3/14/1995 SCHOOL - HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE Minutes

Home Browse Search

1 MASHPEE HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING DIi COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 14, 1995 Page 8 but he would like to see some response from SIVIMA on them. Phil stated that SIVIIVIA would have a written response by Friday for the Committee. Ed stated that in summation as an example in the Architectural section, out of g pages of items, gets distilled to one solid page of items that produce value for review. Mike Pietrowski started to make comment on item #16, under the Civil section, page 3. Paul stated that Thad was not present at this meeting so he did not know why he raised that comment but evidently it was not clear on the drawings. Ian stated that there was a fairly critical comment on page 2 of Betterment Designs regarding the design of the classroom connectivity which suites a concern to Pyramid Design. Steve that basically from the structure and the IDL drops in the electrical closet corning to the classrooms where there are not repeaters in the classrooms. He thinks it is a terminology problem. Paul suggested that they turn this over to SIVIMA and see if they can get this thing cleared up. Paul asked if there was any reason why the electrical and mechanical guy did not come to this meeting. Ian stated that perhaps it was because they did not actually ask hint to conte and that most of the items were small, nothing major. Ed stated that this was a difficult review to have as a Committee meeting. Paul stated that he had just wanted to hear their overall comments. Tony Esteves began his review by statim that his opinion was that they were a pretty good set of drawings. The only weakness was in the architectural catching up. They are a doable set of drawings. Tony said the specs that they reviewed did not include any geotechnical report. The fire protection and food services equipment should be listed as a sub-bid. Tony cited a major concern was the liquidated damages. He does not think $250/day would make theta whole if there was a delay in this project. He said once you state ars amount of money, you cannot go after more money. He suggested not to state a dollar amount, and whatever the damages are, they are. Or you can fix an amount to be more realistic. He cited as an example a project they were working on that had ` , go/day penalty. Paul stated that it sounded life a big incentive to get it done. Tong agreed but stated not to reference it as a penalty, it is the damages that would be incurred should the project not be completed. Paul agreed and that this should be taken under serious consideration. Ed stated that they had time to solve this in the Addenda to include the Committee's desires. Paul stated that the overall Town itself considers this a serious item. He asked Janice to discuss this with Dr. DeMoura when he returns the next day and suggested that what they might want to do is to have a dialogue with the superintendent perhaps the next day or Thursday and maybe make some recommendations to hire based on past practices. Ed stated that is was nice to quantify if they can because it eliminates one level of litigation. Paul agreed and stated that they had better make sure that the number is adequate enough to give theta the incentive to get it done and if they see it upfront, they will tend to do more work initially versus at the end of the job, Tony continued with item #5, scheduled completion dates, if this building is to be done in phases, then the list of completion dates should be included. Paul thought they had picked dates already. Phil said they had picked dates and he thought they were in there. He would see to it that they got in there. Torry stated that item #6, the alternate dates, they should correspond to the phasing of the project. On item #10, regarding water usage, if they will be going through any testing, there should be a water ban. Paul stated that they could probably get a waiver from the Water Department especially because this project is a Town project. Tony said you can place the burden as part of the responsibility of the contractor or take the burden upon themselves. Item #16, regarding the landscaping responsibility for the fertilization program for the 4 years. It reads that it is the contractor's responsibility. Tony stated that generally after the first year, it is the owner's responsibility. Paul stated that there were some things that they scheduled out longer than a year and this may be one of them. Phil thought that they were doing 2 years. Paul agreed that 4 years was long. Tony cited examples of the contractor stating owner's responsibility; i.e. not watering, etc. Tony had a s