The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-09-10-SBC-min (Communications Working Group)Meeting Date: Project Name: Project Number: Subject: Attendees: September 10, 2024 Lexington High School Click or tap here to enter text. LHS Communications Working Group Meeting Christina Dell Angelo DWMP - Project Manager (CA) Mike Burton (MB) D W MP- Partner '. .� Jacob Greco (JG) DWMP - Assistant Pro j ect Manager '. LF) .� Lorainne Finnegan ( SMMA- Principal in Charge Anoush Krafian (AK) SM MA -Assistant Project Manager Mark Barrett (M132) LHS- Public Facilities Project Manager Mike Cronin (MC) SBCV. ice Chair & LPS Facility Director �::..Charles Fava z Jon Himmel UH2) PBC Chair �...� Kseniya Slaysky (KS) SBC Community Representative Agenda Description Item 1. Introduction: Refer to attendees list. 2. Request for Qualification (RFQ) Review • K.Slaysky asked what is meant by Schematic Design PO, is it just for review of the Schematic Design? C M.Burton noted they are hired for a SD review and estimate, there will be a separate PO for SD to the Project Funding Agreement (PFA) V� ini-noin : I Massachusetts �AIVw M(.dc)reandl /rtlhiit....ierr,,cov�n • J.Himmel asked if they are guaranteed the construction administration C M.Burton noted they are not guaranteed it but he has never seen a CM at Risk not get the job after • C.Favazzo asked if when they go out for Request for Proposal will the cost include the extra 6 months to get from SD to the PFA? • J.Himmel noted they are selecting someone who will do a great job at preconstruction o L.Finnegan noted that it is more important to look for a partner for the wholejob • J.Himmel noted that an earlier walk through may be good to give the CM's more information • M.Burton noted that there can be multiple walkthroughs but normally it is done in the RFP phase to make sure only qualified CMs are viewing it to save time. • J.Himmel noted he is concerned with who shows up in the credential aspect and it should be provided what the sub -committee is looking for • C.D. Angelo noted she sent out the RFQ PDF for review earlier but has taken out the key aspects that require discussion • C.D. Angelo noted that it will be hosted on the Dore + Whittier website for download. She noted that they adjusted the range of construction to $450 million - $550 million. • M.Burton noted that the escalation of the past years will be taken into account on the value of past projects • C.Favazzo noted he did not see the estimated square footage o M.Burton noted this will be added if it is not there • K.Slaysky noted the three things she sees missing from the description are the terms public project, school project, and occupied site • M.Burton noted they want to qualify as many people as can be so they do not want to limit the availability • It was agreed upon that the term public will be included • M.Burton noted that for the RFP portion they will ask for examples of how they have converted their system to the MSBA system • L.Finnegan noted they should not include the occupied site as they would be limiting themselves on options as these CMs are qualified • J.Himmel asked if they should include Chapter 149.a somewhere o L.Finnegan noted this is included already in the RFQ • C.D. Angelo noted she is currently working with the DCAMM office for the WBE and MBE percentages Page 2 of 6 C K.Slaysky noted that it should be clear that there are four (4) percentages that should be listed • C.D. Angelo asked M.Barrett if they do want one hard copy or if all electric is fine o M.Barrett noted he is fine with all electric but will check with purchasing • C.Favazzo asked if it is common to limit the size of the qualifications o C.D. Angelo noted no this is not part of the process she has seen as they do want to see all the information C C.Favazzo noted that it may be good to just get the important information C L.Finnegan noted she has not noticed any filler/not important information as the CMs have done this process a lot o M.Barrett noted he uses a sentence that just asks for relevant information • C.D. Angelo noted for past project experience she has ten years listed o C.Favazzo noted that the last five (5) years will be more the most important • J.Himmel noted that all of this information is about construction and not about prequalification, which Himmel views is mor important at this stage. o C.D. Angelo noted there will be more of this in the RFP as this is just for the qualifications. The RFP is much larger and covers a lot more • C.D. Angelo