MINUTES

MINUTES<= /span>

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN PUB= LIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING<= /b>

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SC= HOOL

MEDIA CENTER

&nb= sp;

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2005, 5:00 = P.M.

PRESENT:            =             &nb= sp;    Brian Bellagamba

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

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

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Anthony Fusco

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

= ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         John Orsini

Robert Porter, Chairman

ABSENT:            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;      Remo Ceniccola, Vice Chairman

OTHERS PRESENT:            Fred Khericha, Kaestle Boos Associates

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Todd LoFrese, Director of Operations, B.O.E.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Rusty Malik, Kaestle Boos Associated

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Lorel Purcell, O & G Industries

1.&nb= sp;        Convene Special Meeting - 5:00 P.M.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Porter, Chairman, Called the Meeting to Order at 5:00 p.m.

&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

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 2

4.&nb= sp;        Swift Renovation Project

      &= nbsp;     Discussion and Vote on Final Value Engineering Costs as presented by O & G Industr= ies and Kaestle Boos Associates (attached).

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Porter: The value enginee= ring costs that we discussed at the last meeting have been finalized. K.B.A. is going to make a presenta= tion on what the recommendation is, and they will need to move on that if we acc= ept them all, but that's what the purpose of this meeting is. There are also a = few other things on the Agenda.

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Malik: Everybody has the = list, and would it be best if we just went through the list again (inaudible)?

      &= nbsp;     Ms. Purcell: (Inaudible.)

            Mr. Malik: This is the same list that we had = the last time, with the exception of having some of the numbers filled in (inau= dible).

&= nbsp;          <= /i>1.         = Reduce Onsite Integral Concrete Sidewalks (Replace with bituminous concrete and 59= 1 LF extruded concrete curb, see plan)

As I said, we had had discussions with = the Town Planners and so on and Whitney from our office had that discussion and that= was not an issue. When I talk abo= ut reductions or recommendations, these are, I want to make sure that everybody understands that these are recommendations that are based on how do we save some money. This is not to say that this is going to be as good as what we had in the original package because that's something everybody understands, it's n= ot going to have that same type of life, this is an alternate that is acceptab= le and we would recommend it, but we're not going to tell you that it's better= or equal to the product that was there before.

            = ;            = Mr. Porter: And also in that same light it's b= een reviewed by Todd's office.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Yes.

            = ;            = Mr. Porter: And they've had their input as to = what they feel they can live with so it's not Kaestle Boos' decisions, it's been brought to the Board.

            = ;            = Mr. Malik: Actually we all sat together in th= at process and in fact when we originally had these discussions and even developing the list, I think you all remember that Ray was with us at the meeting so that was the first item, and yea again, that's the first item th= at we're suggesting on the value engineering.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 3

      &= nbsp;     2.         = Detail 3/Drawing L7.03 - Eliminate = the 12" thick sand layer on Athletic Field

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     As I mentioned at the last meeting, this was, we had actually agreed not to do that, we were going to do a much lower level of grading and this was not changed on the drawing when it went out to bid, so this was really something that had the bids come in and we 're within budg= et something that would have been a good thing to do, certainly it's not neces= sary for the fields that are there now. <= /span>The net result of the changes in grading that will occur as a result of accepti= ng this particular item will be still fairly superior to what you have there n= ow. It will be a playing field, but it = just won't, the drainage on it is the main issue there.

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Orsini: Regarding Item #1= , you reduced the on site integral concrete sidewalk to bituminous paving. What is the life span of the bitum= inous topping, surface versus the concrete? What I'm interested in is replacing this in the future years and the cost then.

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Malik: It's a hard one to= put a number on, whether to say one will last 5 years versus another one that wil= l be lasting longer. I think prope= rly installed the concrete definitely has a longer life to it. It's the material really that we're dealing with, however with the bituminous as we're looking at it, I couldn't tell you because it's a function of the overall maintenance of the years as well. I mean I don't know if I could give you a real hard number to go with.

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Orsini: Would you say bituminous would be about 10 years versus concrete 20 years? Would I be out of line by saying t= hat?

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Malik: So basically a 2 to 1? I'm not sure if that would= be true, but definitely concrete has a longer life than bituminous. Whether it's 2 to 1 or 15 to 10, I= don't have the expertise to give you that exact number.

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Orsini: Well I think to a= ccept this we should know what the life span of these two mat= erials are.

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Malik: We can try to get = an indication, but again it's really ends up being a function of where it's be= ing laced, how it's being maintained over the years. I know that bituminous sidewalks c= an walk for a fairly good period of time, as long as they're maintained and you don't have any installation, it all comes down to installation because you = can put down concrete and if the installation is not the best you can have the = same results.

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Orsini: Well we know what= the installation is going to be like, it's going to = be good, right?

      &= nbsp;     Mr. Malik: I agree. Okay? Should we move on to Item #3?=

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 4

      &= nbsp;     3.         = Revise concrete pavers at Caf&eacut= e; terrace to concrete (1,290 sf).

It's an aesthetic value here, primarily= . The pavers, actually you can say t= hat the pavers would have a less, or more of an option to have problems with th= em because the cold weather and the heating, etc. you can have more issues with pavers but primarily I would look at this as an aesthetic issue. I think replacing them with concre= te in this particular location is not bad, it's not go= ing to impact the overall aesthetics of the facility to any great detail, so we ha= ve that on the list of items.

      &= nbsp;     4.         = Change RCP to H= DPE (Change only pipes not under roadways, per Town Engineer).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     You see that happening more often now than not. Is RCP better? I would say so, that's the contrac= tors' choice, but HDPE is certainly a fairly good product. Why is it VOID here?

Ms. Purcell: It's voided because we don't have = any situation where it's not on the roadways, so it may have made an indication= to change only the prices that are not in the roadways cau= se we don't have that situation (inaudible).

Mr. Malik: Good, cause that's where we were recommending, that becomes a non issue.

      &= nbsp;     5.         = Change Vortechnic Unit to V2B1 (Connecticut Prec= ast Model #17 - Need to review submittals with Town Engineer).

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Malik: Again this has been reviewed with the Town Engineer. I know the Vortechnic Units are the ones with that the State D.E.P. likes, th= at's the one that they push. I don= 't have, our objection, we don't really have an objection to this as long as t= hey meet the criteria which is basically a separation of the oils and the sedim= ent before it goes into the road and so on.&nb= sp; Unless there are some serious concerns, if somebody has had an experience with the alternate product, our engineers don't think it's a sig= nificant change.

