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

Browse Search

revised PDP on November 11, 2016 and will then immediately begin working on the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR). T. Elmore is typically10% of the estimated construction contract and this Fesibility/Schematic Design Fee amount will be a part of that amount, so you can give it to them now or later. It was noted that the Designer Fees are much lower in a Model School reimbursement, as the MSBA will only participate in 4.75% for Designer Services, adding that anything beyond this 4.75% would not be considered for reimbursement and would be 100% local costs. The reimbursement amount is very low on this Model School Program and typically the Designer is requiring significantly more fee to perform their services. The committee asked if the Dore & Whittier recommends the Designers Proposal. T Elmore responded yes, and noted that it falls within the typical range for designer costs as is represented in the MSBA Fee Analysis attachment to the meeting packet. The Town Facilities Department was also asked if they have reviewed the Designers proposal and would recommend that the committee recommend it be accepted by the town manager. P Goddard had reviewed the document and recommends it be accepted by the committee. Motion to accept DiN by C. nd Oldenburg. VOTE: 7 approve, 0 against, 0 abstain. Unanimous to approve. 4.Project Schedule T. Elmore and D. DiNisco pointed out that the submission dates are scheduled to make the most sense for the MSBA Board Meetings, though the schedule will be adjusted pending the decision to go with a Model School or not. As the schedule currently has the project running into 2020, the Committee asked if DWMP and DiNisco could explore ways to accelerate the project to make a September, 2019 completion date. Both DWMP and DiNisco agreed to explore any possible opportunities which will be discussed at the following PBC-SBC Meeting. 5.Project Goals A committee member asked that the completion target date of September 2019 be listed as one of the GOALS of this project. T. Elmore indicated that a couple of Committee members had submitted their Project Goals Worksheets were compiled and attached to the meeting packet. He said any additional goals received would be added to the compiled list. 6.Other Business Not Anticipated 48 Hours Prior to Meeting: None. 7.Public Comment: None. 8.Upcoming Meetings & Public Forums: a.Proposed, to be verified and edited prior to meetings i.November 1, 2016 School Committee Meeting 3