Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-03 School Committee MinutesC- } Reading School Committee .f 0104 N CLERK Reading, Massachusetts Nk A [ u, MASS. Special Session 7 an suiufl+ A*7 I I Call to Order Chair Lisa Gibbs called the special session to order at 2:06 p.m. in the Superintendent's Conference Room. Present were Ms. Webb, Mr. McFadden, Mrs. Gibbs, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Michaud. Also present were Superintendent Schettini, Town Counsel Ellen Doucette, Town Accountant Gail LaPointe and Scott Dunlap, Ai-3. Mrs. Gibbs noted that the meeting was being tape recorded for two reasons; RCTV was not present at this meeting and there have been requests from the committee that the minutes be more detailed. Old Business Special Building Project Meeting Mrs. Gibbs had questions to ask of the Superintendent, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Doucette and Ms. LaPointe. She asked Mr. Dunlap to give a brief history to this point regarding the track and stadium lighting. 1 Mr. Dunlap gave a brief history. Please see attached memorandum. Discussion continued regarding the track remediation and field lighting. Mr. Dunlap stated we didn't get the bids we had hoped for on the track. The most beneficial way to do the track would be to direct TLT to proceed with the track under the original contract and not execute a new contract. By executing a new contract we would have to front the money to do the new track. That money would have to come out of the contingency fund. He also stated that TLT has contacted the preferred track surface contractor to do the work and there are two windows of time that they could do the work, late July and mid August. Mr. Dunlap went on to state that the reason to do the field lighting as a change order is because it is an all or none with the bid. The bid can not be split apart into 2 different contracts so the only way to get the field lighting done is to go ahead and execute a contract for all of the work with TLT or reject all bids and execute a change order as part of the base contract with TLT. Mrs. Gibbs verified that this was the best case scenario for the field lighting and track remediation. Special Session 2 July 3, 2007 Ms. Webb asked if the committee has a way to control the means and methods of the track work to be sure it is done correctly. Mr. Dunlap stated that we are withholding $250,000 from TLT to complete the track correctly. This amount will be increased based on the bid amount. The surface installer, Cape and Island, will not lay a track surface if the sub-surfaces are not correct. TLT knows what they need to do to install the track properly. Mrs. Gibbs asked about other scenarios. She also inquired about the drop dead date for the track. Mr. Dunlap stated that the only option for maintaining hope that the track might be completed this summer would require making an immediate decision. Even an immediate decision would not guarantee completion. He also said that the field lighting work needs to be done while the track is being ground down so the new track (once in place) will not be damaged. If the lights were to be installed after the track was completed it would be much more expensive. Mrs. Gibbs asked about the cost if we were to delay until next spring/summer. Mr. Dunlap responded that the contract with TLT would be closed out and money would be withheld from TLT for the track remediation. With TLT completely gone re-bid entire track remediation. There are some indefinable risks in closing out the contract with TLT and withholding money from an accounting standpoint and possible issues with SBA funding. Mrs. Gibbs stated that the best approach for everyone is the way to go and get the track completed and contract closed out. Mr. Robinson asked if we got no acceptable bids because the two projects were tied together. He asked if we ever bid the track alone. Mr. Dunlap responded that track remediation is messy work and requires a general contractor. We had several companies interested in the resurfacing but they don't want to correct somebody else's work. The project is not attractive to bidders. Mr. McFadden asked if the bid documents had qualifications that were too high. Mr. Dunlap said they notified many contractors of this project bid. Availability was not a factor. The first set of bid documents had several qualifications for bidders. The second bids had many of the qualifications removed as an experiment to see if it would attract more bidders. Special Session 3 July 3, 2007 Ms. Webb asked for clarification on the approach to move ahead. She wanted to understand that all bids would be rejected and TLT would be required to complete the track remediation as part of the original contract and execute a change order for the lights. Mr. Dunlap confirmed and said it would be like the bid never happened. He also stated that TLT suggested that the scope of the track remediation exceeds the original documents. However Design Partnership has stated that the scope is consistent with the original contract documents and some of the items are not installed as specified and the shop drawing were never accepted so those items must be removed and reinstalled correctly. We would direct TLT to make the corrections as part of the remediation package. Mrs. Gibbs asked about the best funding approach. Mr. Dunlap said that it would not cost the district any more money to have the track remediation done. We don't have to pay to get the track done correctly. The district has expended $30,000 to have DPC put together the bid package and TLT was informed that they would be responsible for that cost because we would need the remediation package if the track had been