Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-05 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesV `f° Reading School Building Committee I MASS. Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on Februa 5 2002, 7:30 m. (In the Superintendent's Conference Room at RMHS)t1611 Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Rich Radville (RR) Paula Perry (PP) Alex McRae (AM) Tim Twomey (TT) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Jeff Struble (JS) Ray Porter (RP) - p/t Michael Scarpitto (MS) RG called for a motion for acceptance of the minutes of the November 1, 2001 RSBC meeting. RR made the motion, which was seconded by DL. RG asked if there were any additions, deletions or changes desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the results were unanimous in the affirmative. RG called for a motion for acceptance of the minutes of the November 7, 2001 RSBC meeting. RR made the motion, which was seconded by DL. RG asked if there were any additions, deletions or changes desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the results were unanimous in the affirmative. RG noted that several members had been working on various tasks relative to the upcoming override vote for schematic design funds for RMHS. He called on RR to discuss his progress on researching the legal requirements for hiring an architect after the schematic design phase and on drafting a scope of work for the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the schematic design architect solicitation. RR related that he had had discussions with Dr. Harutunian and Town Counsel regarding the need to re-solicit for architectural services for the remainder of the project once the schematic design is finished and the Town had decided to go ahead with it. Town Counsel, in turn, had contacted the individual at the Attorney General's office who had told an observer that a second solicitation was required (refer to the 01-29-02 RSBC minutes). The result was the recommendation from Town Counsel that a second bid for architectural services should be undertaken, with the original (schematic) architect being eligible to apply for the work. Should that architect be chosen, their schematic work should undergo a peer review before proceeding with the balance of the design work. This opinion is based on current case law regarding this issue despite the fact that the law does not require a second solicitation. - RR then passed out copies of his draft for the RFQ (copy attached to these minutes). He explained that the Committee had hoped to give the architect Readh g School Building Committee Weting Alinutes ftont February 5. 2002 as much direction as possible within the RFQ so he divided the scope of work into different parts. - Part A concentrated on the assessment of the present building through past studies, existing drawings and on-site investigations and identifying issues that need to be addressed. Basic services like preparation of base drawings were also included here. - Part B contained directions for educational assessments, including enrollment studies, staff interviews and setting of educational goals. - Part C listed required specialists to be brought in on the design team (such as kitchen/food prep. consultants, engineers, technology specialists, etc.). - Part D listed the schematic design criteria that had been decided upon by the Committee in its deliberations over the past months, including maximizing State funding, updating code compliance, Title IX compliance, etc. The restriction to the footprint of the present building was contained in this section, as was the directive to work with the SBC to produce a final, best option for presentation to Town Meeting and the Town. - Part E instructed the architect to develop a phasing plan or plans for SBC review, done in conjunction with the high school administration. The goal of a 30-month project schedule was included as a target. The chosen plan would then require documentation for presentation purposes. - Part F contained language requiring that a professional cost estimator familiar with school projects make a comprehensive cost estimate for the schematic design. - Part G had yet to be drafted, but will include language explaining the architect's eligibility for application to finish the project via a second solicitation. It will also contain a clear declaration of ownership of all the schematic design documents and materials by the Town of Reading no matter what the outcome of the second solicitation. - RG suggested that the Committee take time reviewing RR's draft individually before discussing it as a group (at the next week's meeting). RR made the comment that further research needed to be done would be to locate and collect all existing plans, documents, etc. of the present building to allow the architects to judge the degree of on-site exploration and discovery needed before deciding to apply for the job. RG asked RR to contact the Director of Public Works for his input as to what existing information exists and where it can be obtained. RP brought up the subject of including costs for seismic upgrades, relating that he had spoken with someone at the State board of building regulations about it. After describing the scope of renovations planned thus far for the - - = - -building the state official said that it appeared that the building would not - need to be brought up to current seismic resistance standards for new construction. JS clarified the inclusion of seismic improvement costs in the Reading School Building Committee Meeting A inuter f om February S. 2002 "must-do" list. He explained with Section 3408.5 of the current building code that the scope of the project (as well as the expected occupancy increase) triggered the need to correct seismic hazards, not reinforce the building's lateral system to comply with seismic standards for new construction. The chief seismic hazard was masonry walls without lateral supports at their tops, which could tip over in a seismic event. Correction of this hazard was mandatory (must-do) and entailed adding side-to-side supports at the tops of large amounts of walls. The cost of such a correction is not small and should be acknowledged as such when putting together a "must-do" cost list, which is what RR and JS did for Town Meeting and will include in the RFQ. RP asked for clarification of the ability of a second architect to take over the work done by the first architect without obstacles. RR responded that the RFQ would have specific language requiring that the first architect waive all claims to their work if they are not chosen for continuance and that that work becomes the property of the Town. Thus, any contract made with the first architect would include this provision, having been explicitly stated in the RFQ. A general discussion ensued about how the second architect would assume full responsibility for the finished design, including any carry-over from the first architect and will conduct their own review of that work for their own protection. RP further asked if the eligibility of the first architect for the final phases would discourage other