      &= nbsp;     6.         = Change pavement depth from 4.5"= ; to 3" in all areas except bus loop.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Malik: This is one where = it's a matter of work that you're going to gain from going from the 4.5 to the 3 inches. We think in any high traffic area you need to maintain the additional depth. The more depth you have, in fact i= f you talk to the geotechnical engineers, they'll tell you that same thing, the m= ore depth you have the longer it will last but again this is a compromise. If you look at most facilities, th= ey would have 3 inches bituminous in their roads. I think going to the 3 inches in t= he parking areas as we've indicated, not in the high traffic areas, is a fairly reasonable compromise, and part of this is also driven by the dollar savings that is being provided to us.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 5

        &= nbsp;   7.         = Detail 1/L7.03 - Revise timber guid= e rail to 10" posts and one rail instead of two rails (on site areas, reviewed with Town Engineer).

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Malik: It's more probably= an aesthetics issue, I don't think it's that signif= icant in terms of the aesthetics of the site.

        &= nbsp;   8.         = Change timber guide rail along Colo= nial to MBR (per Town Engineer this guard rail must comply with CDOT spec.).=

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Malik: Same as #7.

        &= nbsp;   9.         = Reuse exiting fire protection servi= ce to the building from Colonial= Street. New riser work would have to be do= ne in Phase 1 in the tunnels (FP ADD $4,000) (SITE DEDUCT $19,220) (Per discussion with Fire Marshall, Dept. will still need a hydrant coming in from Davis on= the right side of the driveway. E= liminate water line from Davis hydrant to back of school. ME= P must furnish proof that 6" service off Colonial is adequate for fire protection).

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Malik: This is actually, = it doesn't have any affect on the fire protection system, so it's a good one to accept, to reuse the existing protection service from the building on Colon= ial rather than, I think we were coming in off of Davis Street. So in this particular case it's ju= st a different way of approaching it and it's going to save us $15,000 so we thi= nk it's a good way.

        &= nbsp;   10.       Detail 1/Drawing L7.01 - Revise pro= cessed aggregate layer thickness from 8" to 6" and granular fill layer thickness from 10" to 12".

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Ms. Purcell: #10, #11, and #1= 2 were done with the Geotechnical Engineer's input.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: So he was suggesti= ng to decrease one and increase the other and I guess rea= lly the savings becomes a material savings.&nb= sp; When it comes to anything that subsurface we rely on the engineers.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Whenever Welty is okay with someth= ing it's fairly easy on our part (inaudible) evaluation of things.

      &= nbsp;     11.       Detail 3/Drawing L7.01 - Delete the 6" thick processed aggregate layer.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Same is true for t= his item.

      &= nbsp;     12.       Detail 4/Drawing L7.01 - Reduce gra= nular fill layer from 12" to 8" thick.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Same is true for t= his item.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 6

      &= nbsp;     13.       Eliminate toothing at all masonry i= nfill areas in the existing building.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: I believe we discu= ssed that the last time if you have a door opening, and we don't have a lot but = we do have some, where we're closing up a door or there's an opening. In one case for the most parts it'= s door openings, but in some cases we're looking at the unit ventilators and other= type of mechanical devices, drinking fountains, so those are the types of items = that would be infilled with masonry, and whereas initially we said tooth that in= , so anybody as we walk by wouldn't notice the fact that it can be perceived as a hatch so to speak. What we're proposing here is to do a soft (inaudible) so that you get a clean cut and = then infill with the masonry. It's really an aesthetic value as we look at it. Ideally I'd say tooth it in but I = guess we are more trained to pick up on things such as that, but it's a fairly substantial credit of $35,000. When we looked at the number of places and where these doors are located, etc. i= t's not something that we felt was (inaudible) accept this.

      &= nbsp;     14.       Eliminate all work required in Deta= ils 9 & 10/A9.03 and add a 200 Man-hours Labor Allowance for patching.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This is patching o= f the existing (inaudible). We had = an allowance and we had a square footage per patching and what we've done here= it is go to, we've added 200 labor man-hours to the patching allowance rather = than have, and eliminate the required work as was indicated in details 9 and 10. So it's really a matter, = should we continue to carry both, we should, well maybe we should just increase the allowance and eliminate the other item.

      &= nbsp;     15.       Revise radiused precast stone cap to stock segmented precast pieces.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This is along the = wall that's in front of the school. This is the flood wall so to speak that came about as a result, so the $9,000 cr= edit we're going to segment the cap which is more of a standard piece, I think t= hat will be fine and I don't think anybody will notice that we don't have a rad= ius on the precast.

      &= nbsp;     16.       Eliminate the back side brick venee= r on flood walls.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Once again it's an aesthetics issue. The reality= is you're mainly seeing these walls through the front as you're driving by or walking along the sidewalk, so not having brick on both sides would be acceptable.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 7

      &= nbsp;     17.       Revise brick on light well elevatio= ns 1, 2 and 3/A5.05 to 4" ground face CMU (complimentary color to brick).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: As we said the new addition creates a courtyard with the existing building and this courtyard = is only viewed from within the building, so if you're in one of the rooms as you're looking out you can see into the courtyard. What to do here, and there is a fa= irly significant value to this is to go to a block product, in this case we're t= alking about a ground face block and it comes in many samples, but actually what w= ould happen is they would match the brick, you can give them the color you want = to match and the matrix within the block and they will do that for you, so the thought was it's a less expensive product, it's still a very good product, = and it's isolated because you're not seeing it as you would the building itself from the exterior where you change and you walk around the building and you= see brick and some of these stone precast so it was a good place to make this c= hange and we thought that that was something that we would be able to live with.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Again, from a product perspective = here there is no difference, it's more of an aestheti= cs. Before we would make this determin= ation we would share with you which blocks and how it would be here.

      &= nbsp;     18.       Provide standard gray mortar in lie= u of custom color mortar.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: We call for a cust= om color and actually looking at the building most of the mortar is a gray mor= tar so there is no performance difference in there, again it comes down to aesthetics.

      &= nbsp;     19.       Revise the brick from moulded brick= to an extruded brick.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: So the product for= the brick is the same, moulded and extruded, the process is different. The mold is put through a mold, bu= t the extruded is pushed through an extrusion.&n= bsp; We've used this as an option on several projects, because there have been quite a few projects where we've had to look for value engineering ide= as on, and in all cases we accepted the extruded brick versus the moulded brick. We've seen there is no difference in the (inaudible) itself.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Orsini: I think we discus= sed this issue the last time.

      &= nbsp;             &= nbsp;   Mr. Kuegler: Why didn't we ju= st spec out the extruded brick?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: The brick that was= used on the existing building was a moulded brick so we tried to get as close a match to it. It still matches= from a color perspective but it's a different type of brick.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 8

            =             M= r. Porter: And this will be used just on the addition?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Yes. Well no, I take that back, we're d= oing some infills on the exterior where the unit ventilators, etc. You'll see some of that, but the difference is that brick has been there so long that over time it's weather= ed, so we're trying to match it exactly. Even if we were to do a moulded brick you'll always see where you're patching it in, and over time it will blend because that's what typically happens, so if we were using the moulded brick and you have a clear match a= nd never be able to tell, then one could make the case then let's go to the moulded brick, but you're always going to be able to see that.

      &= nbsp;     20.       Eliminate the 4" CMU partition= in Stair A1 (three walls).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: That's the main st= air as you come in on the main level, it goes up to acc= ess all 3 levels. We have an exte= rior brick masonry backup and a third masonry veneer wall going up on the inside, primarily done I believe to conceal the concre= te encased beams that are going in that stairwell. From an aesthetic point of view I = don't think it makes much of a difference to have that concrete exposed. In fact I went back and checked a = couple of other projects where we had done that just with the exposed concrete, don’t consider it an aesthetic, that it's going down in the aesthetic= s in terms of (inaudible) fairly good sized credit because it's really building a third wall all the way up primarily to hide the 2 foot or so of concrete so it's really worthwhile eliminating.

      &= nbsp;     21.       Eliminate temporary heat for masonr= y work only (NOT Concrete).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This really came f= rom the fact of our schedule so it's really a credit coming back to us. We believe that the schedule is no= w such that the mason won't need the temporary heat and we can proceed by taking t= he credit for it. And it says no= t concrete because we think that the concrete work will be going on sooner than that.<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;     22.       Revise wall types of Corridor Parti= tions.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: We went back and f= orth in our evaluating what corridor wall type would be best, carrying sheet rock burring, having block with masonry, having masonry with sheet rock back up = and the reason we went to where we were is we thought it would be cheaper. It all depends on perspective. It's also a function of what we gi= ve back on the credit from one and what gets added by the other. At this point this would be an acceptable credit, it makes no difference to the= wall partition type in terms of the end result of the partition.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 9

      &= nbsp;     23.       Substitute solid surface sills with either plastic laminate sills (DEDUCT $21,750) or solid bulinose top CMU (DEFUDT $36,453).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: I think I indicated again that we would not go to the laminate simply because the laminate is something in terms of life cycle the laminate comes up. I've seen kids kind of poke at it = and pull at it and before you know it the edges are coming up. I'd much rather prefer a bulinose block in those locations.

      &= nbsp;     24.       Detail 5/11.01 - Delete ALL wall ca= binets.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Now the next two i= tems, we did not recommend those because again it's a function of are you getting= the value for the material that you're deleting, and we don't believe we're get= ting the value. And ultimately our= goal is to be at $1,000,000 because that's what we went out for and so you see a number of items that fall into this category, not that they're bad items to accept as a deduction, but just the number is not a fair number. Quite frankly from an educational perspective they can always use those cabinets so you're losing something by taking those out and you're not substituting it with something else.

      &= nbsp;     25.       Detail 13/A11.01 - Delete ALL wall cabinets.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Same as #24.<= /o:p>

&nbs= p;           Mr. Orsini:     I'd like to go back to Item #14. You gave us a credit of $30,000 yet= you gave us 200 hours. What is the value of the 200 hours per unit? Hourly rate?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: Do you remember wh= at that was?

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Whatever is in h= is formal proposal, which I don't believe I have.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: The other questio= n is what is the 200 man hours, what kind of man hour= s are they?

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: It's going to be= a mason, it's going to be the masonry, so that will be written into his contr= act that there will be 200 man-hour labor allowance minus whatever the mason tr= ade it, and that's how it will be (inaudible) schedule of renovated values, so = whenever it's used, they keep track of it like tickets.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: How will you incorporate a laborer? Usuall= y a mason has a laborer a tender.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 10

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: I would use the mason's rate because we've already discussed this with him and it's what is= on his formal proposal. When the= y gave us all their bids, they had to tell us their hourly labor rates so I already have his rate, and it includes all his workman's comp, the whole thing, so I have his rate, I just don't believe I have it with me.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: Actually you get t= ied back to because it's a prevailing wage grade job so whatever the prevailing wage is . . . .

&nbs= p;           Mr. Orsini: Exactly, so the 200 hours is mason= ry rate?

&nbs= p;           Ms. Purcell: Yes, that's who is going to be goi= ng to work.

      &= nbsp;     26.       Details 18 & 19/A11.02 - Delete= ALL wall cabinets (12 LF).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Item #26, #27, #28= , #29, #30 (Tape #1, Side A ended - may have missed some) regarding wall cabinets, cabinets within the case work, etc. credit not worth it, we don't feel we n= eed to take these credits so that's why we have (inaudible) value engineering t= hat we'd like accepted.

      &= nbsp;     27.       Details 20/A11.02 - Delete 8 LF of = wall cabinets.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Same as #26.<= /o:p>

      &= nbsp;     28.       Details 21/A11.02 - Delete all three freestanding cabinets (Total Length of 10'-2") - one 4'-0" unit a= nd two 3'-0" units.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Same as #26.<= /o:p>

      &= nbsp;     29.       Details 26/A11.02 - Delete two 3'-0= " wall cabinets and two 2'-0" wall cabinets.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Same as #26.<= /o:p>

      &= nbsp;     30.       Details 28A and 30A/A11.03 - Delete= ALL wall cabinets.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Same as #26.<= /o:p>

      &= nbsp;     31.       Details 28A, 29A, and 30A/A11.03 - = Delete all tackable surfaces in Room B106.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Again it's a very = small amount. Initially we were loo= king for anything and everything to see if we could get to that number. We don't think it's worth it so we= said let's just leave it out.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 11

      &= nbsp;     32.       Detail 45/A11.04 - Delete all seven= (7) 3'-0" full height cabinets.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This is not being proposed.

      &= nbsp;     33.       Detail 46/A11.02 - Delete two 3'-0&= quot; wall cabinets over the sink.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Same as #32.<= /o:p>

      &= nbsp;     34.       Delete custom colors for lockers - Contractor needs to submit sample and color palette for architect's review.=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This is something = that we can look at, and actually look at their sample that could be used in the non-custom color and it was pretty close.&= nbsp; I think we can negotiate this item further but we want to make sure = that that submittal will work for us. At this present time we're saying no, but on review, my hunch is, and when I looked at the two I said this is pretty close, it may be worth going back a= nd revisiting.

      &= nbsp;     35.       Change thru-wall and flashing to sh= op fab. Stainless steel or coppe= r in lieu of zinc-coated copper.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: We have discussed = this with the roof . . . . I would think that (inaudible) I don't know how well they'll do with the zinc coated copper but those are comparable type of modifications. I think obviou= sly the zinc coated copper is the best and if it's something for lesser value b= ut an acceptable material that one could use.