noted she has terminations for the last 5 years, administrative proceedings for the last 3 and arbitrations in the last 3 • C.D. Angelo noted the safety record will be extended for the last 5 years • C.D. Angelo noted they have 3 prior CMR projects with GMPS and at least one completed at least in the last 10 years • Bonding Capacity set in the amount equal to or greater than 110% o L.Finnegan noted the M.G.L must be 110% • C.D. Angelo noted the DCAMM certification of eligibility will be shared o K.Slaysky noted this will have their single project and cumulative limits • C.D. Angelo noted they have references listed at 3 from owners that the firm has worked within in the past 5 years o K.Slaysky noted that if we are accepting projects from the last 10 years than it should also be 10 here o M.Burton noted the only issue is that a lot change in towns and companies and after 5 years there is not much weight in those references Page 3 of 6 C C.Favazzo noted that the bank references should be separate so 5 total • C.D. Angelo noted that the project report examples will be limited to 1 project and 20 pages • K.Slaysky asked if they will be getting their labor rate tables fixed for the duration of the project o L.Finnegan noted for the GCs they will be yes o C.D. Angelo noted yes this is part of their price proposal not the RFQ. A table is provided for them to fill out o M.Burton noted to him fee is the number one priority and rates are number two as they can evolve • C.D. Angelo asked what the best page number limit would be for each project • C.D. Angelo asked if the group wants an earlier walkthrough o C.Favazzo noted that this may be better to wait for the RFP stage to make sure just the qualified firms are present o J.Himmel hears what these viewpoints are but thinks it will be good to get unwanted questions. Himmel noted maybe a short video introducing the project may be helpful o M.Burton noted that a reference to the project website will be better to let them do the work themselves o J.Himmel noted they should include some of the information on the RFQ download page and reference the website for the rest • J.Himmel noted to maybe add a line that projects completed in the last 5 years will be weighted more heavily C K.Slaysky noted this will be better in the RFP portion • ].Himmel asked if the pre -construction can be a qualification o L.Finnegan noted they could include asking for a two-page approach on the firm's pre -construction approach • M.Barrett is going to reach out to legal about working relationships with some of the firms will be applying • J.Himmel asked if the group is allowed to ask the CM firms to undergo exercises similar to how a designer would be asked for renderings prior to be selecting o L.Finnegan noted that she has worked with every major company, and they all work very differently, and the teams within these companies play a factor with each o J.Himmel noted when he interviewed people, he asked for the project teams to come not the suits. Himmel noted that if they are all qualified for the project then pre -qualification should take a step forward in importance Page 4 of 6 C K.Slaysky noted she does not agree with biasing this heavily towards preconstruction as the other aspects are just as important 3. CM Selection Sub -Committee RFQ Recommendation of Approval • The sub -committee will make a recommendation to the SBC to approve the RFQ 4. Timeline Review • C.D. Angelo shared the timeline for the CMR procurement process • Develop Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) sub -committee 08/19/2024 • Develop Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 08/26 - 09/5/2024 • Review RFQ with CMR sub -committee 09/09/2024 • Issue RFQ 09/18/2024 • CMR qualifications due 10/09/2024 0 Short list CMR 10/17/2024 • CMR Request for Proposals (RFP) 10/17/2024 • CMR site walkthrough 10/24/2024 • CMR proposals due 11/14/2024 • Review proposals with CMR sub -committee 11/14- 11/22/2024 0 Interview CMR firm's week of 12/03/2024 • Award Schematic Design (SD) Purchase Order (PO) 12/16/2024 • C.D. Angelo noted that these dates are tentative specifically the walkthrough one • M.Burton noted there will need to be more meetings during the RFP phase 5. Close Page 5 of 6 Sincerely, I)OIIZE °ii° III°111111'"1"TIlllEill Jacob Greco Assistant Project Manager Cc: Attendees, File The above is my summation of our meeting. If you have any additions and/or corrections, please contact me for incorporation into these minutes Page 6 of 6