done correctly the first time. Mr. Michaud asked about the difference in the value between the original specifications and the remediation specifications and if TLT could come back and say that more work was required to complete the remediation. Mr. Dunlap said that DPC has confirmed that the remediation does not exceed the original scope. The work in the remediation package is taking the original documentation and explaining specific modifications that have to be made in order to provide the originally specified project. Mr. Robinson feels we should still pursue liquidated damages because the job was not done as specified. Mr. Dunlap stated that particularly in public school building projects there has to be justification why you are due liquidated damages. At the beginning of the project the committee defined what they felt would be included in liquidated damages. At this point in time money is being withheld for design services at a per diem/monthly basis. The items will go on the punch list and the money withheld until completion. Mrs. Gibbs asked about lighting cost and the contingency. Special Session 4 July 3, 2007 Mr. Dunlap stated that at this point in time there are 3 basic components to complete the installation. 1. Excavation to put in deeper caissons. $221,000 2. Conscom has not defined the Order of Conditions for this. They want to meet with Contractor to discuss the requirements. The estimated cost to meet Conscom provisions. $ 20,000 3. Poles installed and attached to caissons. $ 21,900 At this point it appears the cost to get the light poles installed and the lights operational will be $262,900. TLT has some responsibility for the major modifications on the bleacher side because of the high pressure water blasting. The design and project management team feel that TLT is responsible for half of the $221,000 cost. Mr. Dunlap feels DPC did their job and they did provide TLT with the sketch for the 16 foot borings. The site contractor used an old MUSCO sketch. Trouble started when the encountered the resistance and used high pressure water to complete the work. We would not be here discussing this today if TLT had used the right sketch particularly on the bleacher side. However, there is still some question on the approach on the river side. MUSCO felt the original approach would work. Musco did not feel that we would need the advice of an engineer because they use the standard detail all the time. We now know that MUSCO's standard detail would probably not have been sufficient on the river side. Mr. McFadden asked if there may have been a better position for the crane to drill the holes. He asked if there was some kind of oversight in place from Capaldo's group to say we need to get to 16 feet. Mr. Dunlap indicated that DPC had not been contracted or paid to do any design work during the time when the 16' caissons were being bored. Their proposal to completely design the entire package had been rejected. The use of a geotechnical engineer was rejected. The only thing they did was when TLT came to them and said they could excavate the holes if you acted now, they only thing did was say after discussions with owner we would pay for time and material and here is Musco's standard detail that they are suggesting would work. Even then DPC put on a variety of disclaimers in using MUSCO standards. The bottom line, if we go forward, is that we utilize Ai-3 and DPC to work together for the district and recoup some of the cost of f Special Session 5 July 3, 2007 the lighting installation. We need to work hard to hold TLT accountable because of the methods they used. There was discussion regarding the use of change orders. Mr. McFadden asked how solid is the $263Kish number. Mr. Dunlap responded by indicating that the Conscom number is an estimate and that the geotechnical engineer has been reviewing what would need to be done to drill the 30 foot deep holes for the poles and caissons and is concerned how much of the soil has been disrupted and may need to be re-compacted to avoid additional settlement. TLT's bid includes a disclaimer that does not include any cost for the potential re-compacting of soil. The geotechnical engineer of record has not said that additional re-compaction is needed but the disclaimer is in to protect against this. Mr. Michaud asked how the numbers compare between March and now. Mr. Dunlap stated that back in March we said we would take $30,000 and the geotechnical engineer would engage a rigging company to do the borings; step 2 would be to produce a report and step 3 would be to have the geotechnical engineer and design engineer to review the report and determine the steps needed to get the poles in place and step 4 would be to prepare a bid package. There was discussion regarding meeting with the Conservation Commission. It was decided that the Superintendent should contact Fran Fink to verify when the next Conservation Commission meeting was and if the high school project was on the agenda. Mrs. Gibbs called a short recess at 3:22 p.m. The meeting was recalled to order at 3:27 p.m. Mrs. Gibbs asked if there were any other questions regarding funding. Mr. Dunlap stated if we were to execute a change order for the $221,000 they would begin immediately on a pay as you go basis. Within 2 months you would have to pay the full amount. The funding would come from the project contingency pending any private fund donations or funding that is received. Mrs. Gibbs asked about recouping the percentage that TLT is responsible for of the $221,000. i a: Special Session 6 July 3, 2007 Mr. Dunlap stated that we would immediately withhold any amounts from the original contract. The contractor will probably dispute withholding