2016-08-11-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

know what schedule path they are on until they select a designer, and T. Elmore mentioned that the Committee could set up a Schedule Review Working Group if it becomes necessary. ne, defining what meetings happen when, and the milestones/votes they lead up to. T. Elmore stated that DWMP would provide a meeting outline specific to the MHES project once the designer is on board. g.Architect RFS Draft The draft Architect RFS was included for the committee to review. T. Elmore pointed out that the MSBA has provided their feedback on the document, and they plan to have it completed for distribution on August 17, 2016, when the advertisement will be published in the Central Register. h.Community Communications Sample Examples of Community Outreach materials were provided that can be used to reach the general public prior to the vote; these materials, made in the form of a flyer, mailer, summary report, etc., are intended to educate the community on the building project outside of the public forums. A member of the committee pointed out that taxpayer money cannot be used for promotional material for a debt exclusion vote, though the committee did agree to explore what options are available and allowed for PR opportunities down the road. DWMP indicated that any updates made to the binder material will be distributed to the committee, and added that the binder is a good way to stay organized and on the same page. 6.Architect Hiring Process Update a.RFS and Distribution Progress Update T. Elmore pointed out that the advertisement for the Architect RFS will be published on August 17, 2016, and proposals will be due on September 7, 2016. He added that he spoke with the MSBA about the accelerated schedule to see if it was something they would support, which they agreed to do if DiNisco were chosen as the Project Architect. Though, the MSBA fully expects the Town of Lexington to follow through the designer selection properly and without bias. T. Elmore added that the RFS states that DiNisco has already completed the front end work, but the work that has been done to date will be available for the interested firms if needed. A question was raised asking if this information stated in the RFS would scare away potential Architects, as they may assume that another company already has a shoe-in. T. Elmore explained that that is a possibility, but it is best to be transparent about the process thus far. Some committee members asked if there was a way to be proactive by sending letters out to design firms requesting a proposal, though others agreed that doing that may be a conflict of interest. 3