1995-HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 14, 1995 Page 6 agreed. As a general statement, she said that SMMA's office did an incredible job for the amount of time that they had to get a drawing set. Ed stated his appreciation for her comment and cited an example of often the comments are targeted toward the negative aspects versus the position. Ed stated that this is all just part of the process and that SMMA does not view this as a report card. Paul agreed and stated that the purpose is to have a team critique to insure that no criterias were missed and a different point of view. He stated that no one here is here to criticize SMMA and that the only criticism that he received is not to do with quality of work but is to do with the feedback they are not getting back. Ed stated that he takes responsibility for that because he told the team to concentrate on the drawings and told them that everything other than finishing the documents is a second priority. Shannon continued by saying that basically the scope of 90% of the comments here were to do with coordination and in a few instances where things simply did not get completed. Also, the comments are based on a set prior to the bid set and she did review briefly the bid set but her comments do not reflect that brief review. However, in reviewing the bid set, some of these comments remain to be addressed. She stated that basically there were a few areas where the drawings lacked information in terms of intent in such a way that she was confused about what was intended so her assumption would be that bidders might be confused as well. One of the big areas was what was intended on the site plan in terms of phasing. They said phase 1, phase 2, but was not tied to any piece of work that was clear and also to what was being phased. Another area was the separate contract for FF&E, specifically what is included and what is not included in the set basically to do with the 9 Series drawings that were included toward the end of the package and the fact that some things are drawn hard lined into the plans, such as the drafting tables and CAD station, which is comment #4. Phil thinks that has been clarified by the general notes indicating that identify that all dotted lines are not in contract and he stated that on the architectural plans that anything that is not in the contract has been taken off on the final set. Shannon stated that the 9 Series drawings did not have a label stating what they were. Another issue that was not complete that there was a lot of interior partitions for the not typical classrooms (little offices, etc.) that there were a lot of dimensions were not called out where the partitions ended up. The auditorium area seemed to be an area where there were some material changes on the interior elevations, that even though have now been labeled in terms of what they are, it does not actually delineate where the height changes happen and how far out the material comes before it changes material and stated some clarification was needed. She had a question on the handicapped access in the auditorium. She felt that you could not group all of the handicapped accessible seating in one portion of the auditorium. Phil stated that the new draft regulations to be adopted this summer indicate that when slopes or site lines exceed an accessible ramp that they may be clustered. She asked if ADA about the location and Phil did not believe that they do but that the MAAB does and it is under the exception and clustering is allowed. She stated that there were several areas where the foundation plans need to show, as an example in the back of the stage area there is a curved wall which presently was shown as an angled wall on the foundation plans and that needs to be coordinated, because it is shown as a curved wall on the architecturals. If so, a radius needs to be shown or if it is an angled wall than those need to be indicated. There were several instances where walls are not perpendicular and there needs to be some direction as to the angle that those walls are at, which also includes the curvature of the front of the stage. She stated that there appeared to be some coordination required between the FF&E and the plumbing where more sinks are being shown in classroom areas than are being picked up in the plumbing drawings, item #20. Paul thought that this comments was brought up a few weeks ago. Shannon stated that regarding comment #5, the fire rated walls throughout the structure, she found it very difficult because of the way that the drawing was done in a couple of instances to decipher what was being intended. She said that most