2016-10-05-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

T. Elmore reported the results of the DSP Meeting held on September 27, 2016. He explained that the MSBA pointed out that they will not be selecting an Architect since only one proposal was received, but rather, they would determine whether the single submitting Architect is qualified. He added that there was a lot of discussion held between the MSBA and the Owner explaining the Architect Selection process. T. Elmore also pointed out that the Lexington Representatives who attended the meeting did an amazing job clarifying any misunderstandings and emphasizing their need to move forward with the project. He then added that after a lot of discussion, the MSBA voted DiNisco as a qualified Architect for the project and praised them for their past work and positive effects on communities. DWMP and the Lexington Representatives stated that they were happy with the outcome D. DiNisco of DiNisco Design told the Committee that she was happy to be there and that she and DWMP immediately began working on the schedule and discussing their fee after meeting with the MSBA. T. Elmore then s proposed fee of $530,000 (reference letter attached) and how it relates to typical fees for this phase of work. He went on to explain what is included within this fee, stating that DiNisco will have to revisit their previously produced Preliminary Design Program (PDP) and Feasibility Study deliverables prior to submitting to the MSBA, which is then followed by the Schematic Design Phase; He believed that their proposed fee was reasonable and recommends them for the job. D. DiNisco added that the current schedule has them submitting the Schematic Design materials on June 29, 2017 in order to make it into the August 23, 2017 Board Meeting with the MSBA, which is th followed by a 120 day stretch to get the approval for local funding, followed by another MSBA Board Meeting in February, 2018. The Committee then discussed the Model School option and how it would affect the schedule and explained that the MSBA would determine whether or not the Hastings ES is a candidate for a Model School based on their Educational Program, as it must meet in order to get their approval to build a Model School. In the meeting packet were documents that the OPM recently received from the MSBA. They have not been fully reviewed by the OPM and will need to be gone through to evaluate if this program is an option for the Hastings School Project. There was caution given by the MSBA that this Model School Program is very rigid and does not allow for any significant changes. There was a MSBA recommendation to consider a building like the Estabrook School that is in the Core Program but utilizes efficiencies in terms of decisions, layout, finishes, and the like that streamline the process. The MSBA offered that they might be able to waive a submission at DD to assist in this time savings. The Committee then discussed the pros and cons of the Model School Program, agreeing that they should further analyze the situation and look into the school/community needs as well as the differences in fees and reimbursements. T. Elmore added that he would try to put this Model School Program in perspective for the next meeting on November 10 to evaluate if there is schedule and/or financial benefit. He concluded, th saying that they have until the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) submission to decide whether or not they would like to go with a model school; he clarified that DiNisco will be prepared to submit the 2