Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-19 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReading School Building Committee Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on February 19, 2002, 7:30 p.m (In the Town Hall Conference Room) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Rich Radville (RR) Tim Twomey (TT) Paula Perry (PP) Jeff Struble (JS) Alex McRae (AM) RG opened with asking for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee for the minutes of the February 5, 2002 RSBC meeting. RR said that the word "casework" used in the first bulleted paragraph on page one should be changed to "case law", explaining that this was the actual phrase used by Town Counsel in the recommendations that were being described there. With no further discussion occurring, RG called for a motion accepting the minutes as amended. RR made the motion, which was seconded by TT. A vote was taken and the results were unanimous in the affirmative. RG called on JS to report on the progress of the question and answer information packet being developed as a possible mailing. JS began by noting that he had not received any new questions in the past week, so he went ahead and developed answers to the questions he had already produced (refer to the minutes from 2/5/02) and passed them out (copy attached). AM proposed that another question to considering answering was what will happen if the vote for schematic design funds fails. This prompted a general discussion on what could happen to the high school physically (repairs would have to be made, possibly under emergency conditions) and how partial upgrades would be reimbursed by the State (lower priorities for bits and pieces of a general upgrade) and what the SBC's role would actually be (if any). After discussing several hypothetical consequences, it was generally agreed that a concise answer to this question was most likely not possible to produce, so the Committee should be prepared to explain what could happen if the debt exclusion did not pass (since what will happen is not knowable). - JS began to go over his handout's answers, noting that their length was due to the expectation that the average reader of the handout would need some explanation of the basic issues with the high school, which he included. • Regarding the question of what is wrong with the high school, JS said he included specific examples of physical plant issues and Code-mandated Reach g.School Building Committee l feeting itlitcutes fi~ona Teba-uat), .19, 2002 corrections. He also listed the Committee's items regarding educational program issues (Technology, science labs, circulation and Title IX). Following that came space reorganization and updating finishes. Citing the size of the school and the multiple tasks needed to upgrade the space within it, aggregate costs would be therefore become large. He cited a common cost range of $100-$200/sq. ft. for Mass. Schools and a figure of $180/sq. ft. maximum that the State could approve. AM questioned the applicability of the $180 number to renovations, noting that this was for new schools. JS said he thought there was no separately published number for renovations, but he would check it out. TT offered suggestions for composition of the answer to make it easier to read and understand. General discussion ensued about organization, with suggestions being made to group the main issues into categories of mechanical systems, programmatic issues, aesthetic upgrades and code- compliance. Content of the answer appeared to be satisfactory to the Committee. RG requested that the high school principal review these answers (a copy was faxed to Frank Orlando later in the week). • Concerning the answer to the question of how much will the project cost, TT felt the answer should show the costs of other communities' high school renovations as a matter of comparison (since the Committee can not specify an estimated cost for RMHS). JS explained that he included cost ranges from the feasibility studies and mentioned the estimating done by RR and JS for "must do" items to demonstrate the scope of the problem with estimates. He also explained that he included a demonstration of the possible error that could result from an inaccurate estimate to give readers an appreciation of the magnitude of cost estimating errors (i.e., in the millions of dollars). RG thought that the point should be made that a major reason for undertaking a schematic design was to answer this very question being asked. The consensus was to make this point at the outset of the answer (in the handout). The cost of the schematic design itself was to be included, but to be made separate from the explanation of the entire project cost (RG directed JS to check with the Town Treasurer on accuracy of this cost). RR recommended deleting references to the "must do" estimates because it pre judged the result (estimates in the lower region of the range). AM remarked that the higher estimates were for options that included substantial additions, which the SBA discourages. JS said he would try to re-work this answer to accommodate the comments made by the Committee. • As to what is the point of doing a schematic design, JS said that the answer is contained in the first sentence of the handout's text for this question; to let the voters know what they're voting for (AM suggested the word "community" instead of voters, which was agreed to). He included the topic of phasing in this answer, stressing the importance of it on many levels (costing, timing, planning, etc.) and that phasing is not included in feasibility studies. The Committee suggested including a clear definition of what is meant by "phasing" so that the term would be understood. RR suggested explaining what parents could expect from knowing what will happen under different phases of construction as a benefit of developing a phasing plan. Reading School Building Committee Afeeting- Minutes,from .l'ehr°uary 19, 2002 • The question of what happens after completing the schematic design was answered, JS said, by a recitation of the steps needed to take the design through Town Meeting and on to the electorate, much the same as the idea for a schematic plan has been handled this year. The Committee had few comments on this answer, mostly on suggestions for organization and presentation. • JS said he would not add any more questions to the handout (due to length) and would update it for the next meeting (2/26/02). An observer asked for clarifications about the involvement of the SBA (School Building Assistance bureau) in the schematic design production, wondering how they're approval