Then um we will go ahead and get started um a couple minutes late for the um Tuesday, May 20th meeting of the elementary school building committee for the Charleswood school project. Um I
will go ahead and uh go through the agenda. Uh I will note for those watching obviously we're just doing a bit of a sound check. We do have some remote voting members uh tonight. So, we will be uh running this as a hybrid meeting per the governor's regulations.
All of the votes we take tonight will be done via roll call vote. So, uh tonight the first thing we're going to do is um after our public comment period, we're going to review construction bids for building and we will potentially make a
motion to issue an intent to award and negotiate a construction contract with a vendor. Um, we will then turn back and do our admin work on minutes and invoices. We'll get an update on the project budget. Then we will review and make motions around builder's risk
insurance. Um, Vertex's amendment for testing and inspections. Um, CO approval process and additional service amendment number nine um for geotechnical observation, geothermal and surveying of wetlands flagging. We'll then get a
couple of updates on Concom's revised order of conditions as well as a butter mitigations and the roadway improvements. So, going to be a packed one tonight. Got a lot to cover. So, let's go ahead and get started. I will look to Chris. Sir, first we have our
opportunity for public comment. I don't see anyone in the room. I mean, you're both residents, but you're here to make any public comments. Um, and I don't think we have anybody online, so we will move past public comment, but we'll leave open the
possibility of going back to it should anyone show up. Uh, next we will move to review construction bids for building. And I will turn this over to Chris Everly. Thanks, John. Um, before we jump into that, I did want while they both declined, I would like to highlight that
both of the Hopington residents joining us tonight are also part of the Vert.Ex X project team. Um so with us is Steve Divine who will be our construction site manager. He's fulfilling the same role as George McMahon is at the Hopkins School currently and he'll be on the
project through its duration. Also joining us for the summer is another Hopington resident, Theo Abernathy. So Theo is a Wentworth co-op student who has joined us for the summer as well and will be splitting part of his time also helping us on both of our Hopington projects. So, we wanted to introduce
them to the committee and um we thought we'd have them join us tonight so that you all got a chance to meet them. Um I'd like to push one thing out of order because I think it makes sense. So, I pushed the update on project budget a little bit higher so that it fits into
what we're talking about tonight. Um I thought a good place to start was with where we were in February when we reviewed the 90% estimate. If you recall, we talked about the um construction budget at that time was about 8.7 million below the budget. And
we also talked, excuse me, about a couple of the things that were over budget. So, we were trending high on furnishings. We discussed that at that time. We were trending under on tech, excuse me, technology. And we also discussed potentially adding a little
bit extra for facilities maintenance equipment. Um we at that time didn't have the utility fees. Um and we also at that time were carrying an owner's contingency and a construction contingency. So overall we were trending about 18.5 million under
the budget um or under the estimate at that time in terms of money that was available. We did receive bids from three of our six pre-qualified biders, and the lowest bid was Great Builders
Corporation at uh $ 101.9 million. Um, second to them was WT Rich at $105.8 million and Fontaine was above them at $106.75 million. Um, all three of them
also provided prices for the alternate. So, with the alternate um of 370,000, which was for the turf, um Great Building Corporation was still the lowest bidder at a total bid of $12.27
million. Um with us tonight is Bob Bra. He is um I forget your role, Bob, but he is uh a member of Braate Builder Corporation um who is the low bidder as we currently stand. So, we looked at this construction bid as it relates to
some of the information that we've previously shown you, such as the estimate, and um there's no way to underell this. This is a great bid for the town. Um the bid itself came in at
11.8 million under budget. And even with the turf alternate, you're still looking at being 11.4 for or 10% under your budget or I'm sorry, under your estimate that we had in February. Um, that comes to a grand total of $584 per square
foot, which is significantly below anything that we're seeing in any of our other communities at this time. It's a great bid for the town. And even with conservatively ballparking $3 million for the street improvements, because the estimate was below that, um you're still
in the position to be about $10.9 million under your um last estimate. When we look at this in terms of how it fits your budget, which was what was authorized by the citizens of Hopington,
um your construction bid with the money for the street improvements, um the ballparked 3 million in there as well is $19.6 million under the what was budgeted. So, you have a significant amount of money available um remaining
in that budget. And even when we take those same values that we just talked about from our February discussion about overages in um FFN and underages in technology and the um back charge that came from Eversource that was approved at a prior meeting, we're currently
looking at being significantly under the budget. Um I'll remind you that we do have two contingencies in the budget. We have a $6.2 $2 million construction contingency and an owner's contingency of 3.7 for soft costs. And so when you
take those contingencies into account, we are looking at being having about 2.8 or $29.8 million available for change orders or um scope or being refunded back to the taxpayers or I should say
that a different way, not borrowed. Yeah. Um for the taxpayers. That's better. Which means that the impact that was shared for this project is going to be much lower than was originally forecast. And things that were um discussed but not quite uh decided on
like moving forward with moving the modular from um Elmwood when Elwood shut down over to Hopkins. There is plenty of money available to handle any of those contingencies that the committee chooses to move forward. So this can
And there's no other way to put it. This is about as great of a bid as the town could receive. That being said, and forgive me, Bob, um the the system we have in
Massachusetts lends itself to change orders. The public bidding system um has a very stringent standard for the designers and a very stringent standard for the documents. And change orders are not a well hopefully we don't have any
or the architect made errors. They're just a fact of life. Unforeseen conditions come up. The standard of care is around 1% change orders. So it's typical that there will be change orders that come up over time as you get into things that come up. But with this bid
result, and we'll talk about how to deal with some of those change orders a little later on. with this bid result, you're in an excellent position to move forward with the project and award to the low bidder. I mean, it's obviously great news. Um,
you know, I appreciate that the clarification at the end because again, this does not mean we are guaranteeing that the project comes in under, you know, that that far under budget. Um, change orders are a large part of this process. And just for the the public's benefit who has not been through one of
these projects before, when we talk about change orders, they're typically things that are discovered through the process that require changes to the original the agreed upon scope in the bid. These are not the committee is going to find things that would be nice to have add-ons that we're going to put
into the project. It's not um you know want to make sure we're clear about what those are because the committee is continually um focused on making sure we bring this in for the most fiscally responsible numbers. So so thank you Chris um and um
welcome Bob. I appreciate you joining uh through this process. So I'll open it up for questions from the committee um either uh here or or online. Go ahead, Mike. Again, I I want to thank
everybody that's worked so hard to this point and Bob as well. And welcome to the team. And well, we haven't voted yet. We haven't voted yet. We haven't voted. We haven't voted yet. And uh also the guy that's in Greece. This should be good news for him since he's a number
cruncher. And uh this will be good. Yeah. And I I noticed or noted that all three bids came in below the estimate, which is which is what you want. Um so again, great great work by the team. Um really happy to see those
numbers. Um yeah, so yeah, really happy. Bill and Chris. Hey, like everyone else, very happy and pleased um for all the work that that's
been done so far and and u great news, especially on the fact that we won't have to borrow as much money as we initially thought and it was approved. So, um hopefully we'll keep this good vibe going over the next couple of years.
