East Haddam School
Building Committee Meeting
Special Meeting
October 5, 2005
Adopted October
26, 2005
The meeting was called to order by Dana Barnes at 6:30 p.m. at the Nathan Hale High School Library/Media Center.
Craig Parker
Kerri Willis Budzik
Melissa Ziobron
Denise Gable
Dana Barnes
Mary Beth Mordecai
John Gibson
David LaFemina
Member absent:
Todd Moss
Others present:
Jennifer Mangiagli, KBA
Discussion of Common Questions for CM as Constructor Interviews
Committee Members established the following Interview questions to be used after each firm’s presentation.
The Committee was informed that the Board of Finance would like to know if the Town owes fees to Newfield Construction for pre-referendum costs for the last unapproved school project. Committee Members agreed that it would not be fair and decided not to ask this question during the interview process.
Conduct CM Interviews
Prior to starting each interview, Committee Members introduced themselves, Dana Barnes informed them that presentations would be limited to 35 minutes and questioning 15 minutes as per the specifications on the RFP. All presentation material as well as cassette tapes of the meeting are filed at the Selectman’s office.
Newfield Construction
Newfield Construction was represented by Damien Davis-Project Executive, Tom DiMauro-Project Manager, Diana Colcord-VP, Business Development, Chuck Grabowski-Chief Estimator, Ray Pellerin-Project Superintendent and John Johnson-Project Engineer. A power point presentation was performed
Ms. Colcord sited 11 cost control projects performed in Connecticut within the past 2 years all with which had savings. It was stated that the Wethersfield and Canton jobs were complete on time. They informed the Committee that typically the building department approves, prior to the certificate of occupancy, 2 to 4 weeks before the students would move in. They informed the Committee that the project would be scheduled in phases to allow for progressive review of the school design by the State Education Department. It was stated that this was accomplished with a previous project in Canton. They informed the Committee that the Team has worked together for the past 5 years, the last project being in Wethersfield. The Chairman’s letter of recommendations from the Wethersfield project was referred to as to the team’s strength, trust and integrity. It was stated that they learned a better understanding of how to deal with the Construction workers at the Wethersfield project.
Craig Parker questioned how many projects they currently had at this time in Connecticut. They replied that they currently had 3 projects in Connecticut and that 2 were currently being closed out. Ms. Mordecai questioned how the current events would affect the budget on the project. In response, they referred to a contract which they were currently working, which in January was bid at $38,200,000 and today costs $40,000,000 due to material escalation. It was stated that some things are out of control such as plywood prices and that hopefully these escalating prices would come into control prior to the start of the project. Dana Barnes questioned the time line and the difference between the 3 proposed firms; questioning if it would be possible to move it forward to August of 2007. It was responded that the design team would need to be consulted for an accurate answer.
The Pike Company
The Pike Company was represented by Gil Dimaio-Operations Manager, Jack Brunoli-Project Manager, Bob Rose-Project Superintendent, Nancy Gibbons-Project Coordinator and Kevin Leach-PE, Leach Consulting LLC. A Project Schedule was distributed to Committee Members with an August 2007completion date and students arriving in September.
It was stated that they are currently working on 4 school projects in the State; Magnet School in the City of Hartford, E. C Goodwin, Tunix CC and Ledyard Central. It was stated that in the last 2 years they had completed work at Yale and Southern Connecticut State University. They informed the Committee that there were no K – 8 projects complete in the past 2 years but that the team had extensive experience with University work which tends to be more complex due to the requirements of more sophisticated classroom study.
Craig Parker reviewed the Project Schedule and questioned if a two week period for moving the students into the school was a reasonable amount of time. They responded affirmatively.
When Mrs. Ziobron questioned about the strengths and weaknesses identified by the chairman of the last school project they worked on ; Mr. Dimaio stated that there could have been better planning with the last Building Committee which they worked, with regards to helping them make decision. He stated that their strength would be that they are able to work as advocates for the Building Committee and the Board of Education. He referred to letters of testimonials which was included with their RFP. He stated that the best lesson learned was the selection of Contractors.
Mr. Dimaio informed the Committee that they would purchase their own equipment (so there is no mark-up), open the bid to get many competitive quotes to choose from. He stated this would open the competitiveness allowing for a better cost basis. Instead of 3 or 4 major competitors, it would allow for 30 or more which would provide for the best qualified bidders.
John Gibson questioned who the full time people on the job would be. It was stated that the team would be Gil Dimaio, Jack Brunoli, Bob Rose, Nancy Gibbons and Kevin Leach from the beginning to the end of the project. Craig Parker questioned if they could foresee any warrantee issues which would be problematic to the Town. They responded no. They stated that safety meetings occur every day and that every week tool box talks occur.
Mr. Barnes asked them to talk about Fees. Mr Dimaio stated that they provided a fee proposal, a breakdown of general conditions and that they welcome the opportunity to talk about either and negotiate. He stated that they understand that money and budgeting are important.
Dave LaFemina questioned whether they had used some of the methods that were discussed (ie. Pre-built panels, pre-purchasing equipment, etc.) to meet schedule in the past. Mr. Dimaio sited 2 projects ahead of schedule. He stated that they are excited to bring kids in to help work on the project in the Contractor’s trailer. He stated of the benefits of the educational experience. He informed the Committee that they want to get people involved in their business to let them know that contractors are intelligent and computer literate.
Mr. Dimaio stated that 60 tons of air conditioning is required for the current specifications and that it would only require 82 ton’s new to air condition the rest of the school. He informed the Committee that detailed value management allows for savings in the project.
