School Building Committee

City of Lowell – Office of the City Manager 375 Merrimack Street, Room 43 – Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4400 – F: 978.970.4044 www.LowellMA.gov Eileen Donoghue City Manager Kara Keefe Mullin Assistant City Manager Date: November 1, 2018 Time: 5:30 PM Location: City Council Chamber 1. Meeting called to order by City Manager Donoghue at 6:37 PM 2. Roll Call Eileen Donoghue, William Samaras, Connie Martin, Conor Baldwin, Michael Vaughn, Jeannine Durkin, Billie Jo Turner, Christine Clancy, James Cook, Maryann Ballotta, Jay Mason, Maria Sheehy. Roll call shows 12 School Building Committee members present. Others in Attendance from the City: Kara Keefe Mullin, Alex Magee, Elliot Valoso, Craig Thomas Project Team Member Associates in Attendance: Skanska: Mary Ann Williams, Dale Caldwell, Jim Dowd Perkins Eastman: Joseph Drown, Alicia Caritano Traverse Landscapes (Landscape Architect): Ashley Iannucelli Garcia Galuska DeSousa (Mechanical Engineers): Dominick Puniello Thonston & Thomasetti (Energy Modelers): Vamshi Gooje 3. Presentations City Manager Eileen Donoghue began with welcoming remarks, inquiring if the body would like to start meeting at 5:30 going forward. She stated she would poll the group at the end of the meeting, but it seems like 5:30 is the preferred time at this point. Mary Ann Williams of Skanska began the presentation on construction methodologies. She discussed traditional Design-Bid-Build (D-B-B) method, which historically has produced issues with cost and schedule overruns and often litigation. With DBB, a construction manager is not brought onboard as a partner; rather, the project is awarded to the lowest bidders and General Contractor without having the preconstruction input from a construction manager (estimating, constructability review, etc.). She then showed a delivery method comparison of Construction Manager at Risk (CM at Risk) v. Design-bid- build. D-B-B method has 100% design complete before building project is bid, and the project goes to lowest General Contractor bidder, and lowest bidding subcontractors. With CM at Risk, the Owner will prequalify construction managers and subcontractors in order to mitigate risk. Traditional D-B-B approach has a longer, more linear schedule. Bidding a project with CM at Risk method allows for an earlier start of construction before completion of design, more flexibility and shorter timeline. D-B-B has distinct roles of owner, General Contractor (GC), and separation between owner and SCs. Construction Manager provides design assistance and phased reviews. She noted the LHS project is well suited for CM at Risk method due to occupancy during construction, phased renovations, etc. CM at Risk also utilizes open book accounting and a maximum price guarantee. D-B-B has issues with cost overruns, change orders, etc. CM at risk provides design feedback throughout the entire project process. M. Williams continued with aspects of D-B-B – noted it is more familiar, simpler; less control over selection of partners (GC, contractors, etc.). She said it is typically a longer overall process for design and construction durations. She continued stating the CM at Risk method is based on qualifications, experience and proposed team rather than low cost. She speculated the City is looking at $270-280M in likely construction costs on this project and that only 5-6 firms can actually bond a project of this size in Massachusetts. Many firms will not take on the risk of a D-B-B project due to amount of work of this magnitude already out there. M. Williams continued to discuss lump sum pricing vs. guaranteed max pricing, stating lump sum often leads to change orders and price increases. Guaranteed max price leads to constant communication among Owners Project Manager (OPM) and construction manager to maintain price and budget throughout process. She then advised that owners don’t want to be fighting over costs with contractors for the duration of the project. M. Williams opened up discussion to the group. James Cook stated he had experience since mid-1990s with D-B-B method, which turned out terrible (Tsongas arena). He said he would suggest not giving D-B-B a hard look because they had to let contractor go and start over on that process, it led to wasted time, effort and money. Jay Mason inquired about CM at Risk method, and asked if all items of guaranteed max price were negotiable? M. Williams explained that the method was qualifications based first, with the evaluation of a pricing proposal. M. Williams noted the construction Manager’s fee is not negotiable, (2.0 -2 .75% typically0(please clarify) however, the preconstruction fee, General Conditions and General Requirements are negotiable. M. Williams noted Skanska uses DCAMM’s procurement documents, and when evaluating qualifications and pricing proposals, performs an apples-to-apples line by line comparison. Selecting a construction manager allows for more flexibility and control with the project. William Samaras asked a clarifying question regarding the owners and architects, inquiring