The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-04-24 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesV Reading School Building Committee J Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on April 24, 2002, 7:30 p.m. .,m n the RMHS Guidance Career Center) Fs3fl ~ ~ ~ s 3 Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Warren Cochrane (WC) Bill Carroll (BC) Alex McRae (AM) Rich Radville (RR) Paula Perry (PP) Jeff Struble (JS) Michael Scarpitto (MS) Ray Porter (RP) RG introduced two newly appointed members of the School Building Committee; Bill Carroll, who will be the teacher representative on the board, and Warren Cochrane, who will be a citizen-at-large. Mr. Carroll has 27 years experience reaching in the Reading school system while Mr. Cochrane is a mechanical engineer with HVAC experience and has served on various task forces for the Town in the past. RG reported that he had met with the Board of Selectmen and the CPDC to ask that they participate in the upcoming deliberations on RMHS. He also asked the Finance Committee to appoint a liaison member to the SBC, which they have done. RG reported that there were at least 17 attendees at the Vendors' Conference for the schematic design project that was held earlier in the day (a copy of the attendance sheet is attached to these minutes). He also said that over 36 inquiries about the RFQ had been logged at the Superintendent's office. RG said that the major task for the Committee at this meeting was to appoint a sub- committee to review the responses to the RFQ and rate them according to a scoring form that has been used on past projects. Another task was to update that form for the RMHS project (copy attached). - RG explained that there were three volunteers for the sub-committee; Dennis Lacroix (DL), Rich Radville (RR) and Jeff Struble (JS). He asked for other volunteers or nominations and received none. - RR then explained his draft of the scoring form (he had updated the last form used for the elementary school feasibility study). The first items dealt with basic requirements for the architect, such as professional registration in Massachusetts, insurance coverage, etc. Failure to qualify under any of these items would render the applicant ineligible for consideration. The - - - remainder of the scoring-items-were for assessment of the applicants' qualifications. - RR pointed out a suggestion from JS to remove an assessment of the applicants' workload from the form. It was felt that it would be impossible to Reading School Building Committee itleetinA? lk,liiiutes ft-oni,4pi-il 2=1, 2002 judge this from the written responses since such a criteria was not expressly stipulated in the RFQ and that workloads can change quickly over time. It was suggested that this criteria could be discussed with the selected candidates during their interviews with the Committee. Comments from Committee members stressed that knowing an applicant's track record of performing work on time would be helpful. RR and JS recalled that in their past service on such sub-committees, this question was asked during the check of references for the selected candidates. This was deemed to be the procedure to use for this sub-committee and the criteria was removed from the scoring sheet. The relative weighting of the criteria on the scoring form was discussed. Comments regarding the importance of consultants' experience and phasing were made, with the importance of having experience with complex phased projects being stressed. Experience with SBAB projects was also stressed, with AM wondering if the weight given to this particular criteria should be increased. Others on the Committee agreed that such experience was crucial, but thought that its weight (10 out of 120 points) was appropriate, given the perfunctory nature of dealing with the SBAB on Mass. School projects and the relative "new-ness" of the current SBA regulations (too new for any firm to have substantial experience). It was agreed that Committee members could pursue this subject during interviews. With no further discussion offered on the sub-committee and the scoring sheet, RG called for a formal motion to appoint DL, RR and JS to the architect evaluation sub-committee, which was made by AM and seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative. RG asked for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee for the minutes of the February 19, 2002 RSBC meeting. With none appearing, PP made a motion to accept them, which was seconded by RR. A vote was taken and the results were 6 in favor and 3 abstentions, with the motion passing and the minutes accepted. RG asked for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee for the minutes of the February 26, 2002 RSBC meeting. With none appearing, PP made a motion to accept them, which was seconded by RR. A vote was taken and the results were 6 in favor and 3 abstentions, with the motion passing and the minutes accepted. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. JS so moved and was seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 8:10 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee Cam, ~ ~ , N N ~ ~ b v N d 1` a N ai p0 ~ ~ O ~J N ~ j ~ Q 1,, C-A <C ~ tClu ~ ~ 6 { cl~ p 41 J z ~g 60 H-+ o ~ o ~y r ~ ~ \9 N N o 0• v' !J -9 '1 y rJ li M ; ti (n N cp N ~I N /i Cl. J r_ J` ' C' ~ ,L~ erg, ly ~ ~9 N E- N Z o 3 j CJ z ~.1 yN1 o ~ li N e v 3 c T- d J v 7 2 U w w v ,y 1 J r1Y 4e1 K r~ ~ l J M O J ~ V L h 7 u t' (lam , J ~ f 1 \i w}a J 44- Reading School Building Corrunittee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation (Use back for any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with schematic and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP - GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 6. Current workload as it affects ability to perform this work 7. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 20 20 _ 20 _ 10 _ 10 _ 10 _ 10 _ 10 _ 10 _ 5 s GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 gnature of reviewer and date