would be obtained and how reimbursement of the cost of the schematics would affect future budgets. Members of the Committee responded that the RFQ contains specific requirements for producing solutions that are reimbursable by the SBA and that in the course of refining those options, the SBA would be consulted for their opinions on them. The goal would be to produce a fully developed schematic design that been pre- reviewed by the State. Should approval of the full project (later) occur, the reimbursements from the state would be added to the general budget for use in debt service, as all such reimbursements have been used. A general discussion then took place concerning the SBA's attitude toward options in the Strekalovsky & Hoit feasibility report. Back then, Option A was deemed unreimbursable at the time the report was produced, but could new opinions from the State concerning the desirability of renovations might make this (lowest cost) option viable, it was wondered? Probably not, it was decided, because Option A did little to upgrade the school's educational program, which is a major goal of the SBA. Another question arose concerning the acceptability of Option C.2 over C.3 (which was the most discussed option). Since all the C-options included significant additions, it was thought that C.2 would require convincing justification for its (smaller scale) additions just as C.3 would and therefore would not be intrinsically more acceptable to the State. - RR passed out revisions to the RFQ document (copy attached) that was discussed at the last two meetings, having added material suggested by Committee members. • A "preamble" was added to state the goal of the schematic design at the outset of the RFQ. • The required enrollment projections were set for a minimum of 10 years with further projections to 12 years. • Regarding safety provisions, the RFQ would require a hazardous material review, checking that past reviews are brought up to date with current regulations as well as air quality evaluations and circulation (foot traffic) evaluations. • " Add"more "specific language about seismic hazard review and corrections. Reading School Building Committee feetiug Alhiuter ftom 17ebruary 19, 2002 • Require preparation of a minimum of three design solutions for Committee review and selection, taking the selected solution on to schematic design. • Delineation of deliverables and reimbursable costs between the Town and the chosen architect. • Inclusion of a statement of ownership of the produced plans and documents (to become the property of the Town of Reading), regardless of whether or not the producing architect continues on with the work. • Include a structural and a demographic consultant in the list of required specialists. + RR said he would finish his draft and send it to Town Counsel and the Superintendent for their input. An observer raised the question of whether the amount of money being offered would draw enough applicants, particularly in light of the fact that no options were being presented for development and that the ultimate cost of the project could (therefore) not be predicted. It was explained that the amount was deemed sufficient due to the expectation that the SBA's discouragement of additions would keep the ultimate cost down. Also, the desirability of the chance to demonstrate a firm's ability to handle that (ultimate) project should attract applicants even though the amount offered did not have a knowable numeric correlation to the ultimate cost. 4 AM asked if the RFQ should include the requirement that the architect be familiar with the new SBA regulations. RG thought that the candidates' familiarity would be found out during the interview process. AM further wondered if the word "addressed" should be used in describing instructions in the RFQ for circulation investigations. The Committee felt comfortable with the word, noting that "addressed" did not necessarily mean to correct the situation (which might not be acceptable to the SBA). An observer suggested requiring that energy and water conservation programs run by the State and the local utilities be consulted by the architect ("Green Technology"). The Committee was favorable to the idea, but it was thought that it need not be included in the RFQ; rather, it should be a subject to be included in the dialogue with the architect once the design process began. AM suggested that the requirement for upgrading the high school's technology be included as a distinct criterion. The Committee accepted this suggestion and included it in the RFQ. He also wondered if a definitive deadline by which to complete the work should be included in the RFQ. It was pointed out that setting such a deadline was a part of the contract negotiations undertaken after the architect was selected. TT pointed out that he had concerns regarding the timing of the architect selection process, noting that after the architect was selected, there would only be a few weeks left in which the high school staff would be available for consultation (due to summer vacation). This prompted a discussion about the use of the summer months for assessing existing conditions at the high Reading School Building Committee Vieetin,,.44iiiutes f •onz .I'ebruar), .19, 2002 school and getting input from department heads as soon as possible. This is in order to start working on possible solutions over the summer, getting ready for the fall when the solutions would be gone over by the Committee and a preferred scheme would be developed as a schematic design. RG spoke about the upcoming presentations for the public. He stated that he would begin with an overview of the problems and asked RR to speak about the differences between schematic designs and feasibility studies. Also, RR was to explain the RFQ and its production. RG asked JS to give a presentation about the questions and answers already gone over by the Committee and perhaps any others that seemed appropriate. The plan would be then to open up the meetings to questions from the attendees. An observer asked if there was a back-up plan should the request for a schematic design fail at the polls. The Committee thought that discussions among several committees (SBC, SC, etc.) would be necessary to identify a direction to go in with the high school should the electorate turn down the schematic design proposal. Thus, no specific back-up plan had been developed as yet. JS reminded the Committee that should the solution developed into a schematic design prohibit the keeping of non-educational spaces like the Superintendent's offices in the renovation (in order to be reimbursed by the State), the Town should be made aware of the cost of relocating the (necessary) offices to another venue. This cost would not appear in the overall project cost because it was not the architect's responsibility to solve those problems. They would be the Town's responsibility, however. TT explained that the SBA's admonition against keeping non-educational space in a plan submitted for reimbursement was a reaction to seeing options that had significant additions. They argued that justifying payment for new space when existing space was available (but being used for non-educational purposes) would be difficult. Hence, they indicated that the non- educational areas should be considered for educational uses first before contemplating a need for additional space. 