awesome okay uh since we seem to be all present and we're live on hcam we will begin the esbc 2 meeting uh today on Tuesday February 25th at about um 6:06 p.m. um we have a pretty efficient
agenda today um and it looks like we are starting with the approval of the meeting minutes from February 11th uh public comment pleas skip sorry yep um if we have any public comment it
doesn't look like we have anyone um but if you'd like to talk you can unmute yourself would assume that's seeing not then let's move on uh next we have the approval of the minutes is there any discussion about
the minutes or edits necessary okay Madam chairman I'll move the minutes of February 11th as written great we have a motion to approve the minutes from February 11th do we have a second
second right we'll do a roll call vote um Bill yes J GRS yes Mike yes ma'am Chris yes and I have to abstain because I
wasn't um at the meeting and I believe that's everyone Shah Shah oh I I wasn't um present either do you have enough uh then I'll abstain as well yeah we have enough yeah so two obss and four
yes so the minutes do pass great I apologize I have a new computer so the vendor invoice is up next thank you um all right so we have a vendor invoice would you share a bit more about that
Chris because truly I am lost my screen no that's okay um I had just opened it and it crashed on me so if you bear with me for one moment find it in my H there we go found it um so there is an invoice package
this is for the month of January um in the amount of 300,000 or $361,900 it represents invoices from vertex Perkins Eastman um local IQ for advertising related to the prequal
process and tie and bond related to the um permitting process throw the summary on screen so everybody can see it motion to approve Madam chairman so we have a motion to approve
uh the vendor invoice package for $361,900 is there a second second second great we'll do a roll call vote um so Chris yes Bill yes Mike yes ma'am
J grou yes shadu yes and I'm a yes as well so that is um six yeses and that passes to approve um next we have the LSP proposal yep so this is um probably the
most discussion we're going to have all night um so lessons learned from our experience in Hopkins um the when you do a construction project you try to to the greatest degree possible balance the site and that means that as much dirt as
you're pulling out of the ground you try and spread it on the surface so that at the end of the day you don't have to export any dirt um ideally we would be able to do that but given a lot of the level changes that we need to deal with with a sloping site we do have a certain
amount of export there's um almost 8,000 cubic yards of a mix of LOM and um subsoil that will have to be exported off site when you export uh soil off site you have a chain of custody that links that soil back to you and so to
use a permitted facility to export that landfill you would need to have someone sign off that that land that that soil is clean even if there's nothing wrong with it to ensure that it is going to be um accepted at the the place that
receives it if you were to just say give it away and someone later finds something in that soil that creates some issue for them they can trace that soil back to you so it's we find quite often with Municipal um clients and um
university clients that they don't want to expose themselves to the risk of just giving the soil away or having the contractor figure out how to deal with it um we hired ads at Hopkins to deal with this on a much smaller site um and
what this represents is would be What's called characterizing the soil they will go in with um an excavator and they'll take samples of both the top soil and subsoil they will evaluate to make sure that it falls within the
um uh the it's the mCP I can't remember the um acronym uh what the acronym stands for but it's um essentially the massachus publishes um oh Massachusetts contingency plan they publish in the
state regulations how much of what substance is considered normal within soil and so below that level you don't have any special treatment that level it escalates the degree to which you need to deal with things that are in the soil from our experience at um Marathon
several years ago we did find some things in the soil that needed to be treated slightly differently but not an extensive problem so we provided that information to um the subc consultant ads and they provided us with this proposal what this
proposal entails is a review of the background information that we provided to her um she would do what's necessary to do test pits to sample the soil in various locations to meet the soil that would be removed um she carries the services for the laboratory and the
backo operator in order to do that sampling and then she would also um produce the shipping documents in order to um provide to whoever the trucking Courier to the landfill is to ensure sure that the soil is accepted by the
landfill there is the risk that you identify something that is above that mCP level and in that case it just generally changes who can accept the soil and you would then need the um license site professional which is uh what ads is in in order to generate the
paperwork for that higher amount that you need to deal with so um lesson learned from Hopkins we think that this is a valuable service that would be useful we think by approving it tonight we're going to push to be able to um start this as soon as possible and what
we'll likely do if we can't get this in the bid documents we'll um carry some unit prices so that if we exceed the those mCP levels we would um at least know the unit cost that the contractor would use to deal with those
levels in total um ads would be a subc consultant to vertex and so with the contingencies that are included in the proposal um which includes if we need additional testing because some landfills require
more testing than others in order to deal with the soil um there'd be a $9,500 charge um and if we need additional Laboratory Testing because of what we discover there would also potentially be another charge and so both of those are
covered as a not to exceed amount so the total of um ads' contract would be $37,500 and with the 10% contractual markup it um we'd be looking for approval of $
41,309 contract so in the um in the event that we don't discover anything major and we're able to get by with the one per um 1,000 cubic feet testing that is outlined in The Proposal at that point um there'd be no issues and we
would own it in the bid that way the contingencies come into play if we can't take it to one of those facilities there are more than three of those facilities so we can put in the bid specs that um the testing will be based on taking it to those fac facilities and so the contingencies are really there if we
find something unexpected on the former Farmland so with that I'd open it up to questions given how close we are to the marathon site you had said that there was something in the marathon soil that they had found it um we didn't have they did find
some we did provide that testing data to to um to Andrea so that she could put together the proposal um I don't know the exact particulars of what was found but I think it was some elevated levels of a in a limited amount that had to be
treated differently when that soil was taken off site and that's why you do this testing so that you can know that up front and not get into a situation where you're paying for someone to move different piles of soil around so that you have to
test it um repeatedly over and over again as you discover things um that may still come into play and if that does come into play We would likely need the services of a licens site professional anyway uh Chris I have a question y I
think the old idea I'm all for it's a good idea I know Marathon we did have the issues with the soil we had to pay for that um I had one question about further on in their their proposal under risk
allocation essentially it says that if they screw up something uh their liability is limited to $50,000 for negligent professional ACC and amission is that an industry standard is in other
words um the potential for getting something really screwed up and having the town get sued later for we excess of 50 Grand is probably there I just you know it's like I'm going to come do the work but I screw up you're only going to
be able to get me for this amount is that is that a reasonable thing if it is fine I just that's the only thing I questioned in the whole document um the risk is relatively low um generally when
vertex um signs up a Professional Services client or um client as a subc consultant will pass through so the risk falls to the Professional Services so for instance if this was a go technical consultant their professional liability
would would pick up the liability um the liability here um to trace back to them would really be that they their lab didn't do the testing properly or that they didn't grab the like the the activities that they're doing are not
intensely full of risk yeah um it's it's really uh you know they have similar other disclaimers in there about if they hit a gas line and it wasn't labeled you can't blame them for hitting a gas line yeah um so I would say that's fairly standard from what we see in the
industry okay um Dan I don't know if your experience has been any different with LSPs I thought Dan was on I am I'm working my way back to that screen that you're on way back in the screens it down towards the end it was down towards the
end yeah risk allocation so yeah what Chris is saying is true they they all going to try to limit their risk It's Not Unusual that Geotech or anybody involved with any of this is going to do that and ultimately it is really just if they make a mistake
which in this case I think is a pretty low is pretty low risk I mean ultimately you guys own the soil anyway and you own the disposal of it and you own what's in it right so it's really just a matter of they make an ER have an error then then we're then that's when
it comes into play but I don't uh it's hard to quantify what those errors would actually be because they're pulling the dirt out they're putting it in a jar and they're saying it's a random sampling of a thousand other cubic yards yeah
so turns out to have something but they had tested this one corner of it yeah there's still meeting the standard of care yeah I just I understand I just needed some reassurance that 50 was a good number and it shouldn't be 100 or 150 minute it um so I'm okay
just that was the only question I had so are there any questions discussion uh I had a question uh along these lines but um little bit different actually which is for my
understanding and I hope not and um but I am in favor of the testing of course should the testing results appear to be unfavorable what is the impact and what are the what would be the options
potentially the biggest impact really becomes that the cost of disposal of the soil becomes more expensive if the cost of the soil disposal becomes significantly more expensive we would likely come back to
you the same way that I think we did at the DD level and discuss and identify if there's certain places on site where we'd want to keep the soil we have a fairly large site so we may identify places where we can create BMS or create
other site features with the excess soil so that we don't have to take it offsite and we would do an analysis at that time of whether or not the cost to move around and place that soil is more than the cost to dispose of that soil
but that would be a problem that we would encounter either way because we stumble upon something that we aren't expecting at this time and the only way we would discover that is with testing like this that we would likely need to do anyway
makes sense yeah thank you for the clarification I had one uh clarification question I'm again I'm in support of the the services but just wanted to make sure that the analytical data that's collected would that be provided to the biders is that that's the intent correct
that is the goal if we can mobilize and get someone in the field fast enough I think where um if if I could do this over I probably would have started this four months ago because it ended up being a very Frozen winter and I'm not sure I would have
been able to do this testing if I had started it two months ago um the goal would be to get her in the field and get those results as quickly as we possibly can I was unable to confirm that timing with her if we cannot confirm that
timing the second approach would be that we would describe in the documents the Tes in approach that we're going to use and we would likely carry some ask them to carry unit prices for disposal of um soil above that Massachusetts standard
and we would have them own basically they would um give us a unit cost for the Delta between how much it costs to get dispose of it when it has a contaminant versus how much it costs to dispose of it if it was below the standard and so they would then own
disposal of everything below the standard and we would only pay for the quantities that were above the standard okay yeah so you carry two cost items below and above mCP yeah
okay I would assume at this point Chris we'll do a unit price for this yeah that seemed the most straightforward way to do it if we can't have this information available in advance of the bid even if we do we won't have it characterized across the entire site so yeah probably
makes sense to have it no matter what okay is there any other question or discussion so at this point we are looking um for a motion to approve a contract with ads engine um environmental engineering not to exceed
$41,600 through virt through vertex so move Madam shamman perfect is there a second second is sh do perfect um so we'll do a roll call vote Chris
yes Mike yes ma'am bill I think you're still there he had 20 minutes I see his screen I don't see okay CH gr yes shadu
yes and I am also a yes um so that's five yeses so that does pass as approved and the mo I just I didn't write it down was it Mike made the motion yes yeah Mike moved the motion right and the second was
shahul thank you okay the last item we'll hopefully go fairly quickly um months ago I forgot to look up the date when it was form Med but we established as sometime in October a pre-qualification committee pre-qualification is required on
projects that are over $10 million um the pre-qualification committee submitted a um request for qualifications out to um various both for advertising um through com uh not com um through the central register put
it out there to request qualifications for people interested in bidding in the project as it related to the general contractor and the identified filed sub trades that would be bidding the project we received a significant number of responses I think we had um eight
General Contractors and uh well over 90 filed sub bids the pre-qualification reviewed the qualifications of all of those firms and um the state mandates appoint system is used and so using that
point system and an agreed upon scoring system um we established the contractors that we felt were qualified to bid the project um from that we ended up with six General Contractors six masonry contractors seven Miss Metals
contractors seven waterproofing damp proofing and and cocking contractors nine Roofing and flashing contractor or I'm sorry seven Roofing and flashing contractors nine metal window contractors eight glass and glazing
seven tile six acoustical seiling ceing tile six resilient floors three tazzo manufactur or uh contractors 11 painting contractors um nine fire protection contractors eight plumbing contractors
and um seven HVAC and four electrical contractors we did solicit elevators twice and both times did not receive anybody interested and being pre-qualified so that will move forward under the standard rules filed sub bitting
um the pre-qualification committee voted these um recommendations on um I believe the uh the 12th or the 13th I think it was the 12th um on February 12th and so they voted to
recommend that um the esbc accept the recommendation of the pre-qualification committee which was composed of myself and Chris Kenny um Dan and Jessica vaver of Perkins Eastman um Mike Shepard Susan
roich and Tim persons um we thank everyone for their efforts in going through this because it was quite a quite a lot of paperwork to work through um and ultimately we would ask for a motion to accept the recommendation of the pre-qualification committee as
outlined in the list of pre-qualified contractors you want me to restate that Chris um you don't need to if if someone would like to say so moved then I don't think we need to restate it but um so moved
second all right I don't know who got that one Sean D got it all right we almost the same but I'll take it a roll call vote uh Chris yes Mike yes ma'am
jagroo yeah shadu yes and I am also a yes so that's I'm still I'm still here I'm a yes as well oh good bill you're back yes awesome so that's six yeses so that pre qualification um
committee we accept their recommendations but we will notify the next step is we'll notify those who were qualified and not qualified um and when it becomes time for bidding will'll notify that the um we'll notify the pre-qualified
contractors that the bids are available and um they'll bid it along with um the non- prequalified trades great and with that I believe unless I'm missing something Dan or Chris I believe that's everything we had for this evening
great so that is the end of the agenda is there a motion to adjourn the meeting so move s second second um so a motion by me no by shadu
uh second by Bill y perfect roll call vote Chris yes Mike yes ma'am Bill yes Gro yes duel yes and I am also yes so we will
adjourn the meeting at 6:30 p.m. thanks so much everyone take care folks thank you thank you thanks everyone you bye