      &= nbsp;     36.       Revise equipment screen wall to sho= p fab. panel system.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: There is a fairly = significant value to these screens and going to shop fabricated in the panel system, I don't see any problem with that. This is mainly for screening the mechanical units and you'll never s= ee them up close, and quite frankly I'm interested because I think the shop fabricated system may be better because it will be constructed under a (inaudible) environment. Alth= ough the question that I will have to confirm is once they bring it on the site, what kind of modifications. Hopefully the shop (inaudible) will submit it in such a way that it = all fits together and you're not doing any field modifications.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 12

      &= nbsp;     37.       Substitute EFCO Series 403 storefro= nt with Series 2700 operable windows and solar ban 60 glasing in lieu of Viari= con VE-1-2M.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: We looked at the materials here and we have used the series 2700 operable windows. The solar ban glazing is really a preference of the window manufacturer.&nbs= p; Viaricon tends to be have a lot of work a= nd dictates the delivery. We hea= r a lot of complaints sometimes from various manufacturers in the Viaricon prod= uct, although it's a good product. The other product is not an inferior product by any means. It meets all the criteria that we'= ve established so it really comes down to a manufacturer's preference and if t= hey feel if by using them they can get a better buy and they pass some of those savings on to us, I think it's worthwhile.

      &= nbsp;     38.       Reduce the number of vents ($335.00= /each x 140 vents).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This is the windows themselves in terms of the number of operable windows going to fixed window= s, I think we maintained (inaudible) and so we went through this, keeping in mind we're putting in a whole new mechanical ventilation system, it's no longer = the light and natural air, it's actual operable windows so this was an item tha= t, would it be nicer to have more widows that are operable, yea, but it's a ju= dgment call at this point. We didn&#= 8217;t have any objections so everyone felt that this was something that could wor= k.

      &= nbsp;     39.       Revise Homosote above lockers to re= gular gypsum wallboard.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Don't really think= that will ever be an issue, because above the lockers it's hard to get to, so it= 's a fairly decent savings there.

      &= nbsp;     40.       Revise FRGP at all high gypsum wall= board installations, including soffits, to regular gyp bd.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: It comes down to w= here would the students, we mainly use it for the students so they can have where they can be of use, so if we're getting a credit for it, the students are n= ot going to reach up there to have the type of use, and in most cases it is be= yond the ceiling line anyway so it's a good credit to take.

      &= nbsp;     41.       Revise wall Type 15D at column line= s AD and AG to single stud framing on two floors.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: We looked at it, i= t was proposed, not from our perspective it wasn't a problem to do that.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 13

      &= nbsp;     42.       Per details in A7 series of drawing= s, eliminate redundant SAB.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Void.

      &= nbsp;     43.       Revise 3 GRG column covers to drywa= ll instead.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Void.

      &= nbsp;     44.       Elimi= nate Beam infills (drywall framing & sheathing and all masonry) on the inter= ior side only of all perimeter walls.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: What we're looking= at is we have stud infills within the (inaudible) of the beam and we looked at th= at detail and felt it was something that could be eliminated, it was proposed = by the contractor.

      &= nbsp;     45.       Provide ceiling tiles with lower no= ise reduction factor in all areas except classrooms, computer rooms (educational areas), Media Center, Cafeteria.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: There is a new regulation that will take effect as of January 1st which has to do with rat= ings and ANSI ratings on acoustical. It's been proposed and accepted and will take effect as of January 1st. That has to do with nois= e in all educational buildings, so what we've seen is we've gone to a higher NRC rating tile. Now that is a pr= oduct that we have not just in the (inaudible) throughout. What is being suggested is to go t= o a lower NRC in the classrooms, we have a 70 NRC and to go from a 70 down to a= 50 in the corridors. I don't thi= nk that would be terrible in terms of the noise reduction.

      &= nbsp;     46.       Revise ceiling tile from 2' x 2' to= 2' x 4' in all areas shown except in Cafeteria and Kitchen/Servery Rooms.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Void.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 14

&= nbsp;          47.       A)&nbs= p; Food Service Items 1, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 55 Shelving sections and dunna= ge racks - change units to Metro epoxy in lieu of plastic.<= /span>

            =             B= .   Food Service Item 24 - 3 <= span class=3DGramE>hand sinks (ADA) - Re= tain 1 unit as ADA and change the other 2 units to standard with electronic faucets.

            =             C= . Food Service Items 26, 27, 32, 52 Tables - Delete all oversleeps specified at these items.

            =             D= . Food Service Items 41, 42, 43 - = Delete water filters specified.

            =             E= .   Food Service Item 56 - 8 u= tility racks (mobile) - Delete two units.

            =             F= .   Food Service Item 57 - 2 r= oll-in refrigerated cabinets - Delete 1 unit currently located next to Item 61.

            =             G= . Food Service Item 60 - 3 hand sinks (ADA) - Re= tain 1 unit as ADA and change the other 2 units to standard with electronic faucets.

            =             H= . Food Service Item 66 - 2 Sandwich warming units - Delete 1 unit located at I= tem 65.

            =             <= span class=3DGramE>I.    <= u>Food Service Item 71 - 3 countertop merchandisers - Delete one unit located adja= cent to counter, Item 65.

            =             J= .   Food Service Item 75 - 3 Protector and pizza warming cases - Change units to standard Servolift East= ern type units.

            =             K= . Food Service Item 81 - 1 display= case with lights - Change unit to standard Servolift Eastern type unit.

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: This has been revi= ewed by our food service consultant who is quite a stickler for the products tha= t he specified and he felt this was an acceptable substitution.

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;                Mr. Porter:= In essence, all of these items tha= t come under 47, A through K, have all been reviewed by the food service personnel= ?

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;                Mr. LoFrese= : By our consultant and by the Direc= tor of Food Services for the District.

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: And all of these = are acceptable? I don't think we = need to go through each. As long a= s they were accepted by the school personnel, that's our concern.

      &= nbsp;     48.       Delete fire protection hose from ho= se cabinets. Price angle valve only.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: It's one of those = no-brainers. People don't want them anyway.

      &= nbsp;     49.       Change concealed sprinkler heads to semi-recessed heads.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Usually the concer= n is vandalism on the part of students, and in our discussions it was thought th= at they've actually exposed heads and had no problems there in other facilitie= s so it was thought to go forward.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 15

      &= nbsp;     50.       Delete the center of ceiling tile r= equirement from the project.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: More of the locati= on of the sprinkler in the center of the ceiling tile, so that begins to make the ceiling layout a little bit more difficult for the contractor, but for the = most part we end up compromising anyway because there's such rigid requirements = for how far apart the heads can be, so it was a worthwhile credit to be taken.<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;     51.       Delete Wheelchair Lifts from the El= evator Bid.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: So we had a double= bid price.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Purcell: That would leave= the elevator price at $85,000.

