12/20/1994 SCHOOL - HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE Minutes

Home Browse Search

Bill asked if he recommends one manufacturer? Not necessarily . Ian asked if his proposal allows for helping with the estimates , helping to develop the budget. Mr . Kemp said it does . Paul asked if there was supposed to be another firm to interview? Tom said these were the only two proposals received . SMMA did not receive a proposal from Brooks Fleming . Paul explained the two issue with Brooks Fleming . Ed Frenette has a right of refusal in his contract and therefore can refuse them. Legally anyone who has worked for the town , or on a Committee in the past year cannot do business with the town. Michael Pare has worked for Brooks Fleming . Steve said they have immense video experience but their data side is weak. Paul explained Ed Frenette told him they could vouch for both of today ' s candidates . They have worked with Corporate Connectivity Resources in Chelsea. Steve thought both to be evenly matched . Paul did not want to prejudice member' s decisions by discussing the fee before hearing both presentations . CCR has a flat fee of 1 . 75% of the $1 . 5 million BMK is 4. 5% of the estimated budget. SMMA asked Childs for a proposal . They want 8% for the fist million and 6% after that - about $110 , 000 . The Committee debated the merits of the two candidates . Joe thought BMK explained things clearly, spelled out what we will need in this school , mentioned wireless. Steve said CCR described the exact same system as BMK. There was no difference technically. Paul said BMK has never used an integrated system, in school construction that could be a problem. He also worries about his estimate of $150 per student. Tom said , in reading the two proposals, CCR ' s was much easier to understand , was more readable . It will be easier to keep a tag on what he will do. Both said the same thing about what is needed but CCR is easier to understand . Tom understands CCR ' s fee structure to be based on time required , extended at their standard rates . They used 1 . 75% as an example. BMK' s fee scheduled , when the phases are added is 125%. Paul suggested Chartwell get references for both firms, talk with some references. Talk to Joe Seeley about their fee structures . Rate them on their educational technology experience and knowledge. The Committee members will review the two proposals before the next meeting. They would like to reach a consensus by the Jan . 9th meeting . Paul explained he cannot attend Tuesday meetings for 6 weeks. The Committee agreed to move the meetings to Mondays at 4: 00 p. m for 6 weeks . THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS MONDAY, JANUARY 9 , 1995 AT 4: 00 P.M . Minutes submitted by Arden R. Cadrin 9