HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-08-PBC-min�w MOR N/
o� 1775 ti�
m p TOE OF LEXINGTON
x _
o W Department of Public Facilities
y z
APRIL 19
� FX I N G - V
Meeting Minutes
Lexington Permanent Building Committee (PBC)
Meeting Date & Time: 08 December 2011 7:00 PM
Location: 201 Bedford Street
Attendees:
Jon Himmel, PBC
Dick Perry, PBC
Peter Johnson, PBC
Joe McWeeney, PBC
Charles Favazzo, PBC, Estabrook
Carl Oldenburg, PBC
Phil Coleman PBC, Estabrook/ BB
Brigitte Steines
Index
1.0 General Business
2.0 Public Services Building
3.0
4.0 Bridge & Bowman Elementary Schools Renovation
5.0
6.0
7.0 Estabrook Elementary School
1.0 GENERAL BUSINESS
1.1 Minutes
Guests:
Leno Filipe, DDP
Lauren Kenney, RFW
Joe Reilly, RFW
Cassius Moore, RFW
Mary Ann Stewart, School Committee
Sandra Trach, Estabrook Principal
Staff:
Pat Goddard, DPF
Mark Barrett, DPF
Laurie Lucibello, DPF
11/17/11
Motion to approve meeting minutes for 10/13/11, 10/27/11, and 11/2/11.
Motion: Phil Coleman 2 Chuck Favazzo Vote: Unaminous
12/8/11
Motion to approve meeting minutes for 11/17/11 and 12/1/11
Motion: Dick P. 2 Peter J. Vote: Unanimous
1.2 Monthly Bills
11/17/11
DPF Presented Invoices totaling $560.00, which were approved for payment.
201 BEDFORD STREET • LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420
PBC Meeting Minutes
08 December 2011 Meeting
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.
5/12/11
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 of weeks.
1.4 PBC Make -up and Projects
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.
5/12/11
The process for new project members was discussed.
• 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 new 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.
2.0 PUBLIC WORKS &FACILITIES BUILDING PROJECT
2.60 Site Signage at Street
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.
9/8/11
DPF to work with local electrician to replace large ground lights with smaller conventional units and work with DPW to create small
mulch bed and ground cover.
10/13/11
DPF to try an LED Retrofit on the lights in question.
2.83 Front Walkway
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.
10/13/11
DPF working with DPW for new walkway construction as designed by HKT, with hopes of getting work complete before winter.
Page 2 of 8
PBC Meeting Minutes
08 December 2011 Meeting
2.84 Close -Out
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.
5/12/11
PBC frustrated that project has not been "closed- out ". DPF shared that frustration and while we have been following some
warranty items, plantings, etc. close out has been awaiting the completion of the fluid distribution system and the site as- built. DPF
is hopeful that these items are nearly complete and we will be able to "close -out" project.
9/8/11
Landscape Architects met on site with owner to review closing order of conditions and are now waiting for small updates to site
as -built for completion.
12/1/11
Final close -out and payment is forthcoming.
4.0 Bridge &Bowman Renovation Projects
4.10 Phasing Plan
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.
8/23/11
Discussion on second shift construction in Central core areas, preferred over regular day shift. It was suggested that all afternoon
programming at both schools should be relocated to other buildings during the construction phases.
Key dates within the summer construction sequences should be identified and included in the specs sop that there are mid summer
milestones to help keep the project on track.
PBC still has concern for the phasing and the schedule.
9/8/11
Question was asked if there was any thought of putting the administrative area into trailers? Answer is the Administrative staff
must be in the building.
Updated Phasing plans were reviewed, however there was a disconnect between the architects and the principals in the logistics of
swing space for staff within the building to free up administrative or central corridor spaces for renovation. This issue to be
reviewed further, however, the overall theme was to allow for construction of portions of the central corridor spaces after the
summer break but during off hours or second shift only.
PBC asked if laying out the swing space was included the architects work and they confirmed.
10/13/11
Jon, Peter and Carl attended a phasing review meeting. A bulleted list of discussion points was developed and distributed.
Some of the areas of concern and primary discussion points focused around status of the electrical plans, location of verizon duct
bank, abatement work in tunnels. DPC was to send updated electrical plans for additional review.
