Imagining this project. As you recall we had a request for interest, we had 52 responses from publiclyoriented uses. We were just talking about what are the kinds of things that bring people into the piers. And that brought us to a realization that there are a lot of publiclyoriented uses that need to be paired with revenuegenerating uses to have a feasible project. Our concern with not having minimum qualifications to show that someone can raise money construct a project of some value and attain of some value is a panel will say we love this publicoriented use so much and this operator has experience in that publiclyoriented use, we are going to score them high even though we dont know if they are going to feasibly produce this project. So pairing someone with that expertise, we could be confident that what comes out of the scoring process will be someone that can deliver a successful project. Exactly. What happens if you have two contractors that each do a 20 million job . Does that total 40 . No. One specific project that has 40 million in it. Because this project, 38 and 40 will be close to 200 million. This is onefifth of that. Its saying i can raise a lot of money. And we just had to draw the line somewhere. We felt like onefifth of that was the right line to draw. Right. Thank you. That concludes my questions. Thank you. Commissioner. Hi. Thanks, david. I actually now have more questions than i originally did. So im sorry to bring you back up to the mic. So ill start with the minimum qualifications, which i really appreciate because i think on any largescale Development Project you need that. Sorry. I have a question though. I was surprised that where was it . That having a respondent that has done over water construction with the minimum qualifications. So im going down a different rabbit hole. I can respond to that one while you decide who is coming up for the next question. So over water construction is definitely a value to the port and a preferred qualifications. However, if we require over water qualifications, we are really limiting the pool. So we are trying to thread the needle of getting minimum qualifications that really reflect what a developer and partners would need to pull off a successful project without unnecessarily limiting bidders from competing and being successful. Because there are few developers who have done overwater work here at the port. And they would have if we put that in, we would be limiting ourselves to that pool or having done overwater construction in other areas. So we felt that we didnt want to preclude successful respondents what had done other kinds of projects successfully, had a wonderful project approach, had financial capacity. So thats why its not in there. So how we do other projects, ociu, Mayors Office of housing, why would we say the member needs to have that experience. Construction group b who is the expert with overwater construction it makes me nervous where someone could be awarded never having done overwater construction. And i spent all the time at the Mayors Office for housing when they do housing for special population, the developer doesnt have to be someone who, withouted with foster youth but they have to have someone on their team who has. To get it to the contractor. Either a contractor or member of the team. So a question about whether this is a question whether we put it in this stage or we would put it in an eventual lease that we would execute. Because here we are saying who is our Development Partner to pull off the development of the pier. If we are successful we select a good partner then we enter into complex transaction documents to execute the lease and there i think would be the appropriate place to talk about construction and other bells and whistles that we would want to see. But i think we could certainly put that at this stage. But it would be we could also wait and put it in the future stage with our successful partner. To me it just seems to be comparable to the other things you put in, which i agree that we need someone who can raise capital and i think the minimum qualifications sort of sometimes will knock folks out of applying or being reviewed. And thats standard. So i just really would like to look back at that if thats a possibility. My other question was about process. Unless im understanding it wrong, i dont understand why everyone who meets the minimum qualifications, which are all centered around having a good reputation, being willing to negotiate with us, you know, in confidentiality and raising 40 million why all those are coming from the commission. I actually think that sets us up to be the bad guy to the community when theres someone who maybe meets that who is going to build acres of Tennis Courts but when they go to get scored and go to the interview they only rank 40. I dont understand why we wouldnt see the top three or five scores. Okay. The way this process is set up is twotier. And one is to provide maximum information and transparency to the commission and members of the public. So today we are talking in depth about how this scoring will work and what we are looking for. We want you to see everyone who came in. So you are aware of all the various project concepts. Now the Community Knows who the waterfront Land Use Plan and we all know feasibility is a central issue for this project. The panel is going to be the hard work of scoring and getting a recommendation to you. But the transparent pieces are you see everyone, you get your five to ten, we are going to discuss the right amount of time, and the public is aware of everyone that came through. And when staff comes back with the panel recommendation, you can also look under the hood so to speak and understand why the various responses were scored in the way they were so you can get a level of comfort with how the various proposals very evaluated. So the panel will do the hard work of doing the evaluation that you are setting today and making that recommendation. But this process you seeing all of them, is meant to be a transparency measure for the commissioners and the public. I just have never seen any other City Department do it that way. Ive seen them publish the scoring and publish for the community. Its true. This is a step that we are taking thats different but going to the commission. And weve done it in past proposals. We did it at pier 70 from my understanding. We did it at pier 38. I think theres a lot of interest in what we are seeing and who is responding in our and a lot of interest in waterfront development. So we are putting in extra transparency steps. So the panel doesnt feel like a black box to anyone. I have a request that they all be. I guess i wanted to im happy to sit and listen. I think it will be fascinating and i have my binder of all the responses we kept. So im more concerned you know the waterfront for so many people and so many different groups in San Francisco is sacred ground. And what im concerned about is theres this compelling proposal, and i think there were some in the rfis who to this day have still have hopes and dreams of being successful which im not sure they are going to be able to raise the capital and put the team together. And by having them present to us and having a panel scored im worried about if we have an appeal process and what that appeal process is. I didnt find it in the staff report. And more concerned about it backfiring from the pr Community Perspective particularly if we only have one applicant come forward. So im very much in agreement with the commissioner makras that i would like to see the top two or three proposals and let the commission guide that decision for who we enter into an nea with because im concerned we are going to hear all these proposals and the committee is only going to let a few afterwards. I can make some comments and turn it back over to you. So we are hopeful that more information and analysis will help the community and our constituents feel comfortable with the selection. And its true that there are wonderful ideas out there that will never financially work. I mean, we are all aware of that. And you can get very attached to wonderful ideas, but the financing just doesnt pencil. In terms of the selection process, we looked at the airport and what they did for the hotel. We consulted with the Mayors Office in terms of what they considered to be the best practices of solicitation and selection as it relates to development for city contracts and other awards its very clear its a panel vote, highest score gets the award period. In our leasing context, its more openended. But we came down that its best in terms of fairness transparency, to give that job to the panel. And if you dont feel comfortable with what they recommend then we start again. Because we must have missed something in the scoring or missed something. We also will have a diverse panel. We will have a member who is a community constituent. And we will have expertise on that panel. So we feel that that is the cleanest way to proceed. One final question, and then i promise im done. So when you bring the finalist forward will we see the scoring sheets and criteria for all applications that were scored . Yes. Youll see everything. And is there an appeal process like there is in other City Departments . Appeal process is always required for contracts. And typically the appeal goes its an administrative appeal. And the contractthecontract administrator and i evaluate that appeal. Theres no such requirement for leases. And we looked high and low. So at this point we do not have an appeal process written in. Weve discussed it. We can certainly put one in, and we would mirror it after what we do for contracts. Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes my questions. Those were lots of questions. I think theres some background to all this on pier 38. Many of us know that was a very painful process we went through and it was not successful. And i presume that some of the Lessons Learned out of that are reflected. And that was also because we were also mindful of the project which put a lot of constraints on how that rfp. But i think that this one thing i think may be with the minimum requirements, that is there any way to not necessarily include a full financial feasibility but could that not be something in terms of their concept of what they plan to do, just not the minimum qualifications but to put something preliminarily in terms of financial feasibility, because i think that im not worried we are going to have 25 25 presentations at the port. In our last experience we ended up with very few bidders. Because when people understand the financial feasibility and Capital Requirements regardless of whether you say 40 million or 10 million or whatever number you put the number is going to go down very rapidly. And weve already understood that in the last round when we went through pier 38. So i dont worry we are going to have too many. I think that we worried last time that we would have too few and we ended up with just two. The process was a little different than what you are proposing. And im fine with empowering the panel, because i think we want a fully objective process here and not subjective. And i think that if we can put in the rfp what we really do require after you go through minimum qualifications. But i would say beyond just saying im qualified to do this and i can raise some money, i think they should also put in their concept how they see the financial feasibility so we dont get into some of the come peeing projects compelling projects that will never see the light of day because they wont pencil out. Thats something we can do in the preliminary phase. I think this rfp is very different from the last one because the last one was only the bulkhead. This one is for the entire pier. And obviously the costs are very different today than what we looked at in 2012. So thats going to also put a different sort of qualifier on here as well. So i just think that i think commissioner brandon probably has the most experience in dealing with complex rfps because shes been on the commission the longest and seen whats been successful and not. But in my process, i think the scoring criteria is fine, and i think the waiting is appropriate, and the