HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-28-PBC-minLexington Permanent Building Committee
28 June 2012
PBC Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date & Time: June 28 2012 6:00 PM
Location: 201 Bedford Street
Attendees:
Jon Himmel
Carl Oldenburg
Charles Favazzo
Joe McWeeney
Phil Coleman
Gary Lerner
Jen Volgelzang
Guests:
Joe Riley, RF Walsh
Paul Kalous,
Ken DiNisco, DDP
Gary Ainsle, DDP
Shawmut Design & Construction
Anthony, Chris, Mora, Steve
Mary Ann Stewart, Sch. Comm.
Dave Capauldo
TLT, Butch, Bruce, Frank
Mary Anton, Bowman Principal
Sandy Trach, Estabrook Principal
Index
1.0 General Business
4.0 Bridge & Bowman Elementary Schools Renovation
7.0 Estabrook Elementary School
1.0 GENERAL BUSINESS
1.1 Minutes
5/10/12
Motion to approve PBC Minutes for April 26 2012.
Motion: Eric Brown 2 Carl Oldenburg Vote: Unanimous
1.2 Monthlv Bills
4/26/12
DPF presented invoices totaling $165,918.51 which were approved for payment
5/31/12
DPF presented an invoice totaling $453,886.69 which was approved for payment
1.3 Meeting Minute Format (Item Relocated from 2.24 to general business)
For the purposes of reducing ongoing printed text previous entries under this heading may have been removed from current meeting
minutes. Please refer to previous editions of the minutes for older insertions.
Mark Barrett is waiting for proposal from PSS.
5/10/11
DPF reported a quote received for training on prolog, but could only find out of state vendors approved by the software company.
PBC member suggested he knew of a local firm we could get training from that would be more cost effective.
10/13/11
DPF reported that it would appear that we would be able to setup training within the next few weeks.
12/1/11
DPF again reported that it was hoping to set up the training within the next couple weeks.
1.4 PBC Make -up and Proiects
For the purposes of reducing ongoing printed text previous entries under this heading may have been removed from current meeting
minutes. Please refer to previous editions of the minutes for older insertions.
5/10/11
The process for new project members was discussed.
Page 1 of 9
Lexington Permanent Building Committee 28 June 2012
• Chair reports that the school committee or Town Manager appoints members for specific projects. Question asked if PBC
should get to meet persons being appointed and vote if they are to be accepted. DPF reports that the appointment is per the
bylaw.
Discussion on 7 Member organization:
• DPF reported that the 7 member organization takes effect some 60 -90 days after ATM or approximately August.
• Discussion that a Criteria needs to be developed for determining new members.
• Discussion that an HVAC or Civil Engineer would be a good knowledge base for a new member
• Discussion on using town lists for seeking members rejected, focus should be on looking for prospect members individually.
• Agreed PBC members should bring prospect list of people they feel would be a good fit.
6/9/11
Gary Lerner, an engineer currently involved in manufacturing, visited the PBC meeting to gain insight into the work of the PBC in
consideration of the expansion of the PBC membership.
9/8/11
There was general discussion on Bylaws for adding members to PBC. Question rose if PBC should have input into appointments on
the committee. Pat Goddard advised that the PBC is a Town Manager appointed committee. The issue of whether or not the PBC
should make recommendations on new members to the PBC needs to be investigated with the Town Manager.
10/13/11
PBC agreed that they should make recommendations to the Town Manager on new members after the prospective member attends
a few meetings and the PBC has some dialogue with them on participation.
12/1/11
There are two resumes in hand; however it was discussed that a future meeting should include discussion with these people on
involvement with the committee, roles and participation.
2/9/12
Discussion about two candidates who have expressed interest in joining PBC. Currently there is one open position. Chuck Favazzo
expressed interest in filling the vacancy. Eric Brown agreed to contact the two candidates on their interest in an auxiliary member
appointment.
1.5 Change Order Approval Process
2/22/12
Discussions on authorization of change orders and the process of how this could be done to avoid delay and to maintain approval of
change order elements with PBC, through the use a pre- approved encumbrance that DPF staff would apply interim change orders
to. PBC would like to see a flow chart showing approval process.
3/8/12
Flow Chart Circulated and process discussed. Further discussion planned; no action.
