Laserfiche WebLink
Lexington Permanent Building Committee <br />12 April 2012 <br />Collaborative Partners (CP) reported back on fee negotiations with Shawmut and reviewed same with PBC. Included in <br />conversation is level of staffing of Shawmut with personnel on site and management of the project. Proposal from Shawmut is <br />currently proposed in excess of budgeted amount on MSBA 3011 form. <br />Much discussion on cost for CM at Risk services and pro's and cons of Shawmut approach and staffing plan. <br />Motion: <br />Motion to negotiate Shawmut proposal down $200,000 further than current proposal without removing additional key staff, to <br />support award of contract to Shawmut. <br />Motion: Eric Second: Dick Vote: 7 -0 <br />4/12/12 <br />CP reported that continued negotiations took place and Shawmut had agreed to the further fee reductions and that contract <br />language of a few items was being reviewed and would be made available for PBC consideration and award. <br />7.14 Schematic Design <br />11/17/11 <br />PBC requested that some discussion take place with DDP and PBC over design styles and aesthetics as the architects should be <br />aware of what general direction the PBC feels the design should be so as not to waste valuable and limited time in design phase. <br />DDP stated that SD deliverables would include: <br />Cost Estimates, Narrative on Systems, Narrative on Site, Narrative on finishes, Plans, Elevations, sections, Rendering and permitting <br />issues <br />12/1/11 <br />DDP expressed that the design phase would be beginning and there was general discussion on the design, historical elements and <br />their impact on design in Lexington and other design features. PBC suggested that the architects not cast the design features too <br />quickly until they make some suggestions to the PBC to confirm an appropriate direction. <br />12/15/12 <br />PBC wants to be sure that DDP meets with PBC at least three times in January to have an opportunity to review and comment on <br />design decisions. <br />PBC would like to see 3d modeling of school with topography and perhaps a view from Grove Street. <br />1/5/12 <br />DDP made presentation on design issues and process forthcoming. Overall massing discussed along with a few design issues such <br />as: <br />The roof equipment screening location and height <br />Possible roof garden area <br />Roof access hatch or door (penthouse) <br />Two story space over library <br />Approx 4000 sf of basement, required, is slab on grade more cost effective? <br />Size of gymnasium, as compared to other elementary schools <br />Canopy in front of school <br />Canopies in other locations around schools <br />PBC would like to see these items as breakouts on the estimate so that they can understand cost impact on the project. <br />DDP stressed that schematic design will not stop after SD submission to MSBA, rather there will be opportunity to further work with <br />PBC on Design issues thru design development. <br />DDP discussed need to be able to deduct from approved design not try to add too it. <br />1/5/12 Items planned for review at 1/19/12 meeting <br />Detailed site plan with contours — "balanced site" <br />Finalized plans with SF <br />Space summary with net to gross ratio (limit 1.5) <br />Estimates with breakouts 1/26 <br />Building System narratives <br />Preliminary Energy Analysis <br />LEED scorecard <br />1/19/12 <br />DDP reviewed 3d model and power point slides on schematic design progress. <br />DDP explained that final schematic plans were not quite ready, as they were still working on reducing the SF from 95,000 to 90,000 <br />Discussion points from presentation <br />• Circulation in building for night or weekend use of gymnasium <br />• Basement space versus additional slab on grade for cost effectiveness. <br />Page 5 of 10 <br />