breaker and say good morning everyone hope everyone's having a great day wug good morning everybody all right it looks like we have a quorum in the room and online so it looks like we can get our meeting started here hope it is less
long than the uh item okay so we'll see um let's start with attendance darthy please dorothy Banisheski facilities construction holly Han Office of the General Council michael Tubiello facilities construction david Dolan
facilities management david Porter court court member james Al building contractor court member court member no no longer contractor i just saw on the list here yeah it's fine canyon facilities construction
facilities Construction with Randolph Construction Group Construction john Levenson representing Cisco Architects and Warden Smith james Gable Chief Operating Official Reg Architects colin Stevens
with Verdex Construction ben Guanella Ple Construction jacob Catz Purle Construction james Farrell with facilities construction the handle online please hey Bruce Alexander and good morning everyone francesca Warish
hi present john Chesher good morning present kevin Wilkinson present lisa Revs present michael Gelfand
present tom Burgerer here traderick McCoy here can I interrupt for a second before we begin yes hi Dorothy gloria Branch on here also we were we were getting to you Gloria thank you though i heard Mr
levenson say Wharton Smith that he's there for i didn't see that there was a Wharton Smith issue is there no not Not in particular okay i represent Wharton Smith that's just why
I wanted to find out okay yeah i don't think we have anything on the agenda for them today so you're safe okay and then as Miss Branch noted our school board representative um Gloria Branch is with us
very good and also Joe Sanchez good morning everyone morning Joe and everybody online if you could um mute yourselves um and if you can't hear us for any reason don't forget um give a shout out let us know
okay chairman's report i don't have anything to report i will say for all of our newer members um it takes a while to get used to everything about Cork and what we do and some of us have been on here way too long um so ask questions
just don't hesitate ask a question um and you're going to get plenty of answers we'd rather have you informed and and be valuable contributing members of court um so don't hold back uh so anyone with a conflict of interest today
for anything to be reviewed has been approached by a lobbyist about any items all right hearing none we clear that one the agenda any changes to the agenda all right agenda is accepted as
it was written public comments any public comments yes sir hi uh Jacob Catz Ple Construction uh just want to make a quick announcement on behalf of the Palm Beach Education Foundation and the upcoming Bill Malone 4th annual Bill Malone Golf Tournament i hope I'm not
getting ahead of any formal comments by staff on this i've been proudly serving as the chairman the last two years this year's tournament is next Friday April 25th we uh expanded to three golf courses this year from two we're practically 100% sold out uh we do have
one or two sponsorships still available so if anybody in the room knows of an organization or a company that is interested in jumping in at the last minute please come see me after the meeting for those of you who are already participating or sponsoring in some way in the tournament looking forward to seeing you next Friday
thank you sir excellent it was much better than hearing about change orders we'll get there we don't have to talk about those at all today skip those okay uh but we come in let's get on our consent agenda everybody get ready here
fc1 I wanted that pulled yan [Music] okay fc2 C3 fc4 [Music] fc5 end
okay fc6 FC7 FC8 i wanted that pulled fc8 fc8 fc9 fc101 yes
Chester i wanted that poll also ec1 EC2 EC3 PC4 [Music] PC5 michael you wanted five four
correct yes thank you okay i did too work uh PC5 was pulled by Michael Gelfin and myself pc6 i wanted that Gand and Porter i request that also
okay ec7 and I also wanted that Virginia with us today i didn't hear hasn't joined us yet she Okay i need a motion by someone to allow the non-pulled items to go forward so move all right that was tragic need a
second second [Music] okay uh Dorothy go ahead and pull this please alexander approved david Porter yes france Makabu yes
francesca Warish yes jamal yes john Chesher yes kevin Wilkinson yes lisa Revis yes michael
Gelfand yes tom Burgerer yes traderick McCoy yes okay uh FC1 Michael go ahead and start could you pass on me for a moment and
let the other questions go first for a second thank you yeah I'll I'll go david yes david I'm here david can you hear me we can hear you we can hear you can you hear i've been trying to get in the link
says it won't let me in okay well you're in now so I'm glad well I'm on the phone so yes I'm here and I vote yes okay very nice thank you um on uh let's see I guess it was on 1B
on the responses about Forest Hill parking lot and I know we're going to spend 75,000 it looks like that's all that was budgeted and I guess it said we're coming back to Isach that's also my
pocket that I work out of um for more money to be able to build the parking lot so I don't know if Leanne's on or not but it was the money budgeted in the referendum for the parking lot and at
about twice we thought it would cost you cannot go back to ISOCH and ask for money from ISOCH if something was already budgeted if it's something brand new it is budgeted so in on the blue sheet data there's a specific line that says new parking lot east it's very
specific that it's that parking lot um so that's it was part of the referendum plan to do that work um there was only $75,000 put in that line item to do that work which is not reasonable to build new parking lot um so it sounds like the 75 is going to be used just in design
services and so we're then going to be probably triple that or whatever for actual construction right because it's an open field there's no lot there now it's not resurfacing it's a it's a brand new lot okay all right that's what I just wanted to clarify that's the only question I
had on that um my other one was on e um Luca the medicine cabinet um I know it's a small item but should providing a lockable medicine cabinet be
a school by school staff person by staff person request I would think we would want that to be something like a standard spec item that goes into the master spec and we put one in every school why wouldn't we want some type of lockable medicine cabinet in every So
there's there's several parts of that so we um we're actually almost finished with our as you know we used to have edsp specs way back in the day which detailed that out um we don't have those currently right now but that's one of the the clinic is actually one of the items that uh Deborah and Kimberly and their planning team have worked through
they've met with schools and have come up with very close to a standardized design that we can give to all of our architects so it's even good um they could have some minor changes but they have to let us know what they're changing in that case and that would include a um cabinet for the medicine um
the state statute says that you have to have a lockable cabinet for the medicine doesn't give you any more information on what that means how it works so who has access to it yeah that kind of thing that's a shoe box with a little kid lock on the side there was a lockable cabinet door in there and when the school came
in we'd really like to have an actual medicine metal cabinet with the double locks and and that so that's why that came about you could have it furniture with a with a drawer that Yeah no that's kind of what I read in between the lines there okay that's what I wanted to make sure that this wasn't going to be kind of a school by school hey I want this
and we give it to them well we do appreciate that you brought it up because it did invoke a conversation of uh we are developing that the EDS specs further on that and we we're in the middle of going through all sorts of core expansions that all that often time
include expanding that clinic area um for separating sick from healthy kind of thing so good Michael Gelfan i'm done with my comments morning do we need to come back yeah we'll
probably come let's come back to FC1 before we do anything more there sure i'm sorry i was on mute there my apologies okay um on the Grove Park items on that uh who was the um uh company that had the
failure that wasn't responding to the SE coast requests and do we know why there wasn't a response oh I don't know well u from what I remember it was um um Thornton's
subcontractor Amazon was our civil contractor on that and um that certainly um I'll just leave it as that they were certainly a challenge for us on that project they got behind from the start and the civil work got way behind and
the building progressed and then they had to supplement that staff with the civil work and come back with additional staffing and so the site work was always behind and as you know site work takes a lot of approvals and things to get done um in order to expedite that um Thornton said hey we want to have that design
team inspect it they talked to C coast they allowed them to do that to speed up the process and they paid for that directly they we just did it as a mechanism through the contract to to allow them to do that so they they paid it they reimbured but there that was this utilities were a struggle at the end of that project but so it sounds
like the bottom line was a subcontractor issue not even necessarily a Thornon issue thornon kind of picked up the ball a little bit by letting or asking the design team to take over the inspections yes i mean that was proactive so that's good yeah michael go ahead um are they
on any other jobs that we're aware of yes um how shall I put this is there are they being looked at so that we don't have problems in the future yes yes
thank you um next moving on down to um number 12 South Area the name change uh is this what we're have are we having other projects where we're having name changes where a simple name change now
creates other expenses down the line there's a school name change yeah and this is very uncommon i mean when a new school gets named that's um the uh I say it's very uncommon it's not terribly
common um on occasion we've had recently we've had K8s we've had uh K5s that expand to K8s and so the name might change from you know school to K8 school which
might um trigger some minor uh facility upgrades to change let's say the digital marquee right Darthy i think we've we've done a couple of those where we change the the either the letters on the front of a building or um the digital marquee
frontage but those are those are very few and the name change isn't really driving the cost it was a good opportunity to change the name because we were building a new facility and we're putting in new signage yes uh this additional signage is something that we looked at because there's an existing
building east of our new building that we're not exactly sure the timing of the demo in it and it kind of blocks the facility so this will allow people that go to the school and haven't been there before to be able to get around and find their way so that wasn't part of the original um at when we first did the design we're thinking we're going to
tear down that building uh we probably still will but we don't know the timing of that but that will at least give people some way finding to find their way around campus michael Michael Michael hold one second mr sanchez do you have your hand up yeah not directly related to this this issue
but u or to this item but just to be total disclosure to Mrs mr gman's question we are considering a possible name change to West Riviera because um that is going to become a K2 school in become a going to become a um certified
school so we are we are considering that that that that may be something that involves that all right thank you for further disclosure on that um with reference to number 14 on the list the um Westgate
change what portion of that was security camera changes i don't know off hand dorothy do you happen to have that i do not um that was a Mary Jeff um
it's the design part of it um lighting security camera infrastructure yeah this was it wasn't a separate pull out for security per se we are adding covered walkways because they are there are no
covered walkways there now and as a result of that um typically when we install covered walkways we're providing security cameras to cover the areas so it's just similar to we're adding lighting and
drainage we're adding the cameras so it's not like a special request from school police like with your point is that the walk the covered walkway is the driver in this all the rest of the stuff is is kind of support
or ancillary to that um covered walkway this is one that didn't have the covered walkway in in the old buildings that was an old item that we're trying to fix now because it really should have been done whenever they got put in years and years ago is this the last school that we don't have any covered walkway i don't
know if it's universal um for I know for a long time we put it in anytime we do the the you know the buildings there may be a couple random cases but I don't know i think back in the day forgive me Darthy I know you probably know the history on this uh when Carrie Kelly used to have that team that was going
and doing covered walkways right yeah i mean we did mostly all of the modulars in this case these three modulars were intended to be removed from the campus and they didn't have anywhere to move them so we didn't put covered walkways
into them because we expected them to be moved and now we're 12 years later and they never got moved okay and I think by statute we're required after 5 years you're required to have covered walkway correct oh okay that's we usually if we
feel like we can do a rental for under five we won't necessarily put covered walkway but statutoily required to if we if it stays there five years we must have covered walkway interesting all right Michael continue sound like it's cheaper to put the walkways and then
move them interesting yeah way way cheaper u moving down to the series on Crystal Lakes um what was the timing difference between the approval and the uh uh
actual contracting because this is seems to be a um un what's presented as an unanticipated increase in expense to the money um 16 [Music] yeah 16 to 17 of the propane yeah those
So this is the project's substantially complete they're using it um so this this is kind of a cleanup for so I don't know the exact timing of when this came about and oftentimes the propane tanks on generators are kind of I don't want to say an afterthought but they are one of
the lower priorities during the course of design usually an outside vendor that will provide that uh propane tank system that's why um not exactly sure behind this they thought of it they had it as carried but they didn't have enough money for it even in the GMP Michael
they just didn't budget enough right and that was going to be the my next point don't know how many of our projects use um propane tanks as opposed to natural but each of these things uh indicate perhaps a checklist issue when we
utilize or we install generators that we have proper fencing duck work exhaust things that you would expect perhaps but um you know first or second time through you may not anticipate but Michael all those things were in the drawings and they were budgeted by the
the the uh the CM it's not at enough money so they weren't missed they were included and priced out and part of the GMP but then prices went up and so there wasn't enough money to cover the line item and it's an is an existing school so that it's you know it's a new piece
on an existing school that they just as you said unfortunately miss misbudgeted all right those are all the questions I have thank you okay uh anyone else with FC1 items
uh David yes if you go to eight I just need a clarification and for the record has joined us sorry welcome sir oh yes we got we got to make sure you're got to put you in the record right yeah it was 9007 and a half
go ahead number eight Michael uh it says that uh it was a deductive change order um for the Grove Park please explain deductive change order is it is it adding to the contract i This was a
overage some of these cases it's it ends up being a wash so there's no cost to the district on it like CM ends up paying the cost for it but we um routed it through here so that we can pay the contractor or the the professional directly so we pay the professional the contractor pays us so it didn't cost the
district anything on several of these items there was the civil issues and the structural as well so if you look at number seven it refers to deductive change order four and this refers to deductive change order five i believe that if we go into the
change order section taken out of one pocket and put in the other pocket yeah okay so it's the money's already been pre allocated change order four around okay and change order five credited so yes
well that's his credit yeah i I was happy to see that we pushed for that and that it worked out the way it should i mean there was an error contractor's fault and contractor basically whether he was going to pay us or not we were just not going to pay him
gotcha all right that's all I have okay want to make a motion i'll make a motion to move uh FC1 to approval need a second by someone okay all right tom Burgerer any other
comments or questions on FC1 bruce Alexander yes david Porter yes france Makaboo yes franchesca Warish yes jim Al yes john Chesher yes kevin
Wilkinson yes lisa Revs yes michael Gelfand yes michael Guida yes tom Burgerer yes traderick McCoy yes virginia Ferris yes can you hear me you can yes okay
darthy try to send me another link okay I will all right we're up to FC5 michael Gelfan you pulled this yes thank you um on this one where we have a situation where there hasn't been an inspection and it may be too late for
this but something to think about for the future is uh having an extension of time for latent defect claims uh if there is something that is discovered with the roof uh my concern is is that with the significant reduction in the
statute of limitations for latent defects and not being able to inspect the whole roof but you know we we have these photographs which are helpful but not necessarily the change and this is presumably a
fault of the contractor uh requiring for example an extra two years uh for those claims just gone yeah we hadn't thought about it in that much detail we did confirm that the warranty is is valid um through the
manufacturer um we didn't get into the latent defects of that um so what uh we get a warranty from the manufacturer do we get a warranty from the roofing contractor it's I believe it's through the roofing contract so
there is a workmanship warranty and then then warranty so there's two different parts to it and they're both the same length no um the the manufacturers's warranty is is the latent defects part of I think it's 20 years uh the workmanship uh is limited to that it's a
year or three or something yeah it's probably a year whatever the construction so if we have a problem and there's an investigation and it comes down to determining it was uh workforce related not manufacturer related then we only have the workmanship yes to fall
back on yes so if there weren't inspections and all of a sudden now we have you know a workmanship leak in 6 months uh well let's say two years after the after the roofer's warranty is up then it's on us because we can't go back
to the manufacturer uh although Jim Mald here I I believe it's actually uh four years after first notice of an issue and then you have a period of time after the first four years correct me if I'm wrong um yeah
this is Bruce Alexander so I think there there's a distinction we may want to um recognize between latent defects and statute of repose so the statute of repose was reduced um and is now seven
years it used to be used to be 10 I think and actually for us old guys it used to be 15 um so uh Michael when you were talking about latent defects were did you have a thought in your mind about the statute of repose as well because
those are two two different think I think on latent defects whoever just spoke yes it's four years from the date of discovery or when discovery could reasonably been determined but that needs to be tracked now against the
proposed period which is which was materially shortened last year thanks everyone exactly uh Bruce that's what I was thinking about because you know the latent defects usually pop up after the general statute of limitations has run
and you're relying on the statute to repost so exactly correct so Michael do you think we should be doing anything with I guess the roofing contractor to somehow get an extended warranty or something because he didn't get inspections
um two separate issues um I not being a contractor or an engineer I don't fully understand the the ramifications but without having someone up there to do the actual inspections I am concerned about the workmanship
issues popping up um and an extended warranty and an extension of the statute of repos as Bruce has corrected I think would be something to to consider i don't know if it's too late in this case but uh if this pops up in the future
something to to think about as you're negotiating this with the contractor holly sir that sounds like an an excellent idea holly is this something that we could do do as a term in the change order that it's not a you know like an extension to the contract terms
like a waiver or something well like right now contract says um one year or four years and this circumstance occurs again where a contractor doesn't get the proper inspections and we say fine we'll accept that but we want to have some
extension on that um latent defect from four years to 10 years or something i don't know but whatever the is it something you can negotiate in a change order to modify the contract I mean a change order is a modification so it's something that could we also have in the
contract would be indemnification so there would be you know if there were repairs or costs that were related to the negligence we could that's also another avenue for us to go after the original tort feaser for lack of a better word okay yeah this is Bruce
Alexander again I I just want to suggest that I I know of no way to extend the statutory period for the statute of repos that said a warranty period is a
contractual matter so for example we're we're aware that some manufacturers warrant their materials for more than seven years that would that would override the statute of repose so the the the way I think to
address this if and when there's a need to do so would be to consider whether or not there's a desire to ex to identify contractually a warranty period that may extend the statute of propose period i
know of no way though he's an expert privately um expand the statute of repose um so hopefully hopefully everyone is hearing the distinction I'm trying to raise on that yes absolutely and I think thank you very we appreciate
that because that's we're looking for that guidance the expertise that you're you're offering and I I kind of think that on this just thinking out loud I think we have a 20-year NDL warranty which covers workmanship and defects for the full 20 years but I'm not 100% sure
on that okay to look back at that now Advanced Roofing does a lot of our roofing and they have been around for a long time and why in the world did they do something that's as silly as a guy that started in business yesterday it was a new foreman um their crews are the same crews that do all the roof oh
that's right it was mentioned he got canned yeah yes that's exactly the story he was a scapegoat anyway it's his responsibility to call them so yeah quick question has any issue been noticed with the roof no not to date i
and I and I wouldn't think so so the real the real issue is if there is if there becomes an issue that within either the repose or the statute of limitations period that they get noticed that's that's the real protection okay
yeah and again we're we're dealing with an experienced roofer that has a lot of our work so it's like it's somebody that we just used for the first time and now we have to question everything and the the manufacturer and uh construction staff were out there looking at the the
construction along the way as well so it was just the BCS didn't get looped in like they should have so yeah Michael anything else that's it thank you i'll make a motion move the item go forward okay need a
second i'll second it all right second by Michael Guida any other comments questions darthy this list is getting too long bruce Alexander um yes and my my question is procedural one is there a
way for matters like this to ask if anyone is other than a yes and if if if not then then we are all considered to be yeses is that possible virginia i think this has to go with the what the
school board requires usually usually it it does require everyone to say yes but um yeah we made we made that recommendation uh when we have these hybrid meetings um
so that because we wanted to make sure everybody had an opportunity if they didn't agree they could say you know they object or something like that so um yeah that's the recommendation that came from the general counsel okay i just just thought to try and and
find a way to streamline because as I'm suggesting everyone is saying yes in the in the in the uh in the call of the question you know uh uh you know um Bruce here's here's the problem let me just
interrupt sometimes we forget to turn off mute and so this way it requires that there be an affirmation i try thanks anyway it also also requires that people are still on the
call that they're not just wandering away where did I go david Porter yes france Makaboo yes franchesca Warish yes jim Ald yes john
Chesher yes kevin Wilkinson yes lisa Revs yes michael Galand yes Michael Guida yes Tom Burger um yes McCoy yes Virginia Ferris yes
okay uh we're down to FC8 i pulled that nothing about the item i just had a question how is our ramping up staffing at the police department we had talked about before with the chief being here terms of plan
review issues not picking up everything and we need to pick it up in the field when a walkthrough is done so if you don't have answers for that I'd like that put on the followup so we can not forget to make that happen i think there was a point at which we
were going to have the chief comment i can't remember she did she did she did so that was a meeting I think you were out of town or something oh was that okay she did follow and and she was happy with that and she thought okay there might be opportunities to you know get somebody on board that knows how to
read plans knows about security systems and cameras and view angles and would be able to do a plan review and pick up on let's say 90% of what we're finding that are afterthoughts sure um so that's the followup that I think we want be
because in general has as you know always kind of objected to sizable change orders of 15 cameras being added because somebody didn't pick it up on a plan review mhm the chief was receptive to that and she did make a lot of staff requests i don't know if those
went in immediately or after our fiscal year which is July 1st i don't know when that's okay i just we'll follow up with I just don't want the ball dropped and I want us to know when that might happen understand got it that's all I had on FC8 if somebody wants to make a motion to let it go
forward move to go forward i had a comment on FC8 it's okay didn't know you were talking about it yes um on the letter page eight on page three because phase three door [Music]
um I just lost it here uh the letter from the architect reviewing Harvard uh the last paragraph it says change order is a decrease to the board's approval i think this is an increase it's a decrease to the contingency
amount is that true this is a projecting this is a change order though yeah it should have been increase yes yeah and then the the the one two three four paragraphs above it says does not represent additional cost it says after the 108,000 this does not represent
additional cost if it was really a decrease added value so the 108,000 is all added value there's no rework is what that's saying um but I do believe you're correct on the should be an increase because it's probably left over from a contingency letter
modify failed to edit or copy failed to edit okay good good catch i don't know how that gets corrected for the board to to we can um if if it's acceptable we can make a scrier's error correction on it
because I believe it's that's that's the matter it's not a Yeah it's a typo it's a typo and we can make sure that that gets amended yeah yep exactly good catch that all Michael yes go ahead and make a Oh Virginia made the motion already yes i
need a second second second very nice yes all right any other questions or comments darly miss Alexander yes good Porter yes grant Makaboom yes franchesca Warish yes jim Al yes john Chesher yes
kevin Wilkinson yes lisa Revs yes michael Gelfand yes vita yes tom Burgerer yes traderick McCoy yes virginia Ferris yes
okay we're up to FC11 john Chesher you go yeah on this one I'm just curious why this was viewed as a CCD considering um what the policy allows for CCD could I get an
explanation on that so that's why it's coming across as a board item because it it exceeds the dollar value of what we're allowed to do as as a CCD within um delegated authority um the the timing of this is critical the project is being held up by this work so what this will
allow us to do is process individual change orders as we get pricing completed um the summary there is not all we have we have detailed reports we have um pricing on some indiv individual items uh we're actively working on all these items and pieces to try to get it
expedited as fast as we can uh this was the the method that we saw that we can allow the contractor to move forward um with the work and know that they'll get paid for the appropriate amount of dollar value um so each one of those change orders will be scrutinized and and verified before it comes to through
Cork and the board um but this allows them to move forward with the entirety of the work so drawings have been issued on this to the contractor yes yeah back in um four or five months ago we approved the ACUA
for the design change drawings um that was half of it the other stuff is in the form of reports and individual details i don't know if they're RFI responses or ASIS that have come forward to Purle for consideration like how to um and some of
it's delegated um design uh there's a partnership with the subcontractors um of how to do that work so it's a it's it's a team effort of try to get it done um but the um most of those are structural related for the unforeseen stuff so structural engineering and
geotech are taking the lead on it but they're working with the subcontractors and Purle to do it as a a team effort to try to get what's needed to sur up the building structure um and how was the dollar amount and the time
um provided or estimated the so that the the dollar amount the the costs were summarized from hurdle construction and their subcontractor so all of these numbers have some sub input but without the final um resolution on each one of
those we don't have final numbers um as far as the time extension and the general conditions those were just a lump sum to put in there to make because we know there's a delay um we don't know the full implic implications so we'll do a a schedule a full schedule analysis time impact analysis when we do that
work to make sure those are fair okay thank you that satisfies me um and I had pulled this also u question I had in looking through it is looking through it and then I see the cost sheet and all the numbers are nice even
numbers but nowhere in here does it tell me these are estimates the word estimate doesn't mention anywhere that I could find so I'm looking at these going wait a minute these have to be estimates because nobody comes up with exact dollar even numbers correct so even in the write up the CCD by its very nature
is an estimate because the CCD is not a it's an upper limit not to exceed not to exceed so that that's why it's all if if if they came to us and said uh we think it's 775 for something we tell them make sure that CCD is for 800 oh I understand
that I understand that's in the write up to somebody even new to the committee that doesn't understand what a CCD is we need to kind of make this so that everybody understands what it is for instance in the recommended action it could have very easily said uh directive
01 fert company in the estimated amount one word you know because I'm looking at going there's no way these are real numbers right just ahead i'm familiar with the CCD it's it's a it's a vehicle by which we can
take a a u a notification to the board because I want to say it's a notification it's not an actual transaction it's not a change in the contract at this time but it's essentially a notification to the board asking their permission that this is approximately the range of a future
change order or in this case it's actually I think it's going to be like a future three change orders combined that will not exceed that value so it's kind of just a a heads up so that they will give us the authority to say "Yes please proceed execute these change orders with
the contractor." Um it's it's more of our way of getting out of getting out getting ourselves covered so we don't um extend ourselves too far uh beyond delegated authority or anything like that mr party your point's well taken that should have been clear in this um we don't do many on purpose so that's
something we'll look forward to make sure that's clear yeah and I'm looking I mean obviously this is all public information and public knowledge and even for the board members who they have us here they're not familiar with this correct right i'm glad you guys said that the the reality is we don't do them
it was everything we can do to not have a CCD i you know anything we could have done to say can you please break them out and can we do separate change orders now i'd rather take 300 and a 500 and a
you know 12 whatever i'd rather do those then do a CCD but based on the timing and the need to get all three of the areas moving forward yeah no I agree with the process i just want to make it as clear to the public even sure of what this is and not everybody thinking this
can't be a real change order correct no Mr guido well Mr tubio mentioned that the plans were were created and so they were able to be come up with a hard bid I would think or so that solid numbers but you said that we didn't send it
through as a change order yet because of timing well there's there's sending it right that way several things there so the change was done for the owner requested changes okay um the unforeseen is done through reports and structural analysis and that's a whole different
game they're there not some of that is um detailed in the report um some of it's in some of the design drawings but it's not fully vetted at this time um and even the design changes we actually through this process um we're we have two different options honestly with this
structure so that building had an old wooden floor structure um joist um that we were planning on keeping and button up next to with the original design once we unraveled all this stuff we're looking at a possibility to remove those joists and go with a slab on grade and
do an infill on that so we don't even have those drawings would be have to be further updated for that so subs are giving us their best estimate on these but they don't have even enough to do full pricing on some of the items there are a few of the items where we got very good pricing i took that out because I
didn't want to confuse the issue and left those as I summarized it into a a ROM just so there's not confusion because there are a handful of items where we have very good numbers from subs we can change order that right now but not an entirety of it at all understood yep good uh Miss Branch
hi i had a long discussion about with Mr burke about this gigantic change order and when you have historical in this case a gymnasium you run into things like this it's it's very troubling but I understand but I I did have a long
conversation with him about this okay hopefully it was uh fruitful and uh well I'm very familiar with change orders but I was like wow anyway thank you yeah it'll probably be one of our larger
ones that we have seen too so that's okay yeah I hate change orders just so you know i'm sure everybody does i was going to say anybody that likes them contractors do unless it's for safety purposes but it's like how do you miss this people anyway go ahead okay um All
right anything else on FC11 anyone in a motion i move uh FC11 forward to the board without objection okay I'll second it second by Mr guida and any other comments or questions
dorothy bruce Alexander yes david Porter yes france Makaboo yes franchesca Warish yes jim Hald yes john Chesher yes kevin Wilkinson yes lisa Revs yes michael
Gelfand yes michael Guida yes Tom Burgerer yes Frederick McCoy yes Virginia Ferris yes thank you um I'll just mention for most
of the new members that this agenda was probably one of our longer ones that we've had probably in the last 12 months maybe ever so no it wouldn't ever um so don't be scared off that uh this is going to be the norm um the last three
or four agendas I think we've gotten off light compared to what we had been reviewing so um this one's a more extensive one and from timing perspective it's it's kind of a big deal for us because for on the construction side we're going we're getting ready for
construction in the summer so in order for these contractors to have all of their stuff in place we can't approve it sometime in May usually by May it's a little too late so March and April those are usually the ones where everybody's trying to jam everything in to make sure
that all the contracts all the change orders all the additions are all set and that's why this is one of the busier times as we said like during holiday time it might be a really light one because there's not a lot of work that's coming up shortly thereafter so this is why it's it's very cyclical for us and
this is a very very busy time for us getting ready for summer okay down to PC5 michael Gelfan you pulled it and I pulled it um actually I thought I had pulled PC4 and my apologies
i don't think we need to go back on the timing but one of the questions I had on that was why it's retroactive i understand timing that we're approving it after the fact but was there a reason it wasn't brought up in an earlier meeting so I I was working with purchasing and I
think it was just an oversight because this particular board meeting is occurring I believe on the 4th Thursday as opposed to the 3 um and so it was just an oversight um that these continuing contracts were set to expire
prior to the board meeting all righty thank you which is another question yeah which is another point by the way um that because of the we meet two weeks from now by the way just so as a reminder um because of graduations in
May graduations and so we're the board meeting is on whatever the 6th our court meeting has to be earlier than that so that's why we're meeting two weeks from now so it really messes with our schedule with that late start on April and then May early michael your comments
were on PC4 oh that was on five but if I can ask just ask a question on four for a moment i see that we're amending our contracts to add uh metals and uh door closures but I didn't see that added to the
PC4 um you know understanding that this is uh professional services and not contracting but it seemed to be appropriate for um this also um puzzle Michael because right four is for architectural continuing services
right but presumably that they are going to be on site from time to time not usually the continuing contract services is when the district wants to make a quick feasibility study of uh you know will will a school fit on a certain
piece of property and rather than putting that out to an actual RFP we have architects on continuing contracts that step and they're hired to do those studies but they're not going on site then at all you guess they do sometimes yeah I guess
they would have to yeah just a a thought as we draft these things including at least the the door closing uh requirements on them if that's now statutory and that's part of our contract checklist it it's it's statutory but I I I'm going
to assume that when these for the design services that they didn't really believe that they would be in there like a contractor painting um they would they would be there you know during the school time where so again I you know I
defer to to construction purchasing but I believe that the analysis was that design services wouldn't typically involve um the companies coming out with their representatives in the classroom doing stuff and they certainly wouldn't be
incorporating steel into their design services michael you there yeah I'm here you looked like you were frozen for a minute there are you okay with that uh my thought is that if we're requiring
all of our vendors to comply with the statutory requirements this should be incorporated in those contracts also um to the extent that they're not dealing with specifications then we don't have to deal with the metals issues well we don't include a lot of statutory
requirements in our contracts because they're still obligated to follow the statutory requirements whether we put in there or not because they supersede our contracts so um we we don't typically do that i understand the concern though especially as the nature of those
statutes might be amended next year and then might be amended again the year after so rather than constantly updating if if I totally if I may Jim um I believe on most every drawing I've ever seen or every document I've ever seen it says you'll comply with all state
federal and local so I think it's a catchall that Yeah is usually always there okay on uh PC5 my question was this is the opportunity we have to ask a contractor to not be part of the
selection and I'm just thinking about Thornton and their recent uh lack of really processing the job on Grove Park and I don't know you guys might have even other projects that we haven't heard about that maybe they haven't
performed up to par and should they just be one of the contractors continuing on this i don't know how you remove somebody from this um but you know if we had somebody that was poorly performing I wouldn't want to be giving
them more work well I don't think there's anything um that we've been able to While we we recognize there is a particular project we're all referring to where we have had a challenge I wouldn't want to paint necessarily paint
Thornton with a broad brush okay well that's what they actually have other projects with us and they've done well fine um yes i realized this was a very cost okay no it's okay no no no it's okay that's what we needed to hear from staff instead of it being more of a
global problem and they're still being allowed to continue so that's fine everybody's allowed to make a mistake here or there yes could have just been superintendent again on the project that should have been somebody else who knows right and then and we said that we may
mention that one it was the guy the one vendor who was really hurting them so wait Mr dylan procedurally is there a way to remove somebody like you he said is there yes way we could what purchasing can do is they when these are
coming up for renewal they send a letter to the vendor and say are you interested in renewing so if if facilities were to say this you know we don't want to use this firm anymore at renewal time they would just not extend them the letter
they just would sort of fall off for lack of a better word and and I will say there has to be I'm trying to protect the best interest of the district um to reject them from staff's perspective it's it's it's really got to be consistently
egregious consistently agrees to they could have a bad project yes that is has occurred um but the the consistent failure we have had contractors that are no longer on on our current doing contracts that I would say yes they were
consistently troubling and we might do other ways to at least be gentle with them and say maybe this is not the best to continue i'm saying before it even gets to this point on on the FC you
would have that consideration prior yes there have been a few contracts our mechanism I think is a five-year ban is what it is and we have done that in the past a couple contractors so absolutely yeah i remember one contractor came in here and after it was done just pleading saying "No please yeah let me stay in."
It was like "Sorry." Yeah but no and and for Thornton in terms of Grove Park I mean they did step up to the plate by not fighting you withdrawing the money from not paying them to cover the downside this branch did they get rid of the vendor you said
that was hurting them did they get rid of them the sub they supplemented them with their vendor sub whatever yeah with with other workers but they did um have them finish some of the work um it was an underground utility company and that
company uh Thornton ended up bringing on a second underground utility company completely to help support them and it was actually one of the best ones in our area that we we all all of us the contractors we are all familiar with them they came Johnson Davis came in and
and and crushed it and made sure that the job got back online and got got done and that was part of it and and there there were some things on that project that was the the uh long lead time pinnacle honestly of of that project that got delayed so there was things out of their control as well that happened
on that project as part of the um delay on that okay thank you yep okay um any other questions or comments on PC5 move to move forward all right virginia
thank you need a second second second okay uh go ahead darthy Paulus please alexander yes david Porter yes hence Makaboo yes franchesca Warish
yes jim All yes kasher yes kevin Wilkinson yes lisa Revs yes michael Gelfand yes michael Guida yes tom Burgerer yes
frederick McCoy yes daniela Ferris yes okay we're down to PC6 and that was pulled by Michael Gelfin and Mr alexander and myself
michael Gelfin go ahead um first on this um with reference to the vendor specs um they're just this may be fly specking in in a way but on the uh I believe this is the one that
accepted duck poor cleaning if they're going to be doing work it's going to be impacting the ducks should they not be cleaning them also as part of their contract or is that going to be the HVAC uh contractor um not not quite familiar
i think this is on page 14 of 328 it's exported