4/26/12
Motion to approve $50,000 to be encumbered for the purpose of allowing Pat Goddard to approve change order proposals for
Bridge & Bowman to allow work to be expedited, which shall be reconciled and amended to the GC contract through a formal
change order at the next PBC meeting to release them from the $50,000 encumbrance.
Motion: Eric 2 nd : Dick Vote: Unanimous
4.0 Bridge & Bowman Renovation Projects
4.26 Roof Top Unit screening
11/2/11
It was reported that the roof top hvac equipment would be larger than originally anticipated and could be 18 inches to 2 feet taller.
There was some concern expressed over the aesthetics of the larger units and the overall view of the school to the public,
notwithstanding any sound abatement concerns. Various options for screening and placement of support structure for future
screening were discussed. Currently six units suspected of a need for screening based on sound abatement were modified to include
roof reinforcing for future screen panels. It was discussed to increase this count to 10 to include units where screens may be desired
for aesthetics as well, however this motion was not acted upon, leaving just the original 6 locations
12/8/11
This issue was again discussed and the PBC elected to request a unit price be added to the bid submission for adding the steel
support to other RTU locations if the town elected to do so during construction.
1/19/12
Initial feedback from architect was that they did not want to include a unit price for additional RTU locations, but they later agreed
to do so.
Page 2 of 9
Lexington Permanent Building Committee 28 June 2012
6/28/12
DPC discussion cost for additional superstructure improvements for additional screening at roof top equipment cost $35,000.
Discussion on schedule impact, cheaper now than later, other cost items are out there, abatement elbows +/- $70,000 claim was
submitted but denied.
Motion to approve structural support for 1 additional roof top unit screen not to exceed $35,000 with no change in duration.
Motion: Phil Coleman 2 Carl Oldenburg Vote: 6 -0
4.27 Change Orders
4/26/12
Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 for the Bridge Bowman Renovation project in the amount of a $229,770.00 credit to the
project for a change in roofing materials.
Motion: Eric Brown 2 Carl Oldenburg Vote: Unanimous
4.28 DPC update for 4/26/12
4/26/12
Design Partnership provided update on status of project. Update on Bridge Bowman work. Asbestos abatement is completed in the
tunnels. Excavation for boiler room to start soon. School staff meeting this week went well Principals were happy. PCO will be
submitted for additional elbows in abatement work and for making safe existing items above the ceilings that were removed.
DPF will forward a copy of the TLT schedule when available.
4.29 5/10/12 update
5/10/12
Motion to approve CO for grounding rings on motors not to exceed $17,000.00
Motion: Phil Coleman 2 Chuck Favazzo Vote: Unanimous
Motion to approve Bridge & Bowman Change Proposal for ATC changes in the amount of $86,456.00.
Motion: Eric Brown 2 Phil Coleman Vote: Unanimous
4.30 Water line
5/24/12
Motion to relocate waterline at Bowman school as required for building addition.
Motion: Eric Brown 2 Dick Perry Vote: Unanimous
4.31.1 5/31/12 Update
Architect to come to next meeting for update.
5/31/12
Motion to pay Req. 2 ($118,607.50) and 3 ($311,131.65) for Bridge and Bowman
Motion: Carl Oldenburg 2 Dick Perry Vote: 5 -0
Motion to approve Change Order #3 for $21,235.00.
Motion: Dick Perry 2 Carl Oldenburg Vote: 5 -0
4.31.2 6/14/12 Update
Design Partnership provided update on status of Bridge Bowman project. Ductwork is ahead of schedule. Concrete is 1 day behind
but looks okay. Schedule submitted to PBC. Wires tight to the deck should be relocated. Submittals flowing well but for the most
part nothing concerning.
* *TLT targeting completely all work in phase 1B by end of summer instead of dragging over into school year. TLT to review phase 1
turnover areas 1- 6/26, 2- 6/27, 3 — 6/28. Roof all scheduled for this summer.
Motion to approve CO #4 in the amount of $36,882
Motion: Phil Coleman 2 Jen Vogelzang Vote: 6 -0
PBC asked for a better schedule update at next meeting, any items that might be held up and to have Dave and Butch from TLT to
return, and confirm no change in duration.
