MINUTES

MINUTES<= /span>

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN PUB= LIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING<= /b>

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SC= HOOL

GREEN COMMON AREA

&nb= sp;

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2005, 7:00= P.M.

PRESENT:             = ;            &n= bsp;   Brian Bellagamba

&= 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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Larry Black, Fire Chief

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; 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

= ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Richard Mazzamauro, Board of Education - Chairman, Facilities Committee

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

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Robert Sullivan, Clerk of the Works Applicant

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

&n= bsp;

Mr. Porter, Chairman, Called the Meeting to Order at 7:05 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 14, 2005

PAGE 2

4.&nb= sp;        Minutes=

&= nbsp;          A.        Special Meeting, November 21, 2005 (not available)

&= nbsp;          B.         = Special Meeting, December 8, 2005 (not available)

5.&nb= sp;        Old Business

&= nbsp;          A.        Fire Station #1 Renovations

= 1.&n= bsp;            = ;     Status Report by Kaestle Boos Associates

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Khericha: We have sent the draft of the contract to (inaudible) and we are waiting for feedback (inaudible).

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Porter: So do we have the contract, cause that's the next item?

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Khericha: We don't have a= ny feedback for (inaudible).

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Porter: It's the base con= tract with the alternates?

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Khericha: Yes, it's alternates totaling $61,= 900.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Porter: But it hasn't been determined yet on which ones are acceptable?

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Khericha: Those are the o= nes that I accepted (inaudible), $61,900.

2.     &nbs= p;   Discussion and Vote on Contract Award for Gar San

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Porter: So this is the discussion and vote= on contract award for Gar San for the original amount of the contract with the referendum amount and the add alternates in the amount of $61,900 which does not exceed what the referendum (inaudible) were. It's the base contract plus $600,0= 00 and some odd thousand for the referendum amount, so we're within the total amou= nt of the two referendums, that's what we're concerned with. Discussion?

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     MOTION:       (Mr. Kuegler, sec. Mr. Orsini) to award the contract to Gar San for the original contract amount, second referendum amount, and the alternates at $61,900.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Discussion:       None<= /p>

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 3

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Porter: And you'll get the numbers to us o= n what those alternates are?

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Khericha: Yes, the contractor already (inaud= ible).

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Porter: And Meredith has the . . . . . ?

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Khericha: She has the bid package (inaudible).

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Porter: But the price (in= audible) sign a contract in the amount of (inaudible).

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Khericha: (Inaudible.) But what I would suggest to the Committee is table (inaudible) send a letter or (inaudible).

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Porter: Well I think a le= tter of intent would be in order subject to review by the attorney.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Khericha: That's okay (inaudible).

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Porter: That can be direc= ted to Meredith.

= ;           B<= span style=3D'mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>. =         Watertown High School Track

1.      =             St= atus Report by T. LoFrese.

      Mr. LoFrese= : At the meeting last week it was req= uested that we have a contractor come out and take a look at the field. We have been unsuccessful getting = anyone out there primarily due to the fact that the field had snow on it and they wouldn't be willing to give us a price based on that fact. I talked with our architect about potentially bumping up the retainage from $1,500 to $2,500, if that meets w= ith the Committee's approval, and he said fine, we can just mark up the last requisition and reduce the number by $2,500. Mark had told me he had penciled i= n the $1,500 on the original invoice so we can make that change.

Mr. Porter: So whatever the requisition is less $2,500.

Mr. LoFrese: Correct.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 4

2.      = ;   Discussion and Vote on Mather Corporation, Application for Payment #8, dated September= 29,2005, (attached).

MOTION:     = (Mr. Dzioba, sec. Mr. Fusco) to approve Mather Corporation, Application for Paym= ent #8, dated September 29, 2005, as approved by M.R. Roming, less $2,500 for t= he additional repair on the north end of the track.

Discussion:    &n= bsp; Mr. Orsini: I still don't lik= e the idea. I don’t see why he can't wait until this track is done and then we'll pay them.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Porter: Well contractuall= y it says that we owe them the money and we've owed them the money since Septemb= er.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Orsini: I have no problem= paying him, but he has a problem doing the work.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Porter: I agree.

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Orsini: Well then we should pay him the mo= ney after the work is completed and accepted.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Porter: But I think we'd = be in violation of the contract we have with him if we wait until the Spring, tha= t's the only part I'm concerned about.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Orsini: Well you've got to explain to me how we're in violation.

