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 difference is commissioner makras is suggesting the commission is going to make the final choice versus the panel and thats what i think he is suggesting. I heard differently. I guess what i would recommend, because i think the panel should make the decision for us and i understand i think it would be if everyone who meets the minimum qualifications can come present to us for 15 minutes but its done after the scoring and the oral interviews are done. So that we hear it, gets presented. And theres no threat of undue influence from the press or Public Comments. So we see it but we dont have the recommendation yet. Im not sure what the value is of that at that point. Well, the presentation to the commission has no value to the panel. Its only for the commission to be able to see whom is proposing what. Then the panel does their work well, either way. The panel does their work first, and then they present to us and then we get the recommendation. So at least we are aware of why they are recommending whom they are recommending, and weve seen it. So we can either skip seeing everyone and let the panel duoto work and come with their go to work and come with their recommendations and we can put a Commission Review in there somewhere. So those are the two choices. Where we review it. If we review it up front, you have the concern, the Public Comment will affect the panel. If we do it afterwards, you are saying theres no purpose that we see it, that we know why the panel is making the recommendation that they are making. Well, one of these that they influence our ultimate decision on approving the final recommendation. That would be the gain of seeing them all. But thats secondguessing the panel. Its just building additional confidence in the panels recommendation. I mean the panel is your adviser. So we are empowering the panel to give you good advice. Ultimately the commission makes the decision to move forward with the highest scorer, and the Panel Process or to have us start again. So you are ultimately the Decision Maker and you are empowering a panel with expertise and Community Representation to do the scoring for you because its a complicated project. So seeing the various respondents may give you additional confidence in the panels work. I would like to get some clarity on whether we can or we cannot as the City Attorney said something about a recommended way. Does the commission have the right to have the top two be brought to us for the final decision . Is that an option . Or are we precluded by law . We are not precluded by law. You are not precluded. But i dont want it to be persuasion. Lets get the direct answer. Okay. Could we have three come before us if we wanted to . Pass or fail. They get a certain score and the top three come to us . Yes. Legally, we can have all of them come before us. Yeah. My concern was less about the scoring and sort of we will see all the scores of everyone before we make a decision. And we could say we understand that group a scored the best but we think group b is who we should do business with and we could reject that and work with group b. That was not the process we recommended here. Under the process we recommended here, if the panel says its group a and you all say we dont think its group a we like group b your remedy would be to send us back again, because we are mirroring this after the best practices of the airport and mirroring City Contracting rules which says highest score is who you do business with. So here we specifically said its the highest score that you would either vote up or vote down essentially. And the whole rfp process would happen again . Yes. But we would have to look at why it didnt work the first time. You know, was it did we weight financial too much and not this other criteria or is there something we missed so we could have a transparent process so everyone could compete again. Heres what i believe is in our best interest to look at more than the top gogetter. At the end of the day, you are going to have two primary competing businesses. One will tip to money more, and the other may tip to maritime more. I would like us to be able to argue which one we prefer to be the winner. And we have a policy that says if we want more maritime, we have a policy that says the economics dont have to be the same if we have maritime use. So i would like that option to be provided. I would argue that thats a priority of maritime versus financial should be built into the guidelines of the rfp. It should be in the upfront guidelines. And i think this rfp in terms of including the values of the community, et cetera, is much more comprehensive than weve done in the past, because weve taken that in consideration obviously, through the waterfront Land Use Plan and all the discussion weve had with the committee so we are trying to be very balanced with it. But i think the guidelines of where we decide if its maritime or financial feasibility, i think weve left it open in term it is of the uses so i dont think weve tried to preclude one or the other. But i dont think it has to be argued at the end of the process. It has to be included in the front end and the panel will evaluate if theres nuance or gray area, which there will be, to decide which is the best way for the port to consider. And they should show us the nuance and gray areas but we will look at that. But i dont think were going to have a big philosophical discussion of maritime versus other but it will be nuances. I would hope that. But when i look at the criteria i dont see anything that ponies to maritime. Points to maritime. So all evaluation criteria will get points. The reality is they may impute it. But it is not a requirement from the pointing perspective. On page 12 of the staff report, we outline the scoring criteria with more detail than we saw on the slides. And if you look at 1b and 1e under quality of Design Development submittal, 1b talks about Performance Trust objectives which includes maritime and 1e calls out this balance that commissioner makras is pointing out. I agree it doesnt talk about how they are weighted but maritime is called out. So how many people are going to be on the panel. At least four. And its in the waterfront plan or include just a moment. I saw that. But is four a good number . Dont you usually need an odd number . Well theres scoring so i mean if there was a tie i guess having a fifth would be good. And we left it open. But at a minimum it has development expert, port advisory member and person representing city or regional interest. We thought if there was an additional need, we could add another expertise if needed. When is that decision going to be made . Who is going to be included on the panel . We would in our schedule we were going to begin to put names out there internally, have the rfps out on the street and have a final panel. When are you going to let the commission know . Any involvement in who is on the panel. We could do that. We could recommend a panel. I could send you so in terms of forming a panel, theres the issue of expertise but also the time commitment. So sometimes its hard to find panelists and especially the quality and caliber of panelists we want here. So what i could do is write you a memo of who we are planning to put on the panel and if theres anyone who wants a hearing or wants to talk about it, you could let me know in new business so we could put that step in. Can you give me an example of what you mean by city or regional representation. As an example there might be a maritime group, a maritime individual that represents all the maritime business that we have or another one might be an open space advocate in another consideration thats not looking at just a neighborhood or districts interest but really looking at regional or citywide interest. Okay. And within the timeline, where did you think we should put the presentation to the commission . Im the wrong person to ask. I actually think im looking at rona, because does legal have a point of view on this . Because you have been more advisory to us on do you think it should be before the panel comes together or after the scores are done . The second one. Legal thinks it should be after the scores are done and embargoed. Thats an interesting word im choosing. But can we embargo scores . No. I thought sorry i thought from my experience contracting with the city that until you inform the respondents, they could be embargoed. The department of Public Health and Mayors Office of housing often have scored decided internally and they dont notify anyone until like a month that they are embargoed. For the City Attorneys office, i dont have in front of me but i think the rule is once the scoring is completed, it is subject to sunshine. So once the score is completed the names of the scores and scores themselves are subject to sunshine. I think i mean, i think its a great discussion. I think what you are struggling with is yeah. I think what you are struggling with is the need for you to have information and understand what the panel is doing and the need to let the panel be in this very controlled setting so they can make sure that everyone is treated fairly. And when you have a presentation here, you know, theres really not necessarily fairness. So somebody could take for five minutes, somebody else maybe could talk for six minutes. So when you want the panel to be in a very controlled environment and the public forum is not a controlled environment. So those are the two things that the staff is struggling to present you with options to meet your needs with those two competing objectives. Could we say in the rfp that the commission will hear presentations on all proposals after the scoring however you want to word that but make it an optin. So if i scored only 20 points after that effort and work, i could choose to come yell at the commission or choose not to show up. And the staff do the fiveminute presentation on what that project was. So to the point, we are trying to get a level of transparency to show to the Community Everyone who applied. It would be unlikely for folks who are tightly scored might come use it as a forum as a Public Comment to argue their case. But youll have some natural drop offs. I think the City Attorneys concern is that the scores should be done before the public the uncontrolled public forum happens. So theres no possibility that the panel could be influenced by what happens. So the hard part of that is figuring out when to get the larger group to come to you. If thats what you want to do. Theres really no problem in having the scores done, the presentation made, the scores you would see the scores, you have as many people as you want. At that point you could say we want the top five, we want anyone who scored over 90. Because then the scores are done. So the hard part is getting the people in the public forum before that happens. So it sounds like the suggestion is what we would do is we would ill write a letter to you talking about who the panel would be, we may provide an informational memo just saying who came in the door and how the process is going then well have an info item at the commission where scores will be complete where all the proposers who met the mq have their seven ten minutes to present to you. Then right after that, well have our info item where we explain what the panel did, the work of the panel and who