East Haddam School
Building Committee Meeting
September 14, 2005
Amended September
28, 2005
The meeting was called to order by Todd Moss at 7:04 p.m. at the Nathan Hale High School – Room 117.
Todd Moss
Craig Parker
Kerri Willis Budzik
Melissa Ziobron
Denise Gable
Dana Barnes
Mary Beth Mordecai- arrived 7:13
David LaFemina
Member absent:
John Gibson
Others present:
David King, KBA
Pete Govert, Board of Selectman
Dr. Steve Durham, Superintendent, Board of Education
Motion by Melissa Ziobron to approve the minutes of July 27, 2005 meeting amended as follows:
4th page, under New Business, first paragraph, third to last sentence after Mrs. Budzik said strike “that the Committee should keep in mind the cost of repairing verses the cost of putting in a material to maintain the floor originally” and replace with “when the time comes to decide what materials to use for the floors, the Committee should think about the cost of it verses the cost of making any repairs in the future, if that material was not to hold up appropriately”.
Seconded by Dana Barnes and carried by
unanimous vote.
Motion by Mrs. Ziobron to approve the minutes of August 18, 2005
meeting. Seconded by Kerri Willis
Budzik.
Favor: Moss, Ziobron, Parker,
Budzik, LaFemina
Abstained: Barnes, Gable
MOTION CARRIED
Motion by Melissa Ziobron to approve the minutes of August 24, 2005
meeting amended as follows:
· 1st page, under Audience of Citizens, strike “There was no Audience of Citizen’s segment offered” and replace with “There were no Audience of Citizen’s”.
· 3rd page, under Construction Management Services Solicitation, 4th sentence, strike “perspective” and replace with “prospective”.
Seconded by Denise Gable.
Favor: Moss, Ziobron, Parker,
Budzik, Barnes, Gable
Abstained: LaFemina
MOTION CARRIED
Pete Govert thanked Committee Member’s for their work on the project.
Motion by Mr. Moss to add Architect Report under Construction
Management Services Solicitation onto the agenda. Seconded by Mrs. Ziobron and unanimously passed.
Mrs. Ziobron stated that the presentation which the Building Committee and KBA performed for the Board of Education meeting was excellent. She stated that the Board Members asked questions which were answered with accuracy enabling them to vote unanimously to approve the schematic design. Dr. Durham stated that the Board of Education Members showed excitement for the schematic design and are eager for the next phase of the plan. Mrs. Ziobron commented that some Board Members requested support for more air conditioning to be provided though out the school and questioned if it could be priced out separately. Mrs. Budzik questioned Dave King at what point in the planning stage would air conditioning need to be addressed. He stated in the upcoming phase (Design and Development Phase) within the next 3 to 4 months. He stated that the system would be designed for pricing in determining if it would work within the budget. It was stated that if the air conditioning was not designed during the next 3 to 4 months during the Design and Development Phase, it could cost additional money to redesign the plans to put it in at a later date. It was also stated that a rough estimate could be performed sooner in an effort to help make the decision if it would be an affordable addition into the School Plans. Mrs. Budzik questioned if the School could be designed to add additional air conditioning to the School at a later date. Mr. King responded affirmatively, but that it would cost approximately 30% of the total cost of the air conditioning. He stated that he has seen with his experience that Schools that are designed for air conditioning in the future often discover that the machines or technology has changed, requiring additional work and cost to install the system. It was stated that if the Committee does not decide to add air conditioning to other areas in the school with in the next 3 to 4 months, it would be cost prohibitive to add it later because there would be significant cost for the architect design, schedule, fees and costs as well as construction costs. Craig Parker stated that the reason why the Committee chose the Construction Manager process is because the company can evaluate the budget in an effort to determine if the addition of air conditioning is feasible. Mrs. Budzik clarified that unless the budget which the project has now, will accommodate additional air conditioning, it can not be added in the future even if there is additional funds available at that time because it would be cost prohibitive. It was stated that the Board of Education received the revisions to the Educational Specifications.