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Porter: If the contract calls for payment upon completion and retainage upon acceptance then we owe him the retainage.

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Orsini: So in other words, it's not comple= ted but we accept it?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Porter: It's been accepted as of July.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 5

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. LoFrese: In terms of substantial completion= and as far as the bid specifications go, that was in July. The Town Engineers went out and th= ey gave us some (inaudible) of their concern and they indicated that it's prob= ably within specification even though there is some standing water, and the tolerances for that area they indicated probably fell within the specificat= ions of the project.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Orsini: My concern is the= y say probably, they don't say it fell within the specifications and we have to accept the project and pay them off. They didn't say that, did they, so how are we in violation if we don= 't pay them until he completes?

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. LoFrese: The contract called for substantial completion. Basically we're in a he said/she said match with the contractor= and the contractor has gone on record, he sent us a letter stating that the pro= ject is accepted as substantially complete and he basically said he's not coming back out.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Orsini: I understand that= . Substantially complete is not comp= lete to me, in my book, I don't know how you feel about it, but if you feel it's complete, I'm not going to vote for it.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. LoFrese: I think the inte= nt here is to reduce the final retainage by that amount which covered the small amount compared to what needs to be done.

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Orsini: But we're not able to get a price = on it, we don't even know.

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Porter: The Town Engineering Department we= nt out and looked and they're the ones who gave us the $1,500 because of the snowstorm, Grasshopper didn't go out to do it and it was my opinion to rais= e it to $2,500. If the Town thinks= they can do it for $1,500 and we increase it by another $1,000, I (inaudible).

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Orsini: Bob, I have my doubts about the To= wn, whether we can do it for $1,500 or not, maybe they can, but I'd like to see something, within a straight line, get it finished up and pay the guy off.<= o:p>

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 6

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Porter: What do we need t= o do to . . . . is there a dollar amount you think we should withhold?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Orsini: Personally I think we should hold = the whole amount, it's only $13,000, $15,000.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Porter: Right, I don't th= ink it's going to be $14,246.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Orsini: No, hold the enti= re $15,179.99. That's what we owe. Am I correct?=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Porter: Correct, and we r= educed it by $1,500 and that came to the $14,234.60. If we add another $1,000 to it it becomes $14,134.60.

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. LoFrese: $13,243.60.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Orsini: Bob, we can take = a vote on it. If the Committee votes= and passes it, but I don't feel comfortable, that's all I'm telling you.

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Porter: If there's a dollar amount you thi= nk the Commission should withhold . . . .

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Orsini: I don't have the slightest idea of what the amount would be, but I fe= el comfortable with $15,000.00.

<= /b>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Porter: I feel comfortable holding back, I= don't feel comfortable at the $15,000,000 level.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. LoFrese: Again, I want to stress that we ha= d the Town Engineers come out, which was a request, they gave us an estimate of a couple of yards of loam and 2 guys for about 2 days. They felt that the original $1,500= was within order. If we raise it another $1,000 you have that much more of a cushion.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Orsini: Suite yourself, I don't feel comfo= rtable with it personally.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Porter: Any further discu= ssion?

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 7

In Favor:    &nbs= p;     Mr. Bellagamba, Mr. Dzioba, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Kuegler, Mr. Porter

Opposed:     = ;    None

Abstained:    &nb= sp;   Mr. Orsini

MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1)

&= nbsp;          C.        Swift Middle School

           &nb= sp;            Mr. Porter: Before we go any further, I would be remiss . . . . we have a representative from the Board = of Education's Chairman of the Facilities Committee, and he's going to be attending our meetings on a regular basis now so he can report back to the Board of Education. His name = is Rich Mazzamauro. Thanks for b= eing here this evening and hope to see you every week.

= 1.&n= bsp;            = ;     Status Report by Kaestle Boos Associates.

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Malik: There were a coupl= e of items, 3 items that we had from the last meeting that we were asked to look into for value engineering items. One of them had to do was with the sidewalk and I believe the number= in the range of $9,000 and we were going to try and integrate concrete walks t= o a precast concrete extruded concrete curbs and bituminous asphalt bituminous = walk areas. The question had been = asked as to what the life expectancy and how much difference can we expect in the life of the product, and I posed this to several people but no one wanted to put any type of number to it. The most I could get was we're talking about two different styles, one is definitely a lesser product. = The concrete is a better product than the bituminous. In my opinion if that is a concern= , then maybe we should just do the concrete as it will be the better product in the end and just not make that change, and maybe we will come to the project in= the end, even though it's amazing just speaking of the parking area and looking= at the spaces from the building, from an aesthetic point of view I think it wo= uld be better, from a cost point of view I think the life cycle perspective is better. (Inaudible) developing these working towards a value that is established (inaudible) project and b= ased on some of the other savings realized, we'll still be well within that numb= er, so because I didn't get a real good comfort level with being able to tell y= ou that yes, we'll maybe get 3 years more out of the concrete, at this point I would just say let's stick with what we had originally in the documents.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 8