Turner Construction Company
Turner Construction was represented by Peter Zannis-Project Executive, Ty Tregellas-Manager Education Group, Mike Crowl-Project Manager, Chuck Flickinger-Project Engineer and Kevin Antonucci-Project Superintendent. Mr. Zannis responded that he would have to get back to the Committee as to the number of schools currently being worked on at this time in the State of Connecticut. He stated that he believed the number to be over 12. He stated that some were completed early, most on time and 1 of the projects of the 22 was completed 2 days late. He informed the Committee that their Company had the advantage of being able to test the project against other similar completed projects. It was stated that in June, July and August Turner Construction built $55 million worth of school work representing 22 schools. Mr. Zannis stated of the importance of bringing in a CM early to test the schedule and compare it to previous Turner projects with similar types of buildings, projects and start dates.
Dana Barnes questioned the schedule with the January 2008 completion date and questioned if September 2007, based on the GMP, could be accomplished. Mr. Zannis responded it was realistic. It would depend on when the project would be started and the things which can’t be controlled, such as septic and weather. It was stated that as far as the construction, that larger volumes of schools have been completed in shorter periods of time in the past. They informed the Committee that they followed the lead in the RFP when establishing the move in date and that their move in date goal would be the same as the Committee’s.
In response to Mrs. Ziobron’s question, Mr. Zannis responded that strength of his team is the ability to fulfill the goals of the project and a weakness is that there is a lot of information to digest. He stated that there are a lot of details which needs to be presented to the Committee. They also informed the Committee that strength is also their teamwork, that they have build a lot of schools together. It was stated that each Building Committee is different and of the importance of customizing the information to meet the Committee’s needs.
Mr. Barnes questioned why there was a proposed fee in their proposal. It was responded that they don’t know the volume of the project and that it was based on the parameters of the RFP that a percentage fee based on the volume and if the volume were to change dramatically it might adjust the fee.
Mrs. Ziobron questioned why they also included constructor as administrator. It was responded that they wanted the Committee to see the costs for both and that their involvement in the project would not be any different. Mr. Zannis stated that when they are the Agent, they only insure their volume but when it involves a contractor; similar liabilities must be kept for all of the sub-contractors which are already carrying general liability. He stated that this would be an opportunity to save some money.
Ms. Modecai questioned how the market conditions could affect the project. Mr. Zannis responded that it is too early to see the impact of Katrina. He stated that they are pretty sure there would be an impact, primarily on residential material. He stated that they are anticipating a spike in inflation of about 8 percent.
Other Discussion
Committee Members had general discussions about the presentations. Committee Members developed a process with which to rate the presentations. Ms. Mordecai stated that what worries her is that although Newfield is the low bidder by far, they did not say anything to the Committee as to how they would complete the project on budget. Mr. Gibson responded that the contingency fee is ½ percent higher than Pike. Craig Parker informed the Committee that if all the fees are added in, the dollar figures are as follows: $1,828,000 Newfield, $2,134,000 Pike and $2,695,000 Turner, using 4 percent contingency. He stated that the difference is $900,000 between the top and the bottom.
Craig Parker stated that the first thing that struck him from the Pike interview was that they said that they would get the students into the school in September 2007 and that there really is no dollar figure which can be assigned to the savings of getting into the school in September verses January of 2008. Mr. Gibson agreed that although you can not quantify in dollar amounts to a September 2007 move in date, he considers the savings to be significant.
Committee Members rated each company based on pre-determined criteria which is filed in the Selectman’s office. The results are as followed:
Pike 88.5
Newfield 80.125
Turner 77.875
7 out of the 8 Committee Members scored Pike with the highest score and 1 had chosen Newfield. Concern was raised that Pike did not have much school experience in Connecticut. Committee Members did raise the point that it would make them work extra diligently as it would be good for their portfolio of completed projects. Committee Members reviewed the various presentations. Mrs. Ziobron stated that she had called Newfield’s referral and was very impressed with the recommendation of their integrity and that they actually gave money back to the project. She stated that if the Committee decides to go back and negotiate with Pike that it would only be fair to go back and negotiate with Newfield. Committee Members were not sure if negotiations could take place and decided to consult with the Town Attorney on this matter. Considerable deliberation occurred about the differences in the presentations.
Mrs. Budzik stated that she would have liked to see Newfield voted on top. She stated that Dave King’s recommendation to Newfield was not as impressive or detailed as his to Pike. She stated that the Committee questioned Newfield about the schedule and they, unlike the other companies, did not even say that they could work with the Committee, if it is their goal. She stated they did not have a good response. Ms. Mordecai stated that Pike took initiative in their presentation and that it was impressive to her especially if it is an indication of the way they would perform during the whole job.
Mrs. Ziobron stated that her gut reaction to Pike was that they were very glossy and that they had all the answers. Ms. Mordecai agreed that in the beginning she felt this way also, but as the interview progressed it was in depth and detailed showing that they had done their homework. She stated that she believed they meant everything they said and that she connected with them personally. Considerable deliberation took place. Committee members decided it would be best to review the figures and meet again to make a final decision.
Motion by Mr. Gibson to make the final decision between Pike and Newfield (eliminating Turner) at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Budzik and unanimously passed.
Motion by Mr. Barnes at 10.45p.m. to adjourn. Seconded by Mrs. Budzik and unanimously passed.
Filed at Selectman’s office
Cassette Tape of Meeting
Presentation Material
Criteria for selection process