            =             M= r. Porter: It's a nice credit.

            =             M= r. Malik: Yes.

      &= nbsp;     52.       Change the domestic water heater to= bock water heater Model 200 DF0650 ASME dual fuel with power flame burner or equ= al.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This has been revi= ewed by the engineers so all of the mechanical and electrical items, when we were going through them the engineers were present, they wanted to make sure that whatever was being proposed they felt was an acceptable product of equal va= lue based on performance.

      &= nbsp;     53.       Change EWS-1 emergency eyewash show= er from S19-310BFSS to S19-310BF or equal and delete alarm S-19-320C.<= /o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Most of these emer= gency eyewash and body showers just end up on the side of a room and end up getti= ng disabled because they're kind of a nuisance because students pull at them b= ut they're required by code, so the product change here was not significant.

      &= nbsp;     54.       Delete third boiler and assoc. comp= onents incl. the pump (B-3 & P-3).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This was something= we had originally thought because we had 2 boilers and the redundancy of the third, we felt we needed the money and we should go to, we believe the cred= it given for the value of that third boiler is not adequate and if they were to come back with substantially more dollars then it would make some sense. As it's turning out, where we stan= d in our bottom line, we're in the position and I know Todd really felt that if there was a way of saving it and keeping it within the project is something= we should do, so we don't have it in the recommended category.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 16

      &= nbsp;     55.       Delete 10 rehea= t coils and 17 VAV boxes.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This is a matter o= f evaluating how the system is going to work. Quite a bit of time spent on the part of the engineer working with the mechanical contractors, they felt that this could be done.

      &= nbsp;     56.       Delete the chiller and associated p= iping, pumps and controls and ADD DX coils at AHU 5, 7, and 9 with matching conden= sing units having dual refrigeration circuits.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This was something= that we were considering, the value is so low we felt= it was not worth pursuing.

      &= nbsp;     57.       Delete the specified spring/isolati= on roof curbs ands replace them with seismic curb equal to Mason model RCS wit= hout the springs. Curbs to be fact= ory sloped to match roof pitch.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Evaluated by the engineer and thought to be acceptable.

      &= nbsp;     58.       Delete the new telephone system &am= p; reuse/modify the existing system. However, still need to provide new equipment in the two new addition areas (Classroom and Gymnasium Additions).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Basically the exis= ting system does have expansion capabilities so it's a matter of expanding the n= ew system with the existing.

      &= nbsp;     59.       Delete assisted listening equipment= and wiring in the classrooms.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This is one where = it was in the specification that something that is being proposed more so now, it's not something that's fairly standard for every classroom to have. In fact, what most schools do is p= ut in a portable system where they have a child with special needs and then bring that to that room so there may be two systems and so on and we had that as = well so we looked at it and felt it was something worthwhile taking out.

      &= nbsp;     60.       Reduce the number of power and data receptacles in the Classrooms, total of 120 devices.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: As we evaluated th= em we felt that the number of outlets in some of these rooms was quite excessive. We did sit down and have a discussi= on about them and figured out a way to reduce a certain number, which was quit= e a few actually receptacles and that was an acceptable resolution with the sch= ool.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 17

      &= nbsp;     61.       Reduce stage lighting and modify li= ghting fixture package.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Once again these a= re instead of a credit being offered by the electrical contractor, we know tha= t we can do, we should be able to get more than that, we felt that was a good baseline number to put in. Light fixture packages are really a function of who they buy the packages from and sometimes they will propose alternate fixtures and we'll review those alternate fixtures so what will happen here is they will review it off of the packages they would like to propose it, we will review it and make sure that it meets all of the criter= ia that is acceptable to us and the engineers and they feel that there is a way they can reduce the cost by $50,000 by doing so.

      &= nbsp;     62.       Delete portable sound systems in Au= x Gym, Music and Band Rooms.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: It's in the spec, I think there was an item in there, I don't rememb= er if it was requested or if it was something that the engineer has done in other= facilities. When we went through it that was a= n item we felt could be taken out.

      &= nbsp;     63.       Revise electrical wiring (feeders o= nly) from copper to aluminum.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Something that we'= ve reviewed, and the engineer felt they've done this on other projects as a fa= irly significant savings there so the compromise or what the engineer was import= ant only the feeders would be changed.

      &= nbsp;     64.       Use j-hooks in lieu of cable tray i= n all areas except for in data closets.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: The cable tray is = nice to have in there, the reality is we've had projects where we had cable trays and then we get up there and we look at all the stuff that's in the ceiling= s, especially when you're going to be putting new in and you've got the existing which yo= u can't rip out right away, it gets to be pretty tough, so we compromised and put in j-hooks. As long as they bund= le everything appropriately I think it's an acceptable change.

      &= nbsp;     65.       Revise 6" x 6" floor porc= elain tile to 2" x 2" Dal Tile Keystone Group 2 ceramic tile; revise 12" x 12" wall porcelain tile to 4-1/4" x 4-1/4" Dal Ti= le ceramic tile.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: This has been revi= ewed by our interior designers and they felt it was an acceptable change, it's m= ore of a product substitution, it doesn't have any a= ffect on the life cycle.

      &= nbsp;     66.       Delete resinous flooring in various= areas throughout Lower Building A.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: The credit was so miniscule that we felt it wasn't worth it because we felt the value of that resinous flooring was much higher.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 18

      &= nbsp;     67.       Delete VET and rubber base in Corri= dors D101 (exclude ramp), D111 & D127. this change is superseded by award of Alt= ernate #8.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Void.

      &= nbsp;     68.       Revise paint from Scuff Master to e= poxy paint OR latex paint.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: The value given go= ing from scuff master to epoxy or a latex paint, that's absolutely unacceptable= . There's a night and day difference= on the products and the credit was only $500, so we felt it wasn't worthy accepting.

      &= nbsp;     69.       Eliminate painting of walls in Rooms B202, B204, and B205.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: These are mechanic= al type spaces, so we felt the people working on the systems wouldn't mind an unpainted wall.

      &= nbsp;     70.       Switch some painting products to le= ss expensive brands.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Malik: Void.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: That pretty much c= overs all of the items as you can see the bottom line was $1,105,079.00. We don't recommend $478,992.00, so= we ended up at close to $1,100,000.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Close to where yo= u want to be.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: Yea, and if we accept all of these= as proposed, then we'll be at $1,015,079.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Porter: I've still got some (inaudible) wi= th Item #17. That's the $30,000 credit.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: That's the blockin= g in lieu of the brick.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Porter: I'd like to see some other proposa= ls, like to talk to some people and (inaudible).

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: Well you've got work block on the outside of this building so you've got a combination on the outside, you've= got brick and block on the outside of this building, so that’s one exampl= e, and maybe that's not the right example.&nb= sp; We have done quite a few building projects with block as an exterior. Is it a preferred product? Really from my persp= ective it comes out to aesthetics.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Porter: Aesthetics is a big issue, water p= enetration, issue with maintenance mold.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: The later, and mai= nly the aesthetics, cause water penetration and mold and all that stuff (inaudi= ble).

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 19

&nbs= p;           Mr. Porter: I don't know how the rest of the committee feels but I'd like to see that if at all possible (inaudible). And I know we're $15,000 over but = maybe in the grand scheme of things (inaudible) look at that.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Fusco: #6, when we come to asphalt in sav= ings, I'd like to see that somebody is going to oversee that to make sure we get 3 inches instead of 2 inches for the parking lot especially (inaudible). We wouldn't want this same thing l= ike the track there. Paving went = on and somebody overlooked it and nobody paid attention and we got into a hassle w= ith that.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Chipko: You can have a preconstruction mee= ting before we do the paving and Kaestle Boos and O & G can make it very cle= ar to the contractor involved as to what's required and all the testing labs so everybody is on the same age.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Fusco: Cause if you schedule say asphalt= . . . .

&nbs= p;           Mr. Porter: (Inaudible). I just don't want to keep beating = a dead horse, but the issues we have with this school, there will be a lot of eyes= on this whole project and we have to allow to make = sure that everything is done to the spec and done in the proper workmanship manner. I'm reiterating (inau= dible) and it will be reiterated to the contractors.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: I will tell you that the two indiv= iduals that we met in terms of the project manager and superintendent who are comi= ng on the job are both coming off very successful projects, had the, I can give you the names of the clients and you can call them and see they are very ha= ppy with the way they worked, the way they worked together as a team, and how t= hey were very vigilant when it came to ensuring that the product was installed properly.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Porter: They paid a dollar for it, that's = what we want out of it.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: Exactly.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Fusco: (Inaudible.)<= /o:p>

&nbs= p;           Mr. Orsini: We would like to say the same thin= g at the end of the job.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: I hope so.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Orsini: (Inaudible) have no litigation.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Porter: You can understand our concerns.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: I can certainly appreciate that, I wouldn't want any litigation either.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 20

&nbs= p;           Mr. Orsini: I agree with you on those two item= s, I think we should (inaudible). = #17 and #15.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: Okay. #15? The radius precast?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Yea, the stone cast. I don't know how that's= going to work out. What kind of a r= adius are we talking about? 20 foot= radius?

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: No, it's much larger than that. When they proposed it they said you probably won't even be able to tell the difference cause the grouch lines w= ill take up most of it anyway,

&nbs= p;           Mr. Orsini: Can it be laid out on paper so we = can see it and know what kind of product we'll end up with?

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: Certainly, because you're right, it= 's right in the front, it's very prominent in terms of the location of it, and that's why we went to the radius, as presented, you look at the radius that= you have, it's so large that you won't perceive, it won't be that noticeable so that's what led us in that direction.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Orsini: Maybe you should be drawn up and s= ee what the appearance looks.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: We could suggest t= hat when they provide a shop drawing on it they want to see a fairly large scal= e on it so that we can make a determination if it's a problem.=

&nbs= p;           Ms. Purcell: (Inaudible) value (inaudible).

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: Well we've got to talk to him about holding that value and saying give us a time on this.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Porter: Yea, we need a little more time fo= r those two items.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: And if he's comfortable (inaudible= ).

&nbs= p;           Ms. Purcell: We'll connect, write it in as an o= ption and award his contract.

&nbs= p;           Mr. Malik: That's exactly it.

&nbs= p;           Ms. Purcell: (Inaudible.).

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: Yes.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 21

&nbs= p;           Mr. Porter: (Inaudible)?

&nbs= p;           Mr. Orsini: Yes.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Do you want to re= cap the numbers, then?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: The total value was $1,015,079.00. We have two it= ems which is #15 and #17 valued at $39,000 as an option for us to evaluate and we'll put a timeline for those in the contract so they don't feel we'll drag this out.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: We don't want to = drag it out, we just want to make sure that we're doi= ng it right.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: I will say that on= the brick, they'll want to get their brick order in as soon as possible, so this will hold up the complete order, so that's something you may want to move on pretty quickly. The precast is something that's going to be awhile so that shouldn't have an effect on thi= s.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: So your numbers, (inaudible) that you're not going to accept, comes back to $1,093,000?=

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: No, (inaudible) = hold on. $1,09= 4,070.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Lorel, do you have anything to add?

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Well I've got mo= re to go on with this, so do you guys have to vote on this list?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: I'll entertain a = Motion to accept the value engineering items with the clarification on items #15 a= nd #17.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Are we going to a= dd #1 too?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: We're going to ge= t an anticipated age of life cycle is the right term.

      &= nbsp;     MOTION:       (Mr. Dzioba, sec. Mr. Chipko) to accept the value engineering items with the clarification on item #15 and #17, and get the anticipated age of life cycle for Item #1.

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

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

      &= nbsp;     (Tape #1, Side B ended - may have missed some.)

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 22

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: There is a conce= rn right now in the while construction industry in Connecticut that there is a new code t= hat's going into effect at the beginning of next year. So in talking with the Building Inspector I said what do we have to do to get our building permit = to make sure that all the design was naught, since we're not starting until ne= xt year, so we applied for it today, so it stops the clock, so we're good to g= o, but just to give you guys an idea, because that is a concern on some other = projects.