Page 3 of 9
Lexington Permanent Building Committee
7.0 Estabrook Elementary
28 June 2012
7.11 CM at Risk Selection
1/5/12
Need Sub - Committee for CM @Risk selection which needs 2 members of PBC. PBC would like to know scheduling commitment
needed for this sub - committee and to have this at next meeting.
1/19/12
Two or three meetings required along with submittal review. PBC discussed that Phil and Peter might be best candidates however
each needs to confirm if they could be considered eligible to serve in this capacity.
1/26/12
Peter can not participate on Sub Committee, Phil will know next week. Chuck Favazzo and Joe McWeeney are able to participate.
3/22/12
Joe Riley outlined results of CM @Risk interviews. Three firms prequalified and 1 later withdrew due to scheduling and commitment
charges.
Rationale was discussed for CM at Risk Subcommittee recommendation for Shawmut over CTA.
Motion to accept the recommendation of the CM @Risk subcommittee to rank the CM @Risk firms; Shawmut 1 and CTA 2 and enter
into negotiations with Shawmut.
Motion: Phil Coleman 2 nd : Chuck Favazzo Vote: 5 -0 Unanimous
PBC agreed that Joe Reilly of Walsh and Pat Goddard would initiate discussions with Shawmut and report back at next PBC meeting.
3/29/12
Collaborative Partners (CP) reported back on fee negotiations with Shawmut and reviewed same with PBC. Included in
conversation is level of staffing of Shawmut with personnel on site and management of the project. Proposal from Shawmut is
currently proposed in excess of budgeted amount on MSBA 3011 form.
Much discussion on cost for CM at Risk services and pro's and cons of Shawmut approach and staffing plan.
Motion:
Motion to negotiate Shawmut proposal down $200,000 further than current proposal without removing additional key staff, to
support award of contract to Shawmut.
Motion: Eric Second: Dick Vote: 7 -0
4/12/12
CP reported that continued negotiations took place and Shawmut had agreed to the further fee reductions and that contract
language of a few items was being reviewed and would be made available for PBC consideration and award.
5/10/12
Contingency language has been resolved with pre approval to come from Pat Goddard. Overall Contract language for CM at risk
agreement in to Town Counsel for his input and he will address the beginning of next week.
5/31/12
Discussed Shawmut contract. All agree to move forward with Site Enabling work as planned, but no further work until reconciliation
of total project cost is completed.
Motion to proceed with GMP #1 not to exceed $650,000 to be defined in Amendment #1 to the contract with Shawmut Design &
Construction.
Motion: Phil Coleman 2 nd : Peter Johnson Vote: 7 -0
7.16 Mosaic
12/1/11
There has been discussion about saving the Estabrook logo mosaic, so the construction of the mosaic is being tested for
contaminants during December break.
3/8/12
No asbestos was found in the wall. Options are to replicate on a mural or move existing to new school.
6/14/12
Whereas an architectural appropriate location or process has not been found yet for the relocated mosaic so at this stage it's
relocation is not in the budget, therefore PBC recommends dropping the relocation evaluation process at this time with no funding
line in the budget for this work.
7.19 Contract bridge
Page 4 of 9
Lexington Permanent Building Committee 28 June 2012
12/8/11
DPF advised that a strategy will need to be developed to use remaining available funds from current authorization to bridge gap of
professional services at the conclusion of the study phase of the project to allow continued development of the project or
subsequent phases until town meeting authorizes additional funding.
1/5/12
Proposals needed in advance of next meeting
1/19/12
Staff will work with Walsh to develop scope and fee documents for both Walsh and DiNisco and should have information by
February 9 1h meeting
1/26/12
DPF working with RF Walsh to have information available for 219112 meeting.
2/9/12
Motion for DD fee, $434,000 for the designer and $45,000 for OPM full DD phase, divided into DD1 — schematics to 412112 town
vote not to exceed available funds. After affirmative town vote balance of fees will be authorized.
Motion: Jon Himmel 2 nd : Phil Coleman Vote: Unanimous
4/26/12
Motion to approve DiNisco Design Contract Construction Documents phase through Construction Administration and including
Early Bid packages and Reimbursable exp. For a total contract not to exceed cost of $3,120,000 (previously approved amount
$835,150 for schematic phase) which is within the guidelines approved by the MSBA.