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 10:05 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: A V-~ Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee Reading, School.Building (onnnittee Question & Ansiver 417orksheet-Feb. l9, 2002 C)roji for ('oninittee Review Question: A What are the problems with the high school and why do they cost so much to fix? Answer: The high school is a large, sprawling building of outdated design that has never had a comprehensive renovation in its 48-year history (33 years for its Bldg. A addition). Consequently, its physical plant systems are wearing out and the teaching methods used by the faculty must make use of outdated facilities with diminishing efficiency as the curriculum becomes more stringent and enrollments increase. Mere maintenance of dying systems simply postpones their inevitable breakdown, which the feasibility studies have predicted. Examples of these systems are the plumbing (not just the fixtures, but the piping), the electrical system (not just lights, but the building's power grid), the heating and ventilation systems (including replacing all the inefficient windows), and the communication system (non-functional in some areas). System upgrades trigger code- compliance requirements and the high school's mechanical systems were designed to antiquated building codes; thus, they cannot be merely patched, they must be completely overhauled and brought up to present Code standards. Code updating also means the installation of a fire protection system (sprinklers) for the entire building, making all areas handicap-accessible, installing seismic hazard protection (against falling masonry) and removing all hazardous materials (asbestos, PCB's, etc.). At a minimum, the SBC has concluded that updating for new technology (computer network and wiring), four new science labs (to maintain accreditation) and correcting gender inequality issues in the athletic facilities are vital programmatic upgrades that must be done. All this must be done before addressing the teaching facilities in general, such as dedicating space for the music and drama departments and creating a modern language lab [need help here]. On top of facility reorganization comes modernization of the building's finishes (walls, floors and ceilings), which is hardly a trifling matter. There are 340,000 square feet of building to upgrade and each part of renovating that space has a cost associated with it, which is added to all the others. Total costs in the range of $100 to $200 per square foot are quite common in high school renovations (the SBA's approvable figure was set at $180/sq. ft. max. in May of 2001). Hence, big school buildings have big costs associated with fixing their problems and Reading's high school is no exception. Reading School BUilcliiIg COMMittee Question 4,. Answer 1,1 orkwheet -1;eh. 19. 2002 Drcjtfnr Committee Review Question: B How much will it cost? Answer: The short, simple answer to this question is "Nobody knows for certain." The reason for this is that there are too many unknowns to hazard a reliable guess about probable cost. Examples of the unknowns are how to best upgrade the educational program without new additions, how to maximize State reimbursements under the new regulations, how to address gender equality issues (Title IX), and how to accommodate major reconstruction while maintaining quality education and safety for the students. The SBC feels strongly that costs for such a large project should be predicted with as much accuracy as possible. By using the specific information produced in a schematic design phase, a cost estimate could be based on itemized pieces of preliminary design rather than on a broad description of an idea for a design. This latter method of estimating is the only extent to which a feasibility study can go and was used in the high school feasibility studies. The resulting estimates ranged from $30M+ to $60M+ [need help here], depending on how the "unknowns" were answered, which is far too great a range to commit a single amount to with any confidence. Rough estimates by SBC members based on recent discussions with the SBAB indicate that the reimbursable cost will likely fall towards the lower end of this cost spectrum, but still, errors in estimating at this range are very significant (i.e., $3M-$4M off for an error of 10%). Thus, finding out how much the project will i cost as accurately as possible is of primary importance. To the SBC (and hopefully to the voting public), the $450K cost for a schematic design seems a reasonable price to pay to gain more specific knowledge for pricing the project and help answer this basic question. As to the schematic design itself, the cost of bonding this $450K amount to the average Reading property ($320K assessment) will be a $20.11 increase in property taxes for three years [verify]. .Reading School.Building C"onnnittee Question & Answer JiVorkvheet - Feb. 1.9, 2002 Draft fnr Committee Review Question: C What's the point of a schematic design? Answer: The most direct answer to this question is to let the voters know just what they're voting for when the request for full design and construction funds is made. The high school renovation will be of a size and scope several times larger than any Town project yet undertaken and the effects on the residents will be far-reaching, both in terms of cost and on the use of the building itself. Just "What to do?" to the high school has yet to be decided, owing to a change in the State's guidelines over the past year. Feasibility studies answer questions like this, but there are other crucial questions they don't answer, like "How to do it?" and "What will it look like?" The "How" question is particularly important since it involves performing full-scale construction in a building being shared with students and faculty performing full-scale