        &= nbsp;   With the value engineering, first I'd like to just point you out to the Kaestle Boos, just to remind you this is the number that went to referendum, this w= as the backup for the referendum and this is what is establishing your budget,= because I wanted to see where we were overall, accounting for the value engineering= , to make sure that we stay within budget after taking out all this value engineering and what we were going to do with it. So going to this other chart that = has the bid packages, and I'm going to start right above where it says savings,= and I'll try to walk you through what the budget is or was. This $30,688,452 total construction budget, you'll find it on the Kaestle Boos sheet on the very last column un= der total construction is $30,688,452. Now I need to get the value to just the contractor's cost, so I subtracted the construction contingency, cause that's not being awarded to = any contractors, that $1,400,000, I also subtracted $2,286,297 which was for the construction manager, because that's not going to the contractors, we took = off $1,000,000 because that's what we told everybody we would do, so I had to t= ake $1,000,000 off, but we added, and it's at the bottom of the Kaestle Boos Sh= eet, it says flooring alternate #8, we added that in because we did go for fundi= ng that $115,047 so that gave us a total number of $26,117,202. Everybody with= me? Okay? So right below that we've already awarded the asbestos abatement contract, so I need to take that out as well= , again I'm just concerned with where we are today with our bid packages 1.02 throu= gh 1.20, so I subtract out what we have for asbestos abatement, that gives us $25,754,202, that is our budget for these contractors that we're trying to award now. I'm in the very la= st column right above, it says bid package total and the white outs are just because we were dealing with 2 different contractors in 3 different trades,= but if I just take the bid package total, this is including the value engineeri= ng that we just talked about, but minus the $39,000, we do have a total now and all contractors is misleading, because it's just all contractors except the asbestos abatement contractor, it's just the bid packages 1.02 through 1.20= , we have $25,577,152. That is lea= ving us with a variance of $177,050. That means you have $177,050 extra to go towards contingency or whatever.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Contingency, that= 's what it should be classified as.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Right, it would = go into your contingency, so the $1,400,000, would then become $1,577,050. If anybody wanted to see where the $177,050 came from, the savings, that's what's at the bottom, we gained some dollars because between going to referendum, now before we went to referend= um we had not, well you did pick the alternates, but I was still carrying whoe= ver the low base bid was, but once you add the alternates in, some of these contractors changed and you ended up picking up some dollars. So all of them with the exception = of the flooring cause he had an escalation cost that he let us know about right aw= ay, in the value engineering I put the extra $15,079 gives you that total of $177,050. so that's where we are overall for the project right now, minus the $39,000 th= at's in contention.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 23

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Any questions? So we do have a bit more of a cush= ion, so the way I look at it, in my opinion is if we have this money, if we want= to add stuff into it as we go along, and we don't get into the contingency, th= en we can adjust by change orders as we go along.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Kuegler: $177,050 plus the contingency.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Into the continge= ncy.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Right, so you're= going to, as soon as Joe Vetro is on board, which will be January, I don’t = know if he'd have it ready for January, but you'll see a monthly construction manager's report and you're going to have a cost report, and what he'll have for the budgeted line item in stead of $1,400,000 under contingency, he'll = be showing $1,577,050.

5.&nb= sp;        Swift Renovation Project

   &nb= sp;        Discussion and Possible Vote to approve Contract subject to Scope Review by Kaestle Bo= os Associates (contracts for steel, general trades, site, and concrete).

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: So that leads me= into and we can kind of follow along, we're going to use the third column, which= is base bids, plus alternates 15 and 18, the contractors that I'd like to pres= ent tonight so that I can go ahead and give them letters of intent tomorrow. So that leads me to the last packa= ge that I have.

        &= nbsp;   Site Work, Bid Package 1.02, Supreme Industries. O & G= and Kaestle Boos have done our scope review meeting and we've determined that Supreme Industries is the lowest, qualified bidder. Base bid amount is $2,770,000, his alternate is $75,000, for a total bid price of $2,845,000. And the bid tabulation is in the backup. Now this bid price wo= uld then get adjusted according to whatever value engineering is accepted. So that's why I have a dollar blan= k, because not knowing what we were going to accept tonight, we don't know what that dollar amount is, but at some point we need to determine that.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Why don't you jus= t run through the contracts that you want us to approve.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Well this would = be one of them.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Do you want to he= ar details (inaudible)?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Not really, just = (inaudible).

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Because you and K= aestle Boos have already looked at this, you've done the scope review on it. These are the contractors we're go= ing to go with, so I think, we're not short changing it, but I think if we just highlight the contract, we already have the dollars in front of us, and not= hing is going to change tonight (inaudible).

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 24

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: All right, so if nothing is going to change on the value engineering, the next column over is minus $200,017, so then I would take the $2,845,000 and subtract $200,017, = and you guys are going to need to vote on the amount, that's what I'm getting at. I didn't know what the fi= nal number was because we didn't have the value engineering.<= /p>

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Lynn, question to you . . . we had this= at the time, I always understood it to be this steel, general trade, site, and concrete. We can't add anythi= ng to this tonight?

        &= nbsp;   Ms. LaForme (Clerk): You cann= ot add anything to a Special Meeting. Wait, what do you want to add, an item, or do you want to add someth= ing to an item that is already there?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Lorel has all the= se contracts.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. LaForme: So you just put = steel, general trades . . . . if we hadn't put that the= re it would have been wide open. Ma= ybe it doesn't matter because we didn't . . . . .

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: I just want to ma= ke sure we do the right approval tonight.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Either way we ne= ed to go through the exercise of determining what the value is going to be.<= /o:p>

        &= nbsp;   Ms. LaForme: I would say to b= e safe just vote on the 4 that you listed.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: We'll try to have= a meeting next Wednesday for the balance of these.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Yea.<= /span>

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: And interview candidates for Clerk of the Works and Building Inspector, Part Time Building Inspector for Swift and the Firehouse, Additional Swift Subs, and Firehouse Contract for Gar San. Those a= re the items, and we might as well ask now, is everybody available for next Wednesday? Tentatively next Wednesday. What I= need to do then is (inaudible) and see what we can put on the Agenda, cause it's going to be a special meeting again.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. LaForme: But we're going = to cancel the 21st, right?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: We might as well continue on. If we do all thi= s work next week, there's no sense in having our regular meeting on the 21st of December, and that's the week before Christmas. Is that reasonable? Okay.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. LaForme: So you're going = to incorporate the regular meeting next week and do those interviews?

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 25

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Yea, we'll do eve= rything. There are only 2 people. Let's do the ones that we have now= .

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Yea, the first o= ne is site. All right, so it would = be $2,845,000 minus the total value engineering of $200,017.=

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Kuegler: That does not af= fect those (inaudible) items in question.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Well there was j= ust one on the life cycle so I don't know if you want to hold that or what you = want to do with that?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: We're waiting bac= k for an answer.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: Do you want to d= o it as an option?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: Do it as an option= .

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: All right, so I = need to back that number out.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: (Inaudible.)<= /o:p>

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: So what's that n= umber?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Malik: $59,497.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: So his contract = amount would be for $2,704,480. Do y= ou want to wait until the end of do each one separately?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: I don't think it = makes any difference, we can vote on them all at one time.

        &= nbsp;   Ms. Purcell: What's behind th= at is just the backup, his numbers, value engineering, etc.