Motion: Jon Himmel 2 nd : Eric Brown Vote: Unanimous
7.20 RF Walsh Collaborative Partners Contract Extension
3/22/12
RF Walsh presentation on fee proposal for balance of project. Discussion of cost differences in OPM fee for 149 job vs. 149A job and
responsibilities of each OPM staff member.
PBC Suggest cost savings in combining Site Manager and Project Manager, RFW to evaluate and report back at next PBC Meeting.
3/29/12
RF Walsh presented an updated contract for services which combined PM and Site manager roles, bringing proposal from 4.5% to
3.73 %.
Motion: To approve RF Walsh contract in the amount of $1,162,000.
Motion: Peter Second: Dick Vote: 7 -0
4/26/12
Motion to amend 3/29/12 vote of OPM contract (originally approved at $1,162,000.), to include reimbursable expenses, cost
estimates, and other services for a revised total contract value of $1,233,400.
Motion: Jon Himmel 2 nd : Eric Brown Vote: Unanimous
7.22 Fuel source for Generator
1/5/12
Discussion on allowable fuel source, MB to follow up with fire department, for use of natural gas instead of diesel.
1/19/12
Have verbal from fire department that natural gas is okay, waiting for verification in writing.
7.23 Historical Commission
1/5/12
RFW and DDP will work with Historical Commission on any approvals necessary for demolition of existing Estabrook School
1/26/12
RFW meeting on 2/9 with Historical Commission.
7.28 Designer Update for 3/29/12
3/29/12
DDP advises that MSBA formally accepted Schematic Design Submission
Final Grading plan due in from subs tomorrow
Food Service meeting recently conducted to inform designers of project needs
DDP presented a power point on overall updates, copy to file
Discussion on Building Materials — more involved conversation will happen at working group meeting
Page 5 of 9
Lexington Permanent Building Committee
28 June 2012
Discussed photos and materials use on other buildings
Materials being considered; Limestone, split face block, ground face block, cast stone, zinc panels, all natural colors.
DDP needs to do some sketch studies of elevations with some of the materials
Some opinions discussed for overall theory...... simple, not busy
Reviewed slight adjustments to floor plan to improve function, no change in GSF
Approx 500 seating capacity for performance space set up in cafeteria
Roof Membrane not yet determined
Cafeteria +/- 11 feet to underside of truss, 16 feet to deck
Gymnasium 24 feet to underside of deck
Glass and lighting require further discussion
7.30 Commissioning Agent award
3/29/12
MSBA assigned Commissioning agent, contact needs to be made and a scope of services received.
4/12/12
Discussion regarding scheduling a meeting with commissioning agent and schedule meeting.
7.31 Schedule through summer 2012 and Start of Building Construction
3/29/12
It was discussed that a detailed schedule / timeline is needed leading into summer activities and enabling work.
Summer Recess for school is coming soon and is relatively short in duration as compared to amount of work that needs to take
place.
4/12/12
Summer approvals, milestones and work goals need to be identified in schedule.
Site infill area, retaining wall, pavement expansion for temp parking, temp drainage structures. DDP expects early site package to
be drawn by end of the month.
7.32 Designer Update for 4/12/12
4/12/12
DDP has continued to move forward on project, process is going well.
DDP has had 2 meetings with Shawmut and reports that they are bringing good ideas to the table.
Shawmut is preparing independent estimate that should be available in 2 weeks (4/26/12).
Shawmut is estimating MSBA submission with new items & materials noted to compare delta to original estimate.
DPF has met with DPW and Rec Dept. to discuss field use and maintenance and has forwarded recommendations to design team.
Discussion on possible added costs for grading of field as well as options for sod versus seed.
DiNisco states final decisions are needed within 2 weeks on grading and seed /sod.
DDP updated PBC on discussions from working group meetings on possible use of limestone, split face block. Rendered elevations
were also available showing zinc panels, limestone and overall fenestration.
Loading dock discussions, included adding a small roof over entry door, locations for dumpsters, screen wall at back of loading
dock.
7.33 Design Development
4/12/12
Design Development scheduled to be complete the end of April.
PBC Recommends School Department and School Committee have a process of formal sign off of the Design Development Package.
7.34 Designer Update for 4 -26 -12
4/26/12
Chris Hildreth of RDK engineers was present to give an overview of the MEP systems on the project. RDK also provided HVAC
narrative and updated energy analysis. Proposed system is a chilled beam induction system.