12/1/11
A meeting was held on site with Verizon and it would appear at this time that lines do not have to be moved prior to the
contractor being on board.
4.11 Window Patterns and Operation
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.
9/8/11
DPC has design for double hung — cost in budget +/- $800,000. PBC verified that school committee was aware that $10,000
energy benefit on window replacement had about an 80 year payback.
10/13/11
Windows in base scope as estimate sits, however PBC can have the windows become an add alternate.
12/1/11
The windows are included on the plans as an alternate and the cost savings relative to the base bid is expected to be over the
$800,000 due to a lack of abatement needed.
4.12 Project schedule
Page 3 of 8
PBC Meeting Minutes
08 December 2011 Meeting
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.
10/13/11
Construction Documents are scheduled for completion on 11/3/11.
Lexington will need up to date copies for MEP document review.
Contractor prequalification deadlines need to be scheduled into project.
11/2/11
Final Documents due 11/3
Drawings to go to MEP review
Variance request to be sent to Plumbing Board for unisex toilet in kitchen
Pre - Qualification of Contractors due 11/22
12/8/11
The Plumbing Board Variances were mailed out.
Contractor pre - qualification was discussed at a mtg. on 12/7/11 and a list of pre - qualified firms has been established.
Plans and specs are released to bid on 1/3/12.
4.21 Review of Design Development Estimate
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.
9/15/11
PBC proposed changing contingency figure to 10% now.
Motion: Peter Johnson 2 Phillip Coleman Unanimous
10/13/11
DPC presented an 80% CD estimate draft that puts total project cost at $22,875,027, however there are several hundred
thousand dollars reportedly to come out based upon their review to a corrected figure within a week or so.
PBC requested full estimate complete by 10/19 for PBC mtg. on 10/20 with a reconciliation of cost changes from 19.4 to 22.8
General discussion followed on estimate points and what information is needed to justify cost increases. No formalized
conclusions.
10/20/11
Goal of this meeting was to review changes in cost estimate.
DPC presented an updated 80% cost estimate totaling $22,638,958.
DPC presented a Table showing the primary components of the estimate (items A thru H.) as it progressed from SD 19.4 million
to 80% CD $22.6 Million.
There was discussion on some specific cost changes along with general discussion on trades and allowances.
Clerk Cost increased $150,000 due to double shift work. Sprinklers went up 20% in last 2 months.
DPC stated that the Estimator carried @ $5.50 sf vs. the Engineer originally @ $4.40 sf for sprinkler work. Question asked " Was
the productivity rate adjusted "? DPC did not know.
PBC would like to see more detail on the estimate and what increased the cost. Board would like a spread sheet that shows the
16 CSI divisions from SD to CD.
"How did estimator include cost of phasing into overall cost "? DPC did not know.
PBC will review data when received and advise if they want to have another meeting on this issue and whether or not estimator
should come.
10/27/11
The Architects had forwarded a reconciliation of some of the cost changes from the DD — CD estimate but this did not reflect
cause for changes from SD -DD. By one members evaluation the main trades involved were the MEP trades with a cost change of
approx. 1.7 million from SD to CD and that the basis of the estimate at the SD phase may be the culprit for the increases.
12/8/11
It was discussed that a letter had been received from the engineers outlining a basis for some of the cost changes as discussed
above, for use by the town.
4.24 Noise
8/23/11
It was discussed if the noise ordinance would prohibit double shift work. DPF reported that we have had double shift work at other
buildings without complaint. Further the building commissioner has stated there is not a problem when the work is inside the
building. Further the fire department has confirmed that it has no impact on their regulations.
9/8/11
DPC felt that town ordinance was involved with regulating construction noise and that the project may need dispensation from BOS
for hours of operation. DPF will follow up.
Page 4 of 8
PBC Meeting Minutes
08 December 2011 Meeting
DPC reported that a background noise monitoring & modeling effort was completed. Currently the consultant is evaluating options
on how to achieve compliance with noise ordinance as well as goal of no change to background. Currently there is an allowance of
$25,000 per school in the indirect costs to cover future noise abatement if needed.
10/13/11
PBC discussed and elected to direct DPC to make provisions structurally, for future sound abatement screens at new roof top
u n its.
