2018-12-13-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4. IGMP31Budget Development: M. Burton reviews budget development slide (side by side) comparison. The slide shows a progression of all iGMP1, 2, 3, and where we came in with Final GMP summary breakdown. 12/13/18 PBC presentation is attached for further details. 5. CM Contingency(w/in GMP): M. Burton reviews CM Contingency slide. The slide includes: Construction (CM) Contingency$1,298,300 Approved: $0 Pending: $263,978 Forecast: $2,571 Balance: $1,031,751 Remaining: 79% 6. Owner Construction Contingency(outside GMP): M. Burton reviews Owner(GMP) Contingency slide. The slide includes: Owner (GMP) Contingency$1,500,000 Approved: $30,246 Pending: $387,780 Forecast: $267,239 Balance: $814,735 Remaining: 54% DiNisco performed additional test pits to determine further soil conditions and exposure. Previously we included $420,000 for final sitework phase unsuitable soil removal. After review of the additional test pits and soil conditions with Welch, phase 2 was revised and assumed to be $350,000. $200,000 is included in the GMP, $150,000 is shown as forecast as indicated above. 7. Value Engineering: M. Burton reviews Value Engineering slide. On 11/8/18, the PBC approved the recommended VE list. Following the PBC Meeting, DPF reviewed with LPS and a couple changes were made. Changes include removing 100% of bird houses, keeping the granite curb, removing tile in stairwell, and removing portals. The project team is recommending taking $175,868 in VE this evening. Up to $150,000 for removal of spray foam is still up for review. D. Perry was not present at the previous PBC meeting. D. Perry still advocates on keeping the spray foam in the building. D, Perry felt the spray insulation would provide a better seal if utilized. His concerns also include proximity to route 128, fumes, gases, and sound. After reviewing the concern with The Green Engineer, DiNisco Design's LEED consultant, it was determined that removing the 1"foam insulation does not affect the performance of the building, that the windows are the weaker link for noise and air infiltrating into the classrooms. DiNisco noted that windows facing 128 are triple pane to help mitigate these issues. D. Perry still feels that doubling up the resistance with both the AVB and the foam would be beneficial. C. Favazzo recommends that the project team reach out to Ned Lyon from SGH, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, a national engineering firm that design, investigates and rehabilitates structures, building enclosures and materials for a final review of the design, options, and overall recommendation regarding the spray foam. PBC Meeting 12.13.18 3