costs. The cost is part of the total cost to construct the Phase II project and is eligible for financing by federal grant funds. Federal funds have been programmed to support this budget increase. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/MARTINI to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:
     
 
RECOMMENDATION
     
 
The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the following actions relative to Contract No. 99-B-5, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit (Phase II), South Approach Structures, for construction administration services:
  a.
Authorize an increase in the Bridge Division Capital Budget for the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase II Project, in the amount of $720,000, for costs relative to District staff administering and inspecting the construction;
  b.
Authorize an Addendum to the Ninth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with HNTB Corporation, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $900,000, for an extension of construction management and inspection support services;
  c.
Authorize an Addendum to the Sixth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Jacobs Civil, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $485,000, for an extension of engineering services;
  d.
Authorize an Addendum to the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with The Duffey Company, in an amount not to exceed $100,000, for an extension of environmental compliance monitoring services; and,
  e.
Authorize a budget increase in the Bridge Division Capital Budget for the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase II Project, in the amount of $2,205,000, to be funded with the federal grant funds programmed for the Seismic Retrofit Project, subject to the concurrence of the Finance-Auditing Committee at its meeting of May 25, 2006;
 

with the understanding that that the above-listed actions have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration and are contingent upon the availability of federal grant funds.

Action by the Board – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

     
 
AYES (12):  Directors Cochran, Eddie, Hernández, Martini, Murray, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Reilly and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Moylan; President Middlebrook
NOES (0):   None
     
 
[Note:  The above recommendation was forwarded to the Board of Directors meeting of May 26, 2006, for action.]
     
3.
Status Report on BART’s Seismic Retrofit Project and its Impact on the San Francisco Ferry Terminal
     
 

District Engineer Denis Mulligan reported on the status of plans by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to undertake a project known as the BART Seismic Retrofit Project – Berkeley Hills Tunnel to the Montgomery Street Station (BART Retrofit). He stated that the BART Retrofit project, which includes a retrofit of the Transbay Tube, will impact the District’s Golden Gate Ferry operations and the Stephan C. Leonoudakis Ferry Terminal in San Francisco (S.F. Ferry Terminal). The BART Retrofit project is currently in the preliminary design phase and BART has released the final Environmental Assessment document that describes the project and includes anticipated project impacts and mitigations. The final Environmental Assessment fully addressed the concerns from District staff regarding the temporary relocation of the District’s facilities and operations at the S.F. Ferry Terminal.

Mr. Mulligan also provided a PowerPoint presentation, which included schematic drawings, photographs, construction diagrams and other pertinent information regarding the proposed BART Retrofit project, to illustrate some issues of concern to the District. He pointed out that one key component to the Transbay Tube is the transition structure. He stated that BART’s retrofit strategy is to drive large diameter piles around the area to keep the slope from sliding into this transition structure in the event of an earthquake. The large cranes and the large diameter piles used in the plaza area will impact the District’s ferry operations at the S.F. Ferry Terminal. He noted that BART’s final Environmental Assessment document provides for a temporary ferry terminal off the existing promenade where District ferry vessels could dock. He also stated that BART has acknowledged and committed to the District’s requirements for uninterrupted use of ferry facilities near its existing location, and that any such relocation would be undertaken at no cost to the District.

Mr. Mulligan further stated that due to the negative visual impact of BART’s proposed construction on the newly restored Ferry Building, the Port of San Francisco (Port) engaged consultants and proposed an alternative concept which is to install a floating facility at Gate C, between the District’s existing ferry facility and the Bay Link ferry dock, as a temporary option. Mr. Mulligan stated that District staff has worked closely with the Port and BART to discuss the viability of utilizing the floating facility for the District’s ferry operations. Moreover, the Port has suggested that the District relocate its ferry operations to this facility on a permanent basis, which would benefit the Port by making one-half acre of open space available in the Ferry Plaza area for other uses.