The Issue of meeting the code requirements which allows for a set increase in background noise levels or having no change in
background levels was discussed although no formal decision was made.
12/8/11
See item 4.26 below.
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 was 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.
4.27 Town Meeting
11/2/11
PBC Chair summarized (verbally) a proposed recommendation to be given to Town Meeting on the 8 outlining the PBC's
recommendation for the Bridge & Bowman Project.
Motion: To authorize the chair to write and give a PBC recommendation on the Bridge & Bowman Project at the Special Town
Meeting on 11/14/11.
Motion: Eric Brown 2nd Dick Perry Vote Unanimous
4.28 MEP Review
12/1/11
Brief discussions over C3 review of MEP documents comments have been sent to Architects and Engineers and engineers have
responded. C3 satisfied with return comments.
12/8/11
PBC requested that DPF ask C3 to verify if suggested changes have been made.
4.29 League of Women Voters
12/1/11
There is a discussion group be established for the Bridge Bowman project by the LWV and a request was made for a
representative to sit between the pro and con tables to provide factual references to the project.
4.30 Contract Bride
12/8/11
DPF advised that a strategy needs to be developed to use remaining available funds from current authorization to bridge gap of
professional services at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase allow DPC to initiate bidding services prior to the
town override vote approval and the authorization of additional funding.
Motion to approve DPC Bidding & CA Phase Contract services as previously negotiated and to allow DPF to negotiate contract
language with DPC to commit balance of available funds to bridge the gap until the Town Override vote provides additional
funding to support continued work.
Motion: Phil C. 2" Carl O. •
Vote. Unanimous
7.0 Estabrook Elementary
7.8 Estimates
9/8/11
Page 5 of 8
PBC Meeting Minutes
08 December 2011 Meeting
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
7.9 Schedule
Received schedule 9/15/11, designer agreement should be resolved by early next week. PBC would like to see a copy.
10/27/11
March 2012 — MSBA Approval
January 2013 - Award Contract for Construction
September 2014 - Occupy Building
7.9 RF Walsh Update
10/27/11
RF Walsh provided an update on project developments, working group meetings, and MSBA issues.
• Fire Department drove engine and ladder truck up Robinson road and had no trouble making turn on existing drive into
rear of site.
• It was noted that the Board of Selectmen do not have to make a vote on the project only the school committee
• 2 story or 3 story design options had not been determined as of yet, but PBC will get to see them both.
o The expected efficiency of a 3 story scheme was briefly discussed and acknowledged as being more cost
efficient as long as it functions for the schools /use.
• Educational Program at approx 88,000 sf is being reviewed by MSBA.
0 88,000 sf program using $325 / sf translates to 36 to 37 million budget.
• Presentations on design option start in November.
• TMMA meeting scheduled for 11/3
7.10 CM at Risk versus Design Bid Build
10/27/11
There was discussion on the pros and cons of CM at Risk contracts.
It was discussed that decisions on CM at Risk may need to be made no later than December.
PBC requested a table of responsibilities be developed to demonstrate Pro's and Cons of CM at Risk versus conventional bid /build.
11/17/11
RF Walsh reviewed power point on differences in delivery method.
DPF raised discussion points on why having a CM at risk could be beneficial to the project and the Town especially on scheduling
issues.
Issues discussed, risk, schedule, cost, phasing & logistics, process
It was agreed that a decision needed to be made by December as there are several steps to go thru to get CM on board.
PBC asked for consultants to prepare updated schedule that shows impact of CM at Risk and Early site work with milestones, as
discussion indicated there should be schedule benefits but they are not shown on schedule presented.
Also, to have RF Walsh distribute the RFQ for CM at Risk as PBC review may help decision process.
12/1/11
There was continued discussion on the pros and cons of CM at Risk although no decisions have been made as there are still
questions over cost impact and benefit to schedule. A PBC member has volunteered to contact RF Walsh and develop a way to
document or better define the pro's and cons or responsibilities and perhaps costs for the next PBC meetings review.
12/8/11
There was continued discussion on the CM @ Risk process which included the review of a table of data presented by RF Walsh
on the shifting of responsibilities of participants in the project management process as well as financial and scheduling impacts.
