Back to School Building Committee Meeting Minutes
Minutes for Meeting: 7:00 P.M., May 16, 2012
Members Present: Ray Estes, Tim Collins, Sandra Cleary, Rob Bucey, Peter Bradley, and Stefan Vogelmann
School Resource Staff: Dorothy Galo and Roger Boddie
Professional Team: Jim Jordan, Adam Bonosky, Andrew Chagnon, Tom Perry, Alan Taylor, Kristy Lyons, and Mary Mahoney
R. Estes called meeting to order at 7:07 P.M.
Minutes for Building Committee meeting April 25, 2012 were approved.
R. Estes reminded Committee members that on April 25, 2012, Filed Sub-Bids were opened and on May 10, 2012 General Bids were opened. Shortly after the Filed Sub-Bid opening, several inquiries were made by bidders and trade unions regarding certain bids received for the project. Additionally, based on an inquiry regarding the low electrical sub-bid submitted by Ostrow Electric Company (Ostrow) and subsequent responses by Ai3 and Garrity and Knisley disqualifying the bid, Ostrow’s attorney filed a formal bid protest with the MA Attorney General’s Office. A hearing regarding Ostrow’s bid protest is scheduled May 23, 2012. There has been a lot of activity related to the sub-bids that is recapped in KBA’s Memorandum 19.
M. Mahoney reviewed the various filed sub-bid inquiries, actions, and responses as outlined in KBA Memorandum 19. Inquiries included questions/concerns related to bids received for Miscellaneous Metal, Painting, HVAC, and Electrical. Miscellaneous Metal and Painting bid items were resolved without issue. HVAC action was a result of bid protest letters received from the Sheet Metal Worker’s International Association Local Union No. 17 and N.B. Kenney, the second low bidder, and concerned the company license status of the low bid Paragraph E sheet metal subcontractor. Following rebuttal by the attorney for the low bidder, all documentation was reviewed by Garrity and Knisely and notifications issued that the low bid received from Sagamore Plumbing and Heating would not be rejected. The Electrical sub-bid had several actions since opening, including rejection of the bid submitted by Ostrow Electric Co. due to the lack of qualifications and performance experience for self performance of Paragraph E work, a subsequent formal bid protest by Ostrow to the MA Attorney General, and review of LeVangie Electric’s bid due to inquiries as to their Paragraph E subcontract qualifications and Statement of Qualifications information that resulted in LeVangie acceptance as the apparent low bidder.
R. Estes reported on a written disclosure received from Robert Garrity, Garrity and Knisely, detailing a prior professional relationship with McNamara and Flynn (Sagamore’s attorney) in which Mr. Garrity tried a case with Megan McNamara at the request of the MBTA. As described in the disclosure, Mr. Garrity and Megan McNamara were both listed as counsel for the MBTA however each was independently contracted directly with and represented the MBTA. Committee discussion ensued regarding the disclosure and possible effects to the evaluation of Sagamore Plumbing and Heating bid evaluation and the Committee generally agreed that the prior relationship does not present a conflict of interest in the matter.
R. Estes reminded the Committee of an inquiry received from the Boston Plasters’ & Cement Masons’ Local 534 regarding omission of filed sub-bid for plastering and related trade work. Following item review with Garrity and Knisely and in an effort to maintain the bid schedule, it was decided to include in the bid documents a filed sub-bid category “Gypsum Veneer Plaster” and instruct general bidders to carry an allowance to provide for future filed sub-bid for the work. M. Mahoney reported that an RFQ for Lath and Plastering has been drafted, public notices for RFQ published and RFQ issued beginning on May 14, 2012. Statements of Qualifications are due on May 31, 2012, with invitations to bid expected to be issued by June 4 and filed sub-bid opening planned on or about June 20, 2012. T. Collins asked if the cost of the Gypsum Veneer Plaster has been accounted for in the general bid. J. Jordan responded that an allowance was included in the general bid to account for the scope and that once the filed sub-bid is opened the bid price will be substituted for the allowance.
R. Estes reported that the General Bid opening was conducted May 10, 2012. Five (5) bids were received with Brait Builders Corporation (Brait) the apparent low bidder. J. Jordan reported that the Brait’s base bid was $48,150,000 and provided an Alternate #1 bid of $555,000 for a total bid price of $48,705,000. With inclusion of Alternate #1, Brait is still the apparent low bidder for the project. To date no general bid protests have been received and the apparent low bid is more than $2 million under the construction budget included in the project scope and budget package submitted to the MSBA. Following the bid opening, a letter was sent to Brait reminding the firm of minority owned business enterprise and woman owned business enterprise (MBE/WBE) participation reporting required prior to contract award. M. Mahoney reported that Brait submitted the required MBE/WBE participation reports on May 15 and its documentation indicates a combined participation exceeding contract requirements. J. Jordan reported that Ai3 reviewed Brait’s DCAM Certificate of Eligibility and DCAM Update Statement and based on its bid, their project capacity, and its list of current projects, Brait has the single limit and aggregate capacity to perform on the project.
T. Collins moved to accept and include in the project scope bid Alternate No. 1 and award the general contract to Brait Builders Corporation in the amount of $48,705,000 inclusive of an allowance for Gypsum Veneer Plaster, second by R. Bucey. Unanimous vote to award the general construction contract to Brait Builder’s Corporation.
T. Collins suggested that representatives of Brait Builders Corporation be invited to a Building Committee meeting to introduce project representatives prior to the start of construction. There was a general consensus of the Committee to invite Brait representatives to a future meeting.
J. Jordan reported on two variance requests submitted to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) for hand rail locations in the auditorium. The variances were requested due to a conflict with the MA Building Code. MAAB granted both variances with a condition that the hand rail configurations comply with CMR 780, MA Building Code.
M. Mahoney reported on a meeting conducted on May 16, 2012 and attended by representatives of Ai3, Building Committee, KBA, Hingham Building Department, Hingham Fire Prevention Officer, and Hingham Director of Community Planning Katy Lacy. The meeting served to update the Assistant Building Commissioners on documentation previously requested by and submitted to Mark Grylls, former Building Commissioner until April 30, for the project building permit and to review the schedule and expected actions of the general contractor to secure a permit prior to the anticipated site mobilization on June 18, 2012. During the meeting, Ai3 reported on peer reviews performed to certify compliance with the building code, fire safety regulations, accessibility regulations, and structural code and agreed to forward a certificate of compliance with the MA Energy Code. The Fire Prevention Officer requested a supplemental submission of fire protection documents which will be forwarded. Additionally, construction control affidavits were provided during the meeting to complete the pre-construction filing and it was agreed that M. Mahoney would act as the primary contact for project and assist the contractor with Town Department review/sign-off for the building permit application.
M. Mahoney introduced Alan Taylor to the Committee. Mr. Taylor will be KBA’s full time on-site clerk of the works. The Committee welcomed Mr. Taylor to the project team.
M. Mahoney reported on the need to secure a construction testing firm for the project to perform quality control testing for soils, asphalt, concrete, steel, and other construction materials and assemblies. A unit price based RFP is drafted for the work and KBA will assist with the procurement, receipt of bids, and evaluation of bids. Public notices will be published in the next week with proposal results to be reported at a later date. Five (5) firms have expressed interest in providing proposals for the project.
J. Jordan reminded the Committee of the geotechnical conditions on site and introduced Andrew Chagnon and Tom Perry of Pare Corporation (PARE), who discussed a proposal for on-site geotechnical observation and quality control services. Pare proposed a two-part approach to on-site services: 1. Witness and perform quality control for geo-peer installations, 2. Perform soil inspection at base of footings to ensure appropriate materials for bearing capacity. Proposal is based on full-time presence on-site during contractor performance of tasks 1 and 2 with consideration that portions of work will take place concurrently. Committee discussion ensued regarding budget for onsite geotechnical work during construction. P. Bradley asked what method of sampling or test is used to confirm the correct installation of geo-tech piles. A. Chagnon responded that a load test is used to confirm installation. J. Jordan noted that the original budget for on-site monitoring was based on standard soil conditions and was presented before geotechnical investigations concluded that geo-tech piles were needed to address soil liquefacation issues. Committee discussion ensued regarding the need for the additional on-site services and effect on the project budget. The Committee generally agreed that Ai3 should submit the extra service proposal and KBA should funding sources for the added services for discussion at the next Committee meeting.
M. Mahoney reported on (3) invoices presented for Committee consideration/approval as follows:
S. Cleary moved to approve invoices as reported, second by R. Bucey. Unanimous vote to approve all three (3) invoices.
M. Mahoney reported that the budget is updated to include the invoices approved and noted that with the project entering Construction phase additional budget commitments will be made to provide for construction contract, bid printing, construction testing services and other construction-related expenses. Based on the general construction bid the project is under budget with all other budget line item commitments and expenditures to date on budget.
R. Estes reported that a neighbor meeting is scheduled May 30, 2012, 7pm at the Middle School Library Media Center. Invitations have been sent to abutters and notices published in the Hingham Journal, Hingham Patch and Patriot Ledger.
R. Estes reported that a project ground breaking ceremony has been scheduled for June 22, 2012 at 10:30am. The School Department is working with MSBA and local dignitaries regarding the event and an invitation has been drafted. M. Mahoney noted that Brait Builders Corp will be contacted to help coordinate the event.
R. Estes reported on a letter sent to Representative Garrett Bradley by Ted Alexiades, Town Administrator, requesting that a provision in MSBA regulations be considered that provides an exception to the recovery of prior grant proceeds (claw back) where a school facility did not meet its anticipated life expectancy and a community is intending to rebuild or replace the facility in conjunction with an approved MSBA program.
Committee discussed schedule for future meetings agreeing to schedule meetings June 7, June 27, and July 18 at 7pm.
Meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M.