WALTHAM SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE Waltham, Massachusetts MINUTES

June 27, 2016

The Waltham School Building Committee convened at 5:30 p.m. at Waltham High School. Present were the following members: Drew Echelson, John Frassica, Leanne Wilcinski, Paul Centofanti, Donald Cusano, John Pinzone, Joseph Pedulla, Nadene Stein, George Frost, David King, Fabrizio Caruso, Amy Brown, Donald Cusano and Colette Casey-Brenner. Also in attendance were Jeffery Luxenberg, Bill Cunniff and Karlis Keuten from NV5 and Lorraine Finnegan from SMMA. Mr. Maiorano and Mr. DeMeo were not in attendance. Minutes of the June 13, 2016 Meeting

VOTED: On motion of Mr. Frassica, seconded by Mr. Pinzone, to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2016 meeting. Dr. Echelson informed the Committee that he and Mr. DeMeo met with the City Council on June 20th to provide them with an update on the high school project. Forwarded for the Council’s information were maps, charts and data on the three sites under consideration. Four dates have been selected for public forums: Monday, August 15 th at 6:30 p.m.; Thursday, September 1st at 10:00 a.m.; Tuesday, September 13th at 6:30 p.m. and Wednesday, September 28th at 6:30 p.m. School Building Committee Members are encouraged to attend.

CM-Risk and Design-Bid-Build Discussion

Mr. Pedulla presented a PPT on DBB construction and his thoughts on the disadvantages of the CM-Risk method. Disadvantages include a CMR is selected before the cost of the project is known, the City absorbs 100% of the financial risk, conditions creating change orders is built into the GMP, the GMP even once decided includes a long list of exclusions. Mr. Pedulla pointed out that as of March 2015 55.3% of all high school projects were constructed using the DBB method and that CM-R can result in a 15-20% higher final cost to the project. Mr. Pedulla acknowledged two advantages to the CM-R method are the additional 1% reimbursement from the MSBA and the cooperative process that is established between the designer and the GC, permitting construction to begin early in the design process. Mr. Pedulla presented his preferences for the DBB method of construction. The financial responsibility is carried by the GC and there is no shortage of firms that would be eligible for the project. MSBA will give the 1% incentive to the GC under the DBB method. Mr. Luxenberg reviewed documents on CM-R and DBB presented by NV5 at previous meetings. Advantages are the CM-R is involved early in the process to work with the designer, the City does not have to go with the lowest bidder, and the fee is set and cannot increase. All subcontractors and their bids are transparent with CM-R and the City may exclude or add any subs. With the DBB method the City is not able to see the bids. DCAM certification is required for CM-R. With DBB any GC who is not on the certified list will need to create a joint venture, which is especially true for a large project. Mr. Luxenberg continued that the schedule can be an issue with either method, but one advantage with CM-R is that an early site package can be established.

MINUTES

CM-Risk and Design-Bid-Build Discussion

-2-

June 27, 2016

Ms. Finnegan stated that SMMA does not have a preference, they will look at the type, complexity and scale of the project and noted there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods. In either case SMMA will pre-qualify and review contractors who have experience working on schools and are familiar with MA public bid laws. In summary, Ms. Finnegan stated a project of this scope and with the complexity of the site, the City should apply for a CM-R. The pre-qualify committee will be composed of an architect, the OPM and two members of the building committee. Dr. Echelson opened up the meeting for questions and discussion. Ms. Wilcinski pointed out the GC sees the plans when they are done and cannot make any changes as opposed to having the CM-R involved early with the designer to give recommendations and offer changes. Mr. Centofanti commented that with a good architect, designer and OPM the responsibility will lie with them and he is not convinced there is an advantage to having the GC involved early in the process. Mr. Cusano inquired about change orders not included in the scope of work. Mr. Caruso has worked with both methods and at the $200 million threshold strongly recommends CM-R. He continued that it is an advantage to have the CM-R involved early in the design development phase to keep the project on track and on budget. Mayor McCarthy had numerous questions regarding the hiring and oversight of the CM-R. The Mayor was informed the fee for the CM-R is generally 2-3% of the construction cost, 2.5% for the OPM and 10% is the usual fee for the architects. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding MSBA guidelines, limits on change orders and hiring a value engineer. Dr. Echelson called for a voice vote to submit an application to the Inspector General’s Office for a CM-R: Mr. Centofanti, no; Mr. Pedulla, no; Ms. Brown, yes; Mr. Cusano, no; Mr. Caruso, yes; Ms. Wilcinski, yes; Mr. Frost, no; Mr. Frassica, no; Mr. Pinzone, no; Mr. King, yes; Dr. Stein, yes; Dr. Echelson, yes; Ms. Casey-Brenner, no; Mayor McCarthy abstained. The vote did not pass. SMMA will provide information on municipalities who have used both CM-R and DBB so the committee may do their own research. Mayor McCarthy left the meeting at 7:31 p.m. Dr. Echelson tabled the remainder of the agenda. VOTED: On motion of Ms. Brown, seconded by Mr. Pedulla, to adjourn at 7:32 p.m.

Marian K. Parrella Clerk