Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee

RECEIVED By City Clerk at 9:01 am, 2/18/22 Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee (AESBC) Meeting Minutes Date: May 11, 2021 Location: Virtual Meeting Time: 3:00 PM Next Meeting: May 27, 2021 at 6:00PM Attendees: Name Present Name Present SBC – Voting Members SBC – Non Voting Members Kassandra Gove, Mayor/Chair  Christine Chabot Paul Fahey, Chief of Staff  Lauri McAllister Peter Hoyt, School Committee  Bruce McBrien Matt Bennett, Facilities Director  NV5 (OPM) Angel Wills, CFO  Tim Dorman  Shannon Nolan, AES Principal  Tom Murphy  Lynn Catarius, Director, Student Services  Melissa Gagnon Nick Wheeler, City Council  DiNisco Design (Architect) Joseph Spencer  Donna DiNisco  Joan Liporto, Director of Finance & Ops  Vivian Low  Elizabeth McAndrews, Superintendent  Caulen Finch Jim Shuttleworth  1. Call to Order o Kassandra Gove, Mayor of Amesbury, called the Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee (AESBC) Meeting to order at 3:18 PM. o Mayor Gove provided a statement regarding the ‘Executive Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law G.L. c.30A, §20’ signed on March 12, 2020 which allows for the meeting to be held online and broadcast by ACTV Channel 12. Public comments can be made by email to Mayor Gove or through the ACTV Facebook live stream. o NV5 took roll call for attendance. 2. Public Comments o A comment was received by email from Adam Hart (copy of email attached for record). o An additional comment was received from Mel Webster through the Facebook Live Stream (screenshot of Facebook live stream attached for record). 3. Update on Bid Results 70 FARGO STREET, SUITE 800 | BOSTON, MA 02210 | WWW.NV5.COM | OFFICE 617.345.9885 | FAX 617.345.4226 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE - INFRASTRUCTURE - ENERGY - ENVIRONMENTAL  Page 2 of 5 o NV5 provided an overview of the process that has been undertaken to review the bid results and determine the lowest responsible bidder. Since the last meeting, the additional information received from the Union Representatives was compiled and distributed to the entire Building Committee. o The Bid Review Working Group met to discuss concerns and areas where additional information would be helpful to understand the circumstances of the issues that were raised and provided a summary of the additional information:  Mayor Gove contacted a representative of the Awarding Authority of one of the projects that was highlighted in the information received. The feedback indicated that this particular project was a renovation project. The representative felt that the CTA team on this project would be more successful on a new construction project. They also advised that CTA may have submitted bids on a number of projects and that capacity should be looked at closely.  Elizabeth McAndrews received feedback in a brief conversation on another project confirming that there were issues and it was not completed on schedule.  Joe Spencer looked into the MassDOT Transportation Center Project and had a conversation with the OPM on that project. The information confirmed that there were issues with the initial CTA team, including poor management of the subcontractors, significant change orders both with and without merit and schedule delays. The DCAMM evaluation was updated since December and resubmitted in May raising some of the points for on site supervisory personnel. The OPM indicated that MassDOT may not be in agreement with the evaluation in that they think it may be too harsh.  Angel Wills noted that the cost of materials has gone up significantly and questioned whether or not the there is a provision for Consumer Price Index adjustment in the bids. NV5 noted that the bids are lump sum bids, so the contractor owns the risk if cost increase or reward if they decrease. It was also noted that buyout will happen earlier in the project and most indicators suggest costs will not decline in the near term.  NV5 noted that the apparent low bid is in line with where the 90% CD estimate would have be if the Pre-COVID escalation rate had been applied to the additional time that lapsed due to the delay in being able to go out for bid as the permitting process .  Joe Spencer noted that he is surprised that we have a bid that can be awarded within the constraints of the budget given what his colleagues on vertical project are seeing elsewhere.  Joe Spencer noted that he spoke to the Dennis Yarmouth School Building Committee Chair. He noted that their vote to retract the award to CTA was not a reflection of CTA as a company, but that they were exercising their right to award based on information received.  NV5 contacted the DCAMM Certification Office and received some clarification from Rachael Baglione. She noted that DCAMM doesn’t do rolling reviews between certifications, but does address failing evaluations when they are received. Failing evaluations go through a lengthy review process by DCAMM where they seek additional information from the evaluator and contractor to confirm the evaluation is reliable. If a  Page 3 of 5 contractor is decertified, that in itself does not impact active contracts. The statute only requires current certification to be in place at the time of bid. She also confirmed that if a particular evaluation is not part of the Certification File it could mean it is not yet submitted to DCAMM, it has been submitted but is still in the vetting process or it has been determined to be reliable. o CTA representatives in attendance at the meeting, including Jeff Hazelwood, Paul DuRoss and Lyles Coghlin were invited to introduce their team and address questions from the Committee.  Jeff Hazelton introduced the team and noted that CTA has been in business since 2000 and has built 37 schools totaling about $1B in value in that time.  It was noted that the Team for this project includes Ed Pereira, who has been with the firm for 11 years and completed 5 schools in his career. Steve Parent is the Superintendent who has been with the firm for 4 years and is a seasoned construction professional. Additional support staff will be available as needed and Jeff will remain involved with the team. It was noted that this will be a similar approach and commitment as the Newburyport Project.  CTA noted that some of the information being shared is out of context or may not have been a final or accepted evaluation by DCAMM. MassDOT retracted the evaluation completed by the OPM on that project and has given CTA an additional $1M worth of scope to deal with design issues.  