high school education. This is a logistical balancing act known as "Phasing" and it has tremendous influence on project costs and project timing. Phasing plans are not produced at the feasibility level, whereas they are at the schematic and they go a long way in answering not only "How?" but "How much?" (time is money in construction). Parents who will have their children attending the high school will get a better idea of what their children can expect. Where feasibility plans produce block diagrams and verbal descriptions of what can be done, a schematic plan will produce actual drawings and outline specifications that inform the voters of just what it will look like, what is going into it and what they'd be paying for. It's also the first step of actual design of the renovations - not a study - and if accepted by the Town as the basis for full design and construction, it will qualify as a reimbursable fee by the SBAB and put the project well along on its design schedule. If it's rejected, valuable information will have been produced to base an alternate scheme on, avoiding having to start from scratch. ReadingSehool Building Committee Question &Answer IVorksheet-.Feb. 1.9, 002 Urea, for Committee Review Question: D What happens when the schematic design is completed? Answer: The first use of the schematic design will be to present it to Town Meeting in the fall of this year for its review and to ask for approval to put it before the general electorate in the following spring election (2003) as the solution to the highs school's problems. It is during this process that the general public will begin looking at what is going to be done to RMHS and how it will happen, hopefully contacting their Town Meeting members with their comments and questions. The particulars of the project will be thoroughly explored by Town Meeting, if its past reviews of school projects are any indication, and it is hoped that approval will be given (or modifications will be requested that will lead to approval). Once Town Meeting has so acted, the schematic design will be presented to the public at large through several public presentations for their review and approval by way of the ballot box. Approval at that time will mean that Reading voters will allow full funding of the finished design and construction of the project outlined in the schematic design by way a debt exclusion override. That will be the final step in the review/approval process begun at last November's Town Meeting. It is a very deliberate process that advances in step-by-step fashion, each step building on the previous ones. This will ensure that all Reading residents that have a say in the decision to update RMHS (all TMM's and registered voters) will have ample opportunity to know what the plan is, why it's being proposed and how it will be executed. Hopefully, then, the only outstanding question to answer will be "When?" This question and its answer will be entirely in the hands of the voters. Should approval be given in the spring of 2003, the earliest the project might be completed would be the fall of 2006. G RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 1 02/18/02 SCOPE OF THE WORK Pursuant to a vote of Reading Town Meeting on November 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 intended to meet the physical and educational needs of the school as determined by the Reading School Committee, the School Building Committee, and the final results of this contract. 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 the RMHS, 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. • 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 info 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 condition. • Review of existing conditions through the use of on-site investigative time for review of physical conditions, confirmation of measurements, review of systems configuration and layout, etc., all as may be necessary to compile an complete and accurate assessment the present buildings and grounds layout and condition. 2. Based upon the above information gathered information, the Architect and his Consultants shall prepare base site plans, architectural floor plans, and engineering plans and details on a CAD (computer aided drafting) system acceptable to the Town. CAD plans shall be accurately convertible to DN F or RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 2 02/18/02 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 info 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 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 it 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, shall indicate same on the floor plans, and shall record the condition of each item in tabular format. • As a part of the Architects 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 walls, 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 provided. 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. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 3 02/18/02 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 a base drawings and data for a future major renovation project should that occur. The deliverables of this section 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. • Security and technology systems plans. • Comprehensive facilities conditions report. • Hazardous materials report with cost estimate for needed abatement. B. Program review and verification. 1. Under the overall direction of the School Building Committee, The Architect and his Consultants shall review and confirm, through systematic staff and administration 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. programmatic information of sufficient accuracy and detail to serve as a basis for the work of this contract and for use a 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 RMHS renovation. These "ed specs" shall be in a form acceptable to the State Department of Education. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 4 02/18/02 • Detailed listing of proposed spaces, their required adjacencies, and required configuration and space needs in terms of educational equipment. • Evaluation of existing configuration 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 in the educational program. C. Required consultants 1. The Architect shall retain, at a 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 will consider waiving this requirement. • Plumbing / Fire Protection Consultant • Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Consultant • Indoor Air Quality Consultant • Electrical Consultant • Security Consultant • Technology Consultant • Geotechnical Consultant • Traffic Consultant • Civil Engineering Consultant • Educational Consultant • Kitchen / Food Service Consultant • Hazardous Materials Consultant • Cost Estimating Consultant D. Schematic Design 1. The School Building Committee, through its deliberations, has agreed to the following criteria for the proposed renovation of RMHS. 