Okay. Uh, mics are on. Good. All right. Good morning everyone. We're going to get our meeting started right on time and we have a quorum. Uh let's start with attendance. Darthy, please. >> Darthy Banisheski, facilities construction. >> Dave Ro, facilities construction.
>> Maris Canyon, facilities construction. >> Michael Guida, Cork. >> Kevin Wilkinson, Cork. >> Patricia Morales, Office of General Counsel. >> Michael Tubio, facilities construction. >> David Dolan, facilities management. >> David Porter, Cork. Barbara Myers,
construction purchasing. >> Prince Makab Court Sanchez, chief operating officer. >> Lanna Montoya, facilities construction. >> Jan Adams, facilities construction. >> Nick Pa Whites Company. >> John Levenson, Rail Enterprises,
representing Ziscoich Architects. >> Tom Jacob Bison, Charles Perry Partners. >> James Campbell, chief operating officer. >> Rodia Zeno, the bet group. Uh Damian Steer the bedroom core construction construction.
>> Okay. Staff handle our online people. >> Bruce Alexander >> and good morning. >> Come on. >> Good morning. >> Need our mics turned. >> Need our mics turned up. >> Speakers turned up.
>> Is that 100%. >> Don Chasher >> present. Michael Gelf fan change the speaker. >> Yeah. Give me a second. I'll see what I can do.
>> That be the actual speaker device itself present. Sorry. >> Oh, there we go. There we go. >> Excellent. >> We had to we had to increase the volume. Sorry, we couldn't hear some of you. >> Everyone else is lost. I'm sorry. Lisa Ravis,
>> Virginia Parish, >> I'm here. >> Lisa Ravis, >> she left the meeting. >> Okay. So, >> all right. >> We'll keep track of that because uh she gonna come back on. >> Yes.
>> All right. Um, thank you everyone. I have nothing else to report. So, we'll keep going down our agenda. Anyone in court with a conflict of interest for anything today or has been approached by a lobbyist about anything to be reviewed?
Hearing none in the room, hearing none online. Good. Any uh changes or additions to the agenda by the members? Okay. Public comments. General public comments.
Okay. Scroll all the way up. >> Our consent agenda. I didn't hear John Chester's name. Is he? >> Yes, he is. And he did. >> I am here. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> All right. So, consent FC1
>> treasure. I also wanted that fold and SC2. >> Okay. FC3 >> Gelfand. >> FC4 Gelfand.
>> XD5 >> Gelfam. >> FC6. >> Bingo again. Gelfan. >> FC7. Del, >> you had no legal work this month.
Michael, >> call me again. I'll get the lineup. >> You wanted to p? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. FC9 mute Michael's uh mute button there. I
think FC9 was not pulled. FC10, >> FC11, >> FC12, >> Deland, >> FC13, >> Gelfand, PC1, Gelfand
EC2 gam. >> I move those items, those two items to move forward. Need a second. Second. All right. Um, I'd
>> like to make a motion to order lunch. >> Even dinner. >> Stand, please. >> Bruce Alexander, >> no objection. >> David Porter, >> yes. >> France Makaboom, >> yes. >> Jamal,
>> yes. >> John Chesher, >> yes. Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes. >> Lisa Ravis, >> yes. >> Michael Gelfin, >> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Virginia Ferris, >> yes. >> Chris Tomkins,
>> yes. >> Okay, buckle up. Um, FC1, Michael, go ahead and start. >> Alrighty. Uh first item is on the first item for
Forest Hill. What is a legal sketch? It's prepared by a land surveyor and it's just shy of having to do a full property survey. They basically write up a legal description and do a uh kind of
a small scale drawing to define what's happening with the land in the area >> and that's what gets filed in the county records for uh the property. >> Is there a reason why we don't have a sealed survey that we can then rely on
for future matters as well as whatever the purpose? Let me back up a moment. Um why are we getting less than a survey uh for this project? >> This was an existing school. It was a minor project. Um we did a project there
to expand the parking lot. So this was needed to finalize the project at close out be able to turn that over for the county records. So at the beginning of the project we did get a survey um and we have asbuilt documents for the project and this is
the last step to get it closed out. >> So they don't require a survey. >> Yes, we did a survey on the project >> but not a it doesn't necessarily have a boundary like it it may have been a a a preliminary boundary survey or something
along those lines. Uh but the legal and sketch requirements are different for the uh com close out. >> Michael, it so gives us everything we need if we have to go back to something legal to define the land. >> Uh did we lose
>> we lose you, Michael? >> There we go. Sorry, >> Michael. You're muted. We do a survey so that we can determine or we can rely upon a determination for not just boundaries but also improvements and their relative locations.
Um I've not dealt with a legal se sketch per se except for example uh in the zoning process sometimes where the precise boundaries and locations are not
necessary for reliance. I still am not quite certain why we would get a legal sketch because it sounds like the work that is being done is um basically the same thing as what we
would require for a survey, especially since before we undertook the effort, we probably had someone out there doing the actual um work for a survey. >> Not sure. Is there a question?
>> I don't know. >> Was there a survey after the work was done? >> This is Gary. Well, there was an ABS bill done that there was a design a survey prior to the start of the design um as Mr. Gelfan points out that had
physical locations, grades, you know, elevations, etc. Um and at the end of construction there will be a there's a always a u an asbuilt performed and in this particular
case this is associated with land um with within the city of West Palm Beach and there was a requirement for a legal boundary sketch >> um in order to close out that complete that that work. And Michael, seems like
we've got the survey and it was the sketch was only required because of West Palm Beach. Nothing really to do with the project. >> All righty. Um, as we move forward, uh, Mr. Chair, if you'll note that I, as I believe from the followup, item number
four has been deleted from this. Is that correct? >> So, when we make a motion, it should include or it should specify that item four is being deleted. Okay. >> I just want to double check with staff
on that. >> Yes, that's correct. >> That is correct. They're saying yes. Yes. >> All righty. >> And for everybody else, the reference was during during uh during the review, somebody had brought up um an issue about that and we came to uncover that
it should have been withdrawn and re reworked with the contractor. So that's why as Mr. Gelfan points out it's gone. >> All right, >> this is just the original doc. >> Um item number eight with the um out of
state uh uh engineering and then having a Florida engineer. If we had a Florida office >> that did on nine um we would not have this cost presumably a Florida office
would have a Florida engineer. it would have been rolled into their original number. Um, we don't know exactly what the bids would have been. We bid it competitively and we ended up with a change to their contract to add
this requirement. Yes. Um, so I mean if we, you know, had the if this I was just going to say if the second bid was got down the street with a Ford engineer, we wouldn't have this.
>> It may have been the same cost because they would have included the engineering cost. >> Yeah. We didn't go back and do any research as far as what the second bidder if they were a Florida company, what they had included and didn't include because we were when this came up, we had were already locked in with
the contractor and completing the project. So, um we knew we needed this done. So, we asked them to do the um get it signed and sealed and they did that. Um yeah, >> when we contract when we contracted was it did it include sign and sealed
drawings as part of the contract and then they came back and said, "Oh, we have to charge you extra." >> That wasn't specifically line item. No. Um, >> the explanation says, the explanation says the problem was is that the stamp,
it sounds like we we received drawings >> from the first sentence and it had an Indiana stamp. >> So, you know, this is that's their problem. >> I kind of agree. that
>> that was I was the one that raised that question in the questions and I thought the same thing. Um >> you it would do a little more research. I don't I don't know who dug into this one that much. >> Right. That's the thing because what
what I think um Michael's point um Michael's point was I if we had gone to the second bidder and figured out were they more than $4,000 over then this would be a moot point because we would have been paying for the um state of
Florida licensed on the second bidder and if it was more more expensive it was more than $4,000 more expensive we would have still stuck with number one >> right Can I ask? Yes. Kevin Wilkinson. My quick question is in in as general
policy. Do we usually accept from out of state pees, architects, and don't we like a design spec on a project the you know the bottom footnote that says all certifications, engineering, architectural must be by an approved Florida? >> There's probably some language in there. You have
>> and if you have that then why do you have to pay an extra to the vendor who should be complying with your design specifications? That's my only point. >> That's what I think needs to be checked. We need to check what was put in the RFP for that for that item and you know were they already supposed to provide seal
drawings and they just went oops and gave us Indiana drawings >> because then then it's on them. >> Yeah. What we do is we look and try to get um like similar to the one we talked about before. We like to get look at their GMP and see if it was excluded or not excluded in that. So this is a
contingency allowance. So it doesn't change the scope of the work that they needed to do, but this was something that they missed as part of their bid. So that's the purpose of a contingency versus a change order. So that's why it's a contingency allowance because it should have been included in their number, but wasn't. So they're allowed to use their contingency money, their
risk money to get that done. And that's >> but my my bigger issue, the vendors know that you don't accept engineers from different states as a bid criteria at the beginning. No, we don't limit who can participate in our projects to get the most competition. So, as long as
they have the proper licenses and can do the work, they can bid on it. Obviously, in this case, um they bid on it, got the work, and then they found out the contractor that they didn't have the engineer to be able to do that. So, >> was it required that they have to submit sign and sealed documents for this RFP?
Because if it wasn't, >> I don't think it was specifically listed in P. No, because but it was a requirement of the project based on our master specs and things. >> Well, that's what I think just needs to be looked at whether it was required to have signed and sealed documents for this lift.
>> It is required. >> Okay. Well, then it's on them. You're not going to submit sign and sealed documents from an out of state company and say, "Oh, I signed and sealed them." No, you didn't. They're not legal. >> I think Mr. Chesher has >> John Chesher. >> Yeah. No, I just had the same comment
that if it was included in the design spec that it should be a Florida engineer, which I think it must um then it should been included in his bid and should not be an extra. >> Well, I think we all agree that it
should have been included in the bid. Okay. The um contingency purpose is for things that were already in the project that were not either not aware of at the time or were missed by the contractor in their bid. That's the whole purpose of
the contingency. That's why after that point it's at risk. So if they exhausted their contingency and then this came up we would said no you have to eat the cost for that. This is not a change to the scope. Yeah >> I understand that but this is labeled as an unforeseen condition. >> How is it unforeseen?
So, this is why um with our contract updates that we'll talk about a little bit later, we added the category for contractor errors for this kind of a reason that um if the contractor missed something in their bid and should have been in their bid, they would, you know, be able to put that down as a
designation. So, the contractor didn't realize that they needed this done. So, that's why they did the change. I always find it funny, by the way, that the the name of the company that won it was Access Lifts of Florida, an Indiana
company. So, I I not not not forgiving a contractor, but it does seem kind of various that their company names are of Florida and that they are not licensed in Florida. >> And Michael, I I disagree a little bit
about the contingency picking up the extra cost. If you got drawings from an architect and it was understood they had to be signed and sealed and they give them signed and sealed with an Indiana seal, you're going to go, "No, we're paying you. Here's your
fee for Florida sealed drawings. I don't care what it costs you. Go get them sealed." >> I would agree on a professional services architect engineering contract. This is the construction manager contract. So that's >> okay. >> All right. Well, is this one going to be
pulled or >> we're going to we're going to further research it to to verify like for if for nothing else. As I mentioned, if if it's over $4,000, the second bid is over $4,000. It's kind of a moot point because we ultimately would have paid for it. But it does. It's it I we still
hear what you're saying is that the premise should have been the contractor should have called them called them out and said, "Listen, you didn't you should have put that included in your original price. Your price stands at $4,000 less." Um I I we we understand what
you're saying up till now. We're >> and I'm not looking at this as a gotcha type of thing or anything like that. I mean, I'm troubled because of the what what I'll call the um the hopscotching over the bid process first, but second,
it would seem to me that someone who's not licensed in a state would know better than to seal plans that were for a state that they don't have a license in that jurisdiction. >> You would think
that's my comment. All righty. Um, with reference to number 10, oil palm, we'll try to go through these things as fast as I can. Whose risk was vandalism uh for for the project? >> Builder's risk.