Craig Parker informed the Committee Members that there were 7 responses to the RFQ; Newfield, Pike, Konover, Morganti, Gilbane, Whiting Turner and Turner. He stated that there were 11 criteria. He stated that the criteria from the RFQ were used in order to evaluate the companies. He stated that the Sub-committee evaluated the overall companies professional qualifications, successful experience with similar projects, total years in business, financial stability and bonding capacity, letters of reference, extent of services offered and availability of overall resources, accuracy of estimating construction costs during preconstruction, on time completion of previous projects, experience with school construction using CMc model, safety track record, and other including claims and litigation. He stated that the 7 companies were evaluated on the basis of 1 to 10 carefully assessing each criterion for all companies against the others, added all the scores coming to a final score, divided the numbers by 11, coming up with a final score. Mrs. Ziobron questioned the subcommittee if public notice had been made for their meeting. Craig Parker responded, no. He stated that it was requested at the Town Hall for a place to meet. Mrs. Ziobron stressed of the importance of giving Public Notice prior to meetings. She stated that she was concerned of any misconceptions which could be perceived. Craig Parker stated that the Sub-Committee was formed to choose the qualifiers based on the criteria, which would have been in Executive Session. Committee Members discussed if the scores should be discussed in Executive Session. It was decided that the scoring process should be part of public record. Committee Member’s agreed to the scoring by criteria by the Sub-committee. Craig Parker stated that the Sub-Committee gave a score based on line-item criteria, one criterion at a time for each company and each score was determined by a consensus of the Sub-committee. It was stated that this methodology was designed to eliminate bias. The Sub-committee recommended that the Committee choose 4 companies for the RFP. It was reiterated that the scores were carefully derived by going across the board, from each of the line items, considering each submission for each criterion to establish the scores. Each of the 11 scores were added and divided by 11. The total scores are as follows:
Turner 7.4
Gilbane 7.3
Pike 6.4
Newfield 6.3
Konover 6.0
Morganti 5.7
WhitingTurner 5.6
Craig Parker stated that there were 16 companies which drew qualification packages. Mr. Moss stated that one of the companies which drew was an advertiser which lists proposals and that some of them were not qualified for CMc at risk. Dana Barnes questioned why the Committee chose 4 companies. Craig Parker stated that they were originally going to choose 3. Mrs. Budzik stated that when the scores were tallied, the tighter difference between the third and fourth place companies made them choose 4. She stated that there is a greater difference between the fourth and fifth place companies than between the third and fourth place companies.. Denise Gable questioned if these scores would impact the next phase of choosing the Company or if they would be starting from scratch. Mrs. Budzik stated that they would start from scratch at the next phase of selection. Committee Members discussed at great length how many companies should be chosen. Mr. Barnes questioned what procedure would occur now that the Companies have been chosen. Craig Parker responded that the companies would receive a Request for Proposal, attached to the schematic design, as well as an interview. He stated that the RFP needs to be voted on by the Committee. Ms. Mordecai questioned if after the interview process is the Committee obliged to pick the low bidder. The response was no, based on the language in the RFP the Committee has the flexibility to make a selection based on qualifications and price. Committee Members discussed extensively and came to the agreement to choose 4 companies. Craig Parker stated that the RFP would be September 28th so that the Committee can see the proposals at the next meeting. Mr. Moss stated that once the RFP is received, interviews can be scheduled. It was stated that the RFP would be referred to during the interview process. Mr. King stated of the importance of having a CM as Constructor on board as soon as possible to give the architect the costs involved with the development stage.
Motion by Mrs. Ziobron to accept the recommendation of the
Sub-committees to create a short list of 4 contractors that will receive the
RFP . Seconded by Ms. Mordecai.
Favor: Moss, Mordecai, Ziobron,
Parker, Budzik, LaFemina, Gable
Opposed: Barnes
MOTION CARRIED
Construction Management Services Solicitation
The Request for Proposal contract was distributed and discussed. Changes were made by the Committee and are included attached to the minutes as the RFP contract. Mr. Moss stated that the RFP was a very good one. It asks a lot of good questions. He stated that if everyone answers the questions thoroughly and accurately it would give a very good indication of the firm prior to the interview. The interview would give the Committee Members a chance to ask questions and to get a level of comfort with the people they will be working with. Mr. Moss’s conflict of interest was discussed. He stated that he would not be a part of the selection process. Craig Parker stated that he was planning to submit the RFP directly to the Town with the revisions.
