HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-04 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReading School Building Committee
ao i 3a.
- Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on April 4 2002 7:30 P.M.
(In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) J��.`' ,` ? 2: 3
Committee Members Attending:
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Ray Porter (RP)
Dennis LaCroix (DL)
Alex McRae (AM)
Jeff Struble (JS)
Tim Twomey (TT)
Paula Perry (PP)
Rich Radville (RR)
Michael Scarpitto (MS)
RG began by stating that the results of the April 2nd, 2002 election concerning funding for
the schematic design for RMHS (Question 1) were in the affirmative and he thanked the
Committee for its efforts to achieve this end. He also thanked Matt Wilson (who was
present) for his leadership of the Building Pride advocacy group that worked for passage
of Question 1, expressing appreciation of that group's efforts. He also thanked Frank
Orlando (principal, RMHS) for his contribution and support.
RG said that the first order of business for the Committee was to solicit and select an
architectural firm for the schematic design. Thereafter, he continued, he hoped this
endeavor would become less of an SBC project and more of a community project,
inviting other boards and the public to stay close to the Committee's proceedings.
RG called on RR to present the final draft of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) that he
prepared over the previous weeks for discussion, which was passed out (copy attached).
RR said that the only substantive changes from the previous drafts were the
addition of verbiage from Town Counsel to satisfy various legal requirements
(such as proper insurance, adding standard state forms, etc.) and also the
addition of a section describing the criteria that will be used for selection of
the architect (added at the suggestion of Town Counsel). This latter change
was found on page 13 under "Section IV. Selection of the Firm."
RR further added that he had edited an old architectural firm evaluation sheet
from a past school project (copy attached) to reflect the criteria that the
architects and their consultants be experienced with complex phased projects
as a desirable qualification. This form would be used by the sub - committee
formed to evaluate the respondents for the purpose of creating a short list of
preferred candidates for the job (as had been done on previous projects).
The other aspects added by Town Counsel that deserved the Committee's
deliberations were the Notice of Events (schedule, on page 2) and the final
fee to be published (page 14). On this latter subject, RR discussed items to
be withheld from the advertised fee as contingency monies.
Reading School 1 adding Committee 2
Aketing linutes fi,om April 41 21111'
One was the cost of advertising the RFQ itself. Another was the cost of an
unanticipated specialist or consultant (which might be needed as the design
developed). Another was the cost of repairing floor, wall and ceiling finishes
that might be damaged during exploration of the existing building and its
systems. RR suggested withholding $20K for these purposes (a fee of
$430K).
- TT suggested withholding $25K, saying that a contingency amount around
5% would be prudent (leaving $425K as the fee).
RP said he had a number of comments on the latest draft. The first involved
adding a requirement that the schematic design team produce estimates of
"life cycle costing" for different mechanical systems to be used in the
renovation. This concept means to produce preliminary designs of various
systems and compare their varying costs with their expected payback periods
(in terms of savings in operating and maintenance costs) in order to evaluate
their cost - effectiveness. This suggestion was made at one of the SBC
presentations in March. RR responded that while the idea had merit, it
shouldn't be utilized at this stage of design due to the (large) scope of work it
involved. He suggested pursuing it at a later stage. JS concurred with RR,
referring to a discussion he had had with a school architect in which the
reliability of the savings projections was questioned and the diversion of
funds from a fixed fee to perform such multiple analyses was not
recommended (for a schematic design).
AM and RP commented that the numbering system used was incorrect
and /or inconsistent in many places and needed re- organization for clarity of
reference. RR said he would direct the typist to clean it up.
RP asked if the means of electronic production of site -based plans from the
existing drawings should be specified. RR answered that such means are at
the discretion of the architect and only the final product is specified. Further
discussion brought out the point that the prospective architects were going to
be shown the existing documents before submitting and told that what was
not already available would be their responsibility to explore and discover in
order to produced the required plans.
RP raised the point about restricting design proposals to only those that
maximize State reimbursement. He thought that recent news stories
concerning the State's cutbacks in school building funding indicated a lack of
surety in obtaining funds from the State in the future. He felt that locking in
solutions to State DOE reimbursement guidelines might sacrifice flexibility in
the options produced. TT made the point that adhering to State DOE
guidelines acts as a "brake" on more extravagant designs that could be
crafted in answer to the problems presented an architect. PP felt that the
Town expected the options would maximize state reimbursements, as was
the goal of past projects. RP wondered if a part of the project might be
privately funded with the rest being state funded, producing an option that
completely involved might prohibit a private /state scheme. RG felt that
producing a scheme that went beyond the requirements of the DOE would be
difficult to explain to the community. AM felt that maximizing state funding
Rec dhli -School Building; Committee
Meeting Alinuter ftoni April 4, 2002
was a cornerstone of the Committee's rationale for asking for a schematic
design and was likely accepted as such by the electorate.
- A general discussion ensued concerning various clarifications and
explanations of technical items in the RFQ, including setting the number of
copies of each candidate's proposal at fifteen.
RP brought up the possibility of requiring the incorporation of renewable
"green technology" in the schematic design, noting that certain grant monies
might be available for doing so (in the final project). TT felt that this
technology had yet to live up to expectations and that it might be worth
looking into during further design phases, but that making it a requirement
during the schematic phase would be premature.
RP related that he had contacted RMLD about existing energy audits of
RMHS that may have been done. He was told that one was done in 1993
and that a (2/3) subsidized audit could be done on all energy use and HVAC
systems. TT wondered if such an audit would be useful if done on the current
systems when it was expected that those systems were going to change. RP
pointed out that the previous audit had suggestions for revisions to the
systems, too. The Committee thought that the previous audit should be
included with the documents made available to prospective architects in the
RFQ itself to inform them of the assistance that is available from the RMLD.
RP submitted his copy to RG for that purpose.
- The Committee came to a consensus that the advertised fee should be
$425,000 (leaving $25,000 for contingency items).
RG called on JS to go over the timeline he had prepared for the coming year dealing
with the production of the schematic design (copy attached).
JS explained that he identified benchmark dates to be used as targets for the
architect's work and the Committee's work (see timeline) and attempted to
space them out over the coming year to finish producing a solution to take to
a Special Town Meeting at the beginning of 2003. This would allow the use
of the regularly scheduled municipal election on April 8, 2003 for a debt
exclusion question to fund the entire project if Town Meeting approved of the
Committee's recommendations. He said that he had (in discussions with RR)
left a reasonable period of time in the early fall (2002) for Committee
discussion of the multiple options that would be developed by the architect
and that he hoped the community would participate during this review period
to make their wishes known to the Committee.
- A general discussion ensued concerning logistics of producing the design
options and having public input and going to Town Meeting (twice). Subjects
such as allowing enough time for the architects to do their work, holding open
the option for a special election in February, 2003 (for the full debt exclusion),
checking the option(s) with the SBA and reporting to other boards
to the schedule shown in the timeline were made, however.
- RG noted that the SBC would attempt to involve other boards such as the
Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee, the Community Planning and
Reading {School Building Committee 4
fleeting Minutes front , pril 4, 2002
Development Commission as well as school PTO's, arts groups, etc. in an
outreach program to keep the community informed. He asked if the
Committee accepted the draft of the timeline for general distribution. No
objections were made.
As a result of the timeline's acceptance, the Notice of Events in the RFQ was
revised and updated with the landmark dates given in the timeline.
An observer asked for clarification of the need for peer reviews during the
design process. She was told that a peer review would only be needed if the
architects who performed the schematic design were to be selected to
continue with the final design and construction. Since no feasibility option
was chosen for further development, no peer review of the feasibility studies
would be required. It was noted that a peer review does not approve or
disapprove of a project's design. It only looks for completeness and
acceptability according to State requirements of the work. Any discrepancies
noted are resolved through revision and /or discussion with the original
designer so that the work may be safely and legally used by the Owner (the
Town, in this case).
- RG then called for a motion to accept the RFQ as amended to be submitted
for advertisement on April 5, 2002, which was made by JS and seconded by
TT. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative.
An observer asked if anyone on the SBC had researched whether or not the Committee
as awarding authority of the RFQ could enter into contracts or authorize payments. JS
advised that the chair should speak with the Town Accountant, as was recommended to
him by the Town Treasurer when he spoke with her about the subject.
RG asked for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee for the
minutes of the February 12, 2002 RSBC meeting. With none appearing, RR made a
motion to accept them, which was seconded by DL. A vote was taken and the results
were unanimous in the affirmative.