these funds. If this is done the funds being held are unavailable until issue is resolved. Ms. Webb pointed out that the field lights can not be done with public funds because of a prior school committee vote and feels we do not have the funds to support the use of contingency funds. Mr. Schettini left the room to speak to Fran Fink of Conservation. There were questions and discussion regarding the Letter of Credit and other fundraising activities. Ms. Webb indicated that this is an important decision on the track and doesn't want to incur any other risks of not getting this done. Mr. Dunlap indicated that time is an issue. TLT has a pending contract with a vendor. The ability to achieve success is directly tied to how quickly the committee makes a decision, as a decision by the Committee will allow TLT to re-evaluate the schedule and determine the likelihood that the work can be completed during the summer. Mr. Michaud asked if we could reject the bids and directed TLT to do the track remediation per contract and made no decision on the lights. Mr. Dunlap said yes. There was more discussion on the options to consider regarding the schedule, funding and pitfalls. Mr. Schettini returned and reported that the project is on the Conservation Commission agenda for July 1 lth and they require the following information; how the poles will be installed and alternate sites for the poles along the riverbank. They would like to speak to the subcontractor doing the drilling. There was more discussion regarding the Letter of Credit, private grant, donor funding and timetable. Mrs. Gibbs asked the Superintendent if the committee gave sufficient guidance today with regard to some form of private funding for lights, pending a meeting on Monday to accept the source of private funding, to allow the committee to make a motion today pending securing this Letter of Credit or grant. Special Session 7 July 3, 2007 Superintendent Schettini stated as long as we had secure funding to move forward we should be fine. He also indicated he would consult with the town accountant and town counsel to verify this. Ms. La Pointe indicated that with the private grant the cash would be paid back when funds became available and regarding the Letter of Credit that it was important that specifics needed to be stipulated within. Ms. Doucette indicated that the Letter of Credit is a fairly standard form whereas the grant would have to be crafted by an attorney with language to where the funds would be distributed. Mrs. Gibbs asked about the $50,000 coming from the state. Mr. Schettini stated that we would get the money after the fact from the state. We have to spend to get reimbursed. Mr. Michaud moved to reiect the bids received on June 25, 2007 for the track re- installation and stadium lights installation. Ms. Webb seconded. The vote was 5-0 Mr. Michaud, Ms. Webb, Mr. McFadden, Mr. Robinson and Mrs. Gibbs Mr. Michaud moved to direct TLT Construction to proceed with the track re- installation as delineated in the original contract and specifications incorporated therein together with modifications required to remediate it appropriately and applicable architect and project management correspondences Ms Webb seconded. The vote was 5-0. Mr. Michaud, Ms. Webb, Mr. McFadden, Mr. Robinson and Mrs. Gibbs. Mr. Michaud moved to authorize the chair or vice chair of the School Committee to accept the gift of $15,000 from the Reading Cooperative Bank for the installation of stadium lights and to authorize the use of up to $15,000 of RMHS project contingency funds in anticipation of reimbursement of the same amount from receipt of such gift. Ms. Webb seconded. Mr. Michaud. Ms. Webb, Mr. McFadden, Mr. Robinson and Mrs. Gibbs. Mr. Michaud moved to authorize up to $50,000 of RMHS project contingency funds in anticipation of the reimbursement of the same amount from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ms. Webb seconded. Mr. Robinson asked when the earmarks come in. Ms. LaPointe responded that they are received throughout the year. Mr. Schettini added that it depended on which office it came out of. Special Session S July 3, 2007 The vote was 5-0. Mr. Michaud, Ms. Webb, Mr. McFadden, Mr. Robinson and Mrs. Gibbs. Mr. Michaud moved to authorize the Superintendent to accept on behalf of the School Committee a letter of credit or private grant agreement for the purpose of the installation of the stadium field li hts Such funding shall also be subject to approval of Town Counsel and Town Accountant Mr. Robinson seconded Ms. Webb asked for a friendly amendment to add the word "completing". Mr. Michaud accepted the friendly amendment and reread the motion. Mr. Michaud moved to authorize the Superintendent to accept on behalf of the School Committee a letter of credit or private grant agreement for the purpose of completing the installation of the stadium field lights Such funding shall also be subject to approval of Town Counsel and Town Accountant Mr. Robinson seconded. The vote was 4-0-1. Mr. Michaud, Ms. Webb, Mr. Robinson and Mrs. Gibbs. Mr. McFadden abstained. Mr. Schettini will keep the committee appraised. Mr. Michaud moved to direct DPC and Ai-3 to draft a chap a order with TLT Construction for the installation of the stadium field lights. Further move to authorize the chair or the vice chair of the School Committee or the Superintendent to approve and sign the change order on behalf of the School Committee Mr. Robinson seconded. The vote was 5-0. Mr. Michaud, Ms. Webb, Mr. McFadden, Mr. Robinson and Mrs. Gibbs. Mr-McFadden asked if the Superintendent would add "in lieu of cash the Reading Boosters donated labor and materials for wiring in the memo being sent to Representative Jones