Um Okay. Well, so one more note if you don't mind. Um, for the benefit of the committee, your MSBA reimbursement is a portion of the cost. And we talked a lot about the different things that go into the MSBA
um reimbursement. In your scenario, you have saved a significant amount of money and so you are going to be closer to the caps that you were previously exceeding in terms of that money that you're
saving. We won't know for certain until the schedule of values is developed. We understand the breakdown of the building versus the site work exactly where that MSBA reimbursement falls. But in the same way that you are saving significant amount of money, less money is going to
be reimbursed proportionally. And so as a proportion of construction, it's possible that that number could be higher if more of it is building costs than site costs as we get into that breakdown. So you could as a percentage
of the overall cost be doing a little bit better, but in all cases it's less money than you were originally thinking you would receive, but it's also less money that you're going to ultimately be spending. And so some people can be surprised when you get your the next
stage of the MSBA process is what's called the um project funding agreement bid amendment. And some people can be surprised when that comes in and suddenly the number is lower than what it was before, but that's because it's a function of how much you're saving on
the overall cost of the project. Yeah. No, that's important clarification. Thank you. Um but obviously materially we're still going to be well below what the town was expecting to spend back in November when this was approved.
Um, last thing potentially before we take a vote, I'm just thinking that as people digest this, um, I'm going to do one of those things where I'm going to say what I think is right and let you guys tell me if I'm stupid or not. Is people might be looking at this and saying, "Well, why did why did we come
in with an ask at town meeting that was so far over what we ended up seeing?" Um, I think this is reflective of we were we've been in pretty unprecedented volatile times when it comes to costing these things between the hyperinflation that happened between all the factors
that have been going on that affect building projects financially and that this was based on the the best estimates that we could have seen in November and we happily are in a much better economic time for a customer than we were in
November. I think there's a couple of factors out there, that being one of them. Um, so one of the factors is that what we've seen across the process since this was voted at town meeting, which is that the escalation that we thought
would occur at that time has not matured to the level that we thought it would. And so with that escalation lowering, it's lowered the estimates. I think the your project hit the market at a specific time and in a specific way in
that it is a um it doesn't have any weird complications. We're not building adjacent to a school. It's not a messy ad rena. It doesn't have a weird phasing. And so the market looks at those types of projects as more advantageous for them. And so they may
go after them more aggressively. I think we also are seeing a little bit of the economy come into play in terms of if I'm a contractor that's used to doing hund00 million jobs, I would much rather
have a hund00 million job than not have a hund00 million job. And I think um while I'm sure Bob wishes he had been a few million higher, um I think when you look at the bids that we received, they're all reflective of a marketplace
that aggressively went after this project and wanted to land it. And so the town as a result is benefiting from that right now. Okay, great. I think all the bids were within what 5% of each other. Um the rates bid was might have
been a little bit lower, but the other two were very close to one another. Yeah. A good sign. Yeah. The RFIs that we received, I think Dan, you'd agree, people were clearly sharpening their pencils and making sure that they question, every possible question that
they could. Yeah. As they were um preparing their bids. Okay. Given that the spread is not wide between the three bids, it just shows that the documents were good. They were good design documents.
So the motion that Chris has put on the screen before I I seek a motion for it, I just want to get validation from the committee of one aspect of it, which is at the last meeting, I think maybe two meetings ago, we talked about uh a
solution for the um the grass, the green space between the playgrounds of and switching that to artificial turf to to make it uh easier to to maintain and uh in and around those areas. Um that came
in at $370,000. Um are we comfortable as a committee before again I seek the motion in keeping that alternate in there and and putting the $370,000 for that turf small turf field.
I'm good. You good? I'm good too. Okay, Bill and Chris. Yeah, I'm good as well. Yes. Okay. That being the case, I would then seek a motion to accept a bid of Breate Builders Corporation in the
amount of 102,270,000 inclusive of alternate one and to award the construction contract for the Charleswood Elementary School to them following successful contract negotiations. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. I have a motion by
Mike, a second by Jack Root. As I said, we are a roll call vote. Um, let's we'll start on the Zoom. Chris, yes. Bill, yes. Mike, yes, sir. Jagroot? Yes. And I am a yes. So, it is unanimous um five to
zero. And uh I'll echo Mike's welcoming Bob and Bright Builders to the team for this project. We look forward to working with you. Um, and again, can't say enough of gratitude to the teams at at Vert.Ex and Perkins Eastman for all the
work that went into this bid process. Um, I I saw maybe a fraction of the questions that came in and I know that the team was really diligent in responding to them and clarifying where they needed and made this process, at least from a the town standpoint, as as
smooth as it could possibly be. So, we are are very thankful for that. Um, and this is a really significant moment in this project. Uh, we now have somebody who is officially going to build this building. So, it is exciting. And pending se successful contract pending
successful contract negotiation. I'm just I'm just eternally optimistic. Um, and uh, now we get to start, you know, we we'll start talking about things like groundbreaking and schedule and things like that. So, uh, very exciting. And again, thank you to everybody on the
teams and on the ESPC and and the school um for making all of this happen. Okay. So, so next was minutes in um in this minutes and Okay. So, uh we have minutes from
our last meeting which was April 15, 2025. Are there any questions or comments on the minutes? Hearing none, I would seek a motion to approve the meeting minutes of April 15, 2025 as included in the agenda
materials. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the minutes of April 15, 2025 as written. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. I have a motion by Mike, second by Jack Root. Um, we'll start out on the Zoom again. Bill, yes. Chris,
yes. Mike. Yes, sir. Jagger. Yes. And I am a yes. So those minutes are approved. Um next we have bills to pay. So uh in our invoice package we have one two three four five invoices. So we have an
invoice OPM11637 from Vert.Ex in the amount of $33,333.33. We have an invoice from Perkins Eastman, invoice number 009542100000017 in the amount of $388,500. We have an invoice from Local
IQ New England uh invoice number 0000720350 in the amount of $128.70. And we have two invoices from Lucas Environmental 25-098 and 25-099 in the amounts of $270 and $90
respectfully um respectively. Um and that is a total invoice amount of $422,322.3. Any questions or comments on the invoices? Okay. Hearing none, I would seek a
motion to approve the invoice package in the amount of $422,322.3. So moved. Second, Mr. Chair. Okay. Motion by Jack group. Second by Mike Bill. Yes. Chris, did you lose Chris?
Still listed. Okay, we'll come back to him. Mike. Yes, sir. Ju. Yes. And I am a Yes. One more time on Chris. Okay. Sorry, I the screen was frozen for about 30 seconds there. Yes. Okay. No problem. All right. then it is
unanimously approved five to zero. Um Susan, I will get the signed uh invoice package over to you this evening. Thank you. All right. And then moving right along, we then flip to builder risk
insurance proposal. So everybody loves insurance, so this is going to be captivating. Um so the we worked with the town's um insurer which is uh Mia or Cabat Risk is the agent that the town works with. Um we reached out to them
directly provided the information they solicited proposals for builder's risk. Um the way that they typically work is their first choice is handover insurance company. It is um consistently the best price that they can get. When we did the
Hopkins project, they declined to cover that because it was an occupied building, but they were able to actually give us um we were told to expect it would could take six to seven weeks to get a proposal, and they got us a proposal in less than 6 days. So, um
it's a it's a reasonable proposal. It's slightly higher than the budget amount. So, um, within the budget that went to town meeting, we had set aside 250,000 for, um, insurance, but one of the things that we've seen since that
time across all projects is that there's been a precipitous increase in the overall cost of insurance. I think any of you who have gotten your annual renewal have probably seen that same thing. And so um they came back to us with two scenarios
um that we could consider. The first was had to do with the deductible. So in the documents that were presented um to the biders, we said we would use a $50,000 deductible and that was consistent with what we saw at Hopkins and it's also
part of what the MSBA asked us to carry as part of their insurance outline that came with the project scope and budget agreement. The alternative would to do would be to do a $25,000 deductible for an increase of
$7,081. Um, in discussing with the working group, they recommended that we pick up that higher deductible. It's a relatively small amount that has a significant if you had two claims, you'd more than make it up um over the course
of the project. Um the second part was what's called TRIA coverage and I don't remember the exact acronym but it relates to um terrorism and related risk. And so we did pick that option up at the Hopkins uh school and it was
recommended we pick it up here as well. Picking up both of those options you would end up with a proposal for $32,189. Um, and the one thing that I did not specify in the motion I wrote on the screen, but I would ask you to also
suggest um, is that the, uh, balance from your budget would come from owner's contingency. Yeah. And you you you kind of hit on this, but important to note when we talk about the deductible, that's a per incident deductible, correct? Uh, yes.
Um, okay. Any questions about this proposal? Could you clarify if multiple proposals were received? Um the so again we're working directly with the town's
um insurer and they from their experience tell us that um when they seek the proposals if handover gives them a price they don't seek another price because it's never better. That
was what we heard from um uh the the town's insurer and that's they're that they've told us that on multiple projects in the past, this town and in others because um the insurer it's really the town's insurance agent and so
they deal with the town's whole insurance package as part of um what the the work they do for the town. you would have the option if you chose to ask um your contractor once they're under contract to seek a builder's risk
proposal to see if they could get a better price. Um but from what the MIA representative shared with us, he did not think that was likely to yield a better price. And in some of our past experience when we've looked at things
like this, um, sometimes you can't even get another price because if they've if an insurer has quoted for one agent, they won't quote again. Hey Chris, I have a couple questions. One is on a a project this size, what is
the history of how many incidences we've seen or the industry has seen? Um, whether it's two or three or four on again a project this size. Number two, what type of coverage are are we getting here that would affect the other issue
we talked about last time, and that is any potential damage um to neighbors in the area as they're building and constructing along the way. Um so, we're going to answer that second part a little later on, but I'm happy to answer
it now. So builder's risk coverage is essentially property insurance coverage for the site over the course of building the building. So if a scenario would be you get halfway through building the building, you've already paid for half
of the building and it burns down because of some accident that is um of unclear fault, the insurer would cover the cost to get you back to that point. Um,
the general liability is where the issue of like the neighbor says that your construction site cracked my foundation. And so it's general liability insurance at the through the contractor and also the town that would respond to any type
of um claim by a neighbor that the construction some somehow caused a problem for them that led to a claim. Um it wouldn't be general liability. It's harder to answer the how many
claims you get on a building this size because it varies by a number of factors. Um like most insurance it's um you know it's risk it's assumption of risk for a
cost. Um I can tell you that at the Hopkins school um we had one um we notified them of one potential claim and I think there was a second potential claim that occurred that would be covered under the same
policy. Um, and so that's been in construction less than a year and we had two claims and they were things like slipping on the ice in the school's parking lot because in that case the um because you're doing an ad reno on a
building, the builder's risk replaces your property insurance for both the building and the construction. So all those property insurance related claims similar to what you might see for a a homeowner's insurance policy um fall under that.
Thank you. Other questions? Um, yeah. So, again, the recommendation when we reviewed this, uh, I joined Chris in the meeting with the with the insurance agent and then we talked to the working group and the $25,000 deductible for the money given that it's
per incident. Seems like cheap money. Yeah, it's it seems like easy premium to spend. Um, as well as the TRIA, again, not not a huge amount of money. Um any uh does anybody feel strongly
otherwise that we should go with the 50,000? I'll take the silence as a no. And then I would seek a motion to accept the proposal for builder risk insurance from Hanover Insurance Company in the amount of $32,189. So moved. Mr. Chairman, if I could just
ask that you modify that to say and to transfer the balance of um from the budget from owner's contingency. You didn't write that up there. I know like Ron Bergen says on the I tried I I try to maintain level from owner's contingency um to from owner's
contingency. Okay. So, I would seek a motion to accept a proposal for builder's risk insurance from Hanover Insurance Company in the amount of $32,189 and to transfer the unbudgeted balance from our owner's contingency. So, move Mr. Chairman.
Second. Okay. Got a motion by Mike, second by Jagroot. Bill, yes. Chris, yes. Mike, yes, sir. Jagroot? Yes. And I'm a yes. So, we have approved that uh five to zero unanimously.
All right, moving on. Um Chris, do you want to take this one? Testing inspection. Um this was one of the packages that was sent out to the group. It's for the testing inspection um agent that we'll have throughout
construction. This is concrete, steel, and soils, not soil compaction, you know, the geotech. Um we reached out to three firms that we do um significant amount of work for and got proposals
based on a estimated units and um quantities to compare rates. And then we leveled those rates and um Yankee Engineering had the lowest rates for the most of the items that we
were um anticipating for this project. So our recommendation would be to go with Yankee Engineering. their proposal um based on being leveled with the other two that was UTS and
um the John um John Turner Consulting um was $29290 292 290 and that was to level it and then we marked that up because they'll be a consultant through us for the project and
um we're looking for a motion to approve um that selection. So this would be an amendment to Vertex and Vert.Ex would manage the consultant and so the 297 or
was it what it 2997 we have a $300,000 budget for testing and inspection. Yeah. And so this would be basically the town committing that budget for this purpose and it works out to uh I want to say it's what was it
$272,000 or somewhere around that of actual testing and inspection should we exceed that we always manage that to what we feel is appropriate and Steve Divine will be our main point of contact for managing that. Um, but should we
encounter more than we expect or something, it would be something we'd bring back to the committee. That budget's really an upset limit that we we try and manage against. Okay. Questions? Uh, will this include items like fire stopping
and so what I would re I'm all for it. I think it's fine, but I suggest that you forward Yankees proposal to the building department because the building official is the one that has, you know, says, "Yeah, I'll accept these guys or not.
I'm happy that you guys did the work and your recommendation is good enough for me, but don't don't leave out the building department because it's they're going to want the results of all these inspections as well." But uh and part of our normal process once we get someone
on board is to sit down with the contractor, subcontractors, site managers, and the building official to make sure they're all everybody's on the same page. Yep. That distribution list of who gets what test when. Yep. Great. You need a
motion. That's a good point. I do I have I have a quick quick question. Could you put that screen back up again and and walk me through the numbers? It looked about like a $7,000 increase yet you're calling for a 10% markup. Um, so the 292
is before markup, but um it to to answer your question, Bill, it the numbers on the screen are a function of trying to get a uh a rate sheet essentially from the various testing inspection agents. So we went out to all three of them with
our assumption of the number of tests and asked them to provide their rates. So they fill in their rates for each test in order to assess them one versus the other and make it apples to apples. What we'll do is a leveling that is represented in the information that was
in your packet. And that leveling establishes that to do this number of tests we forecast who ends up being the lowest. The actual authorized amount um is based on a 10% markup of their leveled amount, but that would be over
the 300,000 that was authorized based on our initial assessment. We always manage this to budget. And so if we decide to do more testing and that's going to exceed the budget, we'd have that conversation with the ESBC over the course of it. But um instead we adjusted
the quantities to stay within budget which is how we end up with the um the 299,997 that would end up in the amendment because that includes a 10% markup. So the actual upset limit that we would give to the testing and
inspection agent would be 10% less than that amount which trying to do it in my head it works out to like 272. The numbers in the letter that we sent you as part of your meeting packet. Yeah, I was going to say just to provide a little context, the the
adjusted from the fees, the next um lowest was 313,186 using the same quantities with different rates without markup. And then the third was much higher at
514,000. So, um do have one question. Um I see that the a lot of the bid rates are either daily rates, hourly rates or per test. One one of the challenges I face from time to
time on on these construction projects is lack of staff. So there's five different things going on and these testing firms sometimes they only have one or two people in the field and they're trying to do five different things. So that sometimes could could hurt the quality. So, was there an
indication provided by Yankee as as to their team and and what their capabilities are in terms of being able to staff multiple activities at the same time? So, one of the advantages of being an OPM that does hundreds of millions of
dollars of construction in the Commonwealth is that we have relationships with all of these firms. And um I personally have worked with Yankee um as recently as last year. And um similar to UTS that we have at
Hopkins um we have those relationships and it allows us if we're not getting service to you know have contacts that we can reach out to to address those concerns. Um I agree with you that you do if you're not careful and you don't actively manage them. You cannot end up
in situations where you say I'm paying for a 4hour minimum but the guy's only on site for 15 minutes. And there's times when a 4 hour minimum is only needs to be 15 minutes because of the nature of the test, but you're paying to have the guy available to come out.
There's other times where, you know, you really need him to be there that whole time. And we have um generally had success working with these folks as partners to make sure that they can fulfill um the the requirements that we need for the testing that we're
contracting with them. And I'll also say that we also have experience finding that they're inadequate and choosing to replace someone, not these firms, but a different firm um be for that reason.
And we have done that. And um at the end of the day, we treat your money as we would treat our own money and we won't accept the poor performance of a subcontractor in the same way that we have a high standard of per performance
for ourselves. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Hearing none, I would seek a motion to award testing and inspection services to Yankee Engineering as a subcontractor to Vert.Ex in the amount of
$299,997 via contract amendment to Vertex. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Second. Motion by Mike, second by Jag Root. Bill, yes. Chris, yes. Mike, yes, sir. Jagroot, yes. And I am a yes as well. So
unanimous. I don't know. Everybody said it's going to be a long meeting. We're moving moving along. Um so within your meeting packet, we circulated a memo that outlined a proposed process that we reviewed with the working group last
week. Um the as we stated, change orders in public construction are a reality. They're they're unavoidable to a certain degree. The law is tilted in the contractor's favor. And the other thing that we found with the same inflation that we've talked about is what used to
be a small dollar amount has now potentially increased to a much larger dollar amount. And so we adopted a policy the same as is outlined in your memo um with the school committee where we designated um staff people within the
um school committee or the school administration to serve as um people with authorization authority to move change orders along. Because the other reality of construction and change orders is that delay can cost you as
much or more than the change order itself. And so we find that establishing a process with the municipality at the beginning gives us um the flexibility that we need to move things forward. I think Susan can speak to how we've dealt
with this at Hopkins. Um that we are very forthcoming when issues come up. We um anything that we authorize, we make absolutely certain that we have discussed it with um the folks we need to discuss it with first. We are very responsible with what's been entrusted
to us on that project. And so we're proposing to follow a similar structure. Um the full details of that are in the memo that we provided to you um in the meeting packet. But to summarize, what we would ask is that you designate Susan
to be the ESBC liaison. She serves a similar role on the Hopkins project now which I think has uh worked successfully thus far. And we would ask because time is of the essence in this situation and because of the joint experience of John
and Mike, we would ask to designate each of them as ESBC approvers under the same memo. The um approach that we're um proposing boils down to setting a threshold of
$25,000 that would give vertex approval. We always reach out unless time is absolutely critical to the appropriate person within the town. In this case, it's usually Susan or uh Tim persons to make sure that you're on board with us
using our authority in those situations if we have that option and it's not going to cost more. Once you moved beyond that $25,000 threshold, um at the $25,000 to $75,000 threshold, we would look for the ESBC liaison or either Mike
or John to have the ability to approve that change order moving forward. What this does is it takes us out of the ESBC meeting cycle so that we don't have to wait potentially up to 30 days to come back or call emergency meetings to
authorize things. Once we move beyond that $75,000 threshold, we would look to have at least two of those three people on board with the change that's being proposed. When this is authorized, we
will be reporting especially on major changes specifically that were authorized in the previous 30 days, but we'll regularly provide you with a um proposed change order log, which is something that we generate during construction. And what that contains is
authorized change orders, estimated change orders, things that we think may lead to change orders so that you know that it's coming. and also anything we've been notified by the general contractor that is coming in terms of a change order. Um you would get that
update monthly and then um the memo alo also authorizes um John to sign change orders for anything that needs to move forward. If the contractor tells us, I need this I need the authorized contractual change order by this time
and that change the proposed change order was within his authority under this memo, then he would have the author the authority to sign that. Otherwise, we would be bringing the aggregate change orders back to the committee um for signature.
Yeah. So this is really just about expediency and it's all about expediency and this is our recommendation. If you would like to tweak any of the elements of this, we are certainly open to discussing that. Ultimately, this is based on um experience on other
projects. We we typically recommend a process such as this to move this um this stuff forward. And I I feel that this has been very successful um having implemented it on the Hopkins project with Susan in the same role.
It is working well for the Hopkins project just to weigh in. Appreciate that. Any questions or thoughts on this? I I think that Chris's statement at the beginning that potentially waiting to
approve a change order could cost more than the change order itself. Um, in a project like this, there there's not only the general contractor, but untold numbers of subcontractors and change are just a part of the the thing. And um I
you know I can't make a motion because I'm on the damn list, but the uh I I think not doing this would would would not help us at all. I think it's the right thing to do. I can make the motion. Okay, go for it.
Let's just read out the Oh, yeah. So, sorry. I'm seeking a motion to adopt the process outlined in construction cost changes authorization process memo dated May 20th, 2025. So moved. Um sec second. Thank you. And we have a
motion from Jag Groot, second from Bill. Bill, yes. Chris, yes. Mike, yes, sir. Jroot, yes. And I am a yes. So 5-0. Um, now we move on to
change order or another amendment. Um, so we talked about the Vert.Ex amendment for testing and inspection. We also have an amendment for Perkins Eastman. So, um, at the time that we negotiated their fee through CA, we covered sort of base services, but there were a few areas that we weren't prepared until we got to
this point to authorize. The first of these is actually a cleanup from what we authorized at the last meeting. So, we talked about authorizing um the survey of the wetlands flagging um would be coming at a future meeting and we had authorized the civil and um
environmental change order associated with that that became part of amendment 8. This would be that final survey cost for going out surveying the location of those wetlands flags and surveying the um inlet and outlet of the work that led
to our amended order of conditions. Um, it also contains um the on-site observation from the geotechnical engineer. It's common practice in a commercial building to have the geotechnical engineer observe the substrate um prior to the placement of
footings and also to have them observe some of the pavement to make sure that it's properly prepared so that you don't have long-term issues. Um, this would be an upset limit fee. So they would it would be build as incurred and it's based on a number of visits um estimated
based on the size of the project. So that would be for 44,500 plus the um 10% markup due to Perkins Eastman by contract. The third item is for the geotech or the geothermal engineer and this is based on
the idea of having um the a person on site during the well drilling assuming two wells will be drilled a day. Um so two crews operating together and um they would be on site for basically
uh assuming that that moves forward they would be on site to observe those two wells and then an additional 10 days. I think it works out to like 68 visits. Yeah. And so we did find um just to make the committee aware, we took a similar approach at Hopkins which only had 35
wells and proportionally we ended up with about 38 days there. So it is possible that depending on how the contractor chooses to approach the well draging drilling, this could lead to a need for more on-site um observation
during that process. and they're really there to um understand what's happening, advise on any issues that come up because the driller um typically comes with a um idle charge that is significant, you know, thousands of
dollars an hour. Um and so it's to minimize that type of disruption that can occur when you're drilling into essentially an unforeseen condition. Okay. So all together with the markup this comes to 187,880.
Any questions about this? Chris, is it reasonable to expect they'll have two rigs during the drilling process cuz it you know if they show up with one our 60 some odd days gets a whole lot longer. No, I you know you can't you
can't dictate their means and methods in a general contractor bid. I read this and my own take questioned the same thing. Um, in the end I thought it was appropriate to bring this to you
as proposed with the caveat that it could lead to more if we get issues like Hopkins. One of the issues that we had is that when they drilled all the the wells into the strata, they found that there were uh fissures below the ground.
So when they began pumping in grout, pumping in grout in this well would suddenly surge out of this well and so they they needed the engineering support to make sure that they could attack that efficiently and that led to extra days. But when I saw that the number of days proposed was double but the number of
wells is four times. I had that same thought. I'd rather start with this and come back to you if it's necessary. All right. So potentially we we could suspect should it take longer only one rig drills all of them it'll be longer and they'll be back for a change. Yeah.
And initially it was proposed as a lump sum. Yeah. Based on a number of visits and we thought it was more appropriate to do it as an upset limit. Okay. And they agreed. Other question for the for the geothermal. It says drilling and
installation. Uh how about commissioning? Is that is that separate or like um it's not so much uh it's there's commissioning is a weird word in that context. Um it typically includes observation of some of the testing and
the purging um of the piping and they certainly they came back and observed some of the the work we did when we tested at the wells. But um it's a sequence that we'll work out with uh braate to make sure that we
can we maximize the value of the engineer when they're on site. And if we think that they'll add value to the scenario and we've exhausted our our number of visits, we've we won't be shy about saying, "Hey, let's make sure he's here for this." At the same time, if
it's going exceptionally well and we're through the wells and the way that they buy out um the geothermal, their scope is more or less done. Like they might leave for a really long time and then just come back for one day of testing 6 months
later when we're actually connecting the building to make sure that the performance is still there. So yeah, their backup material does talk about pressure testing the individual circuits and then pressure testing the whole system. So if you picture it up to the
manifold, you know, that whole field work and then the commissioning will be on the inside. My question was more about would there be an engineer present during the for the pressure testing, the flushing, purging, all of that? It would be this
engineer, not necessarily the commissioning engineer. Yeah, that was my question. Thank you. Other questions? Okay. Hearing no more, I would seek a motion to approve Perkins Eastman
amendment 9 in the amount of $187,880. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Second. Okay. Motion by Mike, second by Jagroot. Bill, yes. Chris, yes. Mike, yes, sir. Jagroot? Yes. And I'm a yes.
So, it is approved. Okay. While I'm very voting, while I'm very respectful of the visual learners in the audience, I decided not to make slides for the next couple of uh items. Um, the first one I wanted to talk about is just an update of where we ended up
with Concom for those who couldn't attend the meeting. So, we did go back to Concom and we did resolve the amended order of conditions. Um, appreciation to Judy and Anna in um, town hall to make sure that they could get the amended
order of conditions to us quicker than their normal turnaround. um that allowed us to issue it as part of the agenda so that there's no opportunity to claim that something in those amended order of conditions was a change from the documents because they have it available
to them at the time of their bid. Um they also as part of that process agreed to issue exemption letters for the fencing and plantings of the um neighbors at 145 and 149 who were
captured in the buffer areas of that new identified stream. um which to the benefit of those two homeowners um will free them of the process of going through concom for those minor mitigations that are being provided that
the committee has previously voted on. So I think that's a positive development for them. Um I don't know if anyone else had any con comment on the um concom because otherwise it segus really well into the next item of about our
mitigations. Mhm. Um so we're preparing. We don't quite have them ready yet. Uh we're getting close. Um letters that we can send to the abutters. We've reached out to um town council and they've helped us in developing a license um format which was
uh provided to the contractor. contractor will need to have that license um issued to the homeowner which will state that they have permission to do the work on their property as well as ensuring that they have appropriate
insurance coverage. Um we'll include that with the information about what the committee has voted on for what those butter mitigations are and it really closes that um legal aspect of almost all of the abutter mitigations. There is one abut butter mitigation which is the
driveway that we discussed at 145 which will need a a formal um easement. Um but that would be at town meeting next year. So that's we have a little bit of time to pull that together. Um other than we're we're planning to move that
forward in the next week or so. Um, so the other piece of that is we did write into the general contractor that one of their initial steps is to stake the property at 147 Hayden Row because that's going to make sure that we can
resolve any issues um with why is this fence so close to my house? Who owns this? Who owns that? It'll also let us finalize some of those mitigations with both neighbors to ensure that we're being good neighbors to the um local um
residents as we begin construction. The other piece um is what Bill mentioned earlier about the uh survey of the neighbors. We did reach out and confirmed um the questions that were asked. There's no anticipated
general liability savings to the town for doing the home video survey. Um, we did reach out to uh firm uh Flavy, is it Valvy? Valvy. Um, who gave us a proposal to basically cover those nine homes at
about $250 a house. You would still need to reach out to those owners with some kind of letter, make the offer. They'd have to take you up on it. Um, John, I know you wanted to talk about this one um, a little bit more. Well, yeah, I
think we have to I mean, I think now that we have a proposal, we just have to decide if this is something we want to move forward with. Um, you know, the discussion at the last meeting was really I think was more around we'd like to see a proposal before we can really
weigh on it as a as a committee and make a a decision. Um, so I think now is probably the time for us to at least by consensus decide whether this is something we want to move forward with or not. Um, you know, I I'm I'll I'll lead off
and just say I I personally while it's a low number, um, it and I recognize that the the effort level is really on the vendor once we decide to go with this. um based on you know what's been described to us around the service and
the general uptake from from residents um it's not something I'm particularly inclined to do especially because I think the biggest thing it calls into question for this committee is how do we pick what's the reasonable range of houses near the site that we want to
that we want to do this for um and it feels like no matter where we land it's going to be a little um questionable so that's my feeling But certainly I'm only one member of the committee. So would love to hear other opinions. Another
issue if if it was eight or nine homeowners who would be in the neighborhood of uh $2,000 for the thing and and let's just say uh six of them offer it. So now it's a little bit more. It's like $1,500.
Um, but the two that own offer suddenly have cracks in their foundation and whatever that we didn't see, we couldn't take a picture of and of course now it's all about litigation and and settling a claim. Um, I
think, you know, while I I I think going out and and and trusting the eight people or nine people that are going to be up front, it's it's the one or two that you may not be able to trust that will claim the fine china fell off the shelf when you were vibrating or
compacting the gravel around the parking lot. I mean, it may not even be one of those eight people. It could be somebody on across town. Who knows? People do that kind of thing. So, I I kind of agree with John. I I'm you know, although I thought about it at first
when we initially talked about it, but you know, I think and again, it's shut money, but our job is to protect the town as much we can. And and um you know, I uh I I think, you know, if we do have a claim, it's it's more likely
going to be from somebody other than the eight or nine people that we take pictures of their foundation and find China. Um, so you know, we've got insurance and you know, it's it's part of the deal.
But that's just my two cents. Bill's Bill wants to say something. Well, I I'm going to default to uh, you know, Mike, you and John, because you've got experience in doing this, but I guess how do we make sure that the insurance that is uh, obtained does cover it? That
that's all I think any of us on the committee wants to see. I think a co coverage isn't necessarily the issue, right? This this would just mitigate us in potentially potentially mitigate us in a claim situation. The the
the process that Mia explained to us when we asked the question was that someone has a thing, they or their insurer would claim that it is the contractor or by the town hiring the
contractor. for the town and they would make a claim through the insurance companies to say this was or was not the town's fault. I happen to know because Vertex provides this service on our shity side that um there's analysis that
you can do based on the equipment that's being used, the estimated strata and the distance to determine how much a house would have shook from an engineering standpoint. And that's the type of thing that comes into play when these things come up. But you're still, you know, the
contractor carries general liability. It's really um he emphasized that it was really general liability for these types of things. So it's not a specific insurance that you would carry for this coming up. Um we've seen towns elect to do this, which I think we said last
time, and we've seen towns not elect to do this. And in both scenarios, we've seen what Mike's describing. Someone comes up and either didn't want the survey but has an issue or wasn't offered the survey and has an issue and wants to bring it up. So, when it when
it comes right down to it, it's really, you know, the ESBC in the town's decision whether this is worth it. It's I I'll be honest, it's from an administrative point, it's a lot simpler for us to not pursue this. our 10% markup on um FALV isn't really going to
pay the amount of time that we're going to spend trying to keep this going. So um but ultimately it's it's what the committee thinks is best. And I would also throw in there just from a a town practice perspective. So we we didn't do
this on Marathon. Yeah. Um I don't think I mean I don't even know what range we did they didn't do this for Hop Hopkins. I'm assuming they didn't do anything like that for the DPW. Yeah. So, this just isn't I mean this is not a typical practice that Hopington has done either
is what I would also add in there. And and my thought on this is while you know doing the survey does give good photographic documentation of certain aspects of a potential claim, there could be a range of things that that
could come up in a potential claim. So you may or may not have good documentation depending on what claim is being made. So that again you know brings into question the the usefulness of the survey. There might be some limited usefulness but
uh again I'm my my opinion is maybe not worth it. Okay. So, I think we're hearing no. I think it Yeah, I'm I'm hearing a consensus to not proceed, which I believe is what the working group
essentially came to as well. Okay. All right. For the visual learners in the audience, I have one more slide for you. Um, so, uh, we're still in discussion. As I mentioned, we have a placeholder for the street improvements. Um we're
finalizing the um process for moving the biddings forward for the street improvements. Um so in the next uh week, we're requesting prevailing wage and DOT um contractor pre-qualification. Uh we're setting up
well by the end of the month to advertise with the central register and follow that up with advertisements um as required for a chapter 30B project. Um we would look to get questions from the contractors in June by June 19th and
those would be um answered and uh we'd look to open the bid probably later. Um we we had the option to do it a little earlier but I think giving them a little more time given the scale of it makes sense. So around um July 10th we'd open the bid up to two weeks um to review
that bid and make sure that everything was in line with what we expected. So, we would expect in the middle or um latter half of July having a meeting like this to approve and award um the
contractor with the um for the street improvements and that would really close it. That's the last piece that will allow us to launch into the PFA bid amendment. Typically, from when the contractor bids, you have the MSBA will
tell you you have 60 days. We're likely to request an extension because the MSBA has confirmed for us that they would view the street improvements as part of the overall package. So, it needs to be part of that bid amendment as well. Any questions about that?
Any question? It's my understanding that we're still talking about the improvements being made late next spring, summer, correct? We're we're bidding it now. Um, we did receive word, that's part of my miscellaneous updates. Um, we did receive word from, uh,
Verizon, um, through the DPW that they had submitted for the poll relocation. So, we've asked BHB to confirm that for us. Um, and then we'll get back to the uh, DPW. The hope in doing it next summer is that we minimize the impact to
commuter and school traffic when the summer is typically lighter. And it's also so that we give Verizon, Eversource, and the other utilities as much of a landing strip to move their poles, get out of our way, and be ready
to go so that when we finally do the street improvement work, we're not waiting on them. That's optimism more than it's something I can control. But um my hope is that if they have, you know, 8 to 10 months to move two polls
or however many polls we end up needing to adjust that it um it gives them enough time to find a window to make that happen. We like optimism. We got an email today from the MSBA on the the bid amendment. I assume that's
what I just referenced. Yeah. Yeah. So that's the same thing we're talking about here. So typically their timeline their timeline's 60 days, right? We'll formally respond and ask for an extension based on what we're seeing for street improvements. Okay. With the hope that we can finalize it in late July,
early August. Okay, cool. Yeah. Their email said July 21st. And that just might be a little too tight to to make it work. Seems Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, that was why I wanted to ask because see like long as we can get that pushed out.
Um Okay. Any other questions on this? All right. All right. So, um apologies to the visual learners. We have one last item. Um uh so I want to make the committee aware
um but I would prefer not to discuss at any great length that we did receive two bid protests as part of the bidding process. Yeah, bid protests have become more common um in recent years and as
the market cools down and jobs become less plentiful, they also tend to pop up a little more frequently. Um the first one was fairly straightforward. We responded to it. It dealt with um what we believe to be a clerical error. Um
the uh protesting bidder um took their issue to the AG's office and the AG's bid unit responded denying their protest upholding our response which was that um the issue was a correctable clerical
error. Um they agreed with our position on that. The second one is a little more complicated um and is something that we are all seeing a lot more frequently which relates to a provision within chapter 149 um filed sub bidders
that's typically known as paragraph E or sub sub bidding. The intent of the law is to provide the awarding authority with information about who will be performing the construction labor on their job. if it is a large enough
contract that it would be subbed out by one of your filed sub bidder. The goal is that towns know when they accept a bid who will be doing the work. Um, it has been overly complicated the last few years as a result of some of the
decisions that have come out of the bid unit and also mixed with the fact that the myriad of technology and other things that have been introduced into public buildings is not as clearly defined as it once was when you were
just putting a few screws in a wall or some other related construction task. Interstate um is it Interstate Electric uh protested Griffin as the lowest bidder because they felt that Griffin
did not um or provided more information than they should have in the bid that they submitted. Um Griffin responded and I included both Interstate's protest and Griffin's initial response to Interstate
in the um the meeting packet. Um, we did engage town council for their opinion on that and the discussion is ongoing. I wanted to make the committee aware of it because it could potentially based on the decision that's made have an impact
on your ultimate bid price, but the process for how that is done is fairly um regimented by statute. Essentially, should the AG unit decide that um Griffin's bid should be thrown out, you
would then move to Interstates's bid. So, the difference between the two of them is slightly less than half a million dollars. But the in that scenario, if you haven't awarded, you would end up in a situation where the difference between the two bids would
just be added to the general contractor's bid. The only time that it gets more complicated than that is if as a result of that award it would change the bidder. Okay. And so you have a little more flexibility um given that
it's only one contractor and only involves that one scenario. I won't comment today um about the impact of that or the details of that because I think it's essentially a p not full
litigation but it's a pending um issue of law and so I don't think it's appropriate to go into detail in this forum but we did want to make you aware that should the decision go that um the low bidder should be tossed there would be a financial implication that would
need to be dealt with as a result of that how how long does it generally take the attorney general to make a decision? I'm really ask cuz I don't want you know cuz there's a lot of electric stuff not
at the beginning you know so the um the other protest was resolved in a matter of hours. Yeah. Okay. Um but it was a very simple one. Okay. We've seen weeks in some cases. It it depends on a number of factors of which we have
no control over. How quickly the contractor responds, how quickly the um protest is scheduled. Um I think they're doing them in person again. They they were not for a while. They were doing them remotely. Um so all of that factors
in from a schedule impact. I did want to just share with the committee. Um, we issued direction to the contractors that we would give them notice to proceed by early June. I was it June 7th? Early June, something like
that. And based on that June 7th date, they would um have a substantial completion date around October 28th of 2026. No, 27. Um, and then we have two months to
prepare to open the building. Okay. So if we decide that because there's an open protest we don't want to award then is once it gets to that date we have a decision to make. Okay. Um we also have the option to say to the contractor once
we sort out the um contract we're awarding to you but in your notice to proceed we're directing you to hold off on awarding the electrical to the subcontractor. And at that point, you're only dealing with any delay claim that would come
from delaying award to the electrical subcontractor. And under the contract general conditions, the electrical subcontractor would only be able to claim an extension of time if they could prove that the delay in them getting notice to proceed affected their
critical path to the end. Okay. So, there's some exposure there. Yeah. if this drags on, but we're working diligently to try and resolve it as quickly as possible. And the low bidder did reach out to us to assess our
position and we're interacting with town council about how to handle that. Great. Thank you. Any other questions on that? Okay. Any other miscellaneous updates? That is all I had. I to I updated you on
the pole relocation and um we'll begin discussing um the we'll issue um I'll probably give you a template John for um the intent to award
letter and then um if you give that back to us we'll pass it on to bra that lets them secure their various bonds and things and in certificate of insurance um for the contractual process and we'll continue moving that forward to
formalize and award um the contract to them. Awesome. Okay. Well, then if no one has anything else, I would seek a motion to adjourn the meeting. So move, Mr. Chairman. Second. Okay. Motion by Mike, second by Jagarut. Bill, I'm sure is definitely
going to be a yes given he's ready for sleep, doesn't he? It's it's 2:30 in the morning here, so yes, I will I will adjour. Well, we appreciate you hanging in with us. Chris, yes. Mike, yes, sir. Jagarut? Yes. And I am a yes. So, the
meeting is officially adjourned at 7:23 p.m. Thank you as always to HCAM for broadcasting and providing the studio space. Uh, thank you all for watching and have a good night.