if they are in better communication with the CM at Risk with this method, as opposed to arguments between architects/contracts in D-B-B method. M. Williams replied affirmatively yes, exactly, that is one of the big advantages of CM at Risk. E. Donoghue noted the good summation by the Mayor. Most recent projects in area are utilizing CM at Risk, and this method of building is considered a best practice. Several very large projects construction managers out there working on local schools; there is a small group regionally who’re able to work on these and are specialized. E. Donoghue noted this was a new process since the last time the City built a school in Lowell. She then asked when we will want to bring on a construction company. M. Williams responded soon as possible after April 10th MSBA approval; we should be looking for an RFP very soon after that. E. Donoghue mentioned this will allow for construction company to work hand in hand with design consultants, help with recommendations where necessary, etc. rather than only doing the work as designed by someone else. M. Williams noted it will allow a strong collaborative team process. E. Donoghue reiterated the phased process that allows for flexibility and will hopefully remove change orders. M. Williams noted the lower risk of change orders with the CM at Risk method, though they will always exist in large projects. M. Vaughn noted that from the procurement point of view, he highly recommended CM at Risk. It allows for partnership and the best chance for a quality high school at the best price. He has had his best success with this method in 40 years of bids. E. Donoghue wanted to verify the timeline looked ok, and to take look at our expected April MSBA meeting. M. Williams outlined the process following MSBA approval in April, including hiring a construction contractor. E. Donoghue questioned if the City is completing things on schedule within next month, will allow for ample time to maintain current trajectory? Will be seeking a vote next month on final construction methodology. E. Donoghue called for a recess to allow design team to arrive and set up for presentation at 6:05 PM Meeting called back to order at 6:16 Alicia Caritano of Perkins Eastman laid out the agenda for this portion of the meeting, including landscape architecture (including an exterior site update), sustainability priorities, energy modeling, HVAC/mechanical systems, one vs. two story bridges. A. Caritano continued into discussion of the sustainability priorities, which were the outcome of a meeting in September with the LHS working group. Highest priority interest was air quality, then curriculum/building interaction, then quality of natural light, then durability, then systems monitoring/control, etc. She noted these priorities will help inform design moving forward. Ashley Iannucelli, landscape architect, presented on guiding principles for design, including city lines and historical lines, including street and canal directional perpendicular flows. She stated community and history have had a large influence in the design to date. She said LHS is a hub in the City, a special site located within a national park, and there are special lines within the site. She presented an overlay which creates a “lines and overlays” grid to inform our design. She is hoping to draw on Lowell’s rich history to inform design. A. Ianucelli spoke about traffic circulation and ongoing discussions with the City Traffic Engineer and others in the City, to help solve this issue as best as we can within the site constraints. They are looking to see if they could connect Arcand and Dutton to make traffic flow better. Looking at dedicated traffic lanes for drop-offs and pick-ups, providing handicap parking, and temporary parking as well. Some space required for bus lineups, looking to address this. She noted they are considering reverse traffic flow for certain parts of the day; design is still being discussed with the City. W. Samaras stated bus lineups have created issues for a long time. The idea presented allows for better flow for moving students out of school area. J. Cook wondered if it would possibly add congestion to the area. W. Samaras stated he thought no, typically lights are lined up well and this could help get people out of the area. A. Ianucelli continued with more site plan visuals, and discussed issues such as, grade changes, and storm-water runoff. She showed images of benches around the entire site, including a quad to be used for all kinds of recreational/passive activities, including raised seating around outside, and a look at a picnic terrace area next to canal. Regarding rooftop options, she noted that these areas could be used either for classroom space or garden space, or a combination of the two. She noted the final direction will come down to programming, who will maintain the space etc. She noted the goal is to create a space that is well used by everyone. Jeannine Durkin asked a question regarding afternoon transportation and the LRTA bus lineups up on Page St., noting presently they are lined up on