>> It is owner's risk. >> Well, that was my my thought is that typically vandalism cover is covered under builder's risk policy, which I guess we have. No, >> no, >> not for this project. This is a small project. This is a facility renewal. So
this was uh vandalized by a student at the school. Um so we either we pay for it ourselves to fix with our maintenance group in a separate contract but since we had the contractor there we asked them to fix it. If the contractor would have vandalized
it or broke it and they would have been on their nickel to fix but working in an existing school sometimes that happens. >> Yeah. Um, wanting to tread very carefully on on the next part. If we have a student
who I mean vandalism is is by definition a deliberate intentional act. Um, under Florida law as I understand it. The parents are responsible for that. um has there been a determination as to whether
insurance coverage and then making a claim in the same way if a student driver uh coming into a parking lot plowed into a fence or a sign, we'd be looking at the parents uh automobile
insurance to reimburse for the expense. We we uh in fact the the school district outside of this group does that uh risk management manages that and there are other people within the district that handle that and please forgive me if I
sound um tur but I don't know whatever ends up happening to the money because the reality is the money that we paid to do this comes out of the capital budget but when the money gets repaid if and when it gets repaid it never comes back to capital. It's general fund type of
dollar I think. Um so I we don't actually get a report back from the other side of what the uh adjudication or remuneration what anything associated with that. So >> and we're not involved with that process
at all once it gets turned over. We don't know. So >> um I don't know if it's being very parochial or not but I don't know. I I can't see the whole attendance list if we have anyone from Treasury around, but
if we um have an expense for a capital project and there is a third party that is reimbursing us, it would seem that those funds would go back into the capital
funds to reimburse. There is Leanne here. >> Just I was thinking about >> I'm here. I was listening. It just took me a minute to get it on the right screen so I could turn my camera on. Sorry about that. >> I'm just trying to pickpocket you in a slow-mo. >> That's okay. Um, if there if it hits an
insurance policy, risk management does contact me and they work with us to get the money into the capital budget to reimburse us. When it is a student though, it is a different process. Um, and I'm not involved in that. I mean, if risk management ends up getting money
from any source belonging to a capital project, they contact me and ask where the money goes, >> right? >> But I'm not always involved in that. And >> I I don't know that parents are always required to pay. I I'm not involved in that at all. That's a completely different side of the house, so to
speak. Um, we can ask and follow up and find out, but I don't have the answer to that. But generally, if there is damage at a school site, whether it's >> um a vehicle or a contractor or a district person, if money comes back
that's tied to capital, it does come back. It doesn't always go back into the project. Sometimes we put it in capital contingency. It's a case- by case basis, but it usually does come back to the capital budget. >> Right? So, that's a Thank you very much for the explanation. So, it's a secondary issue. In the same way when
I'm advising a client as to whether to proceed with a claim, I'm not saying that it always should be done. You know, you look at, you know, what the situation is, but if we do have a family that does have insurance, then there should be a an analysis of that. That's
my only comment, and I'm not going to ask that this one be pulled u on that. Um the number 12 what Wellington the freezer hookups. Um why is that an
unforeseen condition? Because it would appear that delivery was other than shut on the plants. this >> um this was a district ordered piece of equipment I believe. Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> Um and that's where the discrepancy came in. >> Normally we put the burden um Mr. Gelfan we would put the burden on the contractor to be responsible for all the details associated with the equipment, what they're buying, how they're buying it. if this is bought by school food
service um uh outside of the contractor that there there have been discrepancies in what we thought they were ordering and what they actually ordered what to arrive that kind of thing that that h that's not an uncommon occurrence. We try to do the best we can working with
them but it we have discrepancies. It sounds like we provided the improper specs on the ordering. Then >> I can't speak to that because I don't order we don't order school food services equipment. Um they are very
particular about the items that they purchase and we we appreciate that their technology changes. >> Yeah. I don't know if they ordered the wrong one or they ordered the right one but didn't coordinate exactly what infrastructure had to be done for that
when it arrived. um when we you know some of these things are are flexible as far as when we order it and when the GMP's done and um we know that this work was not included in the GMP and it had to be done um and we ordered the equipment so >> we meaning the district yeah
>> I mean I don't recall recall at least recently a similar type of situation but I think that there ought to be a comment back to food servicing that they need to double will check these things before
they order. Um, just on the line. >> Well, I agree these things happen. They're very complic they're not in the business of construction and knowing all the specs of every equipment, how it's affected by the um how how it relates to
the building. But yeah, I mean, we constantly coordinate with them. We do a great job coordinating with them, but some things get slipped through. And in fact, uh, aside from food service, we will say that we've changed the manner in which we do a lot of our construction projects. In years past, we we would
have other departments within the district manage certain pieces of uh, overall construction, whether it be it doing low voltage and things like that. And we're now pushing those back towards the contractor in order to do as
as you're alluding to is saying that you know what from now on Mr. contractor it's all you. We don't want to hear about well we messed up one side and it's our fault versus your fault. we're we're tending to get in into the uh the the the structure where we put more of
the expectation on the contractor to handle everything that it's their job to buy the equipment to make sure that they coordinated with the other disciplines um rather than try to do it ourselves >> especially as we are seeing more complex
electrical requirements down the line. >> Exactly sir. Yes. Um, with number 17, it appears that our survey was not accurate. Golden G, Golden Globe at the time locations. >> That's correct. Our asbuilts.
>> Um, is there a look back at the surveyor on this? Um, >> no, not in that. In this case, we don't. Um, >> was it the survey or the asbuilts? >> Oh, I think um
>> this says survey. >> Yeah, I the way it's reading is that it was the um original asbelts from whoever knows how long ago um were not accurate and they relied on those as Go ahead, Louise. I see Louise's hand. She She ran
the project. So, >> yes, Dave, what you say is correct. The the as builds that we were going with that were supposed to be the most recent, they were inaccurate. >> Oh, if you're referring to going back to a project from however many years ago to
try to find out. >> That that might be a little bit challenging, but >> Yeah. No. Yeah. And and there were there years ago and and a lot of stuff was removed. So not sure these were the asphalts that we had and it was off.
>> And I know Mr. Porter Mr. Porter will be the first to um uh shout from the rooftops of our uh our effectiveness at u managing asbelts in the past. And so, um, I know Michael and I have taken a
lot more focus on that in the recent years to make sure that the asphalts coming in are validated, um, so that we don't have that kind of thing in years years from now. >> Um, 22,
West Riviera, the project manager. >> What did we find out? this one. There were two comments. >> Yeah. >> On the rata sheet that was recirculated. Um I won't quote the first one, but
it sort of makes a point. Uh we are we are looking into uh we reached out to the contractor to get u because ultimately it sounds like if we can show that they have uh that they did perform duties which we know for a fact that they did perform a lot of duties
during that period of delay um which were um expected for uh the construction. uh we need to we need to find out a quantifiable number and that's what we're reaching out to the contractor to get him to give us the
details the dollar values for how much that person uh worked on for those whatever it was six seven months um and just to verify that uh it was in excess of that 91,000 and the reason I say that
is because I know for a fact when it happened the first number that came in was exorbitantly higher than that 91,000 and that number was a negotiated number back down to 91. So we're we're working
we're reach we've reached out to the contractor we're asking them to provide us um whether it be payroll or some some sort of activities to validate that the uh activities they performed were uh in excess of that. Yeah, there were other
staff members working on the project that they're not charging us for. >> Um, it sounds like this is not ready for prime time then. >> Well, >> yeah, it it has been paid. It can be
reconciled if there is some discrepancy. Um my of course my personal fear is I don't want to end up finding out that they put in time sheets and say fine you made us do this and now my time sheets so that show that it was $140,000 um I want I want the e extra 50,000
added to my contract. We negotiated that number down to 91,000. That that's a good number. And in fact, you'll you'll notice I think you you've all seen that associated with this 91,000 on the flip side of the coin, the
delay in time led to a $106,000 savings on FC 11. Um so in fact, we did benefit from this. Um the delay which was um and I'd say
outside of construction's control um was uh something that we had to deal with and in dealing with it the contractor had to rebid a bunch of his pro uh prices and we did come back with savings on th some of those contracts. That's
why the $106,000 in savings um balanced against the $91,000 in delay um seems like a a a reasonable approach. But we will certainly continue to follow through with this uh vendor and find out
how much money did they spend, how much what was their ultimate costs um on uh for these folks that did this this work during the delay time. Do our contracts allow the contractor, if we tell them,
look, go away for three months, um, do we have to pay them for three months if they're completely away and not doing work, or does the contractor state they actually have to be doing work on the project to continue getting paid part of their overhead? >> So, um, I may have to defer the the
legal aspects of that, but in in this case, just some of the facts is that we gave them a notice to proceed to start with the project. They ordered equipment and you'll see one of the storage ones is on here. They ordered equipment, went forward with everything and then we realized the delay and said, "Well, we can't shut down the project because
we're going to do the project." Uh, we didn't close the order for all the equipment that they ordered. That's the line. We can't do all that. So we need to buy our time ne go work with them the c that's where the project manager work with all their subs to not have to go rebid all the stuff but to buy out what
they could early and lock in those deals to save us some money and then when we freed up the holding school we were able to move forward with the project. Um I know I didn't really answer your question but I don't know I was just telling you what happened. Um I don't know the exact answer to your question have to
>> uh in in your contracting do you put like a range you I I'm familiar with your notice to proceed uh part but do you put a range so that you're not like you say if a project's going to be 18 months you say two years as long as is within two years and therefore they're bound either way give or take whether
you start four months later or not. We we do put a a strict >> we do put a we do agree to a term when we we sign the contract and that's what they're bound to unless they can show that there was a delay that it got extended. This was an owner delay or on our side of things. Um another project
delayed them. So that's why um >> we allocate them the time and then it's a negotiation based on you know how how that happened. >> What they're going to do is they're going to throw the kitchen sink. We do delays in construction litigation all the time. It's a real headache. Uh they're going to throw the kitchen sink
and then they're going to back off from the kitchen sink. So you don't have labor rates in your contracts, labor rates for assistant superintendent. So then they have to prove real time sheets that allocated this stuff. >> That's what we're asking for now, >> which they probably don't have until yesterday. >> Thing when they submitted their when
they submitted the kitchen sink, as you said, sever several hundred,000 or whatever it was initially. Um and and I gently nicely right Tom I gently and nicely told them thank you but no thank you come back and give me some real numbers and that's this is the number
where we came back down to now did it go through the detailed breakdown of >> we're going to verify the exact rates >> thank you >> thank you verify >> yes >> who who is the contractor on this
>> excuse me >> who is the contractor or >> Yeah. >> Um I'd suggest that this one be pulled. Doesn't appear to be a necessity that we have to >> it's on the uh it's on delegated authority. As I mentioned earlier, we
can revisit and recalibrate this uh potentially if the contractor um deems it u necessary. Um, but and and we're going to try to come up with the information to support your requests so you can we can validate that
$91,000 is a deal in comparison, but it's already it's not a pulley pullable item, the right word um because it is part of the delegated authority items. >> Michael, all of these all of the stuff on FC1's already been paid,
>> right? >> They were critiquing. So when we have a motion to approve this, what is it then that we are saying to the school board? >> Well, I guess you could do a motion if
you were doing one now. Basically adding in the fact that staff will be coming back with validation of that number or validation of the number that should have been charged for the time spent, >> right? um >> to the board. They then know we're
looking at this. Um it's already been paid and the contractor will owe us some money possibly if we find that it doesn't come to 91,000. >> So the board does not need us to approve
FC1. What I'm hearing now, >> the the board, I believe, wants us to look at it because we're allegedly the experts that will have these questions. um the board may not and so I think the board wants our input and our motions
like this and the discussions in the board report that we compiled >> it goes to the board for them to see the reader digest version of a three-hour meeting. So then with that taken, I would suggest
that the motion would be uh simply that we've requested staff to review and provide a follow-up report on items 4, 9, and 22 and just leave it at that because well, it's not necessary here.
Um because, you know, it's just not necessary. We're just they know that we've reviewed it. So that's my motion that >> Okay, hold on. Hold on. John had pulled this and I had pulled this. Yeah. So hold your motion for a minute. >> Yes. >> Chester, you got anything? >> Yeah, I do. Um item number I got several
things, I guess. Item number three. I don't understand what's going on here. This is for um >> demolishing and removing the damaged concrete pad prior to installing a new
one. So, the uh new generator was designed to be installed outside the building on an existing concrete pad pad was was um damaged. And so I asked where is the cost for the new concrete pad?