The Committee scheduled a meeting for April 24, 2002 to hear about the Vendor
Conference scheduled for that afternoon and to form a sub - committee to review the
proposals submitted by respondents to the RFQ and rank them according to a
standardized evaluation form (to be finalized at that meeting). A meeting on May 2,
2002 to distribute the responses to the sub - committee was also scheduled. Both
meetings were tentatively set for 7:30 p.m. in the RMHS Guidance Center.
With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DL so moved and
was seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time
unrecorded).
YOA, ZJ _-t7n�-
Reading School Building Committee
Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D.
Superintendent
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Administration Offices
82 Oakland Road
Post Office Box 180
Reading, Massachusetts 01867
Tel. 781 - 944 -5800 • Fax 781- 942 -9149
TO: Reading School Building Committee
FROM: Harry K. Harutunian
TOPIC: Request for Qualifications for Designer Services
DATE: March 28, 2002
Dennis A. Richards
Associate Superintendent
Please find attached, for your review, a "draft copy" of the Request for
Qualifications for Designer Services for the renovation of Reading Memorial High
School. This will enable you to come to the April 4t1i School Building Committee
meeting with questions and /or comments.
The scope of work portion is what the committee approved a few weeks ago, with
minor wording changes as suggested by town counsel. The intent and scope have not
changed.
The "fee" on page 14 has been purposely left blank. This has been deemed an
agenda item.
Cc: Reading School Committee
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Reading, Massachusetts
Request for Qualifications for Designer Services
The Reading School Building Committee, Awarding Authority, seeks proposals for
designer services for renovation of the Reading Memorial High School.
The Reading School Building Committee will receive sealed statements of qualifications
for furnishing design services as described in the attached Scope of Services until 10:00
a.m. local time, Friday, May 3, 2002 at the Office of the Superintendent, Reading Public
Schools, 82 Oakland Road, Reading, Massachusetts 01867. Seven Copies of the package
must be submitted. The package must be clearly marked "Designer Services for
Renovation of the Reading Memorial High School ".
The statement of qualifications shall be prepared as outlined in the attached instructions
The Reading School Building Committee is authorized, under the provisions of G.L.,
Chapter 7, Section 38K, to develop guidelines for the designer selection procedures. G.L.,
Chapter 7, Section 38K authorizes the designer selection process to be adopted by cities
and towns throughout the Commonwealth. These procedures are to apply to the selection
of designers on building construction, renovation, alteration, remodeling and repair
projects, and the estimated cost of which exceed one hundred thousand dollars. For those
projects without an associated estimated construction cost, including but not limited to
feasibility studies, projects are exempt from these procedures if the cost of the design
service is less than ten thousand dollars.
The Request For Qualifications ( "RFQ ") for the proposed project may be obtained at
Reading Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent, 82 Oakland Road, Reading, MA
01867, 78`1- 944 - 5800, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, on or after April 5, 2002. In order to assist interested parties to respond to the
RFQ, we have enclosed the "Reading Memorial High School .Feasibility Study" from
1997 and the "Reading Memorial High School, School Space Needs Study" from 2000.
The Reading School Building Committee reserves the right to waive any informality or to
reject any or all proposals or to make the award deemed in its own discretion to be in the
best interest of the Reading Public Schools.
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Reading, Massachusetts
Notice of Events
Event Date
Release of the RFQ by the April 5, 2002
School Building Committee
Announcement in the Central Register April 10, 2002
Vendor Conference /Site Visitation April 24, 2002
Briefing Session
Superintendent's Conference Room
Reading Public Schools
82 Oakland Road
Reading, MA 01867
781- 944 -5800
RFQ Proposals due to May 3, 2002
School Building Committee
The following timetable is subject to change
by the Committee and should only be used as a guideline
Completion of Evaluations May 23, 2002
Notification of Award May 24, 2002
Time
8:00 a.m.
2:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m.
Review of program and existing conditions . June - August, 2002
Presentation of options to SBC September 15, 2002
Development of one option September 15, 2002 — November 15, 2002
Presentation to Town Meeting November, 2002
Finalization of schematic design contract by March 31, 2002
General override election April 2, 2002
Directions to Reading Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent
Take Exit 38B from 128. This is Main Street, Route 28, Reading. Drive north on Main
Street through Reading Square, past the large white Old South Methodist Church on the
2
k�
left and the Reading Fire Station on the right. Continuing north on Route 28, take a left
at the first set of stoplights, Birch Meadow Drive. Then take quick right off of Oakland
Road. Go over three sets of speed bumps; the football field and Hawkes Field House will
be on your right. Drive to the end of the parking area. Reading Public Schools
Administrative Office is on your left.
3
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
j Reading, Massachusetts `
Introduction and General Information
Request for Qualifications for Designer Services for the renovation of Reading
Memorial High School
I. Qualifications Submissions
Proposed Forms: All statements of qualification must include a completed application
form provided herein or a facsimile thereof, which provides the same information,
similarly organized, and assurances as requested on the provided forms. All statements of
qualifications must be considered bona fide.
Sealed packages must be clearly marked on the outside, "Designer Services, Reading
Memorial High School Renovation" must be submitted by the proposal deadline to:
Reading Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent, 82 Oakland Road, Reading,
Massachusetts 0 186 7.
III. Scope of Work
Pursuant to a vote of Reading Town Meeting on November 13, 2001, the Town of
Reading through its School Building Committee wishes to retain a qualified architectural
firm to prepare a schematic design describing a comprehensive renovation of Reading
Memorial High School. This schematic design is intended to meet the physical and
- -- educational needs of the school as determined by the Reading School Committee, the
School Building. Committee and the project program as determined by the Architect in
completing the work of paragraph B of this RFQ.
The scope of services requested under this contract shall include, but may not necessarily
be limited to, the following professional services:
A. Documentation and Review of Existing Conditions.
The Architect and his Consultants shall gather all available technical information
from various sources in the Town. This shall include the following, at a
minimum:
❖ Original construction documents from construction of Reading Memorial
High School, both from 1954 and 1970, if available.
❖ As -built documents from both phases as noted above, if available.
❖ Civil engineering survey of the site including all site features, utilities, paving,
walk and landscaping.
4
V
•'• Available geotechnical information for the building and adjoining areas,
including the former town pool on the property.
❖ Determination of accurate floor to floor heights of every level in the facility
relative to each other and the site information noted above.
❖ Construction Documents from various construction renovations that may have
taken place during the life of the facility, if available.
❖ Documents from mechanical systems upgrades to the facility from 1998.
❖ Previously prepared feasibility studies (1997 and 2000).
❖ Previously prepared review of the presence of hazardous materials in the
facilitv.
Interviews with current maintenance staff as may be needed to ascertain the
condition of existing building mechanical and electrical systems.
❖ Review of existing conditions through the use of on -site investigative time for
review if physical conditions, confirmation of measurements, review of
systems configuration and layout, etc., all as may be necessary to compile a
complete and accurate assessment of the present buildings and grounds layout
`t and condition.
2: Based upon the above gathered information, the Architect and his Consultants
shall prepare site -based plans, architectural floor plans, and engineering plans on
a CAD (computer aided drafting) system acceptable to the Town. CAD plans
shall be accurately convertible to DXF or DWG format, and shall use a nationally
recognized layer management system. These plans shall include at a minimum:
❖ Civil engineering survey of the site including all site features, utilities, paving,
walk and landscaping.
❖ Indication of accurate floor to floor heights of every level in the facility
relative to each other and to the site information noted above.
•:* Documentation of existing construction techniques of all walls, both interior
and exterior, insofar as this information is discernable.
❖ Documentation of existing conditions of all building components such as
interior finishes, exterior envelope systems, roofing systems, windows and
doors, kitchen equipment, laboratory equipment, etc.
•'• Documentation of facility structural systems, including fire protection and fire
proofing systems, if any.
v-
y,
•• Documentation of facility mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. This
shall include documentation of system equipment, components and sizes,
including system capacities, routes of major utility lines for all noted trades,
and as much detailed information as is discernable from exhaustive on site
investigation and review of available documentation.
❖ Documentation of existing installed security and technology systems.
❖ Review of the existing facility for current applicable code and regulation
compliance.
❖ Review of current conditions as to the conformance of the facility to State and
Federal handicapped accessibility codes and regulations.
• :• Review of existing facility for seismic hazards as described in the State
Building Code.
Documentation of all fixed equipment such as markerboards, blackboards,
built in casework and cabinetry, and the like, which shall be indicated on the
floor plans, along with the condition of each item in tabular format.
•:• As a part of the Architect's evaluation of existing conditions, it is expected
that there will be a need to view certain inaccessible areas. Should the
architect require access to be provided to spaces that are not readily
accessible, e.g., behind certain wall, above solid ceilings, the Town will
provide labor and materials to cut and patch finishes as needed to provide
such access at no cost to the Architect.