        &= nbsp;   Concrete, Bid Package 1.03, Waterbu= ry Masonry Foundation, his base bid was $1,188,400 with an alternate of $18,000 (inaudible) $75,000, bringing a total of $1,263,400. Now we had no value engineering it= ems that involved concrete. The <= span class=3DGramE>pavers is site work so it's not this guy.

        &= nbsp;   Structural Steel, Bid Package 1.05 = M.Q & Quality Manufacturing, base bid is $994,400. There are two alternates that affect his contract, alternate 15 in the amount of $25,700 = and alternate 18 in the amount of $57,700 for a total bid price of $1,077,800, = and there are no value engineering items associated with structural steel.=

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 26

        &= nbsp;   General Trade, Bid Package 1.06, Ga= r San Corporation, base bid is $3,078,000 and alternate #18 in the amount= of $190,000. His bid price would= be adjusted, we did change the number, so it's minus $41,= 453 with the value engineering as well as the $3,830 credit from the window infiller. So his contract amo= unt would be $3,222,717.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Kuegler, sec. Mr. Orsini) to award those 4 contracts.

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

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

6.&nb= sp;        Watertown High School Track
      &= nbsp;     Discussion and Vote on Mather Corporation request for payment, Application for Payment= #8, dated September 29, 2005, in the amount of $14,243.60 (attached).

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Todd, that was the payment less the hold back of $1,500 and according to Roming this needs to = be paid. It represents the retai= nage less the $1,500. And that's t= he estimated work from the Town of Watertown by the Department.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Regarding this la= st estimate, not the last one but (inaudible) how much more work does he have = to do?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. LoFrese: There was the ar= ea on the north end of the track in the drainage area where there is some slight standing water and it eventually makes it to the drain but it's at such a l= ow pitch that the water kind of gets held up in the grass, and then there are a few areas right along the perimeter of some runways where the grass hasn't fully taken. The contractor, I think at the last meeting there was some correspondence that made it clear = that he wasn't interested in coming back, so we had the Town Engineering Departm= ent come out and take some shots, and I spoke with Roy Cavanaugh last week or t= he week before and he said that the $1,500 that Mark Roming had proposed was plenty to cover that.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: The north end of = the track, those two depressions.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: I think there was= quite a bit of work. You have to re= move the existing turf, regrade it, put topsoil back in and then re-establish the turf. So I think it's going t= o cost more than $1,500, so I would say until that's done I wouldn't give them a penny. I'm not going for it.<= o:p>

        &= nbsp;   Mr. LoFrese: The estimate tha= t came from Roy Cavanaugh and the Engineering Department was about 5 yards of loom= and 2 guys for 2 days.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: It's not in the f= ield itself, it's in the north end for the drainage.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 27

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: I know where it i= s and it's a good sized area that has to be disturbed. First of all they have to accept, = they have to go over there with equipment to do it. I think it's pretty clear, this should have been done a long time ago.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Well it's not tha= t we didn't try. He just flat out = said as far as he was concerned, the project was complete in its entirely.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Well I would say = hold this money until you do the work. Do the work, whatever it costs us, we'll deduct it and send him the balance.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: The work can't be= done until the Spring.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Right.=

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: And according to = the contract, the bid documents, the contract documents, when the field was accepted everything was paid with the retainage and the only thing we're holding back here is the retainage, and I'm not going to argue about whether it's $1,500 or $2,500, according to the contract we need to pay him for the retainage and I think we should try to establish at least what we want to h= old back.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. LoFrese: I think as far a= s the finished product goes, $1,500 for the Board of Education maintenance department, if we go out this Spring and purchase the loam, the necessary g= rass seed, and a decent amount of fertilizer we can get a good jump on the Sprin= g growing season with the track and really make some headway on that area and also the entire complex. I would just = ask that once we purchase the loam and the fertilizer and the seed we can submit the bill to do the project.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: So we should hold= the $1,500, the entire amount and not pay them anything?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. LoFrese: No, there was a = $1,500 deduction off his final retainage is what the architect had approved.<= /o:p>

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Personally I thin= k it's going to cost more than $1,500 to do that work.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Chipko: You're saying the= Town forces are better to do the repairs?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Board of Educatio= n.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. LoFrese: Yea, I would hav= e our maintenance department do it.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Chipko: So it's not like = you're going to hire an outside firm to come in and do the work, which will substantially reduce the cost.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 28

        &= nbsp;   Mr. LoFrese: No, I would have= our guys do that.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: But still it woul= d cost us money to do it. Whether we= do it with out people or we hire an outside contractor.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Yea, but what we'= re doing right now is anticipating holding back $1,500 of Mather's money.=

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: I don't think tha= t's enough.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Chipko: Is there any chan= ce you could have somebody like Grasshopper come in and give us an estimate on how much it would be for that repair, to give us a ball park figure on that end, which will probably be more than what you're going to spend on it anyway.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. LoFrese: I could ask them= to do that.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: (Inaudible) tomorrow? The snow is going t= o fly tomorrow night.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Chipko: I'm just thinking= if you get an outside firm like Grasshopper who you have worked with before, to give us a price on it, then that gives us an idea of how close that $1,500 really is.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. LoFrese: Yea, I'm sure th= ey'd be willing to do something like that. I did feel comfortable with Roy Cavanaugh's Department coming out and giving me an estimate, as far as the amount of material and the labor it wo= uld take, and I do agree the $1,500, I think it seems reasonable.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: (Inaudible) I thi= nk we should just look at it. It wo= n't kill us for another week, we can add it to the Agenda for next week, but Grasshopper has to come here tomorrow.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. LoFrese: We also have an option, I'll talk to Jimmy Proe's too, just get someone out there.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Just to make sure= . I mean we don't want to be left ho= lding the bag. Once in awhile we wa= nt to be on top, you know what I mean?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: We don't want to = be left holding the bag, and what really upset me is Mather's attitude, not Ma= ther Corporation, but Jason Chester's attitude.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Right.=

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Chipko: Well unfortunatel= y they start judging how much is this worth if they come back out with trucks and people and . . . . .

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 7, 2005

PAGE 29

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: Yea, they just wa= lk away from it.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Chipko: It's worth it to = lose the money.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: It's like all contractors, at the end of the job, I've got to do so many things, is it wo= rth it for me to come back?

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: It's not worth it, forget it.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Porter: And this is a fine example, so you'll hear from me on Wednesday.

7.&nb= sp;        Adjournment=

MOTION:       (Mr. Chipko, sec. Mr. Orsini) to Adjourn the Special Meeting at 6:31 p.m.

Discussion:       None

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Special Meeting Adjourned at 6:31 p.m.=

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Porter, Chairman

Watertown Public Buildings Committee

Approved:   _____________________________= __

        Lynn M. LaForme, Clerk