And the answer was well it's already in the GMP. So I don't understand that logic. Um, Maris Gres over this was an overpour, right? And Oh, >> so we had an existing pad outside that
we were going to put a curb on top of. Um, and it that pad couldn't support that curb for for that generator. So, we had to demolish it and put a new pad there. >> Okay. Where's the cost for the new pad?
>> They included the cost for the new pad. We are just doing this for demo. We already had concrete to pour on top of what was there for the generator. >> So, this is just demo cost to get rid of the pad that that the pad was already
covered in the GMP to put there. >> Yes. >> But the $3,000 demo bill, >> right? >> Because we hadn't planned on demolishing the pad. >> Well, I think John is thinking that the pad is now thicker.
So, the original pad was only a 6 inch pore on top of a 6 inch pad, but now it might be a 12inch pore to get the generator at the same elevation. >> We're not being say this isn't being charged for that. >> Charge for demo. >> I I mean, that's >> look the gift horse in the mouth. No,
I'm kidding. >> Okay. As long as we don't get an extra next month for the new concrete pay. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> I understand. Uh, next one is item four. Um, this is the one with the painting.
the door frames for $13,000. So my comment, I guess maybe comment question is if Cork hadn't reviewed this, the contractor would have been paid the 13,000, overpaid the 13,000. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. No, we appreciate it. >> I just want to say in the future, we're not going to be reviewing these and this is the kind of things we're good at catching. Well, but this is in fact this is the thing you will be reviewing. This will be exactly what you will be
reviewing. This is FC1 which is a delegated authority and catching this. We're going to back go back to the contractor on Chris McAuliffe and say, "Yeah, you're not getting that money. We're taking that back. That's a mistake. You should have." And that
that's that's why we pulled this one. uh and and clear. We will go back to these vendors and say if they've made a mistake, if we missed something and it's in error, we have no problems going back to a contractor, especially a contractor that's still working on a project with
us and saying, "Oops, sorry, that's not we're not paying you for that." >> And it's a lesson learned for the department that we go back to all of our project managers, make sure we verify things better going forward. So, it's a >> How are we in the future going to be reviewing this? This is a construction
change or a contingency change request. We're not reviewing those in the future, right? >> Yes, we are. >> Yes, we are. >> We're going to be reviewing the FC1 ones, but it's at the end of the project and prior to closeout. >> For sure. At the end of the project, there's going to be a hundred of them. There's going to be thousand.
>> Yes, we will. We will have a book to review on each project by the time we get done. >> Okay. >> Have to see. And and just to caveat on number on number four, I've already gone back to the contractor and voided this. Um I I
do expect um another CCUA maybe for the storefront themselves, but >> we are removing all of the ex the exterior interior doors and frames. >> Okay. Next one is item number nine. I
just wanted to add um my comment on that. And when you're re-reing this, would you double check that Access Lifts of Florida is an Indiana headquartered firm? I'm not sure that's true
and relevant. Um, he's obviously got a storefront here or a business here. >> He should have Florida pees on staff, I would think, there. Um, >> I don't have to I don't know if you have to have a PE on staff to have that. You do have to have a Florida business
license. I don't know if in order to be uh an access lift company in the state of Florida if they require lensure um state like a engineering lensure or if it's just a business license and I don't know enough to know I was say maybe our
lawyers might be more adept at that >> they just have to get a Florida engineer if they need if they need absolutely sealed drawings they hire an engineer >> Michael >> so really quickly checking the division of corporations website, there is an
entity called Access Lifts Florida, Inc. that's without the of. And it shows the addresses of its principles in Hollywood, Florida. >> Yep. >> Uh it is shown as a uh as a foreign
corporation. Uh I I will say uh let me see if I can see the uh state of incorporation here. I >> does um actually it's the directors are
from originally were from Sweden and it's a Delaware corporation. >> Oh, we'll report back with some more research. >> Yeah, let let staff look into that. We have so many that got pulled we need to move along. >> Okay. Number item 14 is my next one. I
just I don't you need to talk me through this one. I don't understand this. It says we had a 4-in water man reduced it to a three instead of the two. And then the response I've got to my question about the cost talks about 8 inch piping
and 6 inch piping. Can I understand what's going on here? >> You guys want to respond? Sorry, we're we are um we're looking at each other because we all had a very similar response of all right, who's
going to try to figure this out because it's not just simply the reducer itself. Um Maris, was that ahead? >> We had to reduce the size of one of the lines.
Um the 4inch water mane needed to be reduced. it was it wouldn't fit >> understand. >> So, um we had to reduce it and uh we had to um change the connection to the building uh
the way we connected it to the building. Um, so in essence we the the reducer size had to be it was designed for a 2 inch but we had to increase it to a 3 in because in the design in the design it
was a 2 inch. We had to increase it to a 3 in but we also had to downsize a 4inch water man to a 3-inch water mane. So the net result was um it wasn't just the reducer, it was the change in materials
and it was also uh the extra work involved in the time to do that change in the field. Then we also had additional piping um roughly
107 lineal feet I believe of additional piping that was also associated with this. >> This was confusing to me too, but for 1,800 bucks I thought move on. >> What's that, David? They said I had the
same issues, but for $1,800, I mean, to me, that's the cheapest plumbing extra cost you're going to get. Just, you know, fix it, move on. >> Okay. Well, I would appreciate better um narratives, I guess, on what's going on because I still don't understand why we
paid for 8 in and 6 in piping or apparently that was included in the cost. Then yeah, that is cheap if we're getting 8 inch and 6 inch, but having to reduce it to 4 inch or 3 inch or 2 inch.
I'll move on. Um, how about number 21? Isn't the wasn't it the designer's responsibility to do the um signs, the room signage? So, why is this not a design emission?
I believe on this one they were not going to do this signage. They were only going to do we have first responder signage in the in the project. Um the referendum just list signage with a dollar value. Um and when we looked at it, we realized that we should be doing the the fish sign all need to be updated
as well. So um the archite it wasn't in the original design drawings to be included in the GMP. So, we made a change in the during the project. >> Okay, that's all I've got. >> The only item I had, I was the only
other person to pull it was on item five about the cabinet cores >> and I I did read the backup that was sent, but kind of confusing. Can somebody give me the simple version of, you know, whether the cores were already supposed to be provided and there
shouldn't have been an extra? They they they should have been provided this is why it's a contingency. Um it should have been provided in the uh our overall master spec calls out for that specific core that we use in their bids. It clearly showed that they specified a different core. They said this is the
core that we're using in the GMP. So, um, we were able to look at that and show that they're owed the difference between the two cores because they they made it's a one of those contractor errors that they made during buyout and nobody caught that they did a substitution for these other cores.
>> So, the cores they were going to use sound like they were cheaper than the cores we want them to use. That's correct. >> Okay. >> Our cores are all tied to our master key system, so they're not your standard home. Yeah. >> Okay. Understood. Um, David, to answer
your question from before, there is a clause in the contract for suspension by the owner for convenience and adjustments can be made to the contract for those owner directed suspensions. >> And I suppose that answers your question. >> And well, and I suppose that would mean it has to have backup at that point. It
can't just be, you know, well, we're going to charge you $1,000 a day simply. >> It's not specific. It's just actual and reasonable increase. you have a lot of backup information in the negotiation that we have. So, we'll we'll package it
all up. But, >> well, it comes down maybe to a contractual thing for future contracts. And maybe we should define how they're allowed to charge for overhead and profit during an owner delay so that it's got a better definition to
it. Doesn't sound like it's got a definition for how they can or can't charge the district. I mean, they could say, "Look, you know, keeping this guy, he has no other work to go to. We're slow right now. 4,000 bucks a week for superintendent. We're going to charge you that for the entire time he's out
golfing." >> We didn't even got into the question of whether or not they're entitled to his own reconstruction. And that's something we don't believe, but you know, >> contractors tend to feel that they are entitled to. It is a slippery slope
because as as you know working in existing schools a lot of owneries there's testing there's times that they can't get and use that facility. >> Um and we want to be fair to our CMS but we need them to work with us as well. So there's definitely a and there's no way
to predict that at the start of the project all of those happen >> on a new project it's totally different deal you know. >> Okay. All right. Anything else on FC1 by anyone? >> Michael, you want to go ahead and make
your motion with the qualifiers? >> Yes. >> Right. Uh my motion is is that uh staff is requested to review and report further on items 4, 9, and 22. >> Anything else?
>> Okay, that's a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. Michael Guida seconded it. Any other comments or discussion? >> Yes. I I I have to ask a question and this is based on what John Chesher has
said about the when the new policy takes effect how and when we'll be seeing these things. Isn't there a way even within the new policy to do this in a more timely manner even if it's already
been paid and it's already been approved that we can go through these in a more timely manner when when memories are fresh from the project managers as to exactly what has been going on and then compile them these answers u when you're
doing the close out. So all of the change orders will be done in a a more timely manner than they are now. So you will see those change orders real time versus coming up later at the end of the project. So there's there'd be a huge improvement on the timeliness of when
we're um reporting the change orders and be able to commenting comment on those. So that'll be greatly improved. the the contingency items are the ones that are going to come at the end of the project and because part of that reason is so that we can focus on the change orders and get those to you in a timely manner
because those are the changes in scope um and derry all of the contingencies there's no scope change it's a matter of unforeseen conditions and things that come up in the project so >> and I think you uh recently that the policy has been updated also to change
the language so that the contingency use items u can be more clearly defined mind because right now we've had many a topic uh where people were not happy with the term unforeseen condition. Well, now if it's a contractor error, it's going to
be called out as such. So, it's it's more clearly defined as to where the fault was, whether it was justified in using contingency fund support. Well, I guess we'll just have to see how it works out, but uh as John said, we
don't want to be having to read an entire um book. >> No, it's the same number of of of items that you're reviewing now. >> No, I disagree with that. If we if we take a new school, let's say it takes a
year to build um and we don't see anything on the contingency use for a year, you might have 400 items that we're going to be looking at, not just 20. >> No, Park 33 contingency uses the whole time. It's a $30 million project.
>> It's just spread out. So, you're looking at a >> Okay. >> You're looking at a project by project versus all the projects at once. So, it's the same numbers just divided up differently. >> Okay. I think we have to let the new process just play out and then we can adjust if necessary. >> Yes.
>> Well, thank you. >> Okay. Um, that was comment. Now we need staff to pull us on FC1. >> Bruce Alexander. >> Yes. >> Porter. >> Yes. >> Prince Makavo. >> Yes. >> Jim Al. >> Yes.
>> John Chesher. >> Yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Ravis. >> Yes. Michael Gelfin, >> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Virginia Parish, >> yes. >> Chris Tommpkins, >> yes.
>> And uh Mr. Porter, to your point, I just wanted to point out that when we were very clear with the board, um that with these policies and contract changes, things that we're doing, >> there is a little bit of trial and error with it. And we're going to see how things work out and if we need to go back and make a modification, you're
well aware that we may need to do that. >> Yes. >> Yeah. We don't have a crystal ball that works, so that's fine. Okay. FC2 mida. >> Um, go to the bottom of the first page. Um, par one, two, three, four, five. The
November 11th date there's the last paragraph on the bottom. It says that we're they're extending the timeline um for the days, but the dates are the same. So, I'm I'm trying to understand
what the extended date was. The 216, see if you read it >> right here. >> Says the original final completion date >> September >> for the project was November 11, 2024.
The work was completed on time and the final inspections were satisfied. To address the remaining items needed at the school, change orders four and five were issued, including additional 880 days and 216 days, respectively,
extending the final completion date to same date. So, is that >> is that like two years later? I mean, 880 days. Well, and I'm I'm even looking at the uh maybe I'm not reading it well enough, but the the 216 days and then
further down is 297 additional days. >> Yeah. And >> yeah, that bumped it to 2025. That was understandable. >> We're at we we have listed as 259 >> and clarify. >> Yeah. I just think >> s description see there so
>> okay sure if that's relevant but >> I don't think so that's fine >> just adding time >> that it >> that's it >> okay make a motion then please >> make a motion move it to the board >> all right we got first on FC2 need a second
>> second by France any other comments discussion please >> Bruce Alexander >> yes >> David Porter Yes, >> France Makabu. >> Yes, >> Jamal. >> Yes, >> John Chesher.
>> Yes, >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes, >> Lisa Ravis. >> Yes, >> Michael Gelfan. >> Yes, >> Michael Guida. >> Yes. >> Virginia Farish. >> Yes. >> Chris Tomkins.
>> Yes. >> Okay. FC3 Michael Gelfand. It's a Michael show from here on in. >> I still motion for have lunching order. >> We won't be extending the meeting that long. >> The uh just put a little bit of misery
out. Uh my comments here are somewhat the same for FC4 which is the same uh school and also five is that we have extensions of time for asbuilts and test and balancing asbuilts for all three of
them. Uh test and balancing for the first two. Um is there something going on as to why we're seeing these pop up here? So these are old projects that we're closing out. Um um since then we've been
doing on some of our larger projects, we've looped the test and balancing contract in with the CM so that they're responsible for getting that worked on versus an owner vendor and that'll help hopefully expedite the process. So we made a process adjustment based on some
of these uh older projects where um in theory they were great, but they caused some delays. Um, as far as the asbuilts, um, I don't know this particular case on the asbuilts. Um, maybe Dorothy does. >> Contractors just need to do a better job
of as building. I mean, it's I forgive me, Dorothy. I don't need to put you on the spot, but >> they that's that's the one thing that drags virtually >> every job. >> Every job. >> Every job. the contractors in the room here, but yeah, virtually every job there's a
delay in getting that >> getting them done, getting them done accurately because they have to be signed off and >> yeah, I mean, it's not just the contractors. The contractors have to provide the information to the architects. The architects have to review it and then they have to submit
it to BCS and BCS has to review it and accept it. Um, we used to be able to get a CC before the asbuilts were done. Um, but then BCS found out that the architects didn't pay any attention to actually getting them done. So, they've
made it a contingency. You can't get your certificate of completion done um certificate until the asboats are completed and approved and submitted. So, that's why it's taking a lot longer now than it used to. >> We also have as we have to submit to the
utility companies that are out of our jurisdiction to review and accept as well. >> Correct. own architects. >> It's uh remarkable how holding up payment uh ensures that ticket.
>> So is there if this is systemic um what can we do to address this because as we all know the asbuilts are critical administration. So um it is systemic but it's industry
systemic um not as as a entity for the school district. Um and different entities take different approaches. Some accept what they get and accept the fact that they're going to get crummy as built and close the project. Um we went the opposite direction and stay the course and make sure everything's
detailed and no matter if it takes the 297 extra days, we wait and make sure it's done before we do the final payment. So it's it's it's arduous and it it's very timeconuming but we feel like that's a better approach than not getting what we need. >> I turn to you again Mr. Porter and say
>> you had you've pressed us since early on in my tenure >> about making sure we do a better job on that. >> Yeah. I mean we you know a substantial amount of the items deal with improper as builts as we do modernizations.
>> Yes. um and even you know new sites where we find things that you know weren't supposed to be there. What what is the what are the you know top two or three problems of getting the assilts that we can take a look at to try to get
them done because also the longer it takes the uh more likelihood that there's going to be something missing. >> Yeah. I I don't know that we if you want we can >> do it as a follow-up item. We had a you know I don't know it was a while ago now
we had BCS come in and do a presentation of how their ASB built process works and that's one piece of that but we can uh do a little bit of research and find out what the delays are and come back to the the board with some more information. >> Yeah, I think it'd be good to find out if there are some chronic job after job
after job issues that we could then look at and go all right let's fix that. I mean, one thing I would suggest that we can look at is let's really bump up the retainage you're holding back and make it part of the contract. >> Fortunately, unfortunately, you're not allowed to statally.
>> That's totally good thought. >> The Florida legislature has determined that they are better able in Tallahassee to tell us what to do. >> Too many lawyers in the room. >> U Mr. Gelfin, this is Michael Guida. Um
I you know I receive as belts from uh in my profession too from contractors and they're not as pretty in their handwriting as architects are um is what I found out and and so to get
something that's legible or something like that is for some people it's very difficult. So, I don't know if there's some kind of a training that contractors could take during their their uh by annual uh certifications, right? Your
your continuing services, but maybe Mr. Porter could could uh teach a class to put it on my list to to train the uh train the contractors how to do as belts. No, but something like that maybe is something BCS could do and maybe make
it a continuing ed class that the contractors we work with to give them, you know, kind of some lessons. Here's how you mark up a set of drawings. >> Yeah. >> Here's how you don't mark up a set of drawings so that your asphalt are done once that pipe goes in the ground. You don't have to come back and follow.
I I will say um I know David Brooks down there is probably familiar with this as well, but water utilities, Palm Beach County Water Utilities, they're one of my favorite organizations. I'll go on record of saying that, but they are the toughest when it comes to review. You will go three, four, five times around
on on review on their asbuilts. And it's just it's a burden that I think every one of the contractors in here have probably been through and know it's just part of the process. >> And every one of those iterations takes months, not days. So we have to because you have to go back to the sub, find out
what's wrong, go back to the CM through the architect or engineer, update it, and then go back to water utilities. >> Well, we if it's okay, we will follow back up. >> We can follow up. I mean, let's just keep improving that process. >> Sometimes they have to go back to the survey too to go back out in the field and check something.
So, um I really appreciate staff's followup and looking at potentially requiring good solid asbuilts. Um even if it takes time and if we can yes put this on the followup uh that would be appreciated
because you know it gets the contractors paid also u closes out the job. So, uh, if no one else was pulling three, four, and five, I'd say let's move forward, uh, let the
board review those. >> All right. Go ahead and make a motion for that, Michael. >> Yes. No objection to the board. Uh, considering FC 3, four, and five. >> I'll second. Second by Virginia. Any discussion?
All right. Staff >> Alexander. >> Yes. David Porter. >> Yes. >> France Makaboo. >> Yes. >> Mald. >> Yes. >> John Chasher. >> Yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Ravis. >> Yes.
>> Michael Galan. >> Yes. >> Michael Guina. >> Yes. >> Virginia Parish. >> Yes. >> Chris Tomkins. >> Yes. >> Okay. Michael Gelfan FC6. So,
um I'm not quite certain why it took so long to just replace some fuses, but if there were continual overloads, it seemed to be a fix that was beyond just replacing a fuse.
Maybe I should ask the first question, the second question first. if they're having continual overloads, um it would not appear to be just the existing fuses, but there was some type of capacity issue.
>> Michael, can you clarify which uh one you're on? Are you on FC6? >> Right. This is uh Eisenhower second floor buildout. What I'm looking at um is if you scroll down uh like the fourth paragraph to
resolve the matter. I'm sorry. This is on the Hatcher letter uh page nine of 23. If you scroll a little bit for there we go. There seemed to be before this a good
old gorilla warfare among the subs as to who was supposed to go in that caused some delay. >> Yeah, of course. >> Was the fan to trip? >> Yeah, I I don't have an answer for the details of that. I don't know um if our
project manager is online that they could answer that. >> Catch me. >> Dominique online. >> That was Dominic. >> I don't think Dominic's online. >> Hello. >> Yes, Dominic.
>> Dominic. >> Yes. Um this is in regards to the um additional days. >> Yes. So, the um project was substantially completed on time, but um due to the um
punch list items, um it didn't get completed until they finally um completed the punch list items on um I believe that's April. Is there a dispute between is that
that's that's what this is alluding to the letter from Hatcher? >> Yeah, basically they replaced the fan but the um Can you pull that up over on this side? >> Just as a clarification. So this was an
existing facility that had a shelf space. Um so we converted that shell space into the K8 buildout for the school. So just for context, >> right? So while they they replaced the fan itself, there was the starter and
the overload protection were reused. So then when it started tripping, it became, you know, is this a maintenance issue because it's an existing starter or is this the contractor's fault because it's the fan. And apparently they went back and forth many, many
times. And um once they finally got the subcontractor out there, he figured it out. So there really isn't not an electrical issue. It was all related to one fan. They kept tripping the breaker. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> The starter wasn't sized properly. This
existing starter was too small for the >> for the new fan. >> Yeah. >> That's what it that's what I'm reading. >> Yep. And again, our focus is on these projects is one to get in the school on time. That was our primary focus. And then get everything working before we did the final. So, the fact that we go
back and make sure everything's working right, um, I don't think it's a a detriment. I think it's a positive that we make sure everything's perfect before it's done and closed. >> Right. Between the lines, Michael Gelfin was concerned about whether there was an electrical problem at the school, >> right? Because also, you know, I was
thinking you were still using fuses on something like this, but it sounds like they up the breakers. The description is not accurate. >> That's contractors. They don't know the difference. >> Yeah. >> Ouch. >> That is that is so reassuring.
So reassuring >> spoken by somebody soon to retire. >> I think I am retired. I'm pretty sure I am. >> Anything else on this, Michael? It sounds like it was fine. >> That's the one point that I had on that. >> Okay. Make that motion, please. Let's
move it on. >> Move to go forward. >> Okay. Need a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Second by Kevin. Uh, go ahead. Staff Polus. >> Alexander. >> Yes. >> A Porter. >> Yes.
>> Bron Makaboo. >> Yes. >> Jim Mald. >> Yes. >> John Chesher. >> Yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Rabis. >> Yes. >> Michael Gelfan. >> Yes. >> Michael Guido. >> Absolutely. >> Virginia Farish. >> Yes. >> Chris Tomkins.
>> Yes. We had 10 yeses and absolutely. >> Okay. Um, Michael Gelfan FC7. >> Uh, three years. >> Long time. >> Anyone was wondering who was
>> Yes. So, you know, as I'm looking at the um Robling letter on page eight, um they also give some additional detail and um they talk about the architect.
You're not sharing it. >> I'm not sharing it. >> You're not sharing it so that they can see it. >> Yeah. So I I can let me give you an overview of this and then um if you have more detailed questions I may not know but we can try and answer. So this project
architect went out of business at the end of the project. >> So we still had to complete the project and we're we didn't know what to do. Um the firm the construction manager Robling architect wing to them. Uh we first approached another architect to
take over and they said no. Um, thank you, but no thank you. I'm not willing to accept their >> risk. Said, we understand. Um, Robing's architecture group said, "Well, we're at least familiar with the project because our I can go next door and talk to our
contractors um about what happened and we're willing to help you complete this project." So, that's that's the gist of it. It's something that doesn't happen hardly ever, but ran into on this project there. And there's obviously a lot of things that happened in the middle of that. So hopefully that gives
you the the overall gohead. >> I just wanted to add to that, but you're saying complete the project. All they did was um the the simple task of drawing the asbuilt record drawings, right? They assumed no risk for the
project. So the asbuilt drawings are on file with building code services and they still have Akai, the original architect's name on there. So it was just this last task of completing so that they could get, you know, their seal of approval from BCS.
>> That's why the other architect didn't want to touch it because they thought that they would be assuming the risk. So we we clarified that that's would not be the case. >> They were providing a drafting service. >> Yes. >> The risk is with a firm that's no longer in business. >> Correct. >> Yes.
>> So no recourse on the school board. >> Probably not. I have to say I'd have to turn to the lawyers and say that >> not usually very well. >> Okay. Anything else on this? Michael. >> No. Thank you. >> Okay. Need a motion.
>> Move to go forward. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Second. >> By Kevin. Staff Polus. >> Bruce Alexander. >> Yes. >> David Porter. >> Yes. >> France Makaboo. >> Yes. >> Jamald. >> Yes. >> John Chasher.
>> Yes. Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes. >> Lisa Revis, >> yes. >> Michael Gelfan, >> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> affirmative. >> Virginia Farish, >> yes. >> Miss Tommpkins, >> yes.
>> Okay. FC8, Michael Gelfand. >> Michael, if you want to move to page 13 of 23 at the very bottom, paragraph D is in dog. should be very live in one another. Everybody knows
>> uh we're gonna uh mute Mr. O. Yeah, there we go. Okay. >> Go ahead, Mr. Gelf. >> This is the fire alarm. If you scroll down to the uh bottom paragraph, paragraph D. Um, so this talks about how uh comments
were in November of 22 and it was completed at November of 23 uh and it passed shortly thereafter, but we had still more delays after that. I'm wondering why in the next page it talks
about uh was not uh actually completed until two years uh later. or a year and a half later. July of 25 >> Dorothy, do you or Gary? No. >> Yeah. Can you go up to my letter beginning?
>> You want to go to first sheet? >> Yes. >> We're trying to uh get to the answer. >> Scroll down. Okay. Construction was originally intended to
be performed during summer break of 21. >> The last sentence has the dates but um you know it goes from 22 was completed 22 and but the inspections were not until 25.
>> Mr. Gelf and it says on the last line of the page 13 uh building code services identify multiple other required firearm inspections all unrelated to cast scope.
Um and I guess those inspections took the two more years get done >> go back to 13. I would ask raise a question. Well, if they were unrelated to Cass, why would CASS be held? Why would it hold up to >> So, this is one that we're working
through with BCS. So, um our with the 2016 referendum, um we're really just we're we're required to stick with the scope. I know that's, you know, to spend the money the way it was specifically designed. A lot of projects call out for a fire alarm panel upgrade. Okay. um the
systems working. When you do the fire alarm panel upgrade, you need a new panel, some of the devices don't work. So, um sometimes we're able to get maintenance to go fix a thing, a device here and there, but sometimes they need to be replaced. Sometimes they need new
wiring and our contractors help us out by BCS won't will not give a final until the fire alarm has no errors, no troubles. So, um, when they do the new put the new panel in, all of a sudden there's troubles here and there and there. You fix that one, then there's
new ones and we kind of go in circles and it's kind of a business decision. I mean, the easy button is to replace all the devices with your panel and it works, right? Then they're responsible, but there's a really big cost to that because you're, you know, putting, can you imagine doing devices around the
whole school? So, our approach right now is to replace the panel, do what we need to do. Some of the schools do have panel and device replacements and those are the ones that we do a sidebyside where we get the new system up and running and then we decommission the old system. Those it works but they have a pretty
good cost to that. Um so that that's the and we we we are actively working um to try to come up with a good system for that. >> Well I think you joged my memory. Uh Mr. Gelfin also um back after COVID there
was a chain supply issue with fire alarm devices specifically and we could not get any new fire alarm uh devices. I'm sure contractors could vouch for that. So that's looks like it falls in that same era when there was a supply chain issues for electronics back then. And so
if they needed a part, it was months or or >> what should have been a two week uh wait might have been a six month or >> so I'm thinking that's probably why there's a delay as well. Just projecting here. >> I think that was a lot of it. I think um
that because maintenance was responsible for doing the work rather than cast um it just it took maintenance a lot longer to get their sub on their their vendor out there to take care of this stuff. Um
and DCS wouldn't like Michael said they would not give them a certificate of completion on the project until everything was addressed. Yeah, it sounds like that's exactly what BCS's job is. I mean, it's the the hated
sign off at the end. >> That's what they're there for. Um, do we have any other projects like this that are coming down the line? >> Maybe. >> Yeah, >> older ones. Definitely a lot of these
older projects we were replacing only the panel and not all of the devices and so yes we may run into this on other occasions. So, I don't know who made the comment of, you know, looking at what we can do, but um, you know, I would urge that, uh,
so that you don't have these three-year periods. You know, even taking out the supply, uh, chain issues, which, you know, with all of the issu new supply chain issues may may be reoccurring again. >> Anything else, Michael? Move it along.
>> Okay. Motion, please. Move to go forward. >> Thank you. Second. >> Second by Kevin. >> Pol staff, please. >> Alexander, >> yes. >> David Porter, >> yes. >> Front Makaboo. >> Yes. >> Mald. >> Yes. >> John Chesher. >> Yes.
>> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ravis. >> Yes. >> Michael Gelfan. >> Yes. >> Michael Guida. >> Yes. >> Virginia Parish. >> Yes. >> Chris Tomkins. >> Yes. >> All right. FC10. Michael Gelfan.
uh somewhat a recurring one, the vandalism, burglary and theft, property damage. Um again, who's risk is it to guard this uh the materials that are delivered to the property?
>> So in this particular case, um when they first submitted the the GMP, we had talked about do we need security, don't need security. So um there it would have been a cost to the project either way. we said, "Let's wait and see." Um, we don't necessarily think that we definitely need it on here. We started
the project early on and figured out, yes, we do need to have this security. So, we we were able to come up with a a level of security that we thought was applicable. We work with school police on that. Um, sometimes when we have um just school police do city visits where they drive by the site, sometimes the
cities will help out drive by the site. We don't have any problems. um we don't want to pay for security full-time security on every project because those costs will be exorbitant. Um, so we take it on a case- by case basis and this project once we got started we said we need to add up the level of security
that we have and that's why this change is coming forward and ultimately I think you know from a grand view regardless of whether we we would expect the contractor to charge
us for it if we were to argue with them no it's your site it's your job you got to take care of it Um, I don't think that I think they'd ultimately say, "Okay, fine. We're just going to put it in our GMPS. We're going to put it in our pricing to make sure we
accommodate the cost of whatever um staffing is necessary." >> But the liability is on them. When things get stolen, they're the ones that have to deal with it. They have to take care of it. It's not. So, yes, it's their liability, but we we do um realize that there's some cost to do that. It's cost of doing business, right?
Um, is there an alternative method of securing? Uh, well, let me ask a question. Are these materials or is this the uh the actual work that's both?
>> Um, I vaguely remember some of the conversations. I don't know, but every everyone's a little different. Sometimes, you know, we can put up some cameras and that suffices. Sometimes, like I said, the the the drive-throughs work, but um I don't remember what the damage is.
>> We had some minor uh small equipment theft, and we also had vandalism. >> Yeah. >> Um there were cameras up. >> In fact, one day, uh they spotted some kids walking through the yard. They were coming in to vandalize. And
>> they were coming through with gasoline canisters. >> Yeah. >> Because I remember seeing the video. They were going to burn the place. >> Oh my god. >> And the Ring camera caught them. And I don't know who who it was, but the Ring camera caught them and
they were able to scare the kids away with that one. And that was a burden that the contractor had taken on themselves early on. >> The project manager actually spoke out to them. He was watching them remotely and said, "Get out of there." And they
went, >> "Is there alternative method of securing materials. Um, you know, I'm very acutely aware of the cost of having a a security on site.
There's there's all different methods and and you know we're we're constantly looking at that from the district's property as well as the construction sites and we have constant ongoing um conversations with um school police and other entities and other AHJs and um
there's no perfect answer but we do what we can. >> Thank you Mr. Cher and >> John Chesher >> guard dog works good. I was just about to recommend that, John. >> That's a hungry one.
>> Um, last but not least, uh, considering the size of this and that the risk normally on this would be on the contractor. Um, is there a problem in or a potential problem in the bidding of this where we would have contractors
that may be more um aware of circumstances would have bid higher incorporating this? >> No, they were they were well aware of the circumstances and and made we had some discussions before we started the project as we do on every project. What
are the security risk? What's the appropriate level of security for this project? and and we take we generally take the approach that we don't want to oversecure the sites because then we're paying tons of money to have full-time rovers all the time and and that's not the best use of of funds. So, uh we
usually try to do what what what we need to do to make it secure. Uh and we have those conversations on every big project. Um and whatever costs that we agree to are included in that GMP and negotiated. Um, this is one where we made some assumptions and and uh turns
out we needed a higher level of security, so we added it after the fact. >> Balanced risk. >> Yep. >> It's always going to be our cost, Michael, whether it was in the GMP or whether it comes afterwards. >> Yeah. >> My is my questions though is that if you have a bidder who anticipates this and
they >> So these aren't Yeah. Just to clarif these aren't bid projects. So we negot we had an approval process for the award to the CM. So they were awarded the project. So this is some of their costs that um and they did negotiate actually
with several entities on this. They talked to uh the city, they talked to school police, they talked to private security companies to get the best value for the work. So there this wasn't a um hard bid that would have affected who we chose who we gave the project to.
All right, those are all my questions. Thank you. >> Need a motion for SC10. >> Forward. >> Thank you. Virginia, >> second by Kevin. >> Bruce Alexander. >> Yes. >> David Porter. >> Yes. >> France Makaboo. >> Yes. >> Jim Mald.
>> Yes. >> John Chesher. >> Yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Reves. >> Yes. >> Michael Gelfan. >> Yes. >> Michael Guida. >> Hi. >> Virginia Parish. >> Yes. >> Chris Tommpkins. Yes.
>> If before we get on to the next one, can I I just want to point out for the record um that our board member uh Miss Branch has joined um a little while ago and was uh has been in on this. >> I didn't want to interrupt, but hi. Good morning. >> Good morning.
>> Good morning. >> All right. FC12 Michael Gelfin. >> Was there bidding on this or just added as change order? That's Well, that's a concern that I have reoccurring when we have the large
change orders. >> I would have to go back and look. I don't know if the project managers on. So, we do a thorough review, not myself, but as um to the cost when we do these change orders. So, I don't I assume it was competitively bid, but there's they
provided a lot of detail to verify that the cost was valid. Um >> and we had ver verified um the price that came in. We had gone to the maintenance department because they use they our maintenance department does our
track reservicing generally um with a direct to a vendor and that this price was verified by the the district staff members that this price was competitive. They had said that the 120 to 140 range
was correct. that's what they came back to us with maintenance staff. So, this fell within that range uh to be a reasonable price. And again, I I hate to to default to our maintenance department, but they truly
are the experts because they are constantly resurfacing with a direct vendor uh direct price vendor. So, they kind of know the industry better than most. And in addition, the our our independent estimator also also looks at
regular costs for this this area um and the the backup that they provided for those cost. So kind of we checked it two different ways. >> In a uh our CM process, they have to come up with a GMP. >> Yes. >> And the GMP will always give us the
multiple bids that they've gotten for drywall and concrete. I'm thinking for any type of change order like this one, even going forward, we should require multiple bids to are no different than when they put the GMP together >> when you can get them. >> Okay? >> And this is one of those services that
you will not get multiple. We've actually had to bring people in from out of state and we've actually had to work on they can only come in between March and May because they're working on other parts of the country to be able to get tracks done. Chris.
>> Yeah. Um I agree um uh thematically with what John just said about getting alternate bids. My question is one of bonding. You know we have if we get a change order from the selected CM or G or GC um you know that that typically will tie to
their shy ship. If we go out for competitive bids, remind me how is the shity ship issue covered for the for the discrete change order work if it is. Um because because
there is a benefit just logistically for assurityity to say to not be able to say hey you know we only bonded this specific portion of the work you know if we have a claim down the road not obviously during construction but under
the performance part uh portion of the uh public uh construction bond. So can I get some help on that? Thanks. I I I think the Michael's question was whether the CM did bids to make it so
part of the contract, not that the district would have bidded as a separate item. >> Yeah, I' I'd have to look back and this isn't the obviously we take out a lot of the backup information when they submit the change orders. There's a whole package that's attached to that um which
we go through. But um I don't know if they got multiple bids on this one. How many they got, I don't I don't know off hand. >> Is Mr. Alexander asking about like whether or not the item the change order item was added through through the bonding company? Like when we got a
change order, we get a 2% increase for the bond. >> Typically, we do and it's >> Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly right. I just wanted to make sure that that if it runs smoothly that it's covered under the bond, the change order is covered under
the bond as opposed to it being considered an outside or independent obligation of that shity or any other shity. >> Right. >> That that's really it. >> Yeah. Generally, I and I don't want to speak for this one because I don't know the details. I apologize. But generally,
yeah, when change orders coming through, especially if added scope items are coming through, um we do expect that not only they going to provide additional insurance, whatever premium is necessary to cover the additional costs of that work, but also the bonding capacity.
They need to include this back in their bonding. They have they and they will charge us. So, in addition to the cost of the work, they're charging us for additional insurance, etc., etc. >> Uh yes. Whose responsibility is it to notify the bonding company that we added a bunch of scope? Does it the districts
or is it the the con the contractors? >> It'd be the construction manager to notify their responsibility. >> But if they don't they do because they want the extra 2%. But what if they don't? Then the bond says, "We didn't know you're doing it. Too bad." So, >> and that's where I turn to the lawyers
and say, "Well, listen, we paid for that item to be included in the bond. If the CM failed to do so, I'm going to turn my lawyers to them and say, "Well, then let's make them that's their burden. If something happens, wouldn't their they then be responsible?" you guys have
>> I would I guys I would ask that that one of the ways to um hopefully simplify this is when the change order is signed part of the packet is a consent of shy from the shity to the change order so
that we're sure that they're tied in and understand that their bond covers this that consent of shy is you know a document we're all well aware of and they're generally uh fine giving it as long as they're asked to give it. So hopefully that's something I'm
interested candidly from the contractors are in the room if anybody has any has had any historical objection to getting consensive shy from their from their uh public construction bond shies because
because that is the simplest way to do it unless anybody else has a better idea. Thanks. >> It's certainly something we'll look into. Absolutely. I I would uh I don't want to say the contractors all have their heads down, but no.
Um the the reality is it's a great point. Um maybe there's a something we can work into this that it's a a condition. I'm not 100% sure that um shy will issue the consent without a signed change order and this you're asking for it prior to signing the change order,
but we can at least ask and see if there's a pro a process improvement on this for us. >> Yeah. No, the way the way that it has worked is that they issued a consent of shy and they say it only becomes effective once the change order is signed. >> Good. If they can do that, then that
sounds like a a great uh area to to explore and improve our process. >> I have seen letters from the shity company adding the additional amounts on just letterhead but not providing an additional shity.
>> Is that sufficient? Um yes from me it I you know we all we ask three lawyers and you'll get a minimum of eight opinions which is always >> um uh for sure it's absolutely helpful
but the consent of shy as an industry form brings with it a lot of legal interpretation that's distinct from a an acknowledgement on letterhead. And so e even if it's followed up with the the
the consent of shy form saying the same thing that's on the letter head um I would ask please that we give consideration to that because of the body of law that benefits both the contractor and the district in having
the consent of shy as distinct from um an email or a letterhead. Thank you >> Chester. Yeah, two things. The contract addresses this. I don't know what it says, but I recall reading in there, it says under change orders, you have to
notify the shity and increase the bond. That's number one. And number two, if you um scroll down to page eight on this item, you can see that there's no bond been added to the contractor's price in this case.
Yeah, I mean in this case the work's done um on this one happens to be done. They went ahead and did it at risk. Um so but is it definitely something that from a process standpoint we want to work through. So we appreciate all the input there. Yeah, I would I would suggest that for the next monthly
requisition that we make sure that that everything ties in both as to the adjusted contract price and the the um the um the penal sum of the bond that they're consistent. Um, that's one way
to kind of work it backwards because I again, um, and it sounds like a broken record, but I do agree with John, we should have seen the the the whatever the percentage markup was for 30 ship within the change order to give
ourselves comfort that the bonding companies involved and therefore because they're getting paid, they're not going to have the slightest objection in issuing a consent of shity. So, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. >> Okay, Michael, you had pulled this.
Anything else? >> Nothing else. Thank you. Thank you. >> Move to go forward. >> Second. Same two staff. >> Bruce Alexander. >> Yes. >> Porter. >> Yes. >> Brent Makaboo.
>> Yes. Jim, >> yes. >> John Chasher, >> yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes. >> Mr. Ravis, >> yes. >> Michael Gelfan, >> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Virginia Ferris, >> yes. >> Chris Tomkins,
>> yes. >> Okay. FC13, Michael Gelfand. The purpose of the re-roofing pro uh project, what triggered it? >> Bleaks. >> The purpose of the re-roofing in general?
>> Yeah, correct. >> The district maintenance department has done an exhaustive study with an outside roofing vendor to uh score, grade, evaluate all of our roofs of all schools. That's that's kind of the big
picture. >> They updated every year. >> Yeah, it's updated every year. And the the scoring I don't even know how it's scored, but there's there's that basically identifies the priorities as to what roofs are being done this year. >> They they give they give it letter grades, the A through F, right? Um and
then we also monitor how many work orders we're getting. So as we get into some of these D's and Fs, there's leaks, right? So the the ones that are leaking more, we push them up and try to get those done. So ideally going forward um we don't wait that long but we're trying
to catch up from you know a decade of maintenance that we didn't have funding to do. So we're trying to catch up all our roofs to be complete but right now it's yeah the worst roofs we do first. >> No, it's a good idea. I wish some of my clients could you talk to them? They
tend to want to wait until after there's extensive damage underneath before they do anything. Yeah. >> But on this one in particular, um, so we're re- roofing in essence because we have leaks. So we're going to have moisture in the in insulation.
>> Um, and we know it's there. It's not visible. So why is this an unforeseen condition? They actually had a study um the the well I'll let you guys answer because I know you guys know it better but
essentially the study that was done that I was done like a I guess a year ago or so and subsequent to that that so the design that was put together was based on the evaluation at the time and after the design was completed there was a
substantial set of rains in the summer that had a negative impact on one area of this school that was not in the design that was not anticipated to be needed to have a full
re- roof kind of thing. Um >> so basically we we do investigate it when we do the design of how much needs to be done. At that time it was determined that the insulation was not wet. Um but once by between then and when they started construction it did the thermmoing imaging scan and it
started to leak and had some issues with it. So it happened between design and construction starting. Uh actually after construction started that's when they did their investigation. >> The architects or engineer are going to
have to help me out on this. Um, I I'm I seem to be missing something in in my own process here because if we have a bad roof, uh whether it's a really and we're going to have bad rains every
year, we have that. It's just, you know, whether it's in March or June or September, it's still going to be there. We're going to have this the moisture intrusion there. Um, I'm wondering if this is something that we should be
having as uh you know a a an extra on the contract but so that it's part of the bidding process. >> Yeah, we've talked about so these are um ITBs so they're competitively bid. Um it's not these aren't Semar projects
where we can have that flexibility. So we what we do is we we as the design team goes out there looks at how much leaks in they have right now and that's what they base their design on and you know the easy button again kind of like the fire alarms is to take everything down to the deck and redo it every time
but that's an exorbitant cost of the district. So we take a conservative approach knowing that we may have some of these change orders come through that we have some leaks that weren't identified and we have to replace. Um, so that that's our process is if we know there's areas that are wet, we call it
for the plans to be pulled out. Um, areas that are dry when we do our design, uh, we don't call to be replaced. And and then that way we get a competitive bidding process. But know that if between design and when they actually do the work and pull it off, there's some unforeseen. Sometimes it's
rusted deck that wasn't noticed or things like that that we have some change orders on some of these roofing projects. Move to go forward. >> Second. >> Move to have lunch. >> All right. Got a first and a second. Any other comments, discussion?
>> Who was the second? >> Uh, clear. >> All right. Staff, go ahead. Polit. >> Bruce Alexander. >> Yes. >> David Porter. >> Yes. >> France Makaboo. >> Yes. >> Jim Al. Yes, >> John Chesher. >> Yes, >> Kevin Wilkinson.
>> Yes, >> Lisa Ravis. >> Yes, >> Michael Gelfin. >> Yes, >> Michael Guida. >> Yes, >> Virginia Parish. >> Yes, >> Chris Tomkins. >> Yes, >> PC1. Michael Gelfand >> PC. >> Um, going through the uh
pre-qualifications for Stephvenson, their certificates of insurance are out of date, I presume. And just want to double check that those will be up to date. Same thing with I think it's Hatcher. Um, and those were an earlier one. Um,
which probably should have been caught before they they attached it. Is there a process for that? >> Yes. Um, we will have the most updated ones uh before these go to the board. Um, I'm
just looking right now. I see usually what we're deal what the um the gentleman who's who administers this program, he'll send an email to the firm and tell them, you know, it gives them a list of items that are missing or needed before it goes to board and then we
attach those items usually before it gets here for you. Um, right now we're kind of in an expedited um phase right now because we're trying to get as many M firms qualified as possible before we
solicit the new um 0 to7.5 million continuing contract for Semars. So, um, we're really running through, you know, we're processing the applications, many more applications than usual, and we're trying to get them to, you know, for your review and get them to work as
quickly as possible. So, I'm sure there'll be some followup on on on some of the items you're seeing this month and possibly next month. >> Um, then on me, and this is in part C. I don't know that you need to go through
it, but I was looking there's a significant number of pay dispute lawsuits, more than we've seen elsewhere. And is that a warning signal
um of of of them there? >> That's at 12 of 136 or 11 of 136. um >> on part C. >> Oh, it's on part C. >> Yeah. >> So, the applications go through, you
know, a a multi-step process between a factf finding committee and then through legal and um definitely work members. Um no one has raised that issue that they felt that this application should be
pulled and deemed nonresponsive for for qualification. And I will tell you that as part of our process, I mean, we work with MESM for a long time and and on every one of their projects, like any other contractor, at the closeout of our projects, we get signoffs from all the subs that they've
been fully paid on everything. So, um, >> Mr. Gil, what page were we looking at? >> I was looking at, uh, where was I here? Get back to it. Um, page 11 of 136. And then also on to 12 both both of
those pages listed and each of them were pay disputes. You know I understand one in a while. Um but you know uh just looking at all these are lined up. Um,
>> but if they have a good track record with us, >> they do. >> All right. And we've not been involved in any disputes with their subs or anything like that. Correct. >> No more than some of the other contractors in the room today.
>> I don't know what that quite means, but >> they're all looking at me like, you looking at me? Well, I think what Dave's alluding to is that on all of our projects, the subs have contractors with their CM. If they're not paid in the time that corresponds with that
contract, they're obligated to notify the CM and the owner that they haven't paid that work. Sometimes it's just a delay in processing the payment application or whatever like this. So, we get those notices all the time and every one of those we follow through with and make sure that they're paid for that work before we process the next
payout. It's just part of doing business. So those kind of disputes happen on every project for every CM and there's nothing um there's really that's just part of the industry. Um so those are all resolved and everything's paid by the end of the project and we check those every every time we get one of
those make sure we run it down and make sure they've been paid for the work that they deserve. Yeah, it's just on for some reason in this trunch, the larger one than we have in the past, I haven't seen this level of payment related dispute because that's also with
reference to Burke at page 43 of 136. Um, actually the listings start on page 44, right? >> Um, there's a significant number of payment disputes that we have here. um
including bizarre uh derivative action for failure to pay subcontract sums. Not seen that before. And a whistle whistleblower complaint. Um so
are do they have a a long history with us and a good history of paying or what's the scoop on? >> Yes. I mean they've been around for not long. I don't know. Joe and Dave, you know, but they've been along a long long time, done a lot of work with the district over the years, and we've never
had a project where we weren't able to close it for nonp payment. So, >> I don't know if they've done kind of projects for us, but I know they've done it. They've done a lot of >> mess. Okay. I thought we switched to Burke. >> We switched to Burke. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I thought you
mentioned me. >> No, he mentioned he switched. But >> you said page 43 and 44. Rod, I moved from one to the next. >> I'm sorry. I didn't follow you. Yeah. No concern.
>> I was the the init the initial discussion was is Messum a concern for us? Have they have they been a a challenging contractor? And as I mentioned, no. >> Answered that already. Yeah, I've heard that. And >> moved on to Burke. >> Moved on to Burke. Yeah. I I don't I
mean I know work a little bit. um in that work with I know they've done a lot of private work but uh they've done a couple of projects for us too I think right not not much >> I don't have anything recent >> recent okay maybe not I know they've done some private schools
>> and I I remember this because every every year I make a point to tell the superintendent hey your company >> right yeah has nothing to do with the superendent >> nothing to do with the superend >> so Burke has not built anything for us >> is not building No, >> I mean,
>> no, that company is >> a few years ago, we had a contractor that had this much litigation, >> and it was our recommendation that that be reconsidered. >> I mean, that's that's a lot of claims. >> Barbara, did we have how many
submissions do we have on this one >> um that are going to board? >> No, on this particular project or is >> how many submissions? Oh, is this is this renewal? Sorry, >> this is just pre not an actual bid.
>> Again, it's and my apologies, Mr. Gelfant, but I'm the the folks sitting in here don't really know Burke well enough to say yay or nay. Um I mean, have I have not heard anything bad in the industry, but I may not know as well
as others. Um but I >> I mean >> there's 40 40 items from 2020 through 2025. >> Yeah. I mean you know so when when the folks are reviewing these applications and for the the litigation sort of the the
mental thought process is >> they've been pre-qualified year after year after year. So we're kind of looking at the last year and is does the last year look >> significantly different than years before where they have been approved or
you know is there a cause for concern over the past year. That's sort of what what you know we're we're looking at when we're reviewing them. But I mean that's just one approach. You can look at it certainly like you just did Mr. Porter from all the way from 2020 you know the five years look back that they
have to provide and go the whole distance. I mean, it's >> I will say we have we have some firms with more than this litigation. >> And I would say if this was the first year they were trying to be pre-qualified, then I'd have a stronger objection than they've always been
pre-qualified and they're just getting re-qualified. >> Okay, >> you're muted. >> Yep. Thank you. Um I I think you know a claim is a claim, but to me the the analysis would be what's the outcome of the claim, right? Um because if we're
going to be looking at folks who have multiple claims that may be that that there may be a justification for the for the fact of claims. But I think it's worth if if we're going to consider not qualifying someone then I think that
that you know whether you um you know you can apply whatever adjective starting with due process that you want but to me it would be the outcome of the claims as more important than just the the mere existence of the claims. I just wanted to provide that um quiet um
commentary. Thank I wanted to ask the question um is there any requirement that the school board um receive documentation that their CM's subcontractors have been paid. >> Yeah.
>> So that's where most of the litigation happens is the subcontractors. >> So we every month we check it and then at the end of the project we we check it at another level. So >> we get lean releases. Correct. >> Yeah. Not every month. Every month we get a report where the subcontractor goes online and signs off saying that
they've completed that work >> and then at the end of the project we get the full lean releases. >> Okay. So we're actually hearing from the sub, not the contractor saying, "Oh yeah, I paid them." >> Yes. >> That's good. >> All right. I'm okay with this. Michael, you want do anything more with this or
approve it? >> No further. >> All right. Second by Kevin. >> Go ahead. staff. >> Bruce Alexander, >> yes. >> A Porter, >> yes. >> Ranch Makaboo, >> yes. >> Jim Alves, >> yes. >> Ron Chasher,
>> yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes. >> Lisa Ravis, >> yes. >> Michael Galpan, >> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Virginia Parish, >> yes. >> Chris Tomkins, >> yes.
BC2. Michael, >> has school police reviewed the plans and specs on this >> first storefront? >> I don't I do not believe so. And I don't believe that's warranted on this one. >> Yeah, I don't think >> Yeah, they don't usually look at doors
and windows. >> Um because I see >> Well, I guess from a card reader stand, I I would think so. Um, >> they have to ask the project manager, but they should have checked for card readers. Yeah, >> we we talked to them um and met with
them on this project, but they were not um changing the current card readers and whatnot that they have. So, once we remove them, they're just we'll remove put them back and then they'll reprogram. So there should be no additional I I assume I'm going on the assumption but
that there should be no additional asks from school police. >> That's what we understand currently. Yes. >> All right. Because you know I don't want to get into to specifications themselves. I don't want to see a change for either
the electronics or for the hardening of the product itself. That's why I ask >> question I had I forgot to pull this one is um why are we still using steel frames and doors if this as an example
we replaced it in 2022 and we're replacing them again? >> We so we're using hollow metal um >> and we we did not replace all of them in 2022. We replaced what was needed to be
replaced at that time. No, but the the followup says the exterior doors and windows that needed to be replaced were replaced during the FCA project for the school in 2022. >> Yes. The ones >> I read that as needed to be replaced now. >> No,
>> no, no. The the ones that needed to be replaced at that time. >> Oh, in 2020. >> We didn't replace them all. >> No. >> Now we're going back to replace the ones that didn't get replaced. We only did a few with the FCA project. >> Yeah, exactly. This was one of those projects that we realized, wow, we were really underfunded on certain items. I
know you've asked us about the saw >> that were underfunded. And this was one of those where we went, oh boy, we really needed more. So, we did the the absolute musts back in 22 and said, "We got to create a project. That's why it's an ITB."
>> So, what is a standard? >> Steel doors and frames though, right? >> No steel doors. >> Yeah, we're still using steel doors and frames. >> Is that a problem? I never find them to hold up in South Florida. They're going to always rust out. >> I've even gotten them galvanized and they'll still rust out unless they're
under, you know, a 10-ft porch covering. >> And we'll keep prepping them and painting them and coating them to try to prolong the life and then yes, that'll be a replacement. >> Okay. All right. Well, >> well, should we be looking at some
recommending staff look at a alternative product in the future? I think I brought this up 10 years ago and believe the comment came back. Steel doors are more secure contract aluminum. >> Yes, >> we do some aluminum on new schools.
>> Um, >> do we? >> Yeah. >> Y >> I would have BCS look at that again. And then, you know, when we replace busted out steel doors and frames, should we be considering going back with aluminum?
>> Because you won't be replacing those. Now, the problem you've got with that is that once they get scratched up, you're not painting them, >> right? >> Because they're factory finished. >> Yeah. >> So, tradeoffs. >> Okay. Anything else, Michael?
>> It sounds like an appropriate motion would be no objection to the board considering, but requesting staff to review the uh frame material selection. >> Future jobs.
Second. >> Okay. Any other comments, discussion? Steph, take it away. >> Bruce Alexander, >> yes. >> David Porter, >> yes. >> Makaboom, >> yes. >> Jim Al, >> yes. >> John Chesher, >> yes. >> Evan Wilkinson,
>> yes. >> Lisa Ravis, >> yes. >> Michael Gelfan, >> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Virginia Parish, >> uh, yes. I'd like to make a general comment after the polling is finished. >> Okay, Chrisins.
>> Yes, >> go ahead. Go ahead, Virginia. >> All right. I I just want to thank Michael Gelfen for your very careful and thorough review of this packet. Um I I do really truly appreciate your in-depth analysis. So, thank you very much.
>> Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate everyone's patience and the follow-up questions also. >> But it was needed. Okay. Um, I think we should get to the local preference before we run out of time because it's already 5 after 11. >> You can always do the staff updates,
follow-ups, and things later. >> I'd like to thank John for, you know, putting that together. Uh, it gave me a lot more information about any type of local preference consideration. Um, you
want to just answer we all have it and just fire away questions or how you want to handle it? >> Done. >> It's up to you all. Um, I think the next if if Cork agrees that we should be doing a stronger local preference, the
next step would be up to staff to come up with a new policy. >> I do I just have a question. Is there a survey that goes out to past and present vendors in regards to are they having challenges getting more contracts
locally or no? >> No. >> And we hear from some of the industry, you know, economic council, business development board that comments um through leadership as whether they're
having challenges. Go >> Virginia. >> Was I called on? >> Yes, I called you Virginia. >> I wasn't sure I heard my name. Um, thank you, John. Very good. Uh, succinct report, but you didn't mention what our
own Palm Beach County, not the district, but the county. And I think you didn't you work for the county and you did not include what the county's preference um criteria was, >> right? I'm not 100. Yes. But that was
like seven years ago. I'm not sure what it is now, but I don't think I don't remember to tell you the truth about the Palm Beach County if they do have one or not. >> Well, I I just think and aside from what you've concluded that we also want to
include what the county does because we are countywide and see how we would compare and how we might uh do something similar. That would be my comment. And John, I think our process might be
that we put as cork basically a letter and a and a proposal together for what this group agreed to as a consensus and that goes to the board is basically a report from us >> before anything goes through staff to develop a policy because the board has
to direct whether there's a policy created or not. Right? And I think it's our I think what we wanted to do from this is express the opinion of Cork to the board and then let the board decide whether to trash it or that it has some
validity to have staff then dig into it further. >> The uh couple questions I had you were mentioning the u the corporate location would need to be basically here not just let's say a satellite office. Um, two
examples that I would think be considered, and I'll only use companies that kind of I know of, like the Whites Corporation. Uh, they're headquartered in De Mo, Iowa, but they probably employ 60 plus people here in Palm Beach County. Um, but that's not
their national headquarters. And Harbor Jolly, they got absorbed by somebody else, >> DBK. >> Yeah. But when it was Harbor Jolly, they were headquartered on the west coast of Florida, but they again had, you know, another 40 or 50 person architectural
firm here. Um, and to us that was their headquarters. So, I don't know how we handle and differentiate identifying kind of a national headquarter location versus something that's more than just one or two people
occupying a storefront. Yeah, I think that's where the definition nerve center comes into play. Whites, I'm sure, has their local office here. They are the nerve center for all the construction work that they do um within state of
Florida, I'm sure. And that could be fine-tuned once the uh go-ahhead is given as far as what the process should be. When I say process, I think all we're doing is revising the selection criteria. So, I'm not quite sure it's a
major policy change or not. >> Okay. >> Jim Al. >> Yeah. Um I just want to say thanks to John. I think it's a very good analysis. Um I just want to um add just something
for everyone's consideration um for this policy and you know moving forward with it. I wouldn't stand in the way of it. Um, just want to make sure that people understand that what we're actually looking at here is probably about 15%.
Let's say we have the bond program coming for 2 billion. The actual amount that we're actually looking at as far as construction firms is only 15% of the cost of a project. The the reality is
that 80% to 90% of a project is through the subcontracting community. So repres representing that we are going to be bringing $2 billion to the community or that this policy is going to do that.
It's not really going to do that. If we wanted to go a little bit deeper, uh Miami Dade has a has a requirement. It's a it's a local resident preference where uh they require 51% uh this is the county, not the district.
uh they require 51% of all people that are on a project be Miami Dade County. So I just want to make it clear, you know, what we're looking at here. You got 5% fee and maybe 10% GNA, maybe 15%
GNA depending on the job. But at the end of the day, that's, you know, it's it's a lot more limited than what we might be thinking that we're affecting. Yes. We're starting to get into the the details about what it would look like.
And I don't I think the step before that is really determining whether or not this is something that the the board and I think you mentioned it should share correctly is that really the board needs to give direction to staff to to to pursue this or not. Um it yeah it's it's
a tweaking of the the criteria some to extent but I think that and I and I don't I don't we don't typically ask the board to design the criteria for the for selections. However, I think this is a polit policy decision that we we do need to get direction from the board because we need to understand what it is that
they're looking for uh if they want to if they want to do something like this and then then we can start talking about those details about you know what what qualifies. I want to again to me it doesn't make somewhere else. I just want to want you to understand that there are some pros and cons. There are some
different things that um and I do appreciate Mr. Chester's report as well. Um I think he tried to be as fair as possible by giving both sides of the argument. I did want to point out there are some other things from a staff's perspective that we have to consider as well and that the board will consider. One is that there be there's going to be
some additional cost to us if we do policy that requires for example us to visit the sites to make sure that this is where needed more staff in order to do that. It may be um you know there may be other things other expenses that come along
with that the board would need to be willing to support that additional cost to implement the policy. So that's one of the things I want to make sure that the board is aware of. The other thing is um you know I attended a couple of meetings with the board recently and you know there's this concern about the
state um what used to be called a doge now it's called something different um you know whether there's concern that this may this may be concerned that additional cost that we're incurring that the state doesn't feel like we should be incurring. So I mean again I'm not trying to give credence to those
kind of things. I just want to make sure that people are aware that those those conversations are happening u before we go forward. So again I just think the next step is to really go to the board next and to give some direction. >> So Leanne >> yeah I just wanted to add um there is
also some procurement issues. Um FEMA does not allow for local preference. So there there's some other things and this this discussion about local preference really falls under finance and purchasing. So as Mr. Sanchez mentioned there are some other things that would
need to be considered and again we app I appreciate all the work that went into this and I'm I'm not saying no at all. It's not my job anyways. Um but there there's other things that would need to be added to this that that are other things staff would have to deal with. So I just wanted to make sure Cork was
aware. >> Okay. Evan, did you have something? >> Yes, I had just to Mr. Sanchez. I was just wondering as an attorney portal to portal you we bill. We we bill from where we go. So if if you hire any in any kind of contracting when you hire
somebody from Orlando, does the district get build build for the travel time of the architect? Is there anything in that that brings math into the equation versus values? >> I I don't negotiate those contracts. >> That's us. >> It's us. Okay. All right. Well, then
I'll defer to Mr. Dolan. >> Yeah. So from a from a legal standpoint, we're not allowed to negotiate the architects and engineers contract based on fee. We negotiate based on qualific well we award based on qualifications and then we negotiate the fee. >> Okay. >> So we we consider yes if somebody is
driving from out of state they may have costs there but we negotiate the fees holistically for all the different parts of the services that they're providing us. >> So it's your bottom line number and Orlando firm that's putting that cost into it. They're going to have to compete on the bottom line. >> Got to fall in line with with our other
projects. Yes. But it is considered. So they may have some cost for travel that local company might not, but they may save cost somewhere else. And the bottom line overall number has to be in line with our other firms that we're seeing. >> And that's the same with your change orders. By the way, if you have an Orlando firm on your ch remember to sync
change orders that that your if they're coming from Orlando, the district doesn't eat the travel costs. >> Correct. Except for the Glades. I will I will say that's one one differentiation is that we find that because it is in Palm Beach County y >> we will pay a higher premium for u an
anticipated higher premium for glaze related work just because it's ch more challenging to get >> so there's almost no math in this equation and no accounting no no dollars >> and and I guess I assume it goes to what Mr. Sanchez was alluding to before was more in the selection process because
when we negotiate a thing, you know, map is not not really evaluated so much, but it is certainly consideration when which I believe is Mr. Chesher's point during the selection process whether you want to bring in that concern from Orlando or
Tallahassee or wherever. Thank you, >> Chris. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Um I you know I I have at the last um of our meetings I indicated that I once again agree with John um philosophically on the issue of
strengthening preference um a local level. I just want to make sure that if that is the ultimate decision that we as um a committee wish to advance this concept
that once it hits with legal um there were some major changes in the July 2025 legislation even to statute 287.055 055 having an impact on local preference and
I just want to make sure that because one of the one of the thoughts would be hey let's look at what Broward Date and some other counties have done and let's just match their language right but their language predates the legislative
changes that took place in July of 2025. So let's please just make sure if it reaches that point that we are extremely sensitive to making sure that we're not only falling in line but others done but
the latest uh legislative changes that were kicked in some six months ago. Thank you. Yeah, Bruce, I looked at that a while back and the only thing I could see is
the change to the statute was that a local entity could not prohibit um outside firms from the county from bidding on a project. I didn't see anything that um would affect what we're trying to do here, but you're right, it
it does need to be looked at again. Okay. Um, what does CO wish to do with this at this point? >> John, you have any suggestions? You're kind of the captain of the ship here. >> Well, I kind of agree with what Joe
said. He he needs to uh somehow get it on to the board and have them give us their thoughts if they're going to support a change like this or not. kind of vote to see that there's a consensus >> among we need to vote, but I want to figure out what we're trying to vote on.
>> And I think what it would result in is you or you putting something together that we could agree to as a committee for a one-page report that just goes to the board with our opinion. Sanchez, >> you do have you do have a board member
who is who is a member of this committee, right? So you this the this uh court could ask that board member to bring this as a discussion item at an upcoming board meeting and then that that board member could put this on the agenda for the the board to discuss a
workshop and as a result then the result of that workshop will give us some direction as to where how we go forward. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean um this is Bruce again. My request would be maybe that there's some validity in considering a motion that
does anyone on court disagree that you know this is an appropriate request to make of our court committee member who serves on the school district board to advance as as an item for
consideration is the sense I'm getting and again maybe I want to read what I want to read but the sense I'm getting is I'm not hearing hearing anyone objecting to the notion of strengthening our local preference program. And if that's true, then I think that there's
value for our committee member who serves on the board um to be able to say, "Hey, look, it was unanimous." If in fact that's true, should such a motion be made and put on the on the floor right now um to request does
anyone object to our uh school district member who serves on Cork being able to report to Cork that look there there was a there was a a written analysis put together with significant thought. There was discussion during the meeting. Um,
no one, assuming it's true, no one uh is objecting to advancing this concept for review and consideration by the school district. In fact, there's a request being made to do that. Um, and to me, that would be something I'd ask us to
consider by way of a motion if in fact people feel that way. Thank you. >> I think that was well said. Does uh somebody want to make a motion that we consider um an adjustment to the selection point process
for strengthening um local preference for contractors and architects. >> I'd be glad to make the motion if somebody words it or possibly John might word it the best way >> because I support it the concept.
>> Yeah. My my motion would be that that after um review of written material submitted and substantive discussion during the court meeting of December um 11, 2025 that there is that there was a
unanimous consensus amongst board amongst court members to request of our court committee member who also serves as a member of the school district board to so notify the board and put on an
item for discussion at the next available um school district meeting that board that Cork has is in is in agreement that and is requesting that the school district approve a detailed
process to to be put into play to um local preference beyond its current stature. That would be my motion. Before I second it or we go forward, if Miss Branch is still on the call, I'm curious
as to her reaction to that type of motion. >> I don't have a problem with it at all. I just need to um I'd have to ask Tony how we can just add it as an item. >> Maybe not maybe not at our next meeting,
but maybe in January. Um as a discussion item. I don't have a problem with it. Great. >> Yeah. Miss, >> don't do I second it. >> We just have to figure out the logistics of it. Then we can figure that out. >> Yeah. The logistics of it is you just um
notified uh Tony Sinclair that you want to add it as a discussion item and you know it will it will be on there. >> Yeah, that's easy. >> And I would recommend for January because I believe believe all the December meetings everything's pretty much closed out.
>> I think it is. Yeah. Okay, we've had Bruce's first and Virginia, you seconded it, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other discussion or comments? The only thing I would say is, do we
have enough for Miss Branch to take to the board to have an actual discussion item or do we need to provide her with some more uh talking points, >> more details of our opinion? I I guess we're just really asking for the general
idea of whether the board wants to even entertain adjusting our point system to make things more preferential, >> right? We just want to go forward to ask if should we be going forward with a a
study of it to make recommendations. >> Okay. And I think John's uh memo is excellent and that you know if that gets sent out that gives a bit of a layout of the land and if they want to go ahead and staff pulls it in after the fact.
>> Okay. Mr. Sanchez, >> I was going to say if um if the court is not immediately in favor or immediately opposed to it, they could ask for a workshop where they can get additional information. So I wouldn't be surprised if that's that's a one of the potential outcomes of of this discussion item.
Yeah. >> Yeah. Actually as a discussion item they're not allowed to vote on the discussion. So they'd have to separately bring >> Okay. Uh staff go ahead and poll us then. >> Bruce Alexander. >> Yes. >> David Porter. >> Yes. France Makabu.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> John Chesher. >> Yes. And thank you Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes. >> Lisa Revis, >> yes. >> Michael Gelfan, >> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Virginia Ferris,
>> yes. And thank you, John. >> Yes. >> Chris Tomkins, >> yes. >> Okay, we have uh >> Let me just I just want to when I bring it up as a discussion item, I can just then also say, can we have a workshop on it? That way we can get it rolling. >> Absolutely.
>> Thank you. >> Yes. And I would nominate John Chesher to attend that workshop. All right, John, you're nominated. >> I >> All right, let's uh roll down the rest of the meeting for the six minutes we have so that we don't extend it.
>> I go to 5.01. >> Yeah, that's that's that's just a brief update on policy. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Um just to give everybody an overview, um uh we had a uh a special meeting last night for our first reading on the
policies. Um the uh four of the policies went through on consent. The fifth one was brought up for discussion that was 7.22 the uh and uh the change orders and um it was discussed back and forth. Uh primarily the uh topic that was brought
up was concern with the thresholds um on approvals, the $200,000 uh uh staff delegated approvals. Um, and I won't characterize, but I will say that the uh the uh board voted last
night uh on a 5 to2 in support of moving the policies uh of that policy forward. The others all passed on consent. And um but I also wanted to make sure that everybody realized there's there's more stuff going on here. Um we've got
other things lining up down the road. I know we were planning on actually presenting. I don't think we're going to have time to, but um the uh uh contract language, assuming the policies do go forward, then the contracts needed to be updated based on a lot of the
information in the policies. And we've been staff has been working on them for two years now, but and we've been working with uh um uh purchasing and general counsel and some of the other departments that are affected by it. So, we are very far along and we were we're
hoping to get the opportunity to present something, but I don't know if we're going to have time. >> It it would take at least an hour to go through it. >> So, launcher. >> So, we're if it's okay, we we will bring that back again next month, which is
good because we actually had a couple last minute items which we were debating in house. Um and uh and there's there's more to go on because uh we do want to be able to also bring to you in the future. Michael
has you all have not yet heard what our program is going to look like for the next 10 years. Yes, I know the terror of Isach is sitting here crying knowing what he's got uh going forward for the next uh 10 years. But we felt uh it's it's
necessary that we let you know how we're developing our capital plan, how we're developing our vendor services that are going to be necessary to run these um the the sales tax and uh all of our capital program over the next 10 years. So again, uh no time to do that right
now, but we do plan on if it's okay with Cork, uh that we would bring that back in coming months to kind of discuss not only the contract, it's all melded together. You guys all have to understand that you can't have just contract discussions without understanding what are we building these
contracts for, certain programs, certain amounts of money, certain vendors, um durations of time for projects. So, um we if it's okay, we will bring that all back uh to you um I want to say in January and or February. >> I think we need to take it in steps. I
think the contract is the most critical item because we're getting ready to go out with our seven and a half contract for CMS. We'd like to get feedback on that. Um >> to answer that question if any of you are asking. Um there are currently um
some uh Seymar uh contracts that are continuing contracts with a group of Seamar contractors already pre uh selected and that's we've we've often talked about them as the 0 to2 million and the 2 to four million. Those
contracts will ultimately sunset and we're actually looking at putting together a new solicitation to bring on a whole new set of contractors or not a new set but a whole new solicitation for 0 to 7.5 million. The reason is 7.5 is
the is the statute now allows what used to be a $4 million limit is now a $7.5 million limit. So, we will be bringing out forward a RFP to hire new contractors and that we're working with. >> And I'm gonna halt you there. That was
enough of an overview. >> There we go. >> Any issues on minutes? Anyone have issues on the minutes? >> Just one correction at the very end of the minutes. It says next date of next meeting and it gives the November date rather than the January date.
And um I just want to verify that in January we're meeting on the 3 Thursday rather than the second >> I believe so. Yes. And you all should have received an email from Aaron. >> Got it. >> I've got to invite >> everybody got that. If not, give a shout out to to us.
>> Well, that's where the third third their third Thursday issue came up because it usually mean on the second Thursday. >> Yes. And uh these are all based on the board dates which were approved last month, right? All right. Anything else by anyone? And we're gonna then adjourn.
>> Have a real quick thing, David. Um, >> happy holidays. >> Yes. >> Happy holidays, everyone. >> So, this is Dorothy's official and unofficial last clerk meeting with us. >> Well, no, Dorothy.
>> That's the bad news. The good news is she has agreed to stay on a little longer with the district. uh not doing cork stuff but working on so you will see some of her product undetermined time to help us make some transitions but um thank her for all the work that
she >> finally have somebody to blame except Canard >> we have an opening on the committee can we recommend >> oh no >> all right fan I believe that his hand >> Michael yes quickly >> yeah I just want to say thank you very
much but on the minutes um I believe uh if if I could get just a note in there of my comment that I worked on uh or had represented a client. I thought I had seen it in the minutes, but looking back at them now, I don't see that comment in there.
>> He had recused himself from one that he >> one of the items. Yeah. >> All right, we are adjourned. Thank you everyone. >> See you next year. Yeah, >> it's a little bit more fun in Bristol.