2012-02-22-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PBC Meeting Minutes 2 -22 -12 4.29.1 Environmental Services 2/9/12 DPF presented a proposal for IAQ Monitoring during renovation and construction at Bridge and Bowman. PBC would like to review in more detail the proposal. DPF will purchase equipment to set a baseline. Further review of proposal for Industrial Hygienist services will take place at next meeting. 2/22/12 Motion to approve IAQ Monitoring services with EBI consulting for initial phases of Bridge & Bowman work not to exceed $42,260.00, see 2/8/12 EBI proposal and DPF request dated 2/22/12. Motion: Phil Coleman 2 Dick Perry Vote: 6 -0 4.30 Bridge & Bowman Construction Contract 2/22/12 Motion to accept letter of recommendation from Design Partnership of Cambridge, dated 21 February 2012, and to forward the recommendation to the Town Manager to award the Bridge & Bowman Construction Contract to TLT Construction for the bid amount of $18,214,400.00 which includes Alternate #1. Motion: Phil Coleman 2 Dick Perry Vote: 6 -0 7.0 Estabrook Elementary 7.8 Estimates 9/8/11 PBC requested info on estimates in Schematic Design. RF Walsh stated that there was one completed by the architect and one completed by Walsh. RF Walsh advised that the MSBA limits reimbursement on site work to +/- 8% of building costs, so town may have reduced reimbursement if site costs are in excess of the limit. 10/27/11 It was reported that very early cost modeling was showing the Estabrook project cost in the ballpark of 36 to 37.5 million 12/15/11 Cost Summary tables were presented by RF Walsh, dated 15 December 2011, for various design options, with a cost range of $38,894,133 to 42,783,546 for the preferred option 3C. General discussion on overall costs took place along with discussion on reimbursement percentages from the state. There was some discussion from the PBC that Walsh and DiNisco should be cognizant of % of reimbursement and not position the project such that expected reimbursements reduce. It was discussed that the furniture and technology allowances by MSBA may not serve full needs of school and may require increases. 1/5/12 Two cost estimates will be developed for schematic design phase and will be reviewed with PBC on 1126112 meeting, but the two estimates will not be reconciled by that night. 1/19/12 Estimate will be Uni format level 3 with ability to pull out identified items for further evaluation. Identified items listed under 7.14 below. (i.e. 2 story space at library, roof garden, exterior canopies, etc.) PBC concerned with temp conditions, logistics and enabling work and would like to be sure that Walsh is coordinating these events with the Architects and the Estimators to be sure that the Estimates accurately reflect the costs. PBC requested a copy of the narrative to be given to the estimator describing these site /project needs. 1/26/12 Questions or clarifications from estimate discussion. • Fee for Commissioning Agent paid by MSBA • RFW states enabling site work is in estimate 0 Question raised that may need more exploration — where is soil to be stockpiled on site? • Moving expense line may need funds to pay for packing • Funds may be needed for school if staff to work with new technology to prepare it for school use. • Escalation was reduced from prior estimate, is that appropriate? Page 4 of 9