Additional material will be prepared and demonstrate the comparative data for other systems evaluated. This information to be
shared with Energy Committee.
RDK also discussed energy rebates briefly as well as other measures such as Dark Schools, day - lighting, light sensors etc. DPF will
contact ECC chair and seek feedback.
Page 6 of 9
Lexington Permanent Building Committee 28 June 2012
ECC was invited to the 4/26/12 PBC meeting to evaluate comparative data on Mechanical system options and energy model
updates. While only one member of the ECC was available for the meeting the Mechanical consultant was equally not able to
provide the documentation the facilities department was seeking. Updated material was requested from the engineer and Pat G.
will work with ECC to reach consensus on systems.
Designer briefly updated PBC on continued discussion of materials for fagade and general design features and building elevations.
PBC requested cost comparative data for limestone and similar materials proposed. DDP stated that the next working group
meeting would included continuation of design discussion.
7.35 Collaborative Partners Update for 4/26/12
4/26/12
Joe R. introduced members of the Shawmut team and provided a brief update on the status of estimating which included
Shawmut's first pass at an estimate on the project. CP was in the process of comparing the Shawmut estimate with that of the
schematic design and it was not ready for full discussion. PBC requested a systems summary estimate and Shawmut agreed.
7.36 Collaborative Partners Project Update for 5/10/12
5/10/12
Joe Riley discussion on Cost estimate comparative of Shawmut estimate and schematic design estimate. Next Friday (5/18/12) is
deliverable for DD estimate and reconciliation is scheduled for two days 5/20 and 5/21. Cost Estimates to be discussed in more
detail at next 5/24/12 PBC meeting.
• PBC discussed location of CM trailers would prefer to place them inside the fence.
• Question is there - Fence on top of retaining wall.
• Meeting with Fire Dept. and Building Inspector on 6/1.
• Met today 5/10/12 with Building Inspector and reviewed site logistics fully for building permit for retaining wall. Building
Inspector ok with foundation permit.
• Met with Shawmut and abatement contractors to walk through building. Shawmut will obtain numbers for abatement for
contractors to validate estimate.
• Met with Commissioning Agent and working on Owners Project Requirements with Pat. Process is underway.
• Meet with Hartwell Ave staff to talk about exporting site materials, environmental services and possibility importing fill
materials from Hartwell Ave.
• Shawmut working with Electric utility on temp power and new service issues.
7.37 DiNisco Update 5/10/12
5/10/12
DiNisco reviewed/ update Building Elevations and Interior Design features of classrooms, hallways, cafeteria, gym, acoustical deck
in gym and cafeteria and tectum panels in gym. Gym floor linoleum product.
Reviewed samples of gym floor products preference is for linoleum. Waiting for test data on bounce factors. Reviewed samples of
rubber and linoleum for hallway and classroom floors. Rubber in stairs and linoleum throughout building. Waiting for test data for
sound deadening.
Estimated 23% savings on energy but lowering gas prices are dropping our percentage savings to 19 % + / -. LEED requires 20%
minimum cost savings. Waterless urinals are being looked at for additional savings, which save 40,000 gallons of water per year on
1.2 gal /flush. DiNisco working and confident in meeting LEED Silver.
Pat Goddard advised that ECC met recently and reviewed updated mechanical system information and energy analysis data from
RDK. The ECC requested additional information but supported that decisions made to date were appropriate.
DiNisco is working on Utility rebates with NSTAR and estimate $135,000; this is a work in progress.
7.38 DiNisco /Walsh Update5 /24/12
5/24/12
DiNisco provided an update of work completed and status on overall project development.
Some discussion on the surveyors work and coordinating information to the tree warden who needs to know about trees (6 inch or
greater) impacted by the project. Discussion on any allowable use of Henessey Field. Brief recap of materials discussions to date.
Much of the discussion focused on reconciliation of the project cost estimates. Several Days has been spent on reconciling
quantities and unit prices between the estimates. Final reconciliation not yet available. Some discussion on a number of potential
value engineering items were highlighted if needed.
Page 7 of 9
Lexington Permanent Building Committee
28 June 2012
7.39 Collaborative Partners Project Update for 5/31/12
5/31/12
Presentation by CP on site logistics, enabling work. Shawmut reviewed site enabling work with options for cost deferments, i.e.
retaining wall, fill and storm water near parking lot.