Motion by Mr. Barnes to accept the RFP as amended. Seconded by Mr. LaFemina and unanimously passed.
Mr. Moss stated that during the Committee’s September 28th meeting, a Sub-committee will be formed to schedule interviews. Dr. Durham stated that the School Building Committee has done all of the “leg work” to this point and that they should be the ones to make the decision of who to hire for CMc. He stated of the importance of inviting interested parties to participate as observers. He stated that the School Building Committee is a talented group which will make the right decisions. Mrs. Ziobron stated that any interviews which don’t specifically relate to dollars should be open for the public. Mr. Moss stated that he would be attending the Board of Finance meeting October 3rd. Mr. Barnes questioned how the Committee could replace Mr. Moss’s expertise during the interview process. Mr. Moss responded that the RFP is a good document which will give the Committee a clear picture about the Company and the interview process will allow them to ask further questions. Mrs. Gable reiterated of the quality of the contents of the RFP document. Mrs. Ziobron questioned Mr. Moss if during the interview process he would be making a presentation. He responded no and Craig Parker stated that Mr. Moss had not been identified in the RFQ. Mrs. Budzik questioned Mr. Moss if he was working on a proposal behind the scenes. He responded no.
Brief
Architect Report
Mr. King informed the Committee that KBA had prepared proposals for the geotechnical engineering to do the borings on site which should be available for the next meeting. He stated that KBA had a coordination meeting. He informed the Committee that KBA has these meetings every two weeks and anyone is invited to attend. At the meeting he stated that the Civil Engineer was discussing the septic design and suggested that the Committee consider bringing in a consultant to get the wells approved with the DEP and DEPC. He stated that the regulations are different for both and it has been his experience that it could take some time. Mr. King informed the Committee that this is important now because once the location for the well is identified preliminary drilling would need to take place. He stated that he was not sure of the cost but that he would get the information and bring it to the next meeting. Mr. Moss stated that it would be a reimbursable cost to KBA but that it would need to come out of the contingency fund. Mr. King stated that the Committee should consider hiring a 3rd party for performing a schematic design budget.
Motion by Mr. Barnes to add Update Traffic and Authorization to Pay
Pre-referendum services. Seconded by
Ms. Mordecai.
Favor: Moss, Mordecai, Barnes,
Parker, Budzik, LaFemina, Gable
Opposed: Ziobron
MOTION CARRIED
Review and Approval of
Schematic Plan
Mr. Moss stated that the Board of Education approved the schematic design plan. He stated that in order to increase the class sizes, some of the corridors have been made smaller. He stated that a concern with the schematic design is that the Committee does not know the cost and won’t until approximately November when a CMc has been hired. He stated that the Committee would be receiving opinions of costs with the proposals for the CMc for the next meeting. Craig Parker stated that he would like to wait until the RFP contracts come in which would give the Committee an idea of costs. Mr. Moss stated that KBA could solicit as a reimbursable for a 3rd party to perform a schematic design budget. Mr. Moss stated that it would cost approximately $7,500-15,000 cost of hiring a third party for an estimate. Craig Parker stated that the RFP would generate an estimated cost of the project and that it would be ready for the next meeting. Mrs. Ziobron questioned if the 3rd party is bound to their estimate. Mr. Moss responded no. Mrs. Ziobron questioned if the cost would be worth it and if with in the 4 proposals for RFP, the Committee would have some idea of the cost for the schematic design. Craig Parker stated that the 3rd party’s estimate would be an unbinding opinion. It was stated that a schematic design estimate could be requested as part of the RFP proposal. Ms. Mordecai questioned what the harm would be if the Committee found out they were out of budget now verses in 2 months. Mr. King stated that if it is determined that they are over budget; they can not deliver all of the educational specifications for the price. Mr. Moss stated that working through the evolution of design, and that if KBA designs the school for the next 2 months and then determines that they are over budget; there is a cost and delay to make the changes. He stated that it would be better to know now then later. Ms. Mordecai questioned what the difference would be if the Committee determined that they were over budget now verses in 2 months, paying $7,500-$15,000 to have a 3rd party perform a schematic design budget. Mrs. Budzik questioned Mr. King if the cost that KBA would incur down the road to make changes to the schematic design 4 weeks down the road, would fulfill or exceed the $7,500-$15,000. Mr. King responded that it is difficult to say because it would depend on the complexity of changes which might need to be made. The effect of hurricane Katrina including inflated gas prices resulting in increased building costs were discussed as a concern which could effect the budget. Ms. Mordecai reiterated a lengthy discussion which was made at the previous meeting which she felt was omitted from the meeting minutes. She requested to be on the record of her concern about the larger size gym and amount of money which has been appropriated for it, she does not think the two necessarily be equal, she does not feel that the extra money for the gym is really going to be enough to do the extra gym and that if the taxpayers really knew how much money the gym would be, maybe it would be different maybe it wouldn’t, but she specifically does not want to see educational money coming and leaving the school and going to the gym. It is her opinion that the gym is where there is extra money for the school. Mr. King stated that a Tournament which would be held in the gym would be sanctioned by the CIAC. He stated that they have a certain criteria for their Tournaments. He stated that the criteria is not cut and dry but is negotiable allowing for a Tournament size gym and staying within the budget. Mrs. Ziobron requested for clarification for the Board of Education, that the storage space be labeled.