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 RMHS population as determined in the programming phase. They shall not be construed to limit the scope of this contract in any way. • 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 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. RUES Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 5 02/18/02 • 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. 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 State Department of Education lists requirements that classroom sizes meet certain minimum standards, it is recognized that other criteria noted may preclude meeting these requirements in all cases. This issue shall be considered to the extent that funding by the State as noted above is not 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 his consultants shall prepare a fully developed proposed schematic design proposal for the RMHS facility. This shall consist of the following steps at a minimum: • Preparation of alternate design solutions for consideration by the School Building Committee. After deliberation, one preferred solution will be selected, which will be developed as described in the next step. • Preparation of schematic design documents that fully describe the proposed solution. These documents shall include 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 suitable for use as a part of a potential capital override campaign for the overall project. This will include at least three color perspective renderings of critical project components of the project. • The architect shall assist in preparation of-supporting-data for a potential capital override campaign for the project to include educational specification summaries, costs, etc. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 6 02/18/02 • The Architect and his consultants shall be available for attendance at public hearings and meetings, including Town Meeting, to present their findings and the proposed project to the public, as requested by the School Building Committee. E. Phasing 1. As a part of this contract, the Architect and his consultants shall present alternate solutions to the SBC that indicate a construction phasing plan for the project. After deliberations, the Architect and his 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 step. 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 in the Architect's professional judgment, he 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 his consultants shall prepare a comprehensive cost estimate of the proposed schematic design, using a professional cost estimator acceptable to the SBC. 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 and Reimbursable Costs 1. The following reimbursable expenses shall be at the Architect's expense: • Costs for travel to and from the Town of Reading and any other locations in Eastern Massachusetts. • Costs for normal printing of drawings and other documents for the Architect and his 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. _ • _ 25 copies of a final schematic design report, in 81/2 by I format, bound, with all written reports, tabular information, and reduced color copies of drawings. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 7 02/18/02 • 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. • 3 copies of colored plans, elevations, and perspective renderings as described above, mounted on rigid board, for the Town's use. 2. Other reimbursable expenses not mentioned above shall be reimbursed by the Town at the Architect's cost plus 10% markup for bookkeeping and processing fees. H. Future work 1. This contract is for programming, facility assessment, and schematic design only, as described above. Should the voters of the Town of Reading vote to approve a debt exclusion override to fund a full renovation, it will be the intent of the Town to solicit new statements of qualifications for the balance of professional services including design development, construction documents, bidding and construction administration. 2. The Architect selected for this project will be allowed to submit qualifications for services for the complete project, subject to performance to the satisfaction of the AA, but it shall be understood that the contract for future services will not necessarily be let to the Architect retained for this contract. 3. In the event that future phases of design for this project are awarded to another firm, the Architect shall release the Town and the selected firm to use 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. RMHS Schematic Design RFP ' draft work scope page 1 02/18/02 SCOPE OF THE WORK Pursuant to a vote of Reading Town Meeting on November 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 intended to meet the physical and educational needs of the school as determined by the Reading School Committee, the School Building Committee, and the final results of this contract. 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 the RMHS, 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. • 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 info 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 condition. • Review of existing conditions through the use of on-site investigative time for review of physical conditions, confirmation of measurements, review of systems configuration and layout, etc., all as may be necessary to compile an complete and accurate assessment the present buildings and grounds layout and condition. 2. Based upon the above information gathered information, the Architect and his Consultants shall prepare base site plans, architectural floor plans, and engineering plans and details on a CAD (computer aided drafting) system acceptable to the Town. CAD plans shall be accurately convertible to DXF or RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 2 02/18/02 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 info 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 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 it 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, shall indicate same on the floor plans, and shall record the condition of each item in tabular format. • As a part of the Architects 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 walls, 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 provided. 