3. Health, Safety and Environmental Review:
❖ The Architect shall review and update previously prepared hazardous
materials reports done as a part of previous feasibility studies. Sufficient
review of previous studies shall be undertaken to confirm their accuracy for
current conditions and applicability to current regulations.
❖ As a part of the Architect and his consultants' review of HVAC systems, a
thorough evaluation of the facility's air quality shall be provide. Should
testing of air samples be recommended, the Town of Reading shall pay costs
for such tests.
❖ The Architect shall review current egress and evacuation patterns and systems
and evaluate them for compliance with current codes.
4. The intent of the work of this section `A' is for the Architect and his Consultants
to prepare existing conditions information of sufficient accuracy and detail to
serve as a basis for the work of this contract and for use as base drawings and data
ON
AC"
for a future major renovation should that occur. The deliverables of this section
shall include at a minimum: y
Architectural floor plans annotated with existing conditions information such
as wall types, finishes, etc. y
❖ Schedules of existing finishes in each room or space with notation as to
physical condition (e.g. new, good, fair, poor, etc.)
•:• Architectural exterior elevations of building exterior.
❖ Plans of the existing structural systems as determined above, including
indication of existing fire ratings and fire protection and fire proofing systems
if any.
❖ Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems plans as existing.
❖ Security and technology systems plans as existing.
❖ Comprehensive facilities conditions report.
❖ Hazardous materials report with cost estimate for needed abatement.
B. Program review and verification.
Under the overall direction of the School Building Committee, The Architect and
its consultants shall review and confirm, through systematic staff and
administrative interviews, interaction with the School Building Committee,
School Committee and School Administration, etc., the following at a minimum:
•:• Confirmation of existing student enrollment
❖. Confirmation of existing and projected educational programs for a 10 to 12
year period.
❖ Confirmation of projected enrollment for a minimum of 10 years, with further
projections to 12 years, through the Use of historical data and statistical
analysis techniques acceptable to the Town. Previously prepared feasibility
studies (1997 and 2000) will be made available for use under this study.
❖ Confirmation of theoretical capacity of the existing facility based on current
and projected programs as determined above, over the same time period.
-- 2 The- intent -of the work of this section 'B' is to prepare enrollment and
`J programmatic information of sufficient accuracy and detail to serve as a basis.for
' the work of this contract and for base drawings and data for a future major
renovation project should that occur. The deliverables of this section shall'
include at a minimum.
❖ Educational Specifications, describing in comprehensive detail, the
programmatic goals for the proposed Reading Memorial High School
renovation' These "ed specs" shall be in the form acceptable to the
Massachusetts Department of Education.
❖ Detailed listing of proposed spaces, their required adjacencies, and required
configuration and space needs in terms of educational equipment.
❖ Evaluation of existing configurations of the facility as it relates to .the
educational specifications and space listing as prepared above. This shall
include at a minimum annotated plans that fully describe existing
shortcomings and issues on the educational program.
C. Required Consultants
1. The Architect shall retain, at minimum, the following professional consultants,
under the scope of this contract. Should the Architect demonstrate "in house'
capabilities in any of the following categories, the Town may in its discretion
waive this requirement.
❖ Plumbing/Fire Protection Consultant
Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Consultant
••• Structural Consultant
❖ Indoor Air Quality Consultant
❖ Electrical Consultant
:• Security Consultant
4- Technology Consultant
Geotechnical°Consultant
❖ Traffic Consultant
❖ Civil Engineering Consultant
❖ Educational Consultant
❖ Demographic Consultant
8
r
❖ Kitchen/Food Service Consultant
❖ Hazardous Materials Consultant
Cost Estimating Consultant
D. Schematic Design
The School Building Committee, through its deliberations, has agreed to apply the
following criteria to the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School.
These specific criteria are in addition to the general goal of the design of a
comprehensive facility renovation that meets the physical and educational needs
of the Reading Memorial High School population as determined in the
programming phase.
❖ The renovation shall be consistent with the requirements of the Department of
Education so that funding by the State to maximize the Town's
reimbursement rate will be achieved. Design proposals that do not meet this
requirement will not be accepted.
❖ The renovation shall include a solution to inequities in the existing athletic
facilities as related to Federal Title 9 requirements.
❖ The project shall include new and/or renovated science laboratories, as it is
understood that current capacity is inadequate. These rooms shall be, to the
extent feasible, created within the existing footprint of the facility.
❖ The project shall include upgrades to all existing finishes and mechanical,
electrical, technology, communications, and security systems, including those
in the existing Field House.
❖ The project shall include upgrades to building systems and components as
needed to meet current seismic codes for reduction of seismic hazards at a
minimum, as described in section 3408 of the State Building Code.
•:� The project shall include solutions for handicapped accessibility to all areas as
required by State and Federal Codes and regulations.
❖ The School Building Committee has recognized that significant internal traffic
and circulation problems exist in certain areas of the facility that contribute to
difficulty in student transit between classes and are also a potential safety
concern. The design shall address this issue.
❖ The project shall include the creation of dedicated spaces for both music and
drama programs.
❖ The project shall include a dedicated language lab.
❖ The project shall include a complete upgrade to educational technology
systems in the facility.
2. The following assumptions for the schematic design are to be made:
❖ The Architect shall assume, to the extent feasible, that no physical additions to
the facility shall be proposed, except as may be required to improve
acknowledged safety related circulation patterns as noted above.
❖ While it is understood that the Massachusetts Department of Education
requires that classroom sizes meet certain minimum standards, it is recognized
that other criteria noted may preclude meeting these requirements in all cases.
Satisfying additional criteria as included herein shall be considered to the
extent that funding of the project by the State will not be jeopardized.
❖ It is assumed that certain non - educational programs currently in the facility
will be relocated off campus, exact scope to be determined under this contract.
3. Based on all the above information, the Architect and its consultants shall prepare
a fully developed proposed schematic design proposal for the Reading Memorial
High School facility as hereinafter described.
❖ Preparation of a minimum of three alternate conceptual design solutions for
consideration by the School Building Committee. Upon review of all
alternatives, the School Building Committee will select one preferred solution,
which will be developed as follows:
❖ Preparation of schematic design documents that fully describe the proposed
solution. These document shall included complete floor plans, exterior
elevations of any proposed additions (shown in relation to existing, building
sections as needed), drawings of proposed mechanical and electrical systems
upgrades (all required trades — one line diagrams), and outline specifications
of all project components.
•:� Preparation of phasing plans(s) as noted in the next paragraph.
❖ The Architect shall provide camera -ready copy of color plans, elevations and
other drawings as requested by the committee. This will include at least three -
color perspective renderings of critical project components of the project.
❖ The Architect and its consultants shall be available for attendance at public
hearings and meetings, including Town Meeting, to present their findings and
the proposed project, as requested by the School Building Committee, -- - -- --
10
❖ The Architect and its consultants shall also be available for attendance at
meetings with representatives of the Department of Education to discuss
reimbursement issues.
E. Phasing
The Architect and its consultants shall present alternative solutions to the School
Building Committee indicating a construction - phasing plan for the project. After
discussions and review of such solutions with the School Building Committee, the
Architect and its consultants shall fully develop an approved solution so that all
aspects of the approved phasing plan are indicated. The final phasing plans shall
include description of circulation patterns during and after each phase,
preliminary solutions for maintenance of all facility systems.to occupied areas at
all times, and proposed temporary spaces, including portable facilities, if
warranted.
Phasing plans shall be created that indicate graphically the condition of the entire
facility before, during and after each phase of the project, showing un- renovated
areas, areas under construction, and completed areas, all at each phase of
construction.
3. It is hoped that the project can be completed in a time span to include three
summers and two academic years, and the Architect shall endeavor to create a
phasing plan meeting this schedule. However, if the architect in his professional
judgement determines that this schedule will not be in the best interests of
students and staff, in terms of safety or environmental health, an alternate
schedule shall be presented as well.
F. Cost Estimate
1. The Architect and its consultants shall prepare a comprehensive cost estimate of
the proposed schematic design, using a professional cost estimator acceptable to
the School Building Committee.
2. The cost estimate shall take into account the costs associated with the expected
extended phasing plan..
3. The cost estimate shall include allowance for inflation during the duration of the
project.
G. Deliverables, Expense, and Reimbursable Costs
1. The following out -of pocket expenses shall be at the Architect's expense.
❖ Costs for travel to and from the Town of Reading and any other locations in
r Eastern Massachusetts.