CP discussed estimate review and will need Shawmut's numbers for 6/14/12 meeting.
There is potentially up to 5 million in budget disparity to the current estimate numbers. TOL position is that we should not be
looking to VE 5 million in program, the Design Team needs to identify why current estimates are different from schematic budget.
A VE list should be generated but needs to be subject to discussion with User, and others.
7.40 Update for 6/14/12
6/14/12
$1,396,826 million in yes column after tonight's meeting- school department needs to firm up agreement with these items that
affect the education program.
Sandy discussed needing the list on 6/8 but never received it.
Des. Dev. Package — budget, and VE list due 6/26/12. There will be a LEED checklist in package, we should know if these items effect
the VE list.
PBC needs a target date (7/20/12) to be complete with VE list and have good numbers.
Discussion /concerns with Shawmut and continued services.
MaryAnn has concerns about the process. Information was requested on 6/8 but was only received information on 6/14 at
meeting. School Department needs to be an equal and prepared partner.
Stick with Shawmut to a point certain at last meeting Shawmut was to give us 1 GMP @ 60% CD.
If we chose to end further discussions with Shawmut we would have to give next CM an opportunity before we go to 149 bid.
Meaning we give CTA a set to price and see if we get agreeable GMP. If not we go to a bid process.
PBC directed Walsh to discuss with Shawmut the 2 million delta in soft costs below the line. Not 100% behind continuing to take
out of schools with such a delta.
7/12/12 meeting decision on Shawmut.
7.41 Update for 6/28/12
6/28/12
Joe Riley handouts and talking points
Update PBC on meeting with Shawmut and goals for 7/12/12 meeting.
Discussion on need for Shawmut to focus in on estimate and find areas where costs can be brought to budget.
• ** Shawmut needs to report to PBC on 7/12 with roadmap /revised estimate. **
• If we can Design /Bid/ Build and be on budget so how can Shawmut get us there if we stay 149A?
• DDP wants decision by end of July.
• *If we go 149 RFW thinks we go back to original schedule with completion in June 2014 and little to no float in schedule.
• *DPF and Architect do not think we should wait on GMP after July 12
• We have option to go to CTA for GMP or go to D /B /B.
Shawmut update on Budget
• Currently Shawmut @ $34 million, VE tentatively accepted $1.4 million making Shawmut $32.6 million vs. budget of $31.1
million.
• 6/19 -9/1 Site Enabling
• 8/7- Labor Day Site Work bid +/- $2 million value
• 8/21 -10/1 Concrete and Steel $3 -4 million value
• 10/31 +/- Final CD's
• 12/7- 12/14 Bid GMP 4 -5 weeks
• Xmas get GMP
• Demo $300,000, Abatement $900,000 need to solidify scope and get better numbers.
• Continue to work @ unit prices
• Continue to research market
• Expand sub market to get best price
• Write scopes of work for all sub prices to define price
• Early coordination
• End of August getting 60% CD and re- estimate to validate numbers coming in on pricing
• By October Design Contingency is 0
• By December Construction Contingency drops from 2.5% to 2%
• Shawmut back on 7/12 with formalized plan of above.
Page 8 of 9
Lexington Permanent Building Committee 28 June 2012
Summary from tonight
6/28/12
• PBC would like to see a tabulation of how we went from $31.1 million to $35 million
• RFW needs to advise Shawmut of PBC positions
• Eric thinks School Committee should support PBC in aesthetic issues as they don't involve educational issues. Cost
savings on exterior veneer. Jon agrees exterior building issues should not be school committee issues.
• PBC suggest if Shawmut is not at $31.1 at 7/12 meeting we should not continue any further discussion with them
and start talks with CTA.
• Ask Kevin Batt (Legal Counsel) for advice, letter from awarding authority
• Paul to give Shawmut Fogarty estimate and show them cost model we are striving for.
• OPM can approach 2 nd CM and see if they want to negotiate if we are not proceeding with Shawmut.
Next PBC meeting 7/12/12.
Meeting Adjourned
Motion to Adjourn 6/28/12 10:30 PM
Motion: Phil Coleman 2 Chuck Favazzo Unanimous
Page 9 of 9