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. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 3 02/18/02 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 a base drawings and data for a future major renovation project should that occur. The deliverables of this section 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. • Security and technology systems plans. • Comprehensive facilities conditions report. • Hazardous materials report with cost estimate for needed abatement. B. Program review and verification. 1. Under the overall direction of the School Building Committee, The Architect and his Consultants shall review and confirm, through systematic staff and administration 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. programmatic information of sufficient accuracy and detail to serve as a basis for the work of this contract and for use a 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 RMHS renovation. These "ed specs" shall be in a form acceptable to the State Department of Education. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 4 02/18/02 • Detailed listing of proposed spaces, their required adjacencies, and required configuration and space needs in terms of educational equipment. • Evaluation of existing configuration 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 in the educational program. C. Required consultants 1. The Architect shall retain, at a 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 will consider waiving this requirement. • Plumbing / Fire Protection Consultant • Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Consultant • Indoor Air Quality Consultant • Electrical Consultant • Security Consultant , • Technology Consultant • Geotechnical Consultant • Traffic Consultant • Civil Engineering Consultant • Educational Consultant • Kitchen / Food Service Consultant • Hazardous Materials Consultant • Cost Estimating Consultant D. Schematic Design 1. The School Building Committee, through its deliberations, has agreed to the following criteria for the proposed renovation of RMHS. 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 RMHS population as determined in the programming phase. They shall not be construed to limit the scope of this contract in any way. • 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 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. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 5 02/18/02 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. 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 State Department of Education lists requirements that classroom sizes meet certain minimum standards, it is recognized that other criteria noted may preclude meeting these requirements in all cases. This issue shall be considered to the extent that funding by the State as noted above is not 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 his consultants shall prepare a fully developed proposed schematic design proposal for the RMHS facility. This shall consist of the following steps at a minimum: • Preparation of alternate design solutions for consideration by the School Building Committee. After deliberation, one preferred solution will be selected, which will be developed as described in the next step. • Preparation of schematic design documents that fully describe the proposed solution. These documents shall include 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 suitable for use as a part of a potential capital override campaign for the overall project. This will include at least three color perspective renderings of critical project components of the project. • The architect shall assist in preparation of supporting data for a potential capital override campaign for the project to include educational specification summaries, costs, etc. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 6 02/18/02 • The Architect and his consultants shall be available for attendance at public hearings and meetings, including Town Meeting, to present their findings and the proposed project to the public, as requested by the School Building Committee. E. Phasing 1. As a part of this contract, the Architect and his consultants shall present alternate solutions to the SBC that indicate a construction phasing plan for the project. After deliberations, the Architect and his 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 step. 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 in the Architect's professional judgment, he 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 his consultants shall prepare a comprehensive cost estimate of the proposed schematic design, using a professional cost estimator acceptable to the SBC. 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 and Reimbursable Costs 1. The following reimbursable expenses shall be at the Architect's expense: • Costs for travel to and from the Town of Reading and any other locations in Eastern Massachusetts. Costs for normal printing of drawings and other documents for the Architect and his 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. • 25 copies of a final schematic design report, in 81/2 by 11 format, bound, with all written reports, tabular information, and reduced color copies of drawings. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 7 02/18/02 ' 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. • 3 copies of colored plans, elevations, and perspective renderings as described above, mounted on rigid board, for the Town's use. 2. Other reimbursable expenses not mentioned above shall be reimbursed by the Town at the Architect's cost plus 10% markup for bookkeeping and processing fees. H. Future work 1. This contract is for programming, facility assessment, and schematic design only, as described above. Should the voters of the Town of Reading vote to approve a debt exclusion override to fund a full renovation, it will be the intent of the Town to solicit new statements of qualifications for the balance of professional services including design development, construction documents, bidding and construction administration. 2. The Architect selected for this project will be allowed to submit qualifications for services for the complete project, subject to performance to the satisfaction of the AA, but it shall be understood that the contract for future services will not necessarily be let to the Architect retained for this contract. 3. In the event that future phases of design for this project are awarded to another firm, the Architect shall release the Town and the selected firm to use 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.