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     The second item we talked about was the bricks, the concrete block. We talked about a number of previo= us projects that we've used concrete blocks on the exterior. Once again in going back and looki= ng at it, it's a $30,000 item, we're still again within budget, if we include it = and keep it all brick, and not go to the block (inaudible). Keep in mind that we did take abou= t a block (inaudible) where we had the (inaudible) on the outside. This is really an isolated case wi= thin the courtyard and in general again as an architectural value and an aesthet= ic value I think we're probably better off just leaving it. Once again we've got money to do t= he (inaudible) back into the project without dipping into that $1,000,000 which is value engineered out.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     The third item that we looked at was the precast cap and that's a $9,000 item. I looked at the radius size, it's a fairly large radius and we will be requir= ing them to provide us with shop drawings.&nbs= p; I didn't think in evaluating it it would make any difference to have= a site (inaudible) versus a radius (inaudible). So at this point that would be my recommendation, to keep the brick, stay with (inaudible) in all the walks a= nd just accept the $9,000 on the grade as precast caps.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Porter: I concur with that (inaudible) Committee I'm not sure. We're looking for the durability, (inaudible). The life span is fine . . . . .

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Malik: We were really (inaudible) on money at this point which luckily we could with some other reductions, we're within our budget and we still have a little bit of money that can go back into contingency. <= /span>Remember we have that $177,000 transferred into contingency, as a result of (inaudib= le) transferring $77,000 and change.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Porter: Any comments?

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Orsini: We're going with the concrete?

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Porter: Yes. Anything else?

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Malik: No.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     2.         = Status Report by O & G Industries

           &nb= sp;            =             M= s. Purcell: I just met, from= last week, a meeting with the remainder of the contractors, so I've come to you tonight with the rest of the contracts to be accepted.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 9

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Porter: Do you want to go over them?

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Ms. Purcell: I'm going to go through the whole p= ackage here. Do you want to stop on = each one, there are 15 of them, or just wait until the end?

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Porter: We'll vote on the= total package, I don't see any reason to vote on each one.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     3.         = Discussion and Vote on balance of Swift Construction Contracts (attached).

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Purcell: The first one is= :

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.04, Masonry

           &nb= sp;            =             <= /b>The total bid price is $2,745,200, that is the base bid plus alternate #18. Value engineering that was accepte= d at a meeting last week was worth $162,350. The third paragraph indicates, I was going to leave that as an optio= n in the contract, to further accept the $9,000 credit and the credit of $30,000. That's just how I ha= d it written up since last week. S= o the contract amount will be the $2,745,200 minus $162,350 which is a total of $2,582,850, it's at the bottom of the page on the left hand side.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Malik: We can add the thi= rd column back in (inaudible).

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Ms. Purcell: Okay, so I want to change that to = . . . . . so the new amount will be $2,612,850.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.07, Roofing

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     The lowest qualified bidder is Commercial Roofing, their base bid was $598,000. There were two alte= rnates that affected their work, for a total bid price of $714,500. Value Engineering of their items was worth $16,500, and that leaves a total contract amount of $698,000.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.08, Aluminum, Window= s, Entrances and Store Fronts

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is Cherry (inaudible) Company, Inc. with a base bid of $789,725. And awarding Altern= ate #18 leaves a total bid price of $799,590.&= nbsp; The value engineered item was worth $74,900, so their total contract award would be for $724,690.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 10

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.09, Drywall & Pl= aster

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is S.G. Malado & Company with a base bid of $753,061 a= nd alternate #18 in the amount of $35,000 for a total bid price of $788,061. Value engineering item was worth $38,225, so their total contract award would be for $749,836.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.10, Acoustical<= /o:p>

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     The Lowest qualified bidder is (inaudible) inc. with a base bid of $290,205. During my scope review I clarified= with them that alternate #18 would be for a zero dollar amount, no cost, no cred= it, and the total bid price would $290,205.&nb= sp; Value engineering is $4,900, so their total contract price would be $285,305.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.11, Food Service Equ= ipment