Motion by Mrs. Ziobron to approve the schematic design as
presented. Seconded by Mr. Barnes and
unanimously passed.
Update Traffic
Mr. Moss distributed and discussed the following documentation:
Mr. Moss informed the Committee that BL Companies was the apparent low bidder at $7825. Two of the other bidders were $10,500 and $10,400. Mr. Moss informed the Committee that he had the Director of Public Works and Whitney Talcott from KBA to look over the proposals as well. He stated that at first glance when BL Companies proposal was reviewed it did not answer a lot of the questions. He stated they went back and questioned for clarification. He said they sent a letter stating that they had included everything in their costs excluding reimbursable expenses. He stated that the other two bidders did include reimbursable expenses in their proposals. He stated that the RFP did not clearly ask the Companies to include reimbursable although it could have been applied, that he spoke with the Town Attorney and others and decided to go back to BL Company and ask them what their reimbursable costs would be. He stated this would help in the discrepancy of the RFP. Committee Member’s discussed the wording of the letter under expenses last line “will probably not exceed $500” and not being comfortable with it. Mr. Moss stated that he would try to negotiate with them to remove this wording on the contract. It was stated that Barken and Mess’s original proposal before going out to bid was $8,500. Mrs. Ziobron stated that she was uncomfortable with the fact that they had limited the number of intersections to be counted. Mr. Moss stated that the other 2 Companies had done the same in their proposals.
Authorization
to Pay Pre-referendum Services to KBA
Mr. Moss apologized; he had forgotten to bring the invoice from KBA and offered to bring it to the next meeting. He informed the Committee that because he did not have it with him, they could choose to vote on paying for the Pre-referendum Services to KBA at the next meeting. He stated that KBA had submitted an invoice for $20,000 for pre-referendum services. Mrs. Ziobron questioned Mr. King why he did not include the invoice in the last meeting’s invoices because when she had voted at the last meeting, she had assumed that it was included. Mr. King stated that he had submitted the invoice. Mr. Moss stated that he never received it and that Mr. King had to re-submit it. Mrs. Ziobron questioned Mr. King why he did not resubmit it on his own. He stated that he understood that until the State approved the project there would be no funds available to pay the invoice. Mrs. Ziobron stated she would like to see the invoice prior to voting. It was noted that copies of the invoices, excluding the $20,000, were distributed to Committee Members at the previous meeting and redistributed prior to the vote. Mrs. Ziobron stated that it was received 2 minutes before the vote.
Motion by Mr. Barnes to pay KBA $20,000 for Pre-referendum
Services. Seconded by Craig Parker.
Favor: Moss, Mordecai, Barnes,
Parker, Budzik, LaFemina, Gable
Abstained: Ziobron
MOTION CARRIED
The next regular scheduled meeting will be on September 28th, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Nathan Hale High School room 117.
Mr. Barnes questioned where the School Building Committee is on the time line schedule. Mr. King responded that they are right on schedule and of the importance of having a CMc on board soon.
Motion by Mr. Barnes at 9:46 p.m. to adjourn. Seconded by Ms. Mordecai and unanimously passed.
Filed at Selectman’s office
Attendance
BL Companies Traffic Impact Study
RFP