❖ Costs of mailing, overnight mail and delivery and courier services.
11
a�
❖ Costs for normal printing of drawings and other documents for the Architect
and its consultants' in- house, day -to -day use.
Costs for plotting and printing of documents such as colored plans and
elevations for requested presentations to the School Building Committee and
other Town bodies.
❖ Costs for providing 25 copies of a final schematic design report, in 3 '/ by 11
format, bound, including all written reports, tabular information, and reduced
color copies of drawings. Copies of such documents shall also be provided in
electronic format.
❖ Costs for 10 black and white copies of all full size drawings including plans,
elevations, sections and details as needed to fully describe the proposed
schematic design.
❖ Costs for 3 copies of colored plans, elevations, and perspective renderings as
described above, mounted on rigid board, for the Town's use.
2. Other out -of pocket expenses not mentioned above shall be reimbursed by the
Town at the Architect's cost plus a 10% markup for bookkeeping and processing
fees upon the submission of supporting documents for such costs.
>_ H. Future work
This contract is for programming, facility assessment, and schematic design only.
as described above. Should the voters of the Town of Reading approve a debt
exclusion override to fund renovation of the Reading Memorial High School, the
Town will solicit requests for proposals for additional design services including
design development, construction documents, bidding and construction
administration.
2. The Architect selected for this project will be allowed to submit proposals for
design services for the complete project. If such Architect is selected, prior to
contracting for additional design services, a satisfactory peer review of services
previously performed for the High School project will be undertaken to determine
if such services rendered under this RFq were reasonable and adequate and
whether the contract should be awarded to the Architect.
3. In the event that future phases of design for this project are awarded to another
firm, the Architect shall release to the Town and the selected firm all design
concepts and documents produced under this agreement. The Architect shall
provide copies of all electronic files (both drawing and written) in commonly
= available formats, and shall provide a formal release to the Town and to any other
selected architect allowing the free use of said documents for this project only.
There shall be no additional fees paid in exchange for this release.
12
IV. Selection of the Firm
r^
�F
A. Applicants and any consultants proposed for use should be prepared to demonstrate at
a minimum, sufficient previous experience, both firm, individual, and consultant as it
applies, in the following order to be considered for this project:
1. Design of new school buildings and renovations of existing high school buildings.
?. Knowledae of Massachusetts General Laws relating to public building
construction, particularly all requirements of Chapter 579 of the Acts and
Resolves of 1980: Chapter 7: Chapter 149
3. Applicant should be a Registered Architect in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
4. Current workload as it affects ability to perform this work.
5. Experience with complex phased projects.
6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups.
B. The professional services to be awarded at this time consist of a facility's evaluation
and preliminary design services. The School Building Committee reserves the right
to terminate the services provided by the selected firm at the end of this phase and
resolicit professional services or to continue, subject to independent review, with the
selected firm beyond this phase.
V. Proposal Requirements
Each proposal for this project shall provide at a minimum, the following
information:
1. Name, address and telephone number of the architectural firm, and the
principal contact person.
Z, A list of all public projects undertaken in Massachusetts in the past five (5)
years. Please indicate the following information:
a. Location
b. Scope of Involvement
c. References, including name, title and current contact information
d. Start date, projected completion date, and actual completion date
e. Approximate total project cost
3. Proof of financial stability, including financial statement.
13
4. List of all claims, including insurance claims and claims in litigation or
adjudicatory process or settled, brought by or against you in the past (3) years,
including for each the reason for the claim, litigant and outcomes.
The applicant shall submit a current brochure describing the firm and its experience in
school construction and shall also complete and submit the State's Application to
Designer Selection Board form DSB -1 (Attached) standard application to the Reading
School Building Committee. In addition, the applicant must indicate the contact person
for the School Building Committee and individual primarily responsible for this project.
VI. Other Requirements
The Designer is required at his /her own expense to obtain and maintain professional
liability insurance, comprehensive general liability insurance, valuable papers insurance
and worker's compensation insurance during the period of performance of this contract
satisfactory to the Town, with the Town named as an additional insured under such terms
and conditions as shall from time to time be approved by the Town. The School Building
Committee may require a consultant employed by a designer subject to this sub
paragraph to obtain and maintain liability insurance. Minimum limits shall be as follows:
Worker's Compensation: Statutory Limits
Comprehensive General Liability: $1,000,000
Professional Liability: $1,000,000
Valuable. Paper Insurance: The Architect shall maintain during the life
of this project valuable papers insurance in the minimum amount of the value of this
contract for losses on premises where the documents may be kept.
A. All firms submitting qualifications agree to abide by all relevant provisions
of Massachusetts General Laws as they apply to procurement of design
services for public buildings by municipalities.
B. Questions regarding this request for qualifications may be directed to the
School Building Committee, Reading Public Schools, 82 Oakland Road,
Reading, MA 01867, 781- 944 -5800.
C. The School Building Committee reserves the right to reject any and all
proposals, or accept the proposal to be in the best. interest of the Town of
Reading.
VIL Fees
The selected finalist will be asked to submit a fee proposal not to exceed
$ including normal reimbursable expenses. If the School
- ... Building Committee ( "Committee ") and the finalist can negotiate a satisfactory
fee within the limits established by the Committee and other terms and conditions
-_ of the contract, the contract will be awarded to that party. If the parties are unable
14
to come to agreement, the Committee will proceed to the next highest ranked
finalist, and request that a fee proposal be submitted, until an agreement is
reached with a satisfactory applicant or the process is terminated by the
Committee.
VII. The School Building Committee will review all submitted applications and will rank
and select the finalists. Contracts for Architectural and Design Services will be awarded,
subject to the discretion of the School Building Committee as described above. The
successful applicant will be required to complete certifications required by Massachusetts
General Laws.
15
r`
O
I I I I
n
a
co
4
•a
co
CC
•E
e
3
L�
E
�
� c
y°�
p
ca
�
o
00
�tmU
CV
d'
W
�
� ,�' �A
❑
❑
❑
UJ
tV 4 �G
tV V �B
�1' tD
ca
ca
r
�
mm
2
LL
Itz-
CO
rIA
5_
4.
0 Cl
N
m
a
a M H so
E Vi
l�wa�/�
ci S' 0 C W 1i tL'f
cC : t+i of
P:
aD .= e*f t[i
Gi G W W
O
N
U w
EE �c
c~ fill' .$s
�e U y
CN
!A 69 � °
C° V v'i W` a 03
gg
chviv'�inu�iu�i�- r`i- �3i3333
8
gCL CLS Sao ^-- `- - - - - °; -- -
cn o S 'E
o og m
�Z. =c%1 _W m
At
CD
LL
LL
Am� � a
�cp � W w• a t �a y� m m
.ffii� N if
7� N
CD w
C4
to
na gig smaRMIn
LO 21
3e j I d:
_
ti
s c W N y
a � y
Oi N
�� � ��� a °�.� •fps .3. I gym .. � a ..1 .. 1 s .4 .11 .. 1 11 4 1 1 ' ,� x w C9
3 `LL� UU U00 O W W Wti7WU3cnW LL�ii i
N A O �NNf ftff mA O ° O'r �f A GO
a s$ S��sssssaso ssss� sgss� ssl$s -A- -0-0-01 °
■ J
CL
% 2 _
z
$ � .
-2
a.
CN
a 2
. � § ` \
$ $
Co
CL
IL
f � a . \.. �\ .
��� �\ 2 \
CL
LU
F
CL
yJ. .. � . ............................:
C.%i cli -At: gn, (d N: ad ci CD
2
� $ � . �
� 2
2 � ■
.
.
� J
/ �
J7&
2
Reading School Building Committee
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
5
GRAND TOTAL RATING 120
gnature of reviewer and date
Reading School Building Committee
.t
. n
Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on April 4, 2002, 7:30 p.m.
(In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) 'u, P
Committee Members Attending:
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Ray Porter (RP)
Dennis LaCroix (DL)
Alex McRae (AM)
Jeff Struble (JS)
Tim Twomey (TT)
Paula Perry (PP)
Rich Radville (RR)
Michael Scarpitto (MS)
RG began by stating that the results of the April 2nd, 2002 election concerning funding for
the schematic design for RMHS (Question 1) were in the affirmative and he thanked the
Committee for its efforts to achieve this end. He also thanked Matt Wilson (who was
present) for his leadership of the Building Pride advocacy group that worked for passage
r _ of Question 1, expressing appreciation of that group's efforts. He also thanked Frank
Orlando (principal, RMHS) for his contribution and support.
RG said that the first order of business for the Committee was to solicit and select an
architectural firm for the schematic design. Thereafter, he continued, he hoped this
endeavor would become less of an SBC project and more of a community project,
inviting other boards and the public to stay close to the Committee's proceedings.
RG called on RR to present the final draft of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) that he
prepared over the previous weeks for discussion, which was passed out (copy attached).
RR said that the only substantive changes from the previous drafts were the
addition of verbiage from Town Counsel to satisfy various legal requirements
(such as proper insurance, adding standard state forms, etc.) and also the
addition of a section describing the criteria that will be used for selection of
the architect (added at the suggestion of Town Counsel). This latter change
was found on page 13 under "Section IV. Selection of the Firm."
RR further added that he had edited an old architectural firm evaluation sheet
from a past school project (copy attached) to reflect the criteria that the
architects and their consultants be experienced with complex phased projects
as a desirable qualification. This form would be used by the sub-committee
formed to evaluate the respondents for the purpose of creating a short list of
preferred candidates for the job (as had been done on previous projects).
The other aspects added by Town Counsel that deserved the Committee's
deliberations were the Notice of Events (schedule, on page 2) and the final
fee to be published (page 14). On this latter subject, RR discussed items to
be withheld from the advertised fee as contingency monies.
Reading School Building Committee
Meeting il2inutes ftonz April 4. 2002
One was the cost of advertising the RFQ itself. Another was the cost of an
unanticipated specialist or consultant (which might be needed as the design
developed). Another was the cost of repairing floor, wall and ceiling finishes
that might be damaged during exploration of the existing building and its
systems. RR suggested withholding $20K for these purposes (a fee of
$430K).
- TT suggested withholding $25K, saying that a contingency amount around
5% would be prudent (leaving $425K as the fee).
RP said he had a number of comments on the latest draft. The first involved
adding a requirement that the schematic design team produce estimates of
"life cycle costing" for different mechanical systems to be used in the
renovation. This concept means to produce preliminary designs of various
systems and compare their varying costs with their expected payback periods
(in terms of savings in operating and maintenance costs) in order to evaluate
their cost-effectiveness. This suggestion was made at one of the SBC
presentations in March. RR responded that while the idea had merit, it
shouldn't be utilized at this stage of design due to the (large) scope of work it
involved. He suggested pursuing it at a later stage. JS concurred with RR,
referring to a discussion he had had with a school architect in which the
reliability of the savings projections was questioned and the diversion of
funds from a fixed fee to perform such multiple analyses was not
recommended (for a schematic design).
AM and RP commented that the numbering system use was incorrect
and/or inconsistent in many places and needed re-organization for clarity of
reference. RR said he would direct the typist to clean it up.
RP asked if the means of electronic production of site-based plans from the
existing drawings should be specified. RR answered that such means are at
the discretion of the architect and only the final product is specified. Further
discussion brought out the point that the prospective architects were going to
be shown the existing documents before submitting and told that what was
not already available would be their responsibility to explore and discover in
order to produced the required plans.
- RP raised the point about restricting design proposals to only those that
maximize State reimbursement. He thought that recent news stories
concerning the State's cutbacks in school building funding indicated a lack of
surety in obtaining funds from the State in the future. He felt that locking in
solutions to State DOE reimbursement guidelines might sacrifice flexibility in
the options produced. TT made the point that adhering to State DOE
guidelines acts as a "brake" on more extravagant designs that could be
crafted in answer to the problems presented an architect. PP felt that the
Town expected the options would maximize state reimbursements, as was
the goal of past projects. RP wondered if a part of the project might be
privately funded with the rest being state funded, producing an option that
might be desirable. Restricting options to only those in which the state is
completely involved might prohibit a private/state scheme. RG felt that
producing a scheme that went beyond the requirements of the DOE would be
difficult to explain to the community. AM felt that maximizing state funding
Readhi g School Budding Committee
Meeting Minutes from April 4. 2002
was a cornerstone of the Committee's rationale for asking for a schematic
design and was likely accepted as such by the electorate.
- A general discussion ensued concerning various clarifications and
explanations of technical items in the RFQ, including setting the number of
copies of each candidate's proposal at fifteen.
RP brought up the possibility of requiring the incorporation of renewable
"green technology" in the schematic design, noting that certain grant monies
might be available for doing so (in the final project). TT felt that this
technology had yet to live up to expectations and that it might be worth
looking into during further design phases, but that making it a requirement
during the schematic phase would be premature.
RP related that he had contacted RMLD about existing energy audits of
RMHS that may have been done. He was told that one was done in 1993
and that a (2/3) subsidized audit could be done on all energy use and HVAC
systems. TT wondered if such an audit would be useful if done on the current
systems when it was expected that those systems were going to change. RP
pointed out that the previous audit had suggestions for revisions to the
systems, too. The Committee thought that the previous audit should be
included with the documents made available to prospective architects in the
RFQ itself to inform them of the assistance that is available from the RMLD.
RP submitted his copy to RG for that purpose.
The Committee came to a consensus that the advertised fee should be
$425,000 (leaving $25,000 for contingency items).
RG called on JS to go over the timeline he had prepared for the coming year dealing
with the production of the schematic design (copy attached).
JS explained that he identified benchmark dates to be used as targets for the
architect's work and the Committee's work (see timeline) and attempted to
space them out over the coming year to finish producing a solution to take to
a Special Town Meeting at the beginning of 2003. This would allow the use
of the regularly scheduled municipal election on April 8, 2003 for a debt
exclusion question to fund the entire project if Town Meeting approved of the
Committee's recommendations. He said that he had (in discussions with RR)
left a reasonable period of time in the early fall (2002) for Committee
discussion of the multiple options that would be developed by the architect
and that he hoped the community would participate during this review period
to make their wishes known to the Committee.
A general discussion ensued concerning logistics of producing the design
options and having public input and going to Town Meeting (twice). Subjects
such as allowing enough time for the architects to do their work, holding open
the option for a special election in February, 2003 (for the full debt exclusion),
checking the option(s) with the SBA and reporting to other boards
(particularly the School Committee) were discussed. No substantive changes
to the schedule shown in the timeline were made, however.
- RG noted that the SBC would attempt to involve other boards such as the
Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee, the Community Planning and
Reading School Budding Committee 4
feeting A?inutes, f •oni April 4. 201) 2
Development Commission as well as school PTO's, arts groups, etc. in an
outreach program to keep the community informed. He asked if the
- Committee accepted the draft of the timeline for general distribution. No
objections were made.
As a result of the timeline's acceptance, the Notice of Events in the RFQ was
revised and updated with the landmark dates given in the timeline.
An observer asked for clarification of the need for peer reviews during the
design process. She was told that a peer review would only be needed if the
architects who performed the schematic design were to be selected to
continue with the final design and construction. Since no feasibility option
was chosen for further development, no peer review of the feasibility studies
would be required. It was noted that a peer review does not approve or
disapprove of a project's design. It only looks for completeness and
acceptability according to State requirements of the work. Any discrepancies
noted are resolved through revision and/or discussion with the original
designer so that the work may be safely and legally used by the Owner (the
Town, in this case).
- RG then called for a motion to accept the RFQ as amended to be submitted
for advertisement on April 5, 2002, which was made by JS and seconded by
TT. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative.
An observer asked if anyone on the SBC had researched whether or not the Committee
as awarding authority of the RFQ could enter into contracts or authorize payments. JS
advised that the chair should speak with the Town Accountant, as was recommended to
him by the Town Treasurer when he spoke with her about the subject.
RG asked for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee for the
minutes of the February 12, 2002 RSBC meeting. With none appearing, RR made a
motion to accept them, which was seconded by DL. A vote was taken and the results
were unanimous in the affirmative.
The Committee scheduled a meeting for April 24, 2002 to hear about the Vendor
Conference scheduled for that afternoon and to form a sub-committee to review the
proposals submitted by respondents to the RFQ and rank them according to a
standardized evaluation form (to be finalized at that meeting). A meeting on May 2,
2002 to distribute the responses to the sub-committee was also scheduled. Both
meetings were tentatively set for 7:30 p.m. in the RMHS Guidance Center.
With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DL so moved and
was seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time
unrecorded).
Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary
Reading School Building Committee
Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D.
Superintendent
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Administration Offices
82 Oakland Road
Post Office Box 180
Reading, Massachusetts 01867
Tel. 781-944-5800 - Fax 781-942-9149
TO: Reading School Building Committee
FROM: Harry K. Harutunian
Dennis A. Richards
Associate Superintendent
TOPIC: Request for Qualifications for Designer Services
DATE: March 28, 2002
Please find attached, for your review, a "draft copy" of the Request for
- Qualifications for Designer Services for the renovation of Reading Memorial High
School. This will enable you to come to the April 0' School Building Committee
meeting with questions and/or comments.