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is Warehouse Store Fixture Company with a base bid amount = of $438,900. With the value engineering we were able to reduce it by $31,806, for a total contract awar= d amount of $407,094.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.12, Lavatory (inaudi= ble) Work

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is (inaudible) Associates with a base bid of $196,324. The= re were no value engineering items for this bid package so their contract award would be for the $196,324.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.13, Fire Protection<= o:p>

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is Engine (inaudible).&nb= sp; Their base bid was $496,000. Adding in alternate #18 in the amount of $12,000 gives a total bid price of $508,000. Value engineering was worth $16,00= 0 so their contract award would be for the $419,000.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.14, Elevator

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Their base bid was $158,000, value engineering was reduced by the wheelchair lift, reduced by $73,000. Their con= tract award would be $85,000.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 11

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.15, Plumbing

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is G &am= p; R Valley with a base = bid of $1,472,425. Alternate #18 was accepted in the amount of $30,700, for a total bid price of $1,503,125. Value engineering items for this b= id package, $15,860, the total contract award price would be $1,487,255.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.16, HVAC<= /u>

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is Stewart Mechanical Service. Their base bid was $5,429,200. With alternate #18 in the amount of $10,000, gives us a total bid price of $5,439,200. Value engineering was $45,000, so = we put in a further reduction of $15,000 which was taken out earlier and it was awarded in a separate contract, so there's a total of $60,000 we're taking off. Their contract award wil= l be $5,379,200.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Mr. Porter: That work has already= been done, that reinstallation of the steam pipes for the heating season this ye= ar.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Ms. Purcell: Correct.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.17, Electrical<= /o:p>

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is Mansfield Construction Company with a base bid of $3,343,000; alternate #18 in the amount of $32,500 for a total bid price of $3,375,500. Value engineering= of this bid package totaled $249,080; that leaves a total contract award amount of $3,126,420.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.18, Ceramic Tile

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is Atlantic Masonry Corporation with a base bid of $147,87= 1. Value engineering for this bid pack= age was $7,688, for a total contract award of $140,183.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.19, Flooring

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is = UK and Total Office, base bid of $659,979, alternate #8 was in the amount of $115,047 and we're adding in alternate #18 in the amount of $6,508 for a to= tal bid price of $807,534. This contractor asked for material escalation of $32,021. Total contract award amount would = be for $840,555.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 12

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Bid Package 1.20, Paint=

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Lowest qualified bidder is R & M Painting, LLC with a base bid of $181,000, pl= us alternate #18 in the amount of $12,000 for a total bid price of $193,000. Value engineering for this bid pac= kage was $3,300, for a total contract award amount of $189,700.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Porter: Those are the tot= al contracts, the 4 we did last week and the balance. The total (inaudible) contracts ne= ed for the project.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Ms. Purcell: Correct.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     MOTION:       (Mr. Dzioba, sec. Mr. Orsini) to accept the presentation as made by O & G on= the balance of the contracts for the Swift Middle School Renovation As New Proj= ect.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     Discussion:       None<= /p>

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

      = ;            &n= bsp;     4.         = Discussion and Vote on Testing Labs for Projects (attached) (see Meredith).

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Porter: There were 4 comp= anies that responded: INTL, Connect= icut Material Testing, Material Testing, Inc., and TestConn, Inc. Any comments from K.B.A. on the te= sting labs?

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. Malik: Just to say that w= e've worked with all of these testing labs.&nbs= p; (Inaudible) recommended (inaudible).

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     MOTION:       (Mr. Kuegler, sec. Mr. Dzioba) to accept the testing lab, INTL.

      = ;            &n= bsp;             &= nbsp;   Discussion: = ;      Mr. Orsini: Where are they lo= cated?

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;    Mr. Porter: In Plainville.

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

      = ;            &n= bsp;     5.         = Discussion and Vote on either Repair or Replace the existing operable partition in the Existing Main Gymnasium.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Porter: There was a reque= st from the personnel at Swift to repair the sliding partition in the gym as s= oon as possible. Within the bid documents there was that provision to repair the partition and what they're asking for is to move ahead with this as expeditiously as possible to get t= hat work done.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 13

           &nb= sp;            =             M= r. LoFrese: The gym door has= not been operating for about a year. We have it detached from the cables that close it and the gym is fully open ri= ght now. What that does for the s= chool programming is that it affects, it limits it to only be used by one class.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The school wants to be able to pro= vide gym and we have 7 gym classes going on at the same time, so that's the prim= ary programmatic needs and why we want it done as soon as possible.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Porter: And seeing how it= 's in the project, I don't see any problems with us okaying that and have that do= ne and that can be coordinated through O & G. I don't think we need to vote on i= t.

