HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-14-PBC-minPermanent Building Committee (PBC)
201 Bedford Street, Room 221
January 14, 2016
Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chairman, Bill Hurley, Carl Oldenburg, Lee Noel- Chase, Philip
Coleman, Dick Perry and Chuck Favazzo
Members Absent: Peter Johnson, Eric Brown
Guests: Ken DiNisco and Vivian Lowe, DiNisco Design Partnership; Mike Lambert, Bond Brothers;
Paul G. Kalous, Hill International
Lexington DPF: Patrick Goddard, Director of Public Facilities and Mark Barrett, RA Project Manager
Recording Secretary: Ann Marie Ponzini
Jon Himmel called the Meeting to order at 7:05p.m.
1. General Business
The members reviewed the PBC Meeting Minutes dated December 10, 2015. The December
22, 2016 minutes have not come back from the School Committee as of yet for a final review.
Motion to approve PBC meeting minutes dated December 10, 2015 as submitted.
Motion carried 6 -0 -0
2. DiNisco Update on Conservation Commission (Con Comm)
• DiNisco provided an update on the current status of the project's NOI's to the Conservation
Commission.
• Prior to the NOI submission DiNisco had met informally with the Conservation Commission,
then also met with Con Comm. representatives on a Saturday site walk thru. At each building
site. DiNisco recently met with the Engineering dept. as well to review their site questions for
each project.
• DiNisco appeared before the Con Comm on 1 -11 -6 and made an approx. 20 min presentation
on each site /building.
• DiNisco believes both projects were received well, and that the diamond project may have a
chance to be approved when they return to Con Comm on 1/25/16.
• The Clarke project will be discussed at the 1/25 hearing but will likely be continued to 2/8/16
before it would be approved.
• DiNisco does not believe that these approval dates would have an impact on the overall
schedules.
• DiNisco outlined that mobilizations on site could be organized as early as mid -may 2016 and
site work and summer space mining could start by mid may on a second shift basis and then
days after school is out for summer recess.
• Space mining work was planned for completion by 8/15/16.
• There was some discussion about adding two classrooms to the Clarke Addition, but DiNisco
stated that changing the footprint of the addition would void the conservation commission
process completed to date and require that process to start over with new design plans, storm
water calculations etc.
PCB Meeting 01.14.16
Page 1
3. Brief Overview of School Committee Meeting results
• DiNisco stated that SC voted to keep the ILP program at Clarke, however the previously added
space in the diamond plans for ILP should remain in the plan for future use.
• The School Board voted to keep 2 classrooms designed into Diamond for future ILP use.
• In response to a question, DiNisco stated that the cost of the two classrooms is at +/-
$600, 000.
• DiNisco advised that the SC directed the division of modular to be: 2 @ Bowman, 2 @ Bridge &
2 @ Fiske; with the overall cost budgeted at $3 million.
• Site plans were reviewed with school administrators showing 3 or more possible
locations for the modular units and school administration advised on which location
worked best from the educational perspective. For Bridge & Bowman location A was
chosen and for Fiske Location E was chosen. The PBC requested that Location C at
Fiske be removed from consideration.
• Occupancy for these mod units would be as late as December 2016. The reasoning
was that the locations chosen were on current grass areas of the site where previously
existing pavement locations were evaluated. Locating the mods on grass areas will
lengthen the design and approval process as storm water management and in some
cases wetlands issue need to be addressed.
• PBC asked if the Traffic Safety Committee have been involved in these discussions.
DPF stated that people on the Traffic Safety Mitigation Committee had been consulted
and participated in some of the site review meetings, PBC believes the DPF should
verify if the Traffic Safety Mitigation Committee needs to formally approve plans. DPF
states that drawings are still being developed.
4. Discussion of Increasing HVAC Ventilation 30%
• As a result of the Integrated Design Group, meetings a request was made to consider
increasing the ventilation rate in the HVAC system designs by 30 %, which may also support the
reduction of CO2 levels in school buildings to 600ppm.
• The School Committee did not act on the increased ventilation issue at their recent meeting
outlining increased equipment and operational costs to support that increase in ventilation. The
current HVAC designs meet the code requirements /ASHRAE standards for ventilation.
• Recent Estabrook classroom CO2 tests was about 780 ppm with outdoor air ranging from 300
to 500 ppm.
5. HVAC Options
• PBC and DiNisco discussed the School Committee support of the 2 pipe induction hvac system
versus 4 pipe or VRF systems.
• School Committee voted for the 2 pipe induction.
• DiNisco stated that an alternate was put in place for upgrading to a 4 pipe system if the town
desired, if bid prices and budgets were favorable.
• PBC asked if there were any other alternatives being considered or included, and if so,
had Bond evaluated them at all.
• Bond stated that they would evaluate and consult on alternates, although there were no
others being considered at this time.
• PCB asked about LHS air conditioning and DPF stated they are in discussion with
School Committee.
PCB Meeting 01.14.16
Page 2
6. Hill — Overview on Peer Review Status
• Hill outlined the next steps regarding the Peer Review process.
• Classroom capacity will be evaluated
• Peer review will evaluate the design for any areas of improvement and this will be done 1 week
from Friday (Jan. 22).
• Hill will meet with school Principals to review the design.
• Phase 2 cost items with merit will be brought to Pat.
• Items of value go to design team and Bond for further evaluation
7. General Discussion on Scheduling
• PBC asked about strategy of bid packages and schedule of work being developed.
• Will sub trade bids be for total project or just summer 2016 work. It was discussed that
the sub trades could not be for both the summer work and the full project as the summer
2016 work documents were being expedited for bidding for the summer work to begin by
mid may.
• Has decision been made for single bidder for Clarke & Diamond. The response was that
"Yes ", one bidder (for each trade) would handle both buildings.
• Discussion on the debt exclusion date being scheduled for the beginning of May, and if there is
any schedule impact due to that date.
• DiNisco reiterated rough schedule from discussion.
• Feb. 1st start pre - qualifications (4 -6 weeks)
• Mid -March Bid (4 -6 weeks)
• Late April — Award Bid
• Late May — Cori check process
• 1 project, 2 schedules of values.
• 3/15/16 Package due date is for site /steel /concrete.
• PBC stated they would like to see a proposed schedule with all related dates and milestones.
The project Team agreed to get an updated schedule on paper showing milestones to circulate
to PBC members.
• The PBC also discussed the 60% estimate; asking how will it be done. What breakouts will be
shown and the format, as well, as timing of the documents to be available for the estimate.
• DiNisco offered that the estimate would likely be CSI format and this discussion could be
continued after the aforementioned schedule was sent out.
8. Motion to adjourn was made and seconded: Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
PCB Meeting 01.14.16
Page 3