2012-10-11-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Lexington Permanent Building Committee 11 October 2012 4.0 Bridge & Bowman Renovation Projects 4.26 Roof Top Unit screening 11/2/11 It was reported that the roof top hvac equipment would be larger than originally anticipated and could be 18 inches to 2 feet taller. There was some concern expressed over the aesthetics of the larger units and the overall view of the school to the public, notwithstanding any sound abatement concerns. Various options for screening and placement of support structure for future screening were discussed. Currently six units suspected of a need for screening based on sound abatement were modified to include roof reinforcing for future screen panels. It was discussed to increase this count to 10 to include units where screens may be desired for aesthetics as well; however this motion was not acted upon, leaving just the original 6 locations 12/8/11 This issue was again discussed and the PBC elected to request a unit price be added to the bid submission for adding the steel support to other RTU locations if the town elected to do so during construction. 1/19/12 Initial feedback from architect was that they did not want to include a unit price for additional RTU locations, but they later agreed to do so. 6/28/12 DPC discussion cost for additional superstructure improvements for additional screening at roof top equipment cost $35,000. Discussion on schedule impact, cheaper now than later, other cost items are out there, abatement elbows +/- $70,000 claim was submitted but denied. Motion to approve structural support for 1 additional roof top unit screen not to exceed $35,000 with no change in duration. Motion: Phil Coleman 2 Carl Oldenburg Vote: 6 -0 4.37 Roofing consultant DPF has requested DPC to carry roofing consultant for commissioning of roof system and testing of membrane / insulation for dampness due to leaks. Test cuts may well be needed. Cost for services id $4,400 through DPC. PBC asked DPF to verify extent of infrared testing and test cuts. Motion to approve $4,400 extra to DPC contract for commissioning of roof at Bowman. Motion Phil 2nd Peter Vote 7 -0 -0 4.38 Contract review General discussion with Town Counsel on rights and remedies in TLT contract. Counsel reviewed all the letters and notices sent to TLT and did not have concern over the type and time of notice as it was given to TLT. However DPF did note that a copy of the letters did go to TLT in certified mail. Discussion on claim to TLT for owner costs to perform numerous tasks that were required for school use of both Phase 2 and Phase 1 . Letters outlining these claims or costs have been sent to TLT and to Counsel. PBC was notified of the issues and work performed. Expenses categorized as take over of work, clean up and corrections. Discussion on assessment of Liquidated Damages per spec requirements at $2,500 per day. Letters sent to TLT and to counsel, PBC advised. Claims are submitted as a CCD and Kevin is comfortable with this method. TLT has been advised that the town requires a full project schedule, a recovery schedule, certified payrolls in place and a release of liens from subs on payments made Counsel defined contract options with TLT are as follows: 1. Continue with TLT 2. Terminate for convenience 3. Terminate for Cause 4. Negotiate with Surety on take over or management oversight. However discussion suggested that these decisions should be tabled. Primary importance right now is meeting 10/15 deadline for heat. Page 2 of 8