            <= /span>E.         = Polk School

      = ;            &n= bsp;     1.         = Nothing to report.

            <= /span>F.         = John Trumbull Primary School

      = ;            &n= bsp;     1.         = Correspondence from H.B. Fishman to M. Robson, dated November 29, 2005, Re: Owner/Contract Agreement (attached= ).

      = ;            &n= bsp;     = ;           Mr. Porter: Just for your information.

        &= nbsp;   G.        Heminway Park School/Space Study Needs

            =             1= .         = Nothing to Report. It's my understand= ing that the Town Council may take this up at their meeting on December 19th; we may have something after that.

            <= /span>H.        Town Hall

           &n= bsp;            1.         = Nothing To Report

7.&nb= sp;        New Business

        &= nbsp;   A.        2006 Meeting Schedule

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Porter: Any questions or problems?

      = ;            &n= bsp;     MOTION:       (Mr. = Orsini, sec. Mr. Dzioba) to accept the 2006 meeting schedule and locations, with the notation on January, 2006, as presented.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Discussion:       None<= /p>

      = ;            &n= bsp;     MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 14

            B.         = Interview, Discussion and Vote on Recommendations for Candidates for Clerk of the Works for Firehouse Project and Temporary Building Inspector for <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Swift Middle School= Project.

            =             Mr. Porter: We have Bob Sullivan here tonight, = who has been proposed for the Clerk of the Works for the Fire Station, and he's her= e to meet with us. He's open for questions from this Committee, and maybe, Bob, you can give us a general overview of your background.

            =             Robert Sullivan, Clerk of the Work= s, Fire Station

            =             Mr. Sullivan: I've been in the construction = field for 50 years; 35 of that as a general contractor, 10 of it, I worked for (inaudible), for the past 5 years I've been working as an (inaudible) repre= sentative or Clerk of the Works. In tha= t time I worked with Kaestle Boos on 4 schools in Lyme and Old Lyme and I've just completed a $6,000,000 new Roman Catholic Church in Old Lyme. I'm very interested in this projec= t and hope that I can be helpful in getting it completed with as little difficulty as possible and helping this Committee to achieve what they want and (inaudibl= e). I live in the new London area, but I've worked all over t= he State and (inaudible) to get here. Barring traffic, last week when I went back I hit that infamous acci= dent just right on time and spent the whole time on 84 (inaudible) 4 or 5 miles = just over an hour but that happens. I'm interested in the project and if you have any questions about the kind of w= ork I've been involved in I'd be happy to answer them and to work with the Comm= ittee. The Town Manager has my resume. I don't know if she submitted it to anybody, but I don’t have it with me.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Porter: (Inaudible.)

            =             Mr. Sullivan: Sure, but I think that gives a lot = more detail (inaudible). If anyone= has any questions I'll be happy to answer them.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Orsini: Can you name any specific projects that we probably know about in this area here?

            =             Mr. Sullivan: I've done some work as a contractor= at Central Connecticut. I have not worked on many projects in this area as I'm (inaudible).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I began to work in this format wit= h the Old Lyme and Lyme Schools. Kaestle Boos was the architect and= I think they're prepared to vouch for my credentials as being extremely helpf= ul to the owner on a tough set of schools and helping to find value engineering items and seeing that things are done properly, to bring the schools in on = time and within budget (inaudible).

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 15

            =             T= he 4 schools involved, 2 of them were additions and renovations and 2 were renovate as new, 1 was a school in the historic district and we endeavored = to keep that as close to the original character as possible, eliminating all of the problems of mold, mildew, and (inaudible) quality and all of those thin= gs and it went very well, people were very happy that it's updated, and some wanted to tear it down, but it was too solid of a building to tear down. So it was gutted and started all o= ver again.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Porter: In your capacity = as working for the owner, is to make sure the contractors performed as per the= bid documents?

            =             Mr. Sullivan: Yes, there were many times when ite= ms that appear to be slipping through the cracks and get them back on track on those. In general on the 4 pr= ojects, we had 2 contractors on the first project, we had more difficulty with that contract in terms of the quality of some of the subcontractors they had selected, and we had asked them at certain times that certain subcontractor= s be removed from the job and we did manage to achieve a successful project and = get the children in school on time. On the third project which was the middle school, it was $10,0000,000 and we went through the process of rejecting the low bidder because of technicalities in their bid, but we had heard and che= cked on a lot of information from the Southington and Bristol area and found tha= t we would never make our 1 year schedule to finish that project to move onto the other one (inaudible) renovated historical district school which was being = emptied, the middle school was a phased project with 10 or 12 phases and we had to b= uild some swing space first so that renovate and build some swing space first so that we could empty all the sections and move them into that space so that = we could renovate other sections. We had considerable concerns about the air quality and with rotten steel deck = roof which had to come completely off, so when we found that we revised the schedule, changing the phases so that we would be inside during the Winter = and not out (inaudible) work to be done in the during the time where we would h= ave lost a lot more time, and the contractors cooperated well. The general contractor on those 2 = schools was the contractor that you just selected, (inaudible). They had very good successes. I think those projects went very well. We've had no claims or litigations. We had some conc= erns in the first two projects but we resolved all that and finished them in both schools. I'd like to feel tha= t I was a part of that team that helped to bring that about.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Orsini: I'd really like t= o read the resume first. Don't you t= hink that's a good idea, to read the resume and perhaps come up with further questions?

            =             Mr. Sullivan: Fine. (Inaudible.)

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Orsini: I would like you = to tell us how you would proceed on the job, what would we be expecting of you= ?

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 16

            =             Mr. Sullivan: I can tell you . . . . .

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Orsini: Maybe we can talk= (inaudible) after we read this resume and we can (inaudible) further. I would like to know how you proce= ed on the job and what we should expect of you?

            =             Mr. Sullivan: Okay, and I think part of that is w= hat do you expect of me? I know what= needs to be done in terms of understanding the plans and specifications, understanding the contractor's schedule and approach, working with the architects and the contractor to see that all materials, all submittals are= put in on time within the requirements of the specification, that they are corr= ect and complete and proper for the job, that the schedule is met and that the = work is properly performed by capable workmen and meets all of the requirements = of the specifications. That woul= d be what I would attempt to do. I= would listen to any other direction from the Building Committee and the architect= 's would give or request and try to work with them to see that anything they needed was done. I understand= that the intent is not to have someone full time, but I think we would need to t= alk about how the amount of time to be spent is determined, and certainly if you would be on an as needed basis, at times there are more critical times than others, but those are things I think the Committee and the architect collaborate, need to have some input into so that I'll know what time sched= ule to follow.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Porter: Will there be job= site meetings?

            =             Mr. Sullivan: Job site meetings.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Porter: There would be attendance at P.B.C. meetings to give us a status report.

            =             Mr. Sullivan: Yes. I will provide a status report at each Building Committee meeting, I will participate in all job site meetings, and I would think you would expe= ct me to do that, and I will be there to give my input as to where the project stood, what the lag points were, if any, and how in general the job was goi= ng.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Porter: Do we want to set= a meeting for next week?

            =             Mr. Orsini: That's okay. And the other thing that's importa= nt would be to vote as quick as possible.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Porter: Today is the 14th= . We'll have a meeting on the 21st?<= /p>

            =             Mr. Orsini: Sounds good to me.

= WATERTOWN PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 17

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Porter: Can you make a me= eting on the 21st, Todd?

            =             Mr. LoFrese: I will make it.

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Mr. Porter: There's a resume,= we have here I thought it was in the packet that went out, but it didn't. Do we want to do it at 5:00 p.m.?<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Let's do 5:00 p.m. at the Town Hall Annex. Thank you, Bob.

8.&nb= sp;        Financial Reports - L. LaForme

        &= nbsp;   A.        All Projects (attached)

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   No Discussion.

9.&nb= sp;        For Your Information

            A         = Memo from M. Robson to All departments, Boards, and Commissions, dated November = 22, 2005, Re: Annual Town Report - 2004/2005

            =             Mr. Porter: I don’t know that we've ever = done this in the past but (inaudible).

10.&n= bsp;      Adjournment

MOTION:       (Mr. Kuegler, sec. Mr. Orsini) to Adjourn the Special Meeting at 7:55 p.m.

Discussion:       None

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Special Meeting Adjourned at 7:55 p.m.=

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Porter, Chairman

Watertown Public Buildings Committee

Approved:   _____________________________= __

        Lynn M. LaForme, Clerk