Mayor Gove asked CTA to address any concerns with the volatile market conditions, site challenges and capacity to complete. CTA noted that they have already started the process of purchasing materials and are comfortable with and will stand behind their bid. CTA also noted that they have 6 projects under contract and nothing currently pending, so this project is a good fit.  Nick Wheeler asked for CTA to address how they will avoid issues related to changes in staffing, subcontractor management and paperwork processing.  CTA noted that they are not signatory to the labor unions, so the information they assemble tends to cherry pick items. It was noted that DCAMM deemed the evaluation on the Tahanto project to be unreliable so it was never part of the record as an example.  CTA noted that the Dedham Project was the renovation of a 130 year old building, which was originally built as a wood a framed construction school house. When related unforeseen issues arose, it was difficult to come to agreement on the added work due to budget constraints. The team had a difficult time working with the OPM. CTA noted that in spite of these challenges and unfair treatment they are proud to have stuck with it. CTA noted that they will work collaboratively with the Amesbury project team to overcome adversarial issues.  CTA addressed the question raised regarding paperwork processing on the MassDOT project and clarified that the frequent changes and incomplete sketches issued by the designer are an important factor.  Joe Spencer asked CTA if they have selected a site contractor and if the project can save money by reusing more on site material.  Page 4 of 5  CTA noted that they are likely working with Lightship. They would like to get on site early to evaluate the soil and will work around the little league schedule. This information will help in pre-characterizing chemically and structurally to determine what can be reused where. CTA noted there’s a lot of places to lose material on site, so they are all on board to minimize how much fill has to go off site. They noted they are further incentivized as on site reuse will help with schedule.  Joe Spencer noted that he spoke to a colleague who is the lead designer on the Burlington DPW Project, which has some soil challenges. He provided a good recommendation, consistent with NV5’s recommendation as OPM on that project.  Mayor Gove asked CTA what best practices they will use to stay within the project budget, noting that there isn’t more money.  CTA noted that collaboration, schedule review and working together through good communication is key. Proactive approach and quick problem solving were also noted.  The working group was asked to provide a recommendation, however it was noted that this was not part of their meeting so they can only provide individual perspectives.  Joe Spencer shared his opinion that in consideration of all of the information CTA is a responsible bidder.  Mayor Gove expressed agreement with Joe, also noting that it was helpful to learn more about DCAMM Certification process. She also noted she is fully invested in this project and committed to working together to ensure success.  Paul Fahey shared his observation that this has been a very diligent process and encouraged the Committee to continue to stay involved and concluded with the opinion that CTA should be considered a responsible bidder.  Elizabeth McAndrews noted that the information provided seems to be the worst and the same depth of information wasn’t given for the other projects. She also expressed her commitment to work with the project team and ask lots of questions and ensure she is comfortable with the situation. o Discussion and Vote to Award Contract  Motion made by Nick Wheeler that the School Building Committee find CTA to be a responsible bidder. The motion was seconded by Peter Hoyt and discussed as follows:  Discussion: NV5 noted that the vote should also address whether or not the contract award includes any of the three add alternates. It was noted that alternates 1 and 2 (conduit for additional EV charging station and infrastructure for future all electric kitchen) would be more difficult to complete later, while alternate 3 (ware wash) could be purchased later if funds are available.  Vote: Amended motion made by Nick Wheeler that the School Building Committee find CTA to be the lowest responsible bidder and to award the base bid contract of $49,740,000 as well as alternates 1 and 2 in the amounts of $13,000 and $2,100. The motion was seconded by Peter Hoyt and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously.  Page 5 of 5 4. Proposed Next Meeting Date o The next meeting of the AESBC will be on May 27, 2021 at 6:00 PM. The meetings will remain virtual for now but may transition back to in person meetings later. 5. Other Business o Mayor Gove noted that neighborhood meetings will be held quarterly during the construction phase, with the anticipated schedule being June 16, 2021, September 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021. The intent is to hold the meetings in person in the neighborhood but a location for June is still being confirmed. o Nick Wheeler voiced his appreciation to everyone for their participation in the bid phase process and welcomed CTA on board as the General Contractor. 6. Adjournment o Vote: Motion made by Peter Hoyt to adjourn the meeting at 4:51 PM. The motion was seconded by Paul Fahey. Following a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. o -End of Minutes- These meeting minutes were prepared by NV5. Please notify NV5 within 48 hours of receipt of this document regarding any required corrections or clarifications. Tim Dorman From: Mayor Gove <govek@amesburyma.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 5:09 PM To: Tim Dorman Cc: Paul Fahey Subject: FW: Public comment AES building committee 5/11/2021 Hi Tim, Below is the public comment from tonight for the minutes. Paul, can you pull anything from the facebook live stream and send it to Tim? Thanks! Kassandra Kassandra Gove Mayor (978) 388-8121 From: Adam Hart [mailto:adamdhart309@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:04 PM To: Mayor Gove Subject: Public comment AES building committee 5/11/2021 As a resident of Amesbury I would like to ask, why would the Town of Amesbury “Gamble” with my Tax money on a Contractor who has failed on many projects as well as not paid sub-contractors who completed their part on a Project? Why have other Towns and Building Committees have not chosen CTA as the low bidder and found them NOT THE LOWESTRESPONSIBLE BIDDER to insure those Taxpayers and the taxpayer’s Money is protected. Amesbury Resident Adam Hart 177 A Main St Sent from my iPhone Notice: This email is subject to MGL: Chpt.66, Sec.10 Public Records Law. 1 Public Comments Submitted Through the Facebook Live Feed Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee Meeting May 11, 2021