Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-30 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReadinq School Building Committee (In the Superintendent's Conference Room in RM Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Rich Radville (RR) Bill Carroll (BC) Paula Perry (PP) Alex McRae (AM) Tim Twomey (TT) Ray Porter (RP) Jeff Struble (JS) Michael Scarpitto (MS) p/t Featured Guests: Dr. Harry Harutunian (Staff) Frank Orlando (Staff) Cheryl O'Brien (Staff) Representatives from The Design Partnership of Cambridge, Representatives from HMFH Architects, Inc. (HMFH) Representatives from Flansburgh Associates, Inc. (FAI) RECEIVED 7-OWN CLERK R ACING, MASS. 12 P !e I b Inc. (TDPC) RG began by saying that the purpose of the meeting was to conduct interviews with the three architectural firms that were chosen by the Committee for further consideration in producing a schematic design for the renovation of Reading Memorial High School (chosen at the 5/21/02 SBC meeting). First, however, he informed the Committee that Selectman Rick Shubert had been appointed by the Board of Selectmen to act as liaison between the BOS and the SBC during the RMHS project. RG said that the order of the interviews would be to hear The Design Partnership of Cambridge at 7:00, HMFH Architects, Inc. at 8:00 and Flansburgh Associates, Inc. at 9:00. TDPC arrived and gave their presentation, led by David Finney, AIA, President. [Note: the presentations have not been transcribed as the Committee took no action during them. Questions by SBC members after the presentations are transcribed, as are the answers.] RR asked how (specifically) would the faculty and administration be approached to extract programmatic needs information. TDPC answered that they would reconstruct the master schedule for the high school and interview as many of the faculty and administration as they could. They would project space needs and go over the possibilities with the staff and put together options. They would present the options to the staff and start the Reading .School Building Committee lWeeting Alinutes fi-om May 30, 2002 process over, refining the options in an iterative fashion until the most successful options remain. Frank Orlando asked if any ideas would be brought in from outside RMHS, and TPDC answered affirmatively and gave examples of doing so on past projects of theirs. - PP asked if TPDC had any ideas regarding involving the community in the renovation design process. They answered that they would put information about the process out in many different media (Internet, print, etc.) and focus on groups who had a specific interest in the building (arts groups, athletic groups, etc.). They stressed doing this at all stages of the design process. RG asked if they had experience producing options for communities that were concerned about solving problems like Reading's, but only if the solution could be viewed as "reasonable" (with varying definitions of what that would be). TPDC said they did have experience there and noted that showing what the alternatives would be was the way to demonstrate .'reasonableness", particularly in regards to costs and benefits. - TT thanked TPDC for their efforts in preparing for the interview. He asked what role they saw themselves playing as architects to embellish the project beyond just solutions to the many functional problems of the school, such as aesthetically, visually, etc. that might energize the project. TPDC answered that they hadn't yet considered that role, given the functional concerns. They thought that creating major changes to previously overlooked areas might be what they would strive for and gave examples of such transformations from past projects. AM asked if TPDC thought that the goals outlined in the RFQ were either too ambitious or too shortsighted. They answered that they thought the RFQ was far-sighted as far as goals and criteria without tying the architect's hands to any preconceived solutions. This would allow full exploration of multiple approaches to a solution and would increase the chances of finding the best one. - With no further questions being asked, RG thanked TPDC for coming and for all their hard work in preparing for the interview. HMFH arrived and gave their presentation, led by George Metzger, AIA, Principal. RR repeated his previous question (to TDPC) and asked how (specifically) would the faculty and administration be approached to extract programmatic needs information. HMFH answered that they use the school's present master schedule as a starting point to see how the spaces are presently used, analyzing it for efficiency and comparing it to State guidelines. They would then interview the faculty and staff in small groups to determine what - - - - - the separate needs of each educator was. They then pool that information ' into a presentation back to larger groups of staff to begin to assemble a --'J school-wide aggregate of needs which could be molded into options with further rounds of (small group) interviews and (large group) reports. Reading, School Building Committee Meeting Minutes ftom Mcry 30, 2002 TT repeated his previous question (after thanking HMFH for their efforts) and asked what role they saw themselves playing as architects to embellish the project beyond just solutions to the many functional problems of the school, such as aesthetically, visually, etc, that might energize the project and engage the larger, non-school community. HMFH answered that they recognized the value of a community's high school beyond providing education as a community resource. They felt that part of the complexity of high school design was incorporating attractive and useful design elements that served the expanded community, giving examples of recreation facilities and performance spaces (auditoriums) as such elements. They would interview interested outside parties if they came forward to hear what they would like to have in a renovated high school. They gave an example of a regional high school they designed in the mid-west that became the focus of the three separate communities it served, drawing those communities together as the building was planned and constructed. RG noted in HMFH's response to the RFQ that they mentioned the possibility of showing the SBA that not restricting the renovation to the existing building footprint (via additions) might be more cost-effective than staying within it. He asked if they could give some examples of doing so in their past experience. They responded by describing Natick High School as a project that was initially sent to the SBA as a complex, no-addition scheme and was later revised to include a major addition that greatly simplified the construction and phasing, cost no more than the original scheme and improved the educational value of the finished product. They said the SBA accepted the new scheme for review (not approved as yet) and stated that they were not averse to additions to large buildings if they had educational value and reduced the financial risk of the State's reimbursement. HMFH had contacted the SBA about their discouragement of additions to RMHS and were told that if a solid case could be made for them (based on educational benefit and cost), they would review it. AM asked if HMFH felt that the goals presented in the RFQ and the tentative schedule attached to it were realistic and achievable. They answered that the thought the goals were realistic and do-able within the schedule presented. They cautioned, however, that they foresaw intensive work being required over the coming summer interviewing the faculty and administration to define the programmatic goals. This would be in order to define options in the early fall. Their mechanical consultant also stressed the need to research existing mechanical conditions over the summer, since maintaining and refurbishing the mechanical services was such a critical component of the phasing program. With no further questions being asked, RG thanked HMFH for coming and for all their hard work in preparing for the interview. FAI arrived and gave their presentation, led by David Soleau, AIA, President. Frank Orlando asked a question _about _how FAI would engage the staff and - - - determine what they felt the educational issues were. They answered that they would use interviews and discussion groups to bring the faculty into the process and continually revisit them when choices are being made to get their views. They said that it would take a measure of leadership to form a Readi~ .School Building Committee Meeting Minutes ff,oni .My 30, 2002 consensus among the staff about what programmatic items are crucial and what must be cut, because incorporating every staff member's vision of RMHS' future would not be affordable. - TT asked if Sid Bowen (Principal, FAI) would perform the same role he played when directing the elementary school project some years ago on Fai's RMHS design team. Mr. Soleau replied that he would be the managing principal for the project with the same responsibilities he had in the previous project. PP thanked FAI for their work in preparation for the interview and asked if they had any ideas regarding how to involve the community in the renovation design process. They answered that they would establish a web page to keep the public informed of what is going on with the renovation design. They would write frequent press releases and use cable television as means of communication with the community. They would attend community meetings (large and small) as needed to provide information. AM asked if FAI thought that anything was overlooked or overstressed in the RFQ regarding goals and to comment on the schedule as tentatively presented. FAI thought that perhaps the level of investigation sought to ascertain the condition of mechanical systems might not be necessary at the schematic design level for the reason that their condition and code- compliance can be reliably predicted by their age and type. Full exposition of them would not change their treatment in the final analysis, so confirming what is already known about them might be a waste of time and money at the schematic stage. They also thought that the project could be readied for full submission to SBA in the summer of 2003 (after approval by the Town in a debt-exclusion election) with little additional effort. This would be desirable to advance a formal dialogue with the State about the project and to place Reading on the reimbursement list as soon as possible. - With no further questions being asked, RG thanked FAI for coming and for all their hard work in preparing for the interview. RG asked DL to report on the sub-committee's final rankings of the candidates that showed the three interviewees as the most favorable ones (DL served as Chair of that sub-committee). DL reiterated that due to his non-numerical scoring of the candidates, a straight numerical averaging of combined scores from the three sub-committee members was not possible. DL had placed his top eight choices in an order of preference. The sub-committee had therefore taken the rank orders of each member (first through eighth) and averaged them to come to a final ranking. In descending order, this ranking became as follows; 1. HMFH Architects, Inc. 2. Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 3. The Design Partnership of Cambridge 4. The Office of Michael Rosenfeld Drummey Rosane Anderson 6. Strekalovsky & Hoit 7. Kaestle Boos 8. Symmes Maini McKee Associates Reading School Building Committee Aleetin , Alinutes frvir1 Ahty 30, 2002 RG then asked if after hearing the interviews with the top three, would the sub- committee members keep those respective rankings. He also asked the other Committee members for their rankings as well. DL said that he would change the order of the three candidates to FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third. He gave his reasoning for this re-ordering, saying that he looked for the candidates to address the specific topics mentioned in the interview letter (see 5/21/02 minutes). While all the presentations were quite good, he felt that FAI had zeroed in the best on the substance of the topics they were requested to address, followed by TPDC and HMFH. He felt comfortable that they would challenge the Committee on their expectations and desired schedule if they felt they were overly ambitious. - JS recused himself from further deliberations on architect selection and did not offer any comments on ranking or selection. RR said that he had changed his ranking upon listening to the three interviews. He said that while HMFH is known for their excellent work, they failed to demonstrate their capabilities in their presentation and interview. TDPC made a very fine technical analysis of the situation at RMHS, he said, and had the experience to bring their technical skills to bear on the high school project. But he felt that FAI had the same skills and had addressed the educational issues involved more thoughtfully than had TDPC, leading him to believe that they would work better with the staff to achieve a solution that would improve the educational program at RMHS more effectively than the others. He also ranked the three interviewees as FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third. TT commented that he felt HMFH was a better firm than their presentation showed and was disappointed at their performance in the interview. He felt TPDC performed better than he had expected. He noted that TDPC had focussed on solving the technical issues involved. He felt that all the firms interviewed had the technical expertise to solve the physical problems of the school. However, he thought that FAI, by taking so much of their allotted time to talk about improving the learning environment, had shown that they understood the value of the renovations to Reading's educational system. He rated the three firms FAI, TDPC and HMFH (1St, 2na and 3rd) RP began by suggesting that it would be beneficial to interview other candidates in the "second tier" of ranked firms. Regarding the three interviewees, he leaned towards TDPC due to their grasp of the problems of RMHS and their suggestions for re-using existing spaces like the girl's gym and the rear of the cafeteria for phasing. He felt that HMFH did not perform in their interview to the same level of expertise that they demonstrated in their written response to the RFQ. He ranked the interviewees as TDPC first, FAI second and HMFH third. - AM enumerated various pros and cons of each interviewee. He noted that HMFH had the weakest presentation of the three yet had the best written response, in his view. He felt FAI and TDPC had both given fine presentations, with FAI having strong personalities and a positive approach to the project while TDPC offered straightforward development of various .Readira,= S'chool.Buileling Connnittee iWeetin}; minutes from .May 30, 2002 choices for the Committee based on solid groundwork researching the problems of RMHS. He wondered if there would be any problems with a firm like FAI that could have up to three Reading school projects going at the same time if they were selected. He also wondered if it was right to judge HMFH as less desirable simply because their presentation was not as impressive as the other two. He concluded that he would be happy with any of the three interviewees and ranked them essentially equal to each other. RG began by stating that he thought judging HMFH's presentation was a valid criteria for acceptance or rejection since they would be called on many times to put together presentations for other bodies in town if selected and must be able to perform satisfactorily. He noted that TDPC and FAI had presented themselves very well in contrast and was struck with the fact that TDPC had put together a preliminary phasing plan as part of their talk. He thought that this went perhaps too far on too little information. Regarding FAI, he commented that their concentration on the educational benefits that could be derived from a renovation seemed to fit the desired goals of the community best. He ranked the candidates FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third. PP agreed with previous comments by RG in saying that the presentations were valid points for judgement and that TPDC had surprised her with a tentative phasing plan so early in the process. Their phasing work-up had, however, impressed upon her the complexity of producing a phasing plan. FAI's ability to work successfully with Reading school staffs and their competence in developing and presenting their work for community viewing was very important to her. She ranked the firms FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third, noting that she had no desire to interview more candidates since she felt she had heard from the "cream of the crop". BC expressed disappointment with HMFH's presentation but reacted favorably to both TDPC and FAI. Both of those firms brought the personnel that would be doing the fieldwork and he liked them both. While he said that he was impressed with the results that TDPC had brought to the Parker Middle School project, FAI's focus on the educational improvements possible impressed him more and so he rated the firms FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third. - MS declined to rate the candidates since he could not be present to hear TDPC's presentation. Dr. Harutunian said that he expected the interview process would be an opportunity for architects to demonstrate how they might apply their creativity to describe approaches to the high school's problems. He felt he did not see that in HMFH's presentation and noted their lack of specificity to Reading's project. He felt he did see that in TDPC and FAI. Regarding TDPC, he thought their interview went better than he had expected. As far as FAI was concerned, he thought they demonstrated a thorough knowledge of what Reading needs and expects with its school projects He rated the firms FAI - - - first, TDPC second and HMFH third. Frank Orlando expressed his appreciation of past projects that he is personally familiar with that were done by both FAI and TDPC. Yet he Reading School Building- Committee Meeting Alinutes f •oni .A,1~ry 30, 2002 quickly ranked the firms as FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third and said he did so in direct proportion to the attention they paid before the interviews to the educational program of the high school. He felt FAI had done the most to seek out the concerns and operations of the high school staff of the three interviewees and had translated that knowledge into a succinct presentation for the Committee. They listened to Mr. Orlando's phasing concerns and appeared to understand them when formulating ideas that went into their talk. Consequently, TDPC had shown some concern about the ed. program while HMFH had not shown very much in their preparations. Hence, his rankings. RG said that FAI asked him before they responded to the RFQ if they should not participate due to the events that have occurred on their previous Reading project, the new elementary school at Dividence Road. RG told them that he felt the Committee's charge was to pick the best firm from those available to do the work and if FAI thought they could do it, they should not avoid participating. Further, to the point raised about FAI handling up to three Reading projects at once, RG asked RR, TT and Dr. Harutunian if the multiple projects would be of concern. All said that FAI was large enough to handle the work and had done so in several other communities. Their description of their upcoming workload also showed no overload of projects. When asked, AM declined to order his rankings of the candidates, stating that his tallying of pros and cons had shown a statistical "dead heat" and reiterated his belief that any of the three interviewees would be acceptable in his view. He added that he did not feel TDPC had gone too far in presenting a conceptual phasing plan; that it was stated as conjecture and he had taken it as such. RR concurred with AM. RG noted that the aggregate ranking of the three interviewees differed from the sub- committee's ranking (among Committee members, six ranked them FAI / TDPC / HMFH, one ranked them TDPC / FAI / HMFH, one ranked them equally and two declined to participate). Given the preponderance of favor for FAI, he called for a formal motion, stating that he would take no comments from non-Committee members. - RR responded, saying that he'd "like to move that the School Building Committee award the contract for the schematic design of Reading Memorial High School to Flansburgh Associates." DL seconded the motion. RP asked if he could amend the motion to check more references for FAI before voting. JS said that in his work as a sub-committee member, he had checked four references for FAI and found no negative comments to report to the Committee. RG asked if RP had any specific references in regards to his amendment. RP said he recalled news articles regarding controversial projects that FAI had worked on and thought that some references that were not listed in FAI's brochure should be checked, but he did not have anything specific "right now." JS commented that one of his reference checks was to the former chair of the - Andover School Building Committee and he was told a great deal about the - circumstances that surrounded the Andover High School project, which was considered controversial at the time of its construction (over four years ago). The former chair explained that the project had a very constricted schedule and was given to FAI to complete after being produced under another firm's Reading School Building Connnittee Meeting Minutes front Mq 30, 2002 feasibility study. Although not blameless in some of the errors and omissions that occurred on that project, FAI did perform well in seeing that the final building was done to Andover's satisfaction and the former chair said he would recommend them to the RSBC for Reading's high school project without hesitation. He noted that there were a number of various other entities involved in the controversy, including his committee, the general contractor, sub-contractors and consultants and did not involve only FAI. JS commented that after talking with the former chair (and speaking from his own experience), he thought additional reference checks of controversial projects would likely reveal similar multi-entity involvement in the problems that created the controversies. RG asked RP for clarification of his amendment and its effect on the main motion (to appoint FAI as architect for the project). RP sought to make the motion conditional on the satisfactory checking of additional (un-specified) references that had experienced controversies involving FAI. RG called for a second to the amendment, received none, and the amendment did not make it to the table. - RG called for any additional comments regarding the main motion. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the result was seven in favor, one opposed and two abstaining. Hence, the motion passed. A general discussion ensued regarding notification of FAI, TDPC and HMFH as to their status and to the production of a schedule to follow for following FAI's progress. It was decided to allow FAI to begin discussions with the staff and administration immediately and the SBC would call a meeting after that process had been established and was on- going. Observer Linda Phillips read a list of items concerning FAI; • The managing principal of FAI, Sidney Bowen, was not a registered architect in Massachusetts, • FAI had been investigated for accessibility problems in a number of schools, • FAI had been sued during the Andover High School and apparently agreed to some culpability for a mistake, paying for it, • In Westwood, FAI and Sidney Bowen were named in a breach of contract suit, • FAI is involved in a pending lawsuit in Salem, • Mrs. Phillips felt the schools FAI did not list as references were more revealing than the ones they did list (in Everett, Easton, Lynn, Belmont). She said Mashpee had disqualified FAI because they withheld information concerning Belmont. There was significant water leak damage to an FAI school in Salem. • She noted that FAI had submitted an older form of the required state designer form than the one used by other respondents, • She said she had concerns about FAI using its marketing expertise to promote the project to the Town, since she thought that was an improper use of taxpayer funds. Reading S"chool.Building Committee Meeting h~ir2utes frt~nt .May 30, 2002 RG thanked Mrs. Phillips for her opinions. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. TT so moved and was seconded by DL. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 11:10 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee RECEIVED Reading School Building Committee TOWN CLERK DING, MASS. Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on May 30, 2002, 7:30 .m. (In the Superintendent's Conference Room in RM JUL 12 P 1: f b Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Rich Radville (RR) Bill Carroll (BC) Paula Perry (PP) Alex McRae (AM) Tim Twomey (TT) Ray Porter (RP) Jeff Struble (JS) Michael Scarpitto (MS) p/t Featured Guests: Dr. Harry Harutunian (Staff) Frank Orlando (Staff) Cheryl O'Brien (Staff) Representatives from The Design Partnership of Cambridge, Inc. (TDPC) Representatives from HMFH Architects, Inc. (HMFH) Representatives from Flansburgh Associates, Inc. (FAI) RG began by saying that the purpose of the meeting was to conduct interviews with the three architectural firms that were chosen by the Committee for further consideration in producing a schematic design for the renovation of Reading Memorial High School (chosen at the 5/21/02 SBC meeting). First, however, he informed the Committee that Selectman Rick Shubert had been appointed by the Board of Selectmen to act as liaison between the BOS and the SBC during the RMHS project. RG said that the order of the interviews would be to hear The Design Partnership of Cambridge at 7:00, HMFH Architects, Inc. at 8:00 and Flansburgh Associates, Inc. at 9:00. TDPC arrived and gave their presentation, led by David Finney, AIA, President. [Note: the presentations have not been transcribed as the Committee took no action during them. Questions by SBC members after the presentations are transcribed, as are the answers.] RR asked how (specifically) would the faculty and administration be approached to extract programmatic needs information. TDPC answered that they would reconstruct the master schedule for the high school and interview as many of the faculty and administration as they could. They would project space needs and go over the possibilities with the staff and put together options. They would present the options to the staff and start the Readinsr.School Building Committee Xleeting Minutes f om. May 30, 2002 process over, refining the options in an iterative fashion until the most successful options remain. Frank Orlando asked if any ideas would be brought in from outside RMHS, and TPDC answered affirmatively and gave examples of doing so on past projects of theirs. - PP asked if TPDC had any ideas regarding involving the community in the renovation design process. They answered that they would put information about the process out in many different media (Internet, print, etc.) and focus on groups who had a specific interest in the building (arts groups, athletic groups, etc.). They stressed doing this at all stages of the design process. RG asked if they had experience producing options for communities that were concerned about solving problems like Reading's, but only if the solution could be viewed as "reasonable" (with varying definitions of what that would be). TPDC said they did have experience there and noted that showing what the alternatives would be was the way to demonstrate "reasonableness", particularly in regards to costs and benefits. - TT thanked TPDC for their efforts in preparing for the interview. He asked what role they saw themselves playing as architects to embellish the project beyond just solutions to the many functional problems of the school, such as aesthetically, visually, etc. that might energize the project. TPDC answered that they hadn't yet considered that role, given the functional concerns. They thought that creating major changes to previously overlooked areas might be what they would strive for and gave examples of such transformations from past projects. AM asked if TPDC thought that the goals outlined in the RFQ were either too ambitious or too shortsighted. They answered that they thought the RFQ was far-sighted as far as goals and criteria without tying the architect's hands to any preconceived solutions. This would allow full exploration of multiple approaches to a solution and would increase the chances of finding the best one. - With no further questions being asked, RG thanked TPDC for coming and for all their hard work in preparing for the interview. HMFH arrived and gave their presentation, led by George Metzger, AIA, Principal. - RR repeated his previous question (to TDPC) and asked how (specifically) would the faculty and administration be approached to extract programmatic needs information. HMFH answered that they use the school's present master schedule as a starting point to see how the spaces are presently used, analyzing it for efficiency and comparing it to State guidelines. They would then interview the faculty and staff in small groups to determine what the separate needs of each educator was. They then pool that information into a presentation back to larger groups of staff to begin to assemble a school-wide aggregate of needs which could be molded into options with further rounds of (small group) interviews and (large group) reports. Reading School Building Committee Meeting illinutes fr-oni May 30, 2002 TT repeated his previous question (after thanking HMFH for their efforts) and asked what role they saw themselves playing as architects to embellish the project beyond just solutions to the many functional problems of the school, such as aesthetically, visually, etc, that might energize the project and engage the larger, non-school community. HMFH answered that they recognized the value of a community's high school beyond providing education as a community resource. They felt that part of the complexity of high school design was incorporating attractive and useful design elements that served the expanded community, giving examples of recreation facilities and performance spaces (auditoriums) as such elements. They would interview interested outside parties if they came forward to hear what they would like to have in a renovated high school. They gave an example of a regional high school they designed in the mid-west that became the focus of the three separate communities it served, drawing those communities together as the building was planned and constructed. RG noted in HMFH's response to the RFQ that they mentioned the possibility of showing the SBA that not restricting the renovation to the existing building footprint (via additions) might be more cost-effective than staying within it. He asked if they could give some examples of doing so in their past experience. They responded by describing Natick High School as a project that was initially sent to the SBA as a complex, no-addition scheme and was later revised to include a major addition that greatly simplified the construction and phasing, cost no more than the original scheme and improved the educational value of the finished product. They said the SBA accepted the - new scheme for review (not approved as yet) and stated that they were not averse to additions to large buildings if they had educational value and reduced the financial risk of the State's reimbursement. HMFH had contacted the SBA about their discouragement of additions to RMHS and were told that if a solid case could be made for them (based on educational benefit and cost), they would review it. AM asked if HMFH felt that the goals presented in the RFQ and the tentative schedule attached to it were realistic and achievable. They answered that the thought the goals were realistic and do-able within the schedule presented. They cautioned, however, that they foresaw intensive work being required over the coming summer interviewing the faculty and administration to define the programmatic goals. This would be in order to define options in the early fall. Their mechanical consultant also stressed the need to research existing mechanical conditions over the summer, since maintaining and refurbishing the mechanical services was such a critical component of the phasing program. With no further questions being asked, RG thanked HMFH for coming and for all their hard work in preparing for the interview. FAI arrived and gave their presentation, led by David Soleau, AIA, President. Frank Orlando asked a question about how FAI would engage the staff and determine what they felt the educational issues were. They answered that they would use interviews and discussion groups to bring the faculty into the process and continually revisit them when choices are being made to get their views. They said that it would take a measure of leadership to form a Readhln School Building- Committee Aleeting Alinutes ftonr Naafi, 30, 2002 consensus among the staff about what programmatic items are crucial and what must be cut, because incorporating every staff member's vision of RMHS' future would not be affordable. - TT asked if Sid Bowen (Principal, FAI) would perform the same role he played when directing the elementary school project some years ago on Fai's RMHS design team. Mr. Soleau replied that he would be the managing principal for the project with the same responsibilities he had in the previous project. PP thanked FAI for their work in preparation for the interview and asked if they had any ideas regarding how to involve the community in the renovation design process. They answered that they would establish a web page to keep the public informed of what is going on with the renovation design. They would write frequent press releases and use cable television as means of communication with the community. They would attend community meetings (large and small) as needed to provide information. AM asked if FAI thought that anything was overlooked or overstressed in the RFQ regarding goals and to comment on the schedule as tentatively presented. FAI thought that perhaps the level of investigation sought to ascertain the condition of mechanical systems might not be necessary at the schematic design level for the reason that their condition and code- compliance can be reliably predicted by their age and type. Full exposition of them would not change their treatment in the final analysis, so confirming what is already known about them might be a waste of time and money at the schematic stage. They also thought that the project could be readied for full submission to SBA in the summer of 2003 (after approval by the Town in a debt-exclusion election) with little additional effort. This would be desirable to advance a formal dialogue with the State about the project and to place Reading on the reimbursement list as soon as possible. - With no further questions being asked, RG thanked FAI for coming and for all their hard work in preparing for the interview. RG asked DL to report on the sub-committee's final rankings of the candidates that showed the three interviewees as the most favorable ones (DL served as Chair of that sub-committee). DL reiterated that due to his non-numerical scoring of the candidates, a straight numerical averaging of combined scores from the three sub-committee members was not possible. DL had placed his top eight choices in an order of preference. The sub-committee had therefore taken the rank orders of each member (first through eighth) and averaged them to come to a final ranking. In descending order, this ranking became as follows; 1. HMFH Architects, Inc. 2. Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 3. The Design Partnership of Cambridge 4. The Office of Michael Rosenfeld 5. Drummey Rosane Anderson 6. Strekalovsky & Hoit 7. Kaestle Boos 8. Symmes Maini McKee Associates Reading School Building Committee .Xfeeting Adirautes fi rnr .ATcry 30, 2002 RG then asked if after hearing the interviews with the top three, would the sub- committee members keep those respective rankings. He also asked the other Committee members for their rankings as well. DL said that he would change the order of the three candidates to FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third. He gave his reasoning for this re-ordering, saying that he looked for the candidates to address the specific topics mentioned in the interview letter (see 5/21/02 minutes). While all the presentations were quite good, he felt that FAI had zeroed in the best on the substance of the topics they were requested to address, followed by TPDC and HMFH. He felt comfortable that they would challenge the Committee on their expectations and desired schedule if they felt they were overly ambitious. - JS recused himself from further deliberations on architect selection and did not offer any comments on ranking or selection. RR said that he had changed his ranking upon listening to the three interviews. He said that while HMFH is known for their excellent work, they failed to demonstrate their capabilities in their presentation and interview. TDPC made a very fine technical analysis of the situation at RMHS, he said, and had the experience to bring their technical skills to bear on the high school project. But he felt that FAI had the same skills and had addressed the educational issues involved more thoughtfully than had TDPC, leading him to believe that they would work better with the staff to achieve a solution that would improve the educational program at RMHS more effectively than the others. He also 'ranked the three interviewees as FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third. TT commented that he felt HMFH was a better firm than their presentation showed and was disappointed at their performance in the interview. He felt TPDC performed better than he had expected. He noted that TDPC had focussed on solving the technical issues involved. He felt that all the firms interviewed had the technical expertise to solve the physical problems of the school. However, he thought that FAI, by taking so much of their allotted time to talk about improving the learning environment, had shown that they understood the value of the renovations to Reading's educational system. He rated the three firms FAI, TDPC and HMFH (1", 2nd and Td). RP began by suggesting that it would be beneficial to interview other candidates in the "second tier" of ranked firms. Regarding the three interviewees, he leaned towards TDPC due to their grasp of the problems of RMHS and their suggestions for re-using existing spaces like the girl's gym and the rear of the cafeteria for phasing. He felt that HMFH did not perform in their interview to the same level of expertise that they demonstrated in their written response to the RFQ. He ranked the interviewees as TDPC first, FAI second and HMFH third. AM enumerated various pros and cons of each interviewee. He noted that HMFH had the weakest presentation of the three yet had the best written response, in his view. He felt FAI and TDPC had both given fine presentations, with FAI having strong personalities and a positive approach to the project while TDPC offered straightforward development of various .Reading,S'ehool.l Bidding Committee Meeting; Uinutes f vni .M(T 30, 2002 choices for the Committee based on solid groundwork researching the problems of RMHS. He wondered if there would be any problems with a firm like FAI that could have up to three Reading school projects going at the same time if they were selected. He also wondered if it was right to judge HMFH as less desirable simply because their presentation was not as impressive as the other two. He concluded that he would be happy with any of the three interviewees and ranked them essentially equal to each other. RG began by stating that he thought judging HMFH's presentation was a valid criteria for acceptance or rejection since they would be called on many times to put together presentations for other bodies in town if selected and must be able to perform satisfactorily. He noted that TDPC and FAI had presented themselves very well in contrast and was struck with the fact that TDPC had put together a preliminary phasing plan as part of their talk. He thought that this went perhaps too far on too little information. Regarding FAI, he commented that their concentration on the educational benefits that could be derived from a renovation seemed to fit the desired goals of the community best. He ranked the candidates FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third. PP agreed with previous comments by RG in saying that the presentations were valid points for judgement and that TPDC had surprised her with a tentative phasing plan so early in the process. Their phasing work-up had, however, impressed upon her the complexity of producing a phasing plan. FAI's ability to work successfully with Reading school staffs and their competence in developing and presenting their work for community viewing was very important to her. She ranked the firms FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third, noting that she had no desire to interview more candidates since she felt she had heard from the "cream of the crop". BC expressed disappointment with HMFH's presentation but reacted favorably to both TDPC and FAI. Both of those firms brought the personnel that would be doing the fieldwork and he liked them both. While he said that he was impressed with the results that TDPC had brought to the Parker Middle School project, FAI's focus on the educational improvements possible impressed him more and so he rated the firms FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third. - MS declined to rate the candidates since he could not be present to hear TDPC's presentation. Dr. Harutunian said that he expected the interview process would be an opportunity for architects to demonstrate how they might apply their creativity to describe approaches to the high school's problems. He felt he did not see that in HMFH's presentation and noted their lack of specificity to Reading's project. He felt he did see that in TDPC and FAI. Regarding TDPC, he thought their interview went better than he had expected. As far as FAI was concerned, he thought they demonstrated a thorough knowledge of what Reading needs and expects with its school projects. He rated the firms FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third. Frank Orlando expressed his appreciation of past projects that he is personally familiar with that were done by both FAI and TDPC. Yet he Beading Sehool -Building Committee ;'Meeting Alinutes ftom AAD, 30, 2002 quickly ranked the firms as FAI first, TDPC second and HMFH third and said he did so in direct proportion to the attention they paid before the interviews to the educational program of the high school. He felt FAI had done the most to seek out the concerns and operations of the high school staff of the three interviewees and had translated that knowledge into a succinct presentation for the Committee. They listened to Mr. Orlando's phasing concerns and appeared to understand them when formulating ideas that went into their talk. Consequently, TDPC had shown some concern about the ed. program while HMFH had not shown very much in their preparations. Hence, his rankings. RG said that FAI asked him before they responded to the RFQ if they should not participate due to the events that have occurred on their previous Reading project, the new elementary school at Dividence Road. RG told them that he felt the Committee's charge was to pick the best firm from those available to do the work and if FAI thought they could do it, they should not avoid participating. Further, to the point raised about FAI handling up to three Reading projects at once, RG asked RR, TT and Dr. Harutunian if the multiple projects would be of concern. All said that FAI was large enough to handle the work and had done so in several other communities. Their description of their upcoming workload also showed no overload of projects. When asked, AM declined to order his rankings of the candidates, stating that his tallying of pros and cons had shown a statistical "dead heat" and reiterated his belief that any of the three interviewees would be acceptable in his view. He added that he did not feel TDPC had gone too far in presenting a conceptual phasing plan; that it was stated as conjecture and he had taken it as such. RR concurred with AM. RG noted that the aggregate ranking of the three interviewees differed from the sub- committee's ranking (among Committee members, six ranked them FAI / TDPC / HMFH, one ranked them TDPC / FAI / HMFH, one ranked them equally and two declined to participate). Given the preponderance of favor for FAI, he called for a formal motion, stating that he would take no comments from non-Committee members. - RR responded, saying that he'd "like to move that the School Building Committee award the contract for the schematic design of Reading Memorial High School to Flansburgh Associates." DL seconded the motion. RP asked if he could amend the motion to check more references for FAI before voting. JS said that in his work as a sub-committee member, he had checked four references for FAI and found no negative comments to report to the Committee. RG asked if RP had any specific references in regards to his amendment. RP said he recalled news articles regarding controversial projects that FAI had worked on and thought that some references that were not listed in FAI's brochure should be checked, but he did not have anything specific "right now." - JS commented that one of his reference checks was to the former chair of the Andover School Building Committee and he was told a great deal about the circumstances that surrounded the Andover High School project, which was considered controversial at the time of its construction (over four years ago). The former chair explained that the project had a very constricted schedule and was given to FAI to complete after being produced under another firm's ReadingSchool Building Committee rVeeting Minutes front May 30, 2002 feasibility study. Although not blameless in some of the errors and omissions that occurred on that project, FAI did perform well in seeing that the final building was done to Andover's satisfaction and the former chair said he would recommend them to the RSBC for Reading's high school project without hesitation. He noted that there were a number of various other entities involved in the controversy, including his committee, the general contractor, sub-contractors and consultants and did not involve only FAI. JS commented that after talking with the former chair (and speaking from his own experience), he thought additional reference checks of controversial projects would likely reveal similar multi-entity involvement in the problems that created the controversies. RG asked RP for clarification of his amendment and its effect on the main motion (to appoint FAI as architect for the project). RP sought to make the motion conditional on the satisfactory checking of additional (un-specified) references that had experienced controversies involving FAI. RG called for a second to the amendment, received none, and the amendment did not make it to the table. - RG called for any additional comments regarding the main motion. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the result was seven in favor, one opposed and two abstaining. Hence, the motion passed. A general discussion ensued regarding notification of FAI, TDPC and HMFH as to their status and to the production of a schedule to follow for following FAI's progress. It was decided to allow FAI to begin discussions with the staff and administration immediately and the SBC would call a meeting after that process had been established and was on- going. Observer Linda Phillips read a list of items concerning FAI; • The managing principal of FAI, Sidney Bowen, was not a registered architect in Massachusetts, • FAI had been investigated for accessibility problems in a number of schools, • FAI had been sued during the Andover High School and apparently agreed to some culpability for a mistake, paying for it, • In Westwood, FAI and Sidney Bowen were named in a breach of contract suit, • FAI is involved in a pending lawsuit in Salem, • Mrs. Phillips felt the schools FAI did not list as references were more revealing than the ones they did list (in Everett, Easton, Lynn, Belmont). She said Mashpee had disqualified FAI because they withheld information concerning Belmont. There was significant water leak damage to an FAI school in Salem. • She noted that FAI had submitted an older form of the required state designer form than the one used by other respondents, • She said she had concerns about FAI using its marketing expertise to promote the project to the Town, since she thought that was an improper ' use of taxpayer funds. Reading School.Building Committee Meeting Minutes f,om .XMy 30, 2002 RG thanked Mrs. Phillips for her opinions. 9 With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. TT so moved and was seconded by DL. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 11:10 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: k15 Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee