MINUTES

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

TOWN HALL ANNEX - MANAGER'S OFFICE

WEDNESDA= Y, MARCH 9, 2005, 7:00 P.M.

PRESENT: = ; &n= bsp; Remo Ceniccola, Vice Chairman

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; John Chipko

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Peter Dzioba

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Karl Kuegler, Secretary

John Orsini

Robert Porter, Chairman

ABSENT: = &nb= sp; Anth= ony Fusco

OTHERS PRESENT: &= nbsp; Charles Beliveau, Maintenance Supervisor, Board of Education (left at about 7:25 p.= m.)

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Larry Black, Fire Chief (arrived at about 8:00 p.m.)

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; David Hardt Deputy Fire Chief (arrived at about 8:00 p.m.)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &= nbsp; Fred Khericha, Kaestle Boos Associates (arrived at about 7:15 p.m.)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Kevin Killeen, Town Council Liaison (left at about 7:50 p.m.)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Gary Lafferty, Fire Department (arrived at about 7:30 p.m.)

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Todd LoFrese, Board of Education, Director of Operations (left at about 7:15 p.m= .)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Rusty Malik, Kaestle Boos Associates (arrived at about 7:15 p.m.)

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Meredith Robson, Town Manager (arrived = at about 8:15 p.m.)

1.&nb= sp; Convene Special Meeting - 7:00 P.M.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Porter, Chairman, Called the Meeting to Order at 7:02 p.m.

Mr. Porter: This Meeting was Called for last night, but rescheduled to tonight due to inclement weather.

&n= bsp;

2.&nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Porter, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.

3. = Public Participation

&nbs= p; N= one

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 2

4. = Discussion and Vote on Recommendation of Firm for Third Party Review for the Swift Mid= dle School Renovation/Expansion Project (information attached)

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: There were two received, and neither of these firms were (inaudible) Kaestle Boos. This is for the structural review = for Swift, it's required by the State. There's Joseph Calabrese, in the a= mount of $3,900, the second one was L.P. Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $5,250. So I think it's kind = of a, I think Calabrese is probably the one we should go with.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: They're both reputable?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Yes.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Then let's go with Calabrese, unle= ss anybody has any grief with them.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: I don't have any,= so that's fine with me.

= M= OTION: (Mr. Kuegler, sec. Mr. Orsini) to choose Calabrese for the Third Party Review for the Swift Middle School Renovation/Expansion Project.

&= nbsp; Discussi= on: None<= /p>

&= nbsp; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

5. = Review Construction Manager Proposals and Choose 3 or 4 Firms to Interview (attach= ed)

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: The packets were delivered to your homes. Ther= e were 8 received. Rusty should be h= ere tonight with a recommendation on some of the firms. Did everyone have a chance to revi= ew them?

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: I looked throu= gh them. One question came up ha= ving to do with are we going at risk or as advisor?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: No, at risk.=

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Well there's two things though. We were lo= oking at, I thought, to have the C.M.'s hold all the contracts.=

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Right.=

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: At risk is that t= hey are going to guarantee the price, and I don’t know that you're going = to get a C.M. to guarantee the price coming in this late in the game.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 3

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Right. The R.F.P. that went out stated it= was C.M. Advisor and the construction managing firm would hold all the contracts. That's the way we = sent it.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: But there was a question brought up, I think it was Konover, on whether or not we actually = used the appropriate form or referenced the appropriate form. I was concerned as I was reading t= hrough it.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: No, right in the beginning of the request it states that they will hold the contracts. The Town is interested in securing= the services of a construction manager as advisor, with the C.M. holding all the contrac= ts within the individual contractors. This is what we discussed.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Do we have the= ir proposal?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Yea, I've got all= of them.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Can we take a = look at theirs, cause I think the wording may be (inaudible).

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Let me say quickl= y that they all addressed to this construction manager advisor. I'll take that back. One of them, Morganti, = said construction management only. The rest of = them were C.M. Advisors.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Konover was in= a white binder. There is, howev= er, a conflict in these requirements, it goes on to . . . . d= ocuments.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: See I thought I r= ead it in Turner's also. The C.M.A. = versus the C.M.C. and I think Konover picked it up also.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Exactly. It says here that there is ho= wever a conflict in these requirements. Construction Manager Advisor is responsib= le pursuant to standard AIA Document B801 CMA form of agreement does not place= the construction manager at risk on sub-contract agreements. So I mean what they're basically s= aying is we need to uses AIA A121CMC if we wanted to put them at risk.=

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: That has to be the recommendation out of Kaestle Boos, but the thing that surprised me is the document is very clear as what it says, and then it says the construction manager firm will hold the contracts, and there was no question from anybod= y, from any of the respondents, so why they didn’t question that, and why they made the statement like that.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: In my opinion,= I think a lot of that is cookie cutter.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Most definitely.<= o:p>

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 4

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: They seemed to= have reviewed it to the point where they actually picked up on that, Konover.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: If you look at m= ost of them they just have a format and they just plug in Swift School, <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Watertown, CT.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: They probably = push out like 10 of these a week so they’ll just change the names basicall= y.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: So with that said, there were 8 proposals received. In my opinion, on some of these things there is an outfit called Pike Connecti= cut office, they've done a huge amount of school work in the Albany, New York= District, $175,000,000 worth of school work. That R2D seemed light in school wo= rk, there wasn't very much in it. Konover had a couple of schools.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: I make a recommen= dation that, you asked for 3 or 4, right?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: I think I'd like = to keep it to 3, maybe if we could, I wouldn't be opposed to 4. What we were going to do is, there= will be a letter going out to each one that we decide on, asking for clarificati= on and to speak about these items only when they come back to us, cause they'll only have 45 minutes, so we don't want to get into the presentation about h= ow many schools they have, this school, over here and that school over there.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> My idea would be to put in the let= ter your experience as reno as new, middle schools, the bonding, some of the bonding questions were (inaudible) answered, the litigation issue, who the personnel is going to be assigned to the project. We have to be sure that they are t= he people that start the project and see it through to the end, not moving peo= ple around.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: This is what I wo= uld hope we would do, yes, in the letter.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: I think John and= I both worked with Konover at Western.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: I'm working with Konover now.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: And we worked wi= th Mel, one of their guys.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: That's who I'm wo= rking with now.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Right, and Konov= er, they go full speed ahead, they don't take nothing from nobody, not from the= ir subs. They produce the work.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The subs aren't always too happy, = but they're (inaudible) as a contractor.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: (Inaudible) I fou= nd them very different, we worked with them and (inaudible) and I find them ve= ry slow. I wouldn't recommend wo= rking with them.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 5

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Unfortunately I'v= e had both experiences with them. At WestConn they ran a tight ship, and my dealings with them now aren't so goo= d, but they're under a ridiculous schedule for a $75,000,000 high school (inaudibl= e).

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: Sometimes it does= n't work, and that’s exactly what happened. They made a shamble on it.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Turner did a lot= of work for the State when I was with the State. I didn't have any personal jobs wi= th them. Morganti was big about = 10, 15, 25 years ago, then they went small and I don't know if it's the same pe= ople there now.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: I don't think the= y've done a lot of school jobs in = Connecticut as of late.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: I don't think Mor= ganti is the right person (inaudible).

&= nbsp; Mr. Killeen: Morganti was sol= d out around that time and I guess there were two brothers who bought the company= out. I don't know what kind of business= they do at this point, but I do know that they sold out at that point in time.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: I had Gilbane on another project and they weren't too bad.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: I asked Rusty to = look over the 8 proposals that came back to us, and I asked him for his input on what he would recommend from their experience with working with them as wel= l as our input, but as to the people who are available to us and their school experience, especially as renos, so with that said I'll ask Rusty to make h= is presentation.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: My primary focus r= eally was on the personnel that they're going to assign, because in looking at all the different firms as a whole, there were few that sort of, I knew hadn't = had enough school experience, and the two that fell into that category were R2D= and Gar-San. I felt that in compa= rison that their school experience was limited in the case of R2D mainly to a cou= ple of schools in New Haven, and Gar-San also just a few schools, so based on t= hat, cause you've got to figure out ways to bring it all down, I thought that th= ey were not as strong as the other candidates. Pike was the other one. Their school experience in Connecticut was low. They're big and do a lot= of New York work. They've done a project for us that= went pretty well, but it's an elementary school project and so if I kind of rank them in this order I would put them lower from that perspective. Then it becomes more difficult.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 6

&= nbsp; There were a couple in my opinion that rose to the top because of a lot of experi= ence with schools, having done projects with us as well and knowing some of the = work that they've done, and those were O & G and Turner. Both have a lot of current school experience, both have done renovate as new type projects. With us alone Turner has done 3 projects, and with O & G many more.&nb= sp; So I pulled those up and then between Morganti, Gilbane and Konover these firms have done a good amount of school work. As I mentioned Morganti's school w= ork in recent years is a lot less than some of the others.

&= nbsp; At that point I started saying okay they're on part with each other, depends on how many we're short listing, and if we're short listing 3, then it's a question of who of these 3 would come up as better. I started looking at the personnel= that they've assigned to the project and a couple of concerns I had, Gilbane proposal was that their superintendent had experience but their project man= ager had no school experience, and I'm focusing on K-12. No school experience listed on the project manager or their project engineer, so that's a weak team, although = the superintendent is a pretty key role, and had a good amount of experience. By the way everybody puts in a Dir= ector of Preconstruction and Operations Manager and all of these people, and not = that that's any that we shouldn't consider those people, but in my opinion the g= uys that you really want to think about are the Project Manager, the Project En= gineer, and Job Superintendent, that's where it’s going to be made or broken. Project Manager is go= ing to be handling all of the paperwork. Knowledge of the documentation required by the State is very, very critical in my opinion, so if I see an (inaudible) who<= /span> hasn't done school projects with the State filing the different EDO forms, etc., it's just a concern.

&= nbsp; On Morganti, the project manager listed had listed Kaynor Tech as a P.M. for t= heir school experience, but I looked at it, I knew that it hadn't started construction, so it was really all Pre-K and that's the only relevant school experience. Now this person d= id have some superintendent type experience which is listed way down, but those are smaller projects and from what I can gather may have been done quite aw= hile back when he first was a superintendent, so it's not that there's no school experience, it's a different type of experience. So Laska, who was the Job = Superintendent, had no schools listed under experience and Stacy Laws similarly, so this is where I’m down to in terms of trying to see where we go with them.

&= nbsp; Konover, (inaudible) going past the project executive and all those guys, Mel Straus= s, he's working on North Haven High School, I'm a little concerned about, know= ing the job, a little bit about the job cause it's one of our projects, whether he's really going to be available. <= /span>I think it's due to be completed this Summer, ther= e are a tough schedule and I'm not sure if it will be complete. John may have more information abo= ut that.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: It's going to be = tight.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: So the question is= how do we deal with that situation if that job is not done= .

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 7

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Is it tight be= cause of the timeline?

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Yes, and it's a bi= g, big job.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: No reflection = on Konover.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: No.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: It sounds like an aggressive . . . . .

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: They want to use = him, but he's not going to be available.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: No, that's wha= t I'm getting at, I just want to understand if there's any issue with Konover its= elf, whether they influenced the timeline?

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: No, Konover had n= ot, Mel, but some of his personnel were not qualified, if I may use that term, = to work on a job this size. They= were used to working on $2,000,000 projects and they were just overwhelmed. There's been a replacement in the superintendents and assistant superintendents to try to step it up but . . = . . .

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: Did they ident= ify that themselves or was that work through the process where . . . . .

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: It was identified= by the owner that there were problems, based on testing lab complaints and spe= cial inspector complaints, things of that nature, there were just a lot of things that had to get taken down and rebuilt up, and when you're on a tight sched= ule the last thing you want to be doing is rebuilding things. I never experienced that prior with Konover, that they took 4 steps backwards to make 1 step forward, but I thi= nk part of the problem was that the personnel he had on the job watching the construction were not doing a good job, either they didn't understand it, didn't have time, or just didn't care, I don't know which of those 3, but .= . . . .

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: But once they identified that they reacted?

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Well it took mont= hs to get to that, unfortunately. I= would say with them if you specified I want this person, this person, this person= on the job, you know that they're proven, then you're okay, but I don't think = you want to give them free reign to just throw anybody on the project.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 8

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: No, and I think we should consider that of others too. Even on Turner or O&G, I would recommend some other people more = so, not because the ones that they designed don't have the experience, I mean t= hey at least have the experience, but our experience and our knowledge about the other individuals to me would be a positive thing for the project and that's what the focus should be, we want the best results in our opinion for the project. On Konover's Superin= tendent, this individual had done one school project in Deep = River and that was basically it. I = mean I think what happened with Konover is that they do a lot of different type of work, so we're focused on schools. <= /span>I don't think that they're bad (inaudible) or anything like that, or construc= tion manager, I think obviously they are a fairly good sized firm, but if we evaluate based on what we have, there's a weakness there. Not to say that, it really comes d= own to between these 3 firms based on what we've been submitted, it's pretty much a toss up, so maybe Morganti = less so than Gilbane and Konover, John just has more information about Konover so that's something we can . . . . .

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: And Karl has work= ed with them too.

&= nbsp; Mr. Khericha: And North Haven is a new school, it's not renovate as new.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Well Konover, as= a contractor, did Memorial Hall at WestConn which the building was on-going.<= o:p>

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: (Inaudible) was a= reno.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Reno as new and then the swing space bu= ilding was new.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: And in fairness th= ey do do higher ed, and also the others do higher ed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Some of these individuals, when I = say have no educational or little educational experience, it's really based on = the K-12 market, because the higher ed market the structure is different, it's = not quite like the K-12. Right, t= hey don't have building committees, they have a whole department and they're dealing in some cases with the D.P.W. so the arrangements are fairly differ= ent from what we go through, the school facilities unit and filing the change orders and that type of documentation.&nbs= p; That's why I kind of broke it out, the higher ed= is one thing; we were clearly focused on the K-12 market. So simply put I think you've got 2= that could be good and probably stand out more than the others, between the second tier, I would put down Gilbane and Konover and then th= e last group would be . . . . .

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: So you're saying Turner and O&G.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: And then it’= s a toss up between Gilbane and Konover.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: I would agree with him. I think O & G, Turne= r, and Gilbane as far as I'm concerned.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 9

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: These 3 companies,= if you look at them in terms of overall school work that they did, then these 3 companies certainly are ahead of the othe= rs.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: So now when the Building Committee is writing to them, we would tell them who specifically = we would want on the job, the names?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Yea, I have made = some notes. We want to clarify tha= t the C.M. is going to hold the contracts, #1, bonding capabilities, litigation questions, reno as new for middle schools, the key people list, which we ju= st discussed, filing paperwork with the State, are 6 items that I came up with, cause I'd like to have them address those items only, as I started to say before, because we don’t need the (inaudible) presentation on key principles and all that, that's not what we're really interested in. And I'd like to have them address another review of that R.F.Q. and address each phase of it. Those are my (inaudible).

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Now when we go o= ut for bids, they're going to do the bidding for us?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Yes. Before we get to that stage, what = we need to do now is if in fact those are the 3 we decide tonight . . . .=

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: I thought we were doing 4?

&= nbsp; Mr. Cenicccola: I though we w= ere doing 4? Are we going to focu= s on 3 or 4?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: It doesn't, there= 's no magic number.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: We've got the to= ssup between Konover and Gilbane, so why don't we do 4.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: All I'd say wi= th Konover, I've had some experience with them in the past on several projects, but they were non-educational projects, they did a very good job. That's not to say that they would = do a good job on the eds.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Then we'll do 4.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We would compile a letter and send= it to them. Now we need to set up t= he interview process. I would pr= obably say 45 minutes would probably be a decent time for them to make the presentation and address the issue, give them a half hour to make the prese= ntation to us, clarifications, and then 15 minutes or so for Q & A, small break between the groups, so does that sound like a plan? First things f= irst.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Do you want to get= from them, there's 2 things that I'd also, Turner commented on the schedule whic= h I think is important, cause we don't want to hire somebody and then have them turn around and say the schedule doesn't work. If it doesn't work, they should te= ll us why at the interview.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 10

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: These are my ideas only, we can add thing we want to specifically address in that letter.=

&= nbsp; Many people talking at once (inaudible).

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Understanding that they're:

&= nbsp; Hold all contracts

&= nbsp; Bonding capabilities (cause some of them didn't address = it)

&= nbsp; Litigation Questions (disputes claims of any type)

&= nbsp; Reno as New Exper= ience (for middle schools)

&= nbsp; Project Team (tell who we are really focused on)

&= nbsp; State Paperwork

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: One of the project managers mentioned, I think he's from Town, from Gilbane.=

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: When I left the = State, Gilbane was doing the Nor= walk Regional Technical College and there w= ere a lot of conflicts with the electrical contractor, had problems with the State (inaudible). We were going he= ad to head with the electrical contractor and Gilbane was very (inaudible).<= /o:p>

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: I guess the comment I would have is= that they would want to put on the job, have the experience as reno as new = school.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Doing higher ed wo= rk is very different, even when it's occupied because of the type of people that = you're dealing with, they're mature, you're not dealing with younger kids so the security, the safety issues, etc. the types of stuff the kids are going to = get into, it's a different level (Tape #1, Side A ended - may have missed some). The concern they had v= ersus talking to professors and kids in college who are young adults, versus midd= le school kids, 6th, 7th, and 8th, and their hormones are going crazy, they ha= ve a different mindset, we have to be precautious.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Plus you're not d= ealing with busses, parent drop-off, etc. so that you have to phase the constructi= on site so it stays safe.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 11

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: The communication between the construction manager staff and the school administration is so vital, that if that doesn't work well, they don't know what to anticipate, they'll be doing something noisy and some test is going on, you don't want = to learn that on the job, then that's a problem. The other thing I would suggest is= we were planning on giving them a set of (inaudible) documents, the design documents, and what I'd like for them to do is get some response to the documents, do they see problems, I mean obviously these are not final docum= ents but I'd like to get an idea from them where they think they are budget-wise. We gave them the budget information and if they think that based on what we have we'll (inaudible) complete bust in the budget, but it would be good to know that before, because if they say no, there isn't, well it's good to know that they're coming in late in the game, but spend the time to really evaluate t= hat and not come back and say we didn't do the estimate so now we're going to l= ook at everything very conservatively. We want them to look at it fairly.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: How long do you t= hink it will take them to do that?

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Well I'm not looki= ng for a full estimate, I think just a response.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Yea, but if we se= nd this letter, you give them the documents, when would you anticipate us setting up interviews?

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: In 2 weeks. They're going to complain about tr= ying to get estimates, I'm not looking for detailed estimates. I think we're look= ing for (inaudible) magnitude.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: If they want the = job, they'll do it.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: I think (inaudible= ) if they don't want to spend the time looking at it, then you need to hear that= , because we might want to ask them a question, just to check to see how much the guy= has looked at the job.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: It's going to be a quick shot, it's not going to be accurate.<= /o:p>

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: No, but at least i= t will tell us that they looked at it.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: Did they know that there is underbidding, that's a big number.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Yea, something tha= t they should be aware of but may not, it depends on how they look at the job.

&= nbsp; Mr. Khericha: (Inaudible) fee, right?

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Yea, I don't know = if you want to get from the short listed group a range of fees.<= /p>

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 12

&= nbsp; Mr. Khericha: Based on the bu= dget.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: I think so cause = that's part of our consideration of who we will use too.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: I think so.<= /o:p>

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Yea, it probably = would be the right time to do it.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: If all 4 of those= firms turn out to be equals, the money is going to be one of the breakers.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Fred, include the= fees.

&= nbsp; Mr. Khericha: I put bond, hold contract, litigation, experience for reno as new, project team, st= ate paperwork, fee, project completion and phasing, and budget.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: I think in a discu= ssion with Meredith, project closeout, so that they don't walk off the job and how much . . . .

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Substantial compl= etion (inaudible). In the project t= eam, do we want to specify to them of who we would want?

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: I think in a coupl= e of case where we know some of the people that we've worked with I think it wouldn't hurt to suggest that. They may turn around and say no.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: We'd just like to= have that option.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: They might say sor= ry, that person is not available at all or they may say fine, we'll make them availa= ble to you.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: We discussed this= prior, the team that's in place to start the project is going to be the team that's in place to finish the project.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Absolutely. I think that's one of the question= s so that you don't end up with someone going on to another job and you end up w= ith a replacement guy.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: You lose a lot of information in the process.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: Absolutely.<= /o:p>

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 13

&= nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. = Kuegler, sec. Mr. Orsini) that the short list of construction managers are O&G, Turner, Konover, and Gilbane.

&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>

&= nbsp; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: We'll get a letter= out to them.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: I'd like to see t= he letter before it is sent.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Do you want it to = go from Meredith?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Yes. Now we need to add to the Agenda t= onight for the code review. Mr. Rich= ard Fusco, Building Inspector, told us that he doesn't have the time to do it, = so there will be an outside firm to do the code review which is required. You brought a list tonight?

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: We didn't have wri= tten proposals from them, so we had a couple of dollars. Pearce Associates and Suzette, tho= se are the two that I know of. One w= as at $22,000 Pears, and $25,000 was Suzette.&nb= sp; I would like to suggest that we don't need to make that decision tonight.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Okay, we'll do it= at the next Regular Meeting on March 16, 2005.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Cause I'd like to have the written proposal, then see, I mean these are numbers t= hey threw at us, I'd like to see exactly what they're going to do for that work= .

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: I'd like to se= e the written proposal.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: We did this becaus= e when we heard that we knew that these guys do it, so we did that as a favor, cause this isn't something that we typically get invol= ved in.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Right, the peer r= eview is $3,900 for Calabrese, there was a $15,000 line item carried in eh constr= uction budget so that's covered, but the code review is not reimbursable by the St= ate, so that's a direct cost from the Town.

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko But = the leftover money from the peer review can be moved?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: That's a question= I can't answer.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: You can move budge= t line items around whichever way you want to.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 14

&= nbsp; Mr. Chipko: You can use it to= wards it anyway.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: With the code officials course that I took, you get an outside compa= ny.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: I guess most town= s do.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Yea, but when yo= u have a building official in Town the size of Watertown which is a substantial town, but take a town that has a part time inspector, like Morris or Bethlehem, it's charged to the contractor usually.

&= nbsp; Mr. Ceniccola: I'd be more comfortable with an on site firm anyway.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Yea.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: I would too.=

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: In terms of timing= for that, what I'm anticipating is that we won't have the, typically the proces= s is you bid the job, you get the general contractors on board, then they go get= the permit, but because we're going the C.M. route, we can get the permit earli= er and get that process going, get the C.M. to apply for the permit earlier, so while it's out to bid this review can be going on. I want to get the review comments = back early enough so we can issue an addenda to the bid documents should they ne= ed to, so they can all be incorporated in the bidder's bids. At that point when we accept the b= ids from the various contractors, then it's a simple matter, you just go, there= 's no permit fee involved, you just go, everything is all set, you don't lose = any time in the permitting process up front.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Let's go back to = this issue - by the time you put the letter together, it probably won't go out u= ntil Friday at the earliest, so 2 weeks from Monday, around the 28th?=

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: You want to move i= t to the 30th, a Wednesday?

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: That's fine. So we'll receive them back on the = 30th?

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: No, we'd want to s= tart the interviewing on the 30th. They can bring any documents, you want them to address those issues in their pre= sentation and then if there's documents they want to hand us, cause they should go ov= er it in the presentation, and then give us the hard copy at the end of the pr= esentation.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 15

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: So the 30th is th= e time back, and we probably should do 2 a night, we can't do 4 a night. We'll do it two nights, the 30th a= nd 31st. Is there any order that= you want to interview them in?

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Put Turner and G= ilbane with a different group, don't do them on the same night.

&= nbsp; Mr. Orsini: Gilbane and O &am= p; G, and Turner and Konover.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Now if they have= a conflict, we'll have no problem changing them.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: If they want the = job, they'll be here.

&= nbsp; Mr. Kuegler: Gilbane and Kono= ver are the two who aren't (inaudible) so why not bring them in on different nights.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: Well do them on th= e 30th and the two better ranked ones on the final day.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Gilbane and Konov= er on 30th and O&G and Turner on the 31st, at 7:00 p.m. That will be the only items on the Agenda.

&= nbsp; Mr. Malik: On the fee proposa= ls, if you have them put it in a sealed envelope, so that when you're done, you'll rank them first without that, then you'll look at the money.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: That’s the fairest way to do it. Kevin K= illeen is going to serve as a liaison to this Board from the Town Council. With his experience with the PBC i= t just made a lot of sense.

&= nbsp; Mr. Killeen: Given that information, I just wanted to say thank you to you guys, cause working on this Committee really has been enjoyable. People outside probably don't unde= rstand entirely what we do and the manner in which we go about doing it, and I just wanted to tell you that it was very enjoyable to me, and in my letter of re= signation on this committee, I stated it was a privilege and an honor to work with gentlemen such as yourself, and I wanted to make sure I told you, as a Comm= ittee, how I felt. As a liaison to t= he Committee now I'll try and be here and try and take a back seat and listen, more than talk.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: This way it will = keep a good dialogue to the Council where the projects are.

&= nbsp; Mr. Killeen: But it really ha= s been a pleasure and an honor to work with you guys.

&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Thank you, we appreciate that.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 16

6.&nb= sp; Review Design Documents for Firehouse Renovations

Mr. Porter: Before we get into this, we had ask= ed for a Joint Meeting with the Board of Education's Facilities Committee to talk about the interior finishes at Swift, and Mr. LoFrese told me either the 21= st or 22nd would be okay. Do you= have a preference? Tuesday? It will be March 22, 2005 and an A= genda will be send out. And this Friday at 4:00 the Request for Proposals on the architectur= al consulting facility study for the conversion of Heminway School is due here at 4:00 p.m. and that will be on the Agenda for our 16th meetin= g.

Mr. Chipko: How many people came for the pre?<= /p>

Mr. Porter: There was a ton of them, I want to say 8 firms. KBA, S= ilver Petrucelli, Steve Whittaker, Jeter, Jepson & Cook, and those are the on= es I remember off hand.

Mr. Porter: Okay, what we need to do tonight i= s take a look at these design documents and put any concerns in writing like we di= d with the school issue, get it back to K.B.A. and let them address it.

Mr. Chipko: Has everybody finished the school review?

Mr. Porter: The comments we made?

Mr. Chipko: Yes.

Mr. Porter: It's on my list of things to do to= ask Diana.

Mr. Chipko: No, I meant committee-wise, has ev= eryone looked at the drawings?

Mr. Orsini: The drawings are here? No, I didn't see them. Is it too late?

Mr. Porter: No, it's never too late. One thing I want to ask you, John,= can you take back or get rid of the old plans?= And also the old Swift plans as well?

The Committee reviewed all of the design documents at length.

7.&nb= sp; Adjournment=

MOTION: (Mr. Orsini, sec. Mr. Ceniccola) to Adjourn the Special Meeting at 8:55 p.m.

Discussion: None

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

MARCH 9, 2005

PAGE 17

Special Meeting Adjourned at 8:55 p.m.=

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Porter, Chairman

Watertown Public Buildings Committee

Approved: _____________________________= __

Lynn M. LaForme, Clerk