The scope of work portion is what the committee approved a few weeks ago, with
minor wording changes as suggested by town counsel. The intent and scope have not
changed.
The "fee" on page 14 has been purposely left blank. This has been deemed an
agenda item.
Cc: Reading School Committee
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Reading, Massachusetts
Request for Qualifications for Designer Services
Q
The Reading School Building Committee, Awarding Authority, seeks proposals for
designer services for renovation of the Reading Memorial High School.
The Reading School Building Committee will receive sealed statements of qualifications
for furnishing design services as described in the attached Scope of Services until 10:00
a. m. local time, Friday, May 3, 2002 at the Office of the Superintendent, Reading Public
Schools, 82 Oakland Road, Reading, Massachusetts 01867. Seven Copies of the package
must be submitted. The package must be clearly marked "Designer Services for
Renovation of the Reading Memorial High School".
The statement of qualifications shall be prepared as outlined in the attached instructions
The Reading School Building Committee is authorized, under the provisions of G.L.,
Chapter 7, Section 38K, to develop guidelines for the designer selection procedures. G.L.,
Chapter 7, Section 38K authorizes the designer selection process to be adopted by cities
and towns throughout the Commonwealth. These procedures are to apply to the selection
of designers on building construction, renovation, alteration, remodeling and repair
projects, and the estimated cost of which exceed one hundred thousand dollars. For those
projects without an associated estimated construction cost, including but not limited to
feasibility studies, projects are exempt from these procedures if the cost of the design
service is less than ten thousand dollars.
The Request For Qualifications ("RFQ") for the proposed project may be obtained at
Reading Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent, 82 Oakland Road, Reading, MA
01867, 791-944-5800, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, on or after April 5, 2002. In order to assist interested parties to respond to the
RFQ, we have enclosed the "Reading Memorial High School feasibility Study" from
1997 and the "Reading Memorial High School, School Space Needs Study" from 2000.
The Reading School Building Committee reserves the right to waive any informality or to
reject any or all proposals or to make the award deemed in its own discretion to be in the
best interest of the Reading Public Schools. -
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Reading, Massachusetts
Notice of Events
Event Date
Release of the RFQ by the April 5, 2002
School Building Committee
Announcement in the Central Register April 10, 2002
Vendor Conference/Site Visitation April 24, 2002
Briefing Session
Superintendent's Conference Room
Reading Public Schools
82 Oakland Road
Reading, MA 01867
781-944-5800
RFQ Proposals due to May 3, 2002
School Building Committee
The following timetable is subject to change
by the Committee and should only be used as a guideline
Completion of Evaluations May 23, 2002
Notification of Award May 24, 2002
Time
8:00 a.m.
2:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m.
Review of program and existing conditions . June-August, 2002
Presentation of options to SBC September 15, 2002
Development of one option Se-ptember 15, 2002 - November 15, 2002
Presentation to Town Meeting November, 2002
Finalization of schematic design contract by March 31, 2002
General override election April 2, 2002
Directions to Reading Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent
Take Exit 38B from 128. This is Main Street, Route 28, Reading. Drive north on Main
Street through Reading Square, past the large white Old South Methodist Church on the
2
left and the Reading Fire Station on the right. Continuing north on Route 28, take a left
at the first set of stoplights, Birch Meadow Drive. Then take quick right off of Oakland
Road. Go over three sets of speed bumps; the football field and Hawkes Field House will
be on your right. Drive to the end of the parking area. Reading Public Schools
Administrative Office is on your left.
J
3
.
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Reading, Massachusetts
Introduction and General Information
Request for Qualifications for Designer Services for the renovation of Reading
Memorial High School
I. Qualifications Submissions
Proposed Forms: All statements of qualification must include a completed application
form provided herein or a facsimile thereof, which provides the same information,
similarly organized, and assurances as requested on the provided forms. All statements of
qualifications must be considered bona fide.
Sealed packages must be clearly marked on the outside; "Designer Services, Reading
Memorial High School Renovation" must be submitted by the proposal deadline to:
Reading Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent, 82 Oakland Road, Reading,
Massachusetts 01867.
III. Scope of Work
Pursuant to a vote of Reading Town Meeting on November 13, 2001, the Town of
Reading through its School Building Committee wishes to retain a qualified architectural
firm to prepare a schematic design describing a comprehensive renovation of Reading
Memorial High School. This schematic design is intended to meet the physical and
educational needs of the school as determined by the Reading School Committee, the
School Building Committee and the project program as determined by the Architect in
completing the work of paragraph B of this RFQ.
The scope of services requested under this contract shall include, but may not necessarily
be limited to, the following professional services:
A. Documentation and Review of Existing Conditions.
1. The Architect and his Consultants shall gather all available technical information
from various sources in the Town. This shall include the following, at a
minimum:
❖ Original construction documents from construction of Reading Memorial
High School, both from 1954 and 1970, if available.
❖ As-built documents from both phases as noted above, if available.
❖ Civil engineering survey of the site including all site features, utilities, paving,
walk and landscaping.
4
o• Available geotechnical information for the building and adjoining areas,
including the former town pool on the property.
❖ Determination of accurate floor to floor heights of every level in the facility
relative to each other and the site information noted above.
Construction Documents from various construction renovations that may have
taken place during the life of the facility, if available.
❖ Documents from mechanical systems upgrades to the facility from 1998.
❖ Previously prepared feasibility studies (1997 and 2000).
❖ Previously prepared review of the presence of hazardous materials in the
facility.
❖ Interviews with current maintenance staff as may be needed to ascertain the
condition of existing building mechanical and electrical systems.
❖ Review of existing conditions through the use of on-site investigative time for
review if physical conditions, confirmation of measurements, review of
systems configuration and layout, etc., all as may be necessary to compile a
complete and accurate assessment of the present buildings and grounds layout
and condition.
f
2. Based upon the above gathered information, the Architect and his Consultants
shall prepare site-based plans, architectural floor plans, and engineering plans on
a CAD (computer aided drafting) system acceptable to the Town. CAD plans
shall be accurately convertible to DXF or DWG format, and shall use a nationally
recognized layer management system. These plans shall include at a minimum:
Civil engineering survey of the site including all site features, utilities, paving,
walk and landscaping.
❖ Indication of accurate floor to floor heights of every level in the facility
relative to each other and to the site information noted above.
Documentation of existing construction techniques of all walls, both interior
and exterior, insofar as this information is discernable.
Documentation of existing conditions of all building components such as
interior finishes, exterior envelope systems, roofing systems, windows and
doors, kitchen equipment, laboratory equipment, etc.
❖ Documentation of facility structural systems, including fire protection and fire
proofing systems, if any.
Documentation of facility mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. This
shall include documentation of system equipment, components and sizes,
including system capacities, routes of major utility lines for all noted trades,
and as much detailed information as is discernable from exhaustive on site
investigation and review of available documentation.
Documentation of existing installed security and technology systems
❖ Review of the existing facility for current applicable code and regulation
compliance.
Review of current conditions as to the conformance of the facility to State and
Federal handicapped accessibility codes and regulations. .
❖ Review of existing facility for seismic hazards as described in the State
Building Code.
Documentation of all fixed equipment such as markerboards, blackboards,
built in casework and cabinetry, and the like, which shall be indicated on the
floor plans, along with the condition of each item in tabular format.
❖ As a part of the Architect's evaluation of existing conditions, it is expected
that there will be a need to view certain inaccessible areas. Should the
architect require access to be provided to spaces that are not readily
accessible, e.g., behind certain wall, above solid ceilings, the Town will
provide labor and materials to cut and patch finishes as needed to provide
such access at no cost to the Architect.
3. Health, Safety and Environmental Review:
❖ The Architect shall review and update previously prepared hazardous
materials reports done as a part of previous feasibility studies. Sufficient
review of previous studies shall be undertaken to confirm their accuracy for
current conditions and applicability to current regulations.
❖ As a part of the Architect and his consultants' review of HVAC systems, a
thorough evaluation of the facility's air quality shall be provide. Should
testing of air samples be recommended, the Town of Reading shall pay costs
for such tests.
❖ The Architect shall review current egress and evacuation patterns and systems
and evaluate them for compliance with current codes.
4. The intent of the work of this section `A' is for the Architect and his Consultants
to prepare existing conditions information of sufficient accuracy and detail to
serve as a basis for the work of this contract and for use as base drawings and data
6
for a future major renovation should that occur. The deliverables of this section
'ki
shall include at a minimum:
Architectural floor plans annotated with existing conditions information such
as wall types, finishes, etc.
❖ Schedules of existing finishes in each room or space with notation as to
physical condition (e.g. new, good, fair, poor, etc.)
❖ Architectural exterior elevations of building exterior.
❖ Plans of the existing structural systems as determined above, including
indication of existing fire ratings and fire protection and fire proofing systems
if any.
❖ Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems plans as existing.
❖ Security and technology systems plans as existing.
❖ Comprehensive facilities conditions report.
❖ Hazardous materials report with cost estimate for needed abatement.
B. Program review and verification.
Under the overall direction of the School Building Committee, The Architect and
its consultants shall review and confirm, through systematic staff and
administrative interviews, interaction with the School Building Committee,
School Committee and School Administration, etc., the following at a minimum:
❖ Confirmation of existing student enrollment
Confirmation of existing and projected educational programs for a 10 to 12
year period.
❖ Confirmation of projected enrollment for a minimum of 10 years, with further
projections to 12 years, through the tise of historical data and statistical
analysis techniques acceptable to the Town. Previously prepared feasibility
studies (1997 and 2000) will be made available for use under this study.
❖ Confirmation of theoretical capacity of the existing facility based on current
and projected programs as determined above, over the same time period.
2. The intent of the work of this section 'B' is to prepare enrollment and
Pop°°= programmatic information of sufficient accuracy and detail to serve as a basisfor
the work of this contract and for base drawings and data for a future major
renovation project should that occur. The deliverables of this section shall
include at a minimum.
❖ Educational Specifications, describing in comprehensive detail, the
programmatic goals for the proposed Reading Memorial High School
renovation: These "ed specs" shall be in the form acceptable to the
Massachusetts Department of Education.
Detailed listing of proposed spaces, their required adjacencies, and required
configuration and space needs in terms of educational equipment.
❖ Evaluation of existing configurations of the facility as it relates to the
educational specifications and space listing as prepared above. This shall
include at a minimum annotated plans that fully describe existing
shortcomings and issues on the educational program.
C. Required Consultants
1. The Architect shall retain, at minimum, the following professional consultants,
under the scope of this contract. Should the Architect demonstrate "in house"
capabilities in any of the following categories, the Town may in its discretion
waive this requirement.
❖ Plumbing/Fire Protection Consultant
❖ Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Consultant
Structural Consultant
❖ Indoor Air Quality Consultant
❖ Electrical Consultant
Security Consultant
Technology Consultant
Geotechnical Consultant
❖ Traffic Consultant
❖ Civil Engineering Consultant
❖ Educational Consultant
❖ Demographic Consultant
8
x..
❖ Kitchen/Food Service Consultant ;
❖ Hazardous Materials Consultant
Cost Estimating Consultant
D. Schematic Design
The School Building Committee, through its deliberations, has agreed to apply the
following criteria to the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School.
These specific criteria are in addition to the general goal of the design of a
comprehensive facility renovation that meets the physical and educational needs
of the Reading Memorial High School population as determined in the
programming phase.
❖ The renovation shall be consistent with the requirements of the Department of
Education so that funding by the State to maximize the Town's
reimbursement rate will be achieved. Design proposals that do not meet this
requirement will not be accepted.
❖ The renovation shall include a solution to inequities in the existing athletic
facilities as related to Federal Title 9 requirements.
❖ The project shall include new and/or renovated science laboratories, as it is
understood that current capacity is inadequate. These rooms shall be, to the
extent feasible, created within the existing footprint of the facility.
❖ The project shall include upgrades to all existing finishes and mechanical,
electrical, technology, communications, and security systems, including those
in the existing Field House.
❖ The project shall include upgrades to building systems and components as
needed to meet current seismic codes for reduction of seismic hazards at a
minimum, as described in section 3408 of the State Building Code.
The project shall include solutions for handicapped accessibility to all areas as
required by State and Federal Codes and regulations.
❖ The School Building Committee has recognized that significant internal traffic
and circulation problems exist in certain areas of the facility that contribute to
difficulty in student transit between classes and are also a potential safety
concern. The design shall address this issue.
❖ The project shall include the creation of dedicated spaces for both music and
drama programs.
❖ The project shall include a dedicated language lab.
❖ The project shall include a complete upgrade to educational technology
systems in the facility.
The following assumptions for the schematic design are to be made:
❖ The Architect shall assume, to the extent feasible, that no physical additions to
the facility shall be proposed, except as may be required to improve
acknowledged safety related circulation patterns as noted above.
❖ While it is understood that the Massachusetts Department of Education
requires that classroom sizes meet certain minimum standards, it is recognized
that other criteria noted may preclude meeting these requirements in all cases.
Satisfying additional criteria as included herein shall be considered to the
extent that funding of the project by the State will not be jeopardized.
❖ It is assumed that certain non-educational programs currently in the facility
will be relocated off campus, exact scope to be determined under this contract.
3. Based on all the above information, the Architect and its consultants shall prepare
a fully developed proposed schematic design proposal for the Reading Memorial
High School facility as hereinafter described.
Preparation of a minimum of three alternate conceptual design solutions for
consideration by the School Building Committee. Upon review of all
alternatives, the School Building Committee will select one preferred solution,
which will be developed as follows:
❖ Preparation of schematic design documents that fully describe the proposed
solution. These document shall included complete floor plans, exterior
elevations of any proposed additions (shown in relation to existing, building
sections as needed), drawings of proposed mechanical and electrical systems
upgrades (all required trades - one line diagrams), and outline specifications
of all project components.
Preparation,of phasing plans(s) as noted in the next paragraph.
❖ The Architect shall provide camera-ready copy of color plans, elevations and
other drawings as requested by the committee. This will include at least three-
color perspective renderings of critical project components of the project.
❖ The Architect and its consultants shall be available for attendance at public
hearings and meetings, including Town Meeting, to present their findings and
the proposed project, as requested by the School Building Committee.
J
10
❖ The Architect and its consultants shall also be available for attendance at
meetings with representatives of the Department of Education to discuss
reimbursement issues.
E. Phasing
The Architect and its consultants shall present alternative solutions to the School
Building Committee indicating a construction-phasing plan for the project. After
discussions and review of such solutions with the School Building Committee, the
Architect and its consultants shall fully develop an approved solution so that all
aspects of the approved phasing plan are indicated. The final phasing plans shall
include description of circulation patterns during and after each phase,
preliminary solutions for maintenance of all facility systems.to occupied areas at
all times, and proposed temporary spaces, including portable facilities, if
warranted.
2. Phasing plans shall be created that indicate graphically the condition of the entire
facility before, during and after each phase of the project, showing un-renovated
areas, areas under construction, and completed areas, all at each phase of
construction.
3. It is hoped that the project can be completed in a time span to include three
Y. summers and two academic years, and the Architect shall endeavor to create a
phasing plan meeting this schedule, However, if the Architect in his professional
judgement determines that this schedule will not be in the best interests of
students and staff, in terms of safety or environmental health, an alternate
schedule shall be presented as well.
F. Cost Estimate
1. The Architect and its consultants shall prepare a comprehensive cost estimate of
the proposed schematic design, using a professional cost estimator acceptable to
the School Building Committee.
2. The cost estimate shall take into account the costs associated with the expected
extended phasing plan.,
3. The cost estimate shall include allowance for inflation during the duration of the
project. -
G. Deliverables, Expense, and Reimbursable Costs
1. The following out-of pocket expenses shall beat the Architect's expense.
❖ Costs for travel to and from the Town of Reading and any other locations in
Eastern Massachusetts.
❖ Costs of mailing, overnight mail and delivery and courier services.
11
r.'
.1
❖ Costs for normal printing of drawings and other documents for the Architect
and its consultants' in-house, day-to-day use.
Costs for plotting and printing of documents such as colored plans and
elevations for requested presentations to the School Building Committee and
other Town bodies.
❖ Costs for providing 25 copies of a final schematic design report, in 8 by l 1
format, bound, including all written reports, tabular information, and reduced
color copies of drawings. Copies of such documents shall also be provided in
electronic format.
❖ Costs for 10 black and white copies of all full size drawings including plans,
elevations, sections and details as needed to fully describe the proposed
schematic design.
❖ Costs for 3 copies of colored plans, elevations, and perspective renderings as
described above, mounted on rigid board, for the Town's use.
2. Other out-of pocket expenses not mentioned above shall be reimbursed by the
Town at the Architect's cost plus a 10% markup for bookkeeping and processing
fees upon the submission of supporting documents for such costs.
H. Future work
This contract is for programming, facility assessment, and schematic design only,
as described above. Should the voters of the Town of Reading approve a debt
exclusion override to fund renovation of the Reading Memorial High School, the
Town will solicit requests for proposals for additional design services including
design development, construction documents, bidding and construction
administration.
The Architect selected for this project will be allowed to submit proposals for
design services for the complete project. If such Architect is selected, prior to
contracting for additional design services, a satisfactory peer review of services
previously performed for the High School project will be undertaken to determine
if such services rendered under this RFQ were reasonable and adequate and
whether the contract should be awarded to the Architect.
3. In the event that future phases of design for this project are awarded to another
firm, the :Architect shall release to the Town and the selected firm all design
concepts and documents produced under this agreement. The Architect shall
provide copies of all electronic files (both drawing and written) in commonly
available formats, and shall provide a formal release to the Town and to any other
selected architect allowing the free use of said documents for this project only.
There shall be no additional fees paid in exchange for this release.
12
IV. Selection of the Firm
A. Applicants and any consultants proposed for use should be prepared to demonstrate at
a minimum, sufficient previous experience, both firm, individual, and consultant as it
applies, in the following order to be considered for this project:
1. Design of new school buildings and renovations of existing high school buildings.
Knowledge of Massachusetts General Laws relating to public building
construction, particularly all requirements of Chapter 579 of the Acts and
Resolves of 1980: Chapter 7: Chapter 149
3. Applicant should be a Registered Architect in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
4. Current workload as it affects ability to perform this work.
5. Experience with complex phased projects.
6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups.
B. The professional services to be awarded at this time consist of a facility's evaluation
and preliminary design services. The School Building Committee reserves the right
to terminate the services provided by the selected firm at the end of this phase and
resolicit professional services or to continue, subject to independent review, with the
selected firm beyond this phase.
V. Proposal Requirements
Each proposal for this project shall provide at a minimum, the following
information:
1. Name, address and telephone number of the architectural firm, and the
principal contact person.
2, A list of all public projects undertaken in Massachusetts in the past five (5)
years. Please indicate the following information:
a. Location
b. Scope of Involvement
c. References, including name, title and current contact information
d. Start date, projected completion date, and actual completion date
e. Approximate total project cost
3. Proof of financial stability, including financial statement.
13
4. List of all claims, including insurance claims and claims in litigation or
adjudicatory process or settled, brought by or against you in the past (3) years,
including for each the reason for the claim, litigant and outcomes.
The applicant shall submit a current brochure describing the firm and its experience in
school construction and shall also complete and submit the State's Application to
Designer Selection Board form DSB-1 (Attached) standard application to the Reading
School Building Committee. In addition, the applicant must indicate the contact person
for the School Building Committee and individual primarily responsible for this project.
VI. Other Requirements
The Designer is required at his/her own expense to obtain and maintain professional
liability insurance, comprehensive general liability insurance, valuable papers insurance
and worker's compensation insurance during the period of performance of this contract
satisfactory to the Town, with the Town named as an additional insured under such terms
and conditions as shall from time to time be approved by the Town. The School Building
Committee may require a consultant employed by a designer subject to this sub
paragraph to obtain and maintain liability insurance. Minimum limits shall be as follows:
Worker's Compensation: Statutory Limits
Comprehensive General Liability: $1,000,000
Professional Liability: $1,000,000
Valuable. Paper Insurance: The Architect shall maintain during the life
of this project valuable papers insurance in the minimum amount of the value of this
contract for losses on premises where the documents may be kept.
A. All firms submitting qualifications agree to abide by all relevant provisions
of Massachusetts General Laws as they apply to procurement of design
services for public buildings by municipalities.
B. Questions regarding this request for qualifications may be directed to the
School- Building Committee, Reading Public Schools, 82 Oakland Road,
Reading, MA 01867, 781-944-5800.
C. The School Building Committee reserves the right to reject any and all
proposals, or accept the proposal to be in the best. interest of the Town of
Reading.
VII. Fees
The selected finalist will be asked to submit a fee proposal not to exceed
$ including normal reimbursable expenses. If the School
Building Committee ("Committee") and the finalist can negotiate a satisfactory
fee within the limits established by the Committee and other terms and conditions
of the contract, the contract will be awarded to that party. If the parties are unable
14
A.
to come to agreement, the Committee will proceed to the next highest ranked
finalist, and request that a fee proposal be submitted, until an agreement is
reached with a satisfactory applicant or the process is terminated by the
Committee.
VII. The School Building Committee will review all submitted applications and will rank
and select the finalists. Contracts for Architectural and Design Services will be awarded,
subject to the discretion of the School Building Committee as described above. The
successful applicant will be required to complete certifications required by Massachusetts
General Laws.
15
mic
ICE.
Co rb c 0
9.
'on
gin C
m m
Jt
F4:
cr.
co
CA L
to
Y.
9
as 6n
IL O
a, . N
m
:, I
p
PD
11111111
�,
co
cn
co
0
0
0
0
I
tr
cp
o
Co
tv
x
C/)
cn
tr
cr
CD
co
cn
w
m
FD
10 a- seeRess
W"W HIE I H H?
TUT Tmmm 0 0 0 Lrl 0 ci
m F-A m 414i
0 ti I I
n
0 0 0 0 0
2 9 4 t
�_�� a
51
;b C4 -0 Of
Ch
mi
a §111pulff Egg 11
if I
m — 0
9„ . .
�1 6 f� m T n
49
��m _ ¢?
.
a
X
0 IL fill.
aeeeeg
CD C.
ECK
Ln
in
en IR
3E
TD
o
49
AL I
gvi.� N o= §Er,
�4 w
M°�!4 A M
A I A. Cis
CL
ML
CO) 40
CL
O
� r-
cc 0)
cc W
co (-.I
Q
C/)
cn
C> CD
W —4 C) ()I
k
k
2
�
K
■
�
�
$
I
�
§
w
EEA
$� @�@��¥ ¥�
�
FE
.
rig
o
�
�
.
A ■.
p.
. �
s
. �
:
E
ƒ
� <
.
. \`
�
�AA9RR�AA�
. • .
.
t
�
�
.
�
�
g
. o
�
a
�
.
� � .■
�
�
E
§
�
�
7
�
g
g
k
2
p
_
$
Cl
�
§
01 -ep PUB .Tamainaa Jo a.Tnjuufi'
OZ I 9Nu vu 7v.LOZ aNvuD
S ss000.Td AuTppiq oilgnd flueuzud `}I-Tom oilgnd ui aouauadxa is-el •I,
S loafo.Td zoj posodoid slenpinipui Jo aouauadxa Isud £
OT sloofoid pas -eqd xoldwoo gllm oououodxg •Z
0 (uoT)onaisuoo mou jsnf lou) sioofozd q -egoj loogos ui aouauadxa isud •I
(S).LNV.L'IRSNOD Hum - S211HO021 LVD ONIHODS
OT sdnoag pu-e spauoq Fool of spaau loofozd luoso.Td of XiillgV •L
OT �,Izom siTll uuoj.Tad of XvIlqu sloope 11 su ppol}liom luaunO •g
OT ss000id Ilenoiddu gVgS Tllim oououodxo isud -S
OT ss000zd �3uippiq oilgnd �Ipuwud `Atom otlgnd ui aouauadxa is-el -t
OZ loofozd zol posodoid slbnpinipui Jo aouauadxa Isud
OZ sloofold posugd xoldwoo Ttlim oouauadxg 'Z
OZ (uoTlon.Tisuoo mou isnf jou) sloofo.Td q qoi loogos ui aouauadxa jsvd ' I
a.zoos wnwixuW
Z321ZIHDHV - SHIHOOH,LVD ON MODS
ugH.L?IIlr7 OAT 00 - crim gII.L jO s lyviITjmiaiDv2I OIsvu LgvK LOAT SjOQ
,LATVOI7ddV ,VH.L `OAT SI JAOSV SAT0IJSXl0 ,VYffIIJ JH.L dO AATV ?IJA1SNV JHI dI :,V LOAT
Xogod X1111quIl luuoissopid uznuiiuTtu 000`000`I$ sO?uU0 £
panoiddu p sos -eqd iogvnj puu oil -euuTlos grim paaoo.Td of XlillgV -Z
silasnTlo -essuW ui ioaiitlojv u-e su uollLjlsi2ag • I
ON Sa-k SNOLLVDIAirlvfli) DISVH
UUT4
(sluouzuzoo Xue Toj Flo -eq ash
uoTILnlLIng ullid jMnjoajiuo. V
asugd u2isaQ 0111MOWS IoouoS u$TH ieuou ow 2uipuag
oojjjL nuoD futpiing IoogoS 2uipra-d