oral, i think the oral to me is not just being able to articulate well, its also a question of developing i guess the intangible factor the trust factor, the factors of how we are going to work with this developer that are intangible that come through in terms of the oral interview that perhaps somebody can talk well but do we trust they are going to do the execution. Some of that is developed not on paper but an interview process and thats an intangible thats going to reflect how the panel goes about their job. And i dont know that you can necessarily put that all in writing per se, but that is a very important factor, because we all know how we develop certain chemistry or not develop chemistry with certain players in terms of how we do business. And that is just a fact of life. So that would be my comment so far. And i think commissioner brandon can probably add more of her history of dealing with complex rfps. And not just particularly because of these two piers which we do have experience with, which have been very painful. We thought pier 38 was going to be developed when it was closed in 2012 by 2014. That never happened. And we are now five years later still starting at the starting gate again. Thank you. Any other comments . Questions . Thank you so much for this report. I think that each time we have a Large Development we try we sometimes we try the same way sometimes we try a new way because it doesnt always work. I think with this project, we were empowering a panel because we need a lot of expertise to go into whomever submits whatever proposal. I did feel that somewhere between that one recommendation coming to us that we should be able to see the proposal. Where we see it, how it all fits in, where we dont influence or hurt the panels decision, im open. So i mean the panel can do their work and then they come and present to us. But i dont think its going to be more than two three four max. So i dont think we are talking about a large group. But i did want us to have the opportunity to see who presented because this is a large project. And then so if the panel does all their work before the presentations come to us, im not quite sure if we should have, you know, the written and oral at 100 percent or if we need that extra 30 percent. Because ive seen many contracts where people have done phenomenal in their written but the oral is even better and it knocks them into first place. So im not quite sure the scoring i would never ive never seen 130 percent. Ive always seen 100 percent. Im just not sure about that. The 130 points . Yeah, the 130 points. I wanted to make some comments back based on what youve all said. I think we should revisit the five minutes. I think its probably too small. I agree with commissioner makras point and we should rethink that especially if we have three to four respondents. So i dont know what the right figure would be, maybe 15 minutes or ten minutes, Something Like that. Openended. We dont have to specify how long the presentations will be. We can clarify that when the responses come in and make some good Strategic Decisions about what makes sense. I absolutely think the blackout period should extend to the panelists. Thats a very, good catch. In terms of the timing. The reason we wanted every response that met the minimum qualifications to come through to you so you can see them before the panel comes together and its like awe a justice justice, you could have that experience, the public could see it and then the panel gets to work. We like that flow because the panel can get to work and come back to you and tell you what i found. So i think that is the preferred timing. Yes. We have one caveat on that. Maybe its covered in the blackout period. I would not want the panel to hear, because we might have remarks. I dont want them to be influenced by us. We decided they wouldnt be influenced by you. So they are not coming to the hearing and we are going to tell them not to listen and Pay Attention. Because we are telling them exactly what to Pay Attention to based on your criteria. Thats right. I think it should be very explicit in a signed agreement that they dont watch the commissioners listen. Because thats my concern where that could happen within the community, if there was overwhelming talk that people come out with Public Comment in support of it and they end up scoring poorly, that was what i was trying to drive at. Or the papers could pick up. Lots of things that could happen. There could be free contests of community members. So should we skip the presentation to the commission . I think i mean i think the scoring should happen first maybe. Im really concerned about public relations. Because we already had projects come to us in here where you already got past all the stage and we were just giving them the final kind of blessing to move forward. How much Public Comment do we have with supporters coming out for that . Anyone worth their salt is going to organize the community at this presentation to come up for Public Comment, and i dont want this to be a popularity contest with something thats so important. What you could do is they present but no Public Comment. I dont think we can do that, commissioner. [laughter] weve tried but i think with the browne act theres always an opportunity for Public Comment. So we would have a hard Public Comment. If it was left to me, i would have the panel do their job before then and then bring it forward so we can see it. We give them 15, 20 minutes to present. The real world of this is we are most likely not going to have five bidders that meet the minimum requirement and put a full proposal. And if we spend one afternoon on a special meeting and listen to three to five proposals and we had the scoring in front of us, everyone sees it, and we pick the best un. Yeah, but thats where we are i mean, thats why i wanted everyone to see who responded, let the panel do their work and come back to us with a recommendation. The staff, legal and everyone is not recommending that we have two or three but we just have one recommendation. Yeah. You said the top two three come back to us right . I think the