architects from competitively bidding for those phases. TT responded that in Massachusetts, designer service selection must be based on qualifications alone, not on competitive bidding. - RG asked if there was a way to structure the RFQ to allow construction of a schematic design that could be used for an alternate scaled-back project if the original schematic design was not accepted by the voters (voting for full design and construction fees via the second override election). RR responded that he didn't think so, since asking for an alternate design was essentially asking for two designs. Preparing a comprehensive renovation was quite different from preparing a minimum list of repairs that must be done, he explained. Other members added their thoughts that they hoped that the schematic design produced could have some residual uses for future alternate plans if such plans become necessary. However, it was understood that the single design produced in the schematic phase would most likely not be able to stand on its own in a truncated version as a solution to the RMHS problems; some re-design would be required. TT commented that the RFQ should specify amounts of materials to be produced for Town uses (documents, electronic files, etc.), including presentations. He suggested holding some of the $450K for contingencies that might arise, such as geotechnical investigations, saying that such an idea should be checked with Town Counsel. He also asked RR if he would coordinate the legal requirements of the RFQ with Town Counsel, which RR said he had already initiated. RG asked that the Town Manager be included in those discussions. RG relayed the invitation of the Board of Selectmen to the SBC-to attend theirmeeting in - - Town Hall later that evening where an initiative to place an override question of the April 2nd ballot for road improvements was scheduled to be discussed. The BOS apparently Reading School Building Committee Meeting A-linutes ff•oni February 5. 2002 felt that the SBC should have the opportunity to give their thoughts on that matter since it involves another request to the taxpayers for added revenue for a specific purpose and may have an impact on the results of the SBC's override initiative. JS passed out copies of sample questions to be answered that he drew up in response to the idea of producing an informational flyer to be produced in a Q & A format (copy attached). He briefly described the questions as an attempt to predict the most likely ones the Committee can expect from people who haven't been following the Committee's deliberations. He noted that the mailer will have to be concise in its content to be effective and the questions and answers contained in it will have to be short and to the point. These questions and any others that come up were deemed to be the subject of later discussion after individual review. - RG commented that a question he has often been asked is when the project would be completed. AM commented that in regards to the question of how much will the project cost, he felt that a range of probable costs should be presented. This generated a discussion of whether or not to give actual cost projections or to state that such predictions would be little more than guessing without the specific information sought through the schematic design, giving no cost range. Comments included doubt that any qualifications expressed while giving a cost projection would be remembered as well as the belief that such a basic question deserved an answer, no matter how uncertain that answer would be. TT suggested giving examples of what similar projects have cost other communities as an attempt to illustrate probable cost ranges. It was felt that going beyond the information discussed in committee would not be prudent, as an error in a cost projection (either way) would not be acceptable to the general public under any circumstances. Dr. Harutunian (Supt. - Reading Public Schools) made a brief appearance and was asked to reserve time for evening meetings by the SBC with interested voters at both middle schools, the Library, the Senior Center and the high school. The high school meeting was to be an open house held between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on the Saturday before the April 2nd election (March 30th) if possible. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. TT so moved, noting that the Committee would reconvene at the BOS meeting in Town Hall at 9:30 p.m. This was seconded by DL. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 9:10 p.m.). (Author's note: many members of the Committee did attend the BOS meeting, but were not called back into session. Refer to the minutes of the BOS for February 5, 2002 for further deliberations) Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee Reading School Buildinq Committee Preliminary Questions and Answers for Informational Flyer - February 5 2002 1. Question: What are the problems with RMHS? Answer: [outline physical plant issues, code issues, enrollment expectations, accreditation issues, programmatic deficiencies, etc.] 2. Question: How much will it cost (me?)? Answer: [specific answer unknown, but study of minimum options points to $40M project cost range (Option B. 9). Major goal of schematic design is to quantify project costs with more confidence. Per household estimates firm only for cost of schematics.] 3. Question: What's the point of'doing a schematic design? Could this money be wasted? Answer: [explain need to satisfy SBA regulations only recently made known, which are different from rules under which feasibility studies were done. Size and scope of project demand accurate estimates under recent market conditions. Phasing plan a critical issue produced in schematic phase. "What will be done?" and "How to do it?" questions are answered and are graphically displayable. Money would be wasted only if none of the schematic design information produced is used for the eventual solution, which is unlikely] 4. Question: How did the high school get in the shape it's in? Who's responsible? Answer: [recount history of RMHS construction, upgrades and studies. Distinguish between maintenance (operating) and renovation (capital improvements), recounting budget decisions on both. Responsibility is the Town's, since it is Reading's capital asset.] 5. Question: What happens when the schematic design is completed? Answer: [explain similar two-vote process next year, starting with the SBC before Town Meeting and winding up with a debt-exclusion override for full design and construction funds. Point out importance of knowing what you're voting for and how schematic design will inform you before that override vote. Emphasize -deliberate -step-by-step procedure of getting to that vote, of which the - schematic design is a major stepping-stone] RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 1 02/04/02 ~~ZS S' ? ti~N v 0 1 SCOPE OF THE WORK 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. • 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. • Previously prepared feasibility studies (1997 and 2000). • Interviews with current maintenance staff. • Review of existing conditions through the use of extensive on-site - investigative time for review of physical conditions, confirmation of measurements, review of systems configuration and layout, etc. 