supporting the grant. Adjourn Mr. Michaud moved to adjourn. Ms. Webb seconded the motion The vote was 5-0 Ms. Webb, Mrs. Gibbs, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Robinson and Mr. McFadden The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Resp Superintendent of Schools MEMORANDUM History of the Track and Field Lights Mr. Dunlap stated that the lights were not originally a part of the project and provisions were made not to preclude any opportunity to include the lights. It was decided to place electrical conduit to the approximate pole locations and press box before installation of the track to maintain flexibility. At some point early on, the committee decided to have Design Partnership put together a complete design, proposal and construction cost estimate for the field light system package. The cost was estimated at $350,000 - $400,000. It was too early in the project to commit that kind of funding to that particular item so the committee decided not to commit to the full package but instead to take various partial steps through construction that would avoid precluding the lights from being installed at some future date. DPC had also asked TLT to provide a proposal to install the pole bases and other work needed for the installation of the light poles. This proposal came back very high and was rejected, however it flagged to TLT that the committee was interested in possibly installing lights. During the work in the stadium TLT suggested to leave 4 borings for the future light poles to avoid any problems with the track and bleachers later. TLT did not know what they would encounter when boring the holes, but indicated boring the holes prior to track and bleacher installation might avoid future conflicts. This work - needs to proceed expeditiously; to this end TLT excavated the 4 locations utilizing MUSCO's standard caisson detail and covered them up on a time and materials basis. TLT excavated but due to a misinterpretation of the plans the holes were not dug deep enough. The holes were left covered for over a year until discussions regarding the lights picked up again. The School Committee rejected the original package from DPC because at the time the cost was too high so discussion began regarding private funding. Mr. Dunlap believed Mr. McFadden had discussions with MUSCO and everyone was trying to come up with a way to break the costs into a number of pieces to make it more manageable. MUSCO provided information to the Committee indicating that their standard caisson detail could be used on the site and that no further engineering would be required. The process was moving along and it was felt if the poles could be dropped onto the 16 foot caissons, which were provided and excavated as per MUSCO's standard details, it could be relatively inexpensive. It wasn't until the holes were uncovered and discovered that the holes did not meet the 16 foot deep requirement. TLT reviewed all of the documentation and acknowledged that the holes were not dug to the required 16' depth. They indicated that they had been utilizing an earlier sketch that called for 12' depth. TLT pointed out that we only paid time and material so they would excavate the additional 4' on a time and materials basis without a charge for remobilization. Unfortunately, after meeting with some difficulty extending the borings, TLT elected to utilize high pressure water to complete the additional excavation. We now know that this technique compromised the surrounding soil. MUSCO was concerned with settling occurring in the hole. MUSCO then recommended more geotechnical_and_ engineering studies and it was found that the borings needed to go down to 30 feet. The 16 foot deep boring would not work on the Aberjona side of the stadium due to a number of factors but would have worked on the bleacher side if the soil had not been compromised. We then asked TLT for a proposal to dig the deeper caissons and they came back with a cost of $194,000 not including any work that the Conservation Commission would require. At the same time the issue of the track remediation was coming up and there were other proposals from the geotechnical engineers on how to install the lights without damaging the track. And all looked very expensive. At this point the two projects appeared to be tied together because they impacted each other, so when it was time to put out the package for the track remediation it also included the work for the lights; installation of lighting and deeper caissons. There were no responses to the first bid package. The job was re-bid and we received two bids. The bids were broken into two parts - approximately $221K for the lights and $270K for the track remediation. TLT was the low bidder. TLT took the $194,000 proposal and added their mark up and other costs for the lights and approximately $270,000 for the track remediation. This did not make sense because we rejected their work and to the project away from them. Accepting TLT as the low bidder did not seem advantageous because we could easily direct them to proceed with the work which was in their base contract without the need to execute a new contract. We had hoped to attract other bidders but since this did not happen we may want to direct TLT to complete their work per the base contract. We are now at a point where we have a variety of options on how to proceed with the project. It was recommended by the Superintendent, project management and design team to reject both the track and lighting bids and direct TLT to complete the track as per their original contract and negotiate with TLT to execute a change order to the original construction contract for the completion of the field lighting installation.