Mr. Mulligan described the District’s operational necessities to safely and effectively serve its customers at the S.F. Ferry Terminal. The District operates efficient ferry service at the S.F. Ferry Terminal with separate waiting areas for Sausalito and Larkspur service that segregates the passengers and allows for a five-minute turn around time for vessels. The S.F. Ferry Terminal provides numerous passenger amenities such as a heated, paid waiting area, seating, restrooms, vending machines, water fountains and a bicycle rack, all of which should be continually provided during the construction. He stated that District staff is working closely with the Port and BART in exploring options that will be satisfactory to the District. The District is committed to ensuring that the BART Retrofit project, which is a vital safety project, moves forward quickly and in a fashion that respects the District’s passengers and operating enterprise.

Discussion ensued, including the following:
     
 
  • Director Pahre inquired as to whether the proposed floating facility would have adequate space to dock vessels.  In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that District staff has proposed shifting the location twenty feet to the south because of space concerns.  In addition, Deputy General Manager/Ferry Division James Swindler has had discussions with other vessel operators regarding the issue of having adequate space to dock ferry vessels during BART’s construction.
     
 
  • Director Murray made the following comments and inquiries:
    • She commented on the time-sensitive nature of BART’s Retrofit project and expressed concerns that obtaining the required permits may be time consuming.  Mr. Mulligan stated that the District, BART and the Port have communicated with the regulatory agencies, including the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Army Corps of Engineers, regarding these issues.  BART has stated that it is committed to obtaining all the permits for the temporary and permanent facilities.
    • She commented that floating facilities located in the Bay are vulnerable to a tsunami and that computer models of potential tsunami risk in the San Francisco Bay, prepared by the State of California, should be reviewed before work on the temporary ferry dock is undertaken.
    • She inquired as to whether other ferry agencies would be able to share the proposed site of the District’s ferry operations for their operations and inquired as to whether the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) has been involved in the District’s discussions with BART regarding the retrofit project.  In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the WTA has attended the meetings respective to their agency.  He noted that WTA is looking at similar facilities south of existing District ferry operations for their new service.  Director Boro added that one issue for WTA is the availability of space.
     
 
  • Director Newhouse Segal made the following comments and inquires:
    • She inquired regarding the differences between the proposed temporary and permanent locations.  In response, Mr. Mulligan briefly outlined the differences.
    • She inquired as to how long the District would occupy the temporary location.  In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the relocation would last approximately two years.
    • She inquired as to whether or not the San Francisco City Planning Department would participate in the decision regarding relocating the District’s ferry operations on a permanent basis.  In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the City and County of San Francisco’s government has delegated authority for the Port for planning along the waterfront, but that the final design must comply with city building and fire codes.
    • She inquired as to whether the District will be able to provide concessions at the proposed temporary/permanent site.  In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that while the District’s current lease does not allow concessions, it was one of the items suggested during negotiations with the Port.
     
 
  • Director Reilly inquired as to the costs of the proposed temporary and permanent location when the decision will be made as to whether the District will relocate on a permanent basis.  In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that there are many issues under discussion in terms of making the temporary location a permanent location.  The Port and BART are separately negotiating the allocation of risk and cost sharing associated with the temporary location being permanent.  BART is also considering alternatives that do not involve the relocation of the ferry operations.  Mr. Mulligan emphasized that the District’s position is that there will be no cost to the District to relocate the ferry operations, regardless of which relocation alternative is ultimately selected.  He stated that BART’s decision will be presented relatively soon.  Mr. Mulligan added that James Swindler and Attorney Patrick Miyaki are part of the team that is working on this project.
     
 
  • Director Cochran inquired as to the terms of District’s lease at the S.F. Ferry Terminal.  In response, Denis Mulligan replied that the District holds a 66-year lease with the Port, with about 33 years remaining on the lease.

Action by the Board – None Required
     
4. Public Comment
     
  There was no public comment.
     
5. Adjournment
     
 

All business having been concluded, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
     

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James C. Eddie, Chair
Building and Operating Committee