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. 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, etc. • Documentation of facility structural systems. • 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. - Documentationof existing installed security and technology systems. - - • Review of current applicable code and regulation compliance. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 2 02/04/02 • Review of current conditions as to the conformance of the facility to State and federal handicapped accessibility codes and regulations. • 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 3. Health, Safety and Environmental Review: • Hazardous materials review..... this needs writing..... • Review of air quality...... this needs writing..... 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. L • Schedules of existing finishes in each room or space with notation as to physical condition (eg new, good, fair, poor, etc.) • Architectural exterior elevations of building exterior. • 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.. The Architect and his Consultants shall review and confirm, through systematic staff interviews, interaction with the. School Building Committee, School administration, etc., the following at a minimum: • Confirmation of existing student enrollment. • Confirmation of projected enrollment for 10 years, through the use of need help here... 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, 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. Detailed listing of proposed spaces, their required adjacencies, and required configuration and space needs in terms of educational equipment. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 3 02/04/02 • 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 issued that should be addressed in any renovation project. 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 • Electrical Consultant • Security Consultant • Technology Consultant • Geotechnical 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 criteria are in addition to the generally understood goals of the design of a facility renovation that meets the physical and educational needs of the RMHS 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 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. • 4 The project shall include upgrades to structural systems as needed to meet current seismic codes." 0 0 The project shall include solutions for handicapped accessibility to all RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 4 02/04/02 • 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. 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. One 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, one line diagrams of proposed system upgrades (all required trades), 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 and elevations suitable for use as a part of a potential capital override campaign for the overall project. This will include at least two 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. 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 RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 5 02/04/02 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. Future Work 0 To be written........ RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 1 02/04/02 F-6 bkj S') CrN U SCOPE OF THE WORK 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. • 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. • Previously prepared feasibility studies (1997 and 2000). • Interviews with current maintenance staff. • Review of existing conditions through the use of extensive on-site investigative time for review of physical conditions, confirmation of measurements, review of systems configuration and layout, etc. 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. 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, etc. • Documentation of facility structural systems. • 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. 0 Review of current applicable code and regulation compliance. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 2 02/04/02 • Review of current conditions as to the conformance of the facility to State and federal handicapped accessibility codes and regulations. • 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 3. Health, Safety and Environmental Review: • Hazardous materials review..... this needs writing..... • Review of air quality...... this needs writing..... 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. V • Schedules of existing finishes in each room or space with notation as to physical condition (eg new, good, fair, poor, etc.) • Architectural exterior elevations of building exterior. • 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.. The Architect and his Consultants shall review and confirm, through systematic staff interviews, interaction with the, School Building Committee, School administration, etc., the following at a minimum: • Confirmation of existing student enrollment. • Confirmation of projected enrollment for 10 years, through the use of need help here... 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, 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. • Detailed listing of proposed spaces, their required adjacencies, and required configuration and space needs in terms of educational equipment. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 3 02/04/02 • 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 issued that should be addressed in any renovation project. 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 • Electrical Consultant • Security Consultant • Technology Consultant • Geotechnical 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 criteria are in addition to the generally understood goals of the design of a facility renovation that meets the physical and educational needs of the RMHS 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 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. • Jhe project shall include upgrades to structural systems as needed to meet current seismic codes." 0 The project shall include solutions for handicapped accessibility to all areas as required by State and Federal Codes and regulations. RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 4 02/04/02 • 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. 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. One 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, one line diagrams of proposed system upgrades (all required trades), 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 and elevations suitable for use as a part of a potential capital override campaign for the overall project. This will include at least two 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. 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 RMHS Schematic Design RFP draft work scope page 5 02/04/02 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. Future Work • To be written........