Given the potential of negligible cost differentials and potential improvement to scheduling and tighter document development
the PBC elected to continue the project with the CM at Risk process.
Motion to approve and implement the Construction Manager @ Risk process on the Estabrook School project, understanding
that improvements to scheduling, document and construction control provided through the construction manager at risk process
will be an added benefit to the project.
Motion: Phil Coleman 2" d : Dick Perry Vote: Unanimous
Page 6 of 8
PBC Meeting Minutes
08 December 2011 Meeting
7.11 Model School
10/27/11
Model School participation earns an additional 5% reimbursement but it is presently unclear if we are eligible to participate in or
pick a Model School.
7.12 Study Options Renovation versus New Construction
11/17/11
DDP presented a power point on study progress which outlined space needs program and site development options looking at
access, renovation and addition or new construction, be it 2 story or 3 story.
PBC will be asked to vote at their next meeting to support either a renovation and addition option or a new construction option.
12/1/11
DDP presented a power point outlining the work to date and beginning the conversations on the many elements of the project
that need to be considered during design, such as design features, aesthetics, building entry, library, classroom organization,
lockers, playground, cafeteria, gymnasium, etc.
The program was again confirmed in the 89- 90,000 sf range.
The committee discussed the letter received from DDP regarding the preferred schematic study and recommendations to the
MSBA.
Motion to accept letter from 01 December 2011 from DDP to LSBC to approve of the development of options 2, 3 and 4 to
provide for a new Estabrook Elementary School on the vacant portion of the site for the reasons outlined in said letter.
Motion: Dick Perry 2 Joe McWeeney Vote: Unanimous
7.13 2 Story versus 3 story
11/17/11
DDP felt that Discussion on 2 story vs. 3 story should first focus on responding to the educational needs and then look at other
impacts. PBC wants to be part of these discussions in considering construction and operating cost differences. DDP stated that
there is a 1 -3% reduction in operating and construction costs when going from 2 story to 3 story.
12/8/11
PBC needs to vote on the preference for 2 story versus 3 story at next meeting. DDP will prepare presentation.
7.14 Schematic Design
11/17/11
PBC requested that some discussion take place with DDP and PBC over design styles and aesthetics as the architects should be
aware of what general direction the PBC feels the design should be so as not to waste valuable and limited time in design phase.
DDP stated that SD deliverables would include:
Cost Estimates, Narrative on Systems, Narrative on Site, Narrative on finishes, Plans, Elevations, sections, Rendering and permitting
issues
12/1/11
DDP expressed that the design phase would be beginning and there was general discussion on the design clues, historical
elements and features. PBC suggested that the architects not cast the design features too quickly until they make some
suggestions to the PBC to confirm an appropriate direction.
7.15 Conservation
A proposal was reviewed to have GLM engineering prepare and submit an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation to
formalize the discussions with conservation on the impacts to the project.
Motion to approve additional services to GLM Engineering in the amount of $1200 for "Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area
Delineation" for Estabrook project.
Motion: Peter Johnson 2nd: Dick Perry Vote: Unanimous
7.16 LEED
12/2/11
Page 7 of 8
PBC Meeting Minutes
08 December 2011 Meeting
Brief discussion on LEED design. DDP expressed that MSBA reimburses 2% for LEED Silver certification the first pass thru the
LEED scorecard should occur in the schematic design phase.
7.17 School Committee
12/1/11
The school Committee is meeting on 12/12/11 with a scheduled presentation by DDP and the school committee is seeking a
representative to be there from the PBC.
7.18 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.
7.19 Traffic Clarification
12/8/11
PBC discussed the need for clarification as to the extent of involvement of the ETF committee with traffic concerns on the
Estabrook site. Peter Johnson will communicate a reminder to ETF that the PBC has responsibility for oversight of traffic
concerns within the Estabrook site and that while they will seek a recommendation from the ETF on the amount of queing that
may be required based upon their work leading to the property line, it is the PBC who should coordinate the actual design and
layout of this work on site with the architect and traffic consultants.
7.20 Contract bride
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.
Meeting Adjourned
Motion to Adjourn 12/0811 9:20 PM
Motion: Peter Johnson 2 Dick Perry Unanimous
Page 8 of 8