Page and Fr. Morissette. She asked if the consultants are suggesting buses will be on both sides of street? A. Ianucelli answered they are not going to change the existing for now, but they are working with transportation engineer from the city on this going forward. Vamshi Gooje presented on energy modeling design and noted the project is starting at a relatively high performance level compared to the existing buildings. He noted they are still trying to further find any efficiencies possible in the design. He stated energy modeling helps quantify some sustainability strategies, it will show how much heat loss is happening through the envelope (building). He said ventilation is the predominant energy load. He noted we are starting at a good place efficiency-wise. He stated they want to separate the campus into East v. West. The West is 1980s building, East is 1922 building, and for practical upgrade purposes it makes sense to treat these as two separate sites. V. Gooje noted the west campus has greater flexibility for upgrades due to the additions/new construction. E. Donoghue asked a clarifying question if the west side contained just the 1980s building? V. Gooje answered it will include the entire west campus including the proposed freshman academy, fieldhouse, and addition to the south. V. Gooje presented charts showing Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) savings. Light-shelves, solar shading devices, exterior walls and insulation of 1980s building, and triple glazed windows are all options. He noted windows are not a large percentage of savings compared to other ECM’s, but do offer much better comfort in the space, as well reduce the load on HVAC systems. M. Vaughn asked a question on estimates on models, are these based on today’s building or on the proposed design? V. Gooje replied they are based on the proposed design. J. Mason asked if they were looking at how much photovoltaic (Solar Panels) can fit on roof. J. Mason asked if 5 – 15% of total building’s required electric load, is that possible? V. Gooje said yes it is. J. Mason further inquired if it is possible to use modeling to use PV system to include operational, capital, and other costs? V. Gooje said they could look at power purchase agreements to offset costs, which will come out of school budget. He was not sure it was possible to tie directly in to HVAC system. E. Donoghue thanked V. Gooje for presentation. Dominick Puniello presented 5 options on HVAC systems, including all 4 studied options, studied against the “code based” line, which is decent but not really an applicable option for this project. All of these systems are energy efficient, provide good comfort, and indoor air quality, and are low noise systems. All offer good choices and some pros and cons. All options connected to unique a building energy management system as well. Baseline – Overhead Variable Air Volume Option 1 – Displacement Ventilation system w/ heating/cooling panels Option 2 –Active Chilled Beams Option 3 – Air-source VRF Option 4 – Water-source VRF D. Puniello discussed methodology for these systems and noted he GGD and Thorton Tomasetti, the Energy Modeling Consultant and are is confident in the simulations and numbers as presented. He said the energy model consultants used EQuest, a Department of Energy software program, which takes into account building architecture, local weather, occupation and usage of building, efficiencies, local utility prices etc. to make a holistic picture of the energy model. They alsoGGD used Building Lifecycle 5 (another DOE program) to put together costsdetermine lifecycle cost for each system. He notes that the working group looked at numbers 1 and 3 as the “winners” based on the analysis. Option 1 had the best savings and lowest combined annual expenses and maintenance, where option 3 had lowest up front installed cost and lowest environmental impact. Option 3 would save $1.7m up front. D. Puniello noted both Energy Usage Indicator (EUI) numbers were very good. Option 3 would cost over $100k more than option 1 per year to maintain properly. He noted the working group had a good debate between options. M. Vaughn noted the contractor was talking about pollution, but that electricity doesn’t take into account the natural gas used to create electricity in this region. He then asked for heat, isn’t gas much cheaper? M. Puniello stated that with old electric systems, yes electric was much more expensive, but . Nowadayscurrently, electric isheating systems are much more efficient, but stillhowever generally are still more expensive to operate than high efficiency gas systems. J. Mason wanted to point out the performance of electric is much better than the gas systems. Look at technology for performance of VRF systems going forward into the future. He believes you could make the argument that these systems will get cheaper going forward. Connie Martin stated that in 75 years the building will likely still be as built, but also in 20 years we may be able to get a replacement system for the mechanical system. She said she had no doubt electric systems will improve and maybe we could upgrade later on. W. Samaras noted he thinks the issue here is fossil fuels vs. solar. He said that things will be more solar based in the future but the older systems are more reliable, and we cannot be sure where electric prices will go in the future. D. Puniello gave more comments on W. Samaras’ questions stating that yes, HVAC systems change over time,. He and agreed, stating they don’t last 75 years. He said systems used to be more durable, with analog controls and mechanical parts, now they are supposed to last 25-30 years. The proposed options (like option #1) is a system of valves and dampers and noted how you generate the heat is potentially interchangeable. He said there was nothing to say you couldn’t put electric boiler in, but at this point wouldn’t recommend because it’s less efficient now. VRF systems have grown in different directions since, and there’s no guarantee to saying 25-30 years things will change moving into the future. He notes you will always be able to create hot and cold water with different kind of boilers and chillers. Piping and ducting should last 50 years; equipment that feeds them should last around half that. J. Mason wanted to reiterate the obvious for him, choosing more sustainable system, understanding sophistications of them, a technology that has been around and is dependable and shown reliability; however, the school will be here for a long time, and he wants to make case for 100% resolution; this will increase our gas usage. E. Donoghue noted she applauds the goal of 100% renewables. She is concerned with operational and maintenance costs today with our systems, and wants to be realistic. Option 1, even with fossil fuels, is cheaper to operate and maintain. That is in year 1 through the end. W. Samaras asked if the SBC chose option 1, could they move to electric boilers on this system at some point down the road? D. Puniello answered yes, if rates came down and it became feasible, it would certainly be an option but some additional plant modifications would need to occur. W. Samaras added we do need to watch what we are spending, and could use savings to move to modernized system down the road. J. Mason argued that picking a fuel source now will likely be the fuel source we use permanently moving forward. He noted if we should buy into this now, we are going to have it going forward. J. Mason asked D. Puniello if he has seen conversions switched from gas to electric like this? D. Puniello noted that no he has not for this size building, but has seen plenty from electric to gas the other way. Lots of electric heat was installed when rates were cheaper and has now become much too expensive. He noted he has seen lots of oil to natural gas conversions due to costs. Boilers come down to efficiency to operate, and right nowCurrently gas is cheaper less expensive than electric for heating systems. C. Clancy noted that during the working group meeting, D. Puniello talked about the maintenance involved with the various systems, and asked if he could please speak to maintenance needs for the various systems. D. Puniello noted that hot water/chilled water system has many more contractors available to work on it in terms of maintenance. Option 3 requires special refrigeration licenses and specialized repairs (specific parts, company specific). He said owners could be tied to the manufacturing company that they purchase equipment from originally, and their unique parts/systems, along with specialized labor. He stated for example you could not put an LG unit into a Mitsubishi system. He continued to say a hot water/chilled water system terminal equipment is a “dumb” system, anyone more contractors can work on it, and it offers more flexibility for multiple manufacturers. J. Mason asked about the MLK school in Cambridge that Perkins Eastman just completed. What is their fuel source? A. Caritano answered that MLK school is a combination of geothermal and individual heat pumps, a system that is not feasible in Lowell. J. Cook noted the city is responsible for paying the bills, one option seems to present short term and immediate savings, and asked if the City Manager has a recommendation? E. Donoghue responded that the working group chose in favor of option 1 (over option 3) by margin of 7-4; E. Donoghue also noted she prefers option 1 due to her position requiring her to maintain finances and operations etc. keeping cost down. J. Cook made a motion to vote on HVAC system, seconded by W. Samaras. 4. Vote – SBC members were instructed to make their choice from the presented options 1 through 4; 11 members voted for option 1, 1 member voted for option 3 Option 1 - Option 2 - Option 3 - Option 4 - Displacement Active Chilled Air-source VRF Water-source VRF Ventilation system Beams w/ heating/cooling panels Eileen Donoghue X William Samaras X Connie Martin X  Conor Baldwin X Michael Vaughn X Jeannine Durkin X Billie Jo Turner X Christine Clancy X James Cook X Maryann Ballotta X Jay Mason X Maria Sheehy X 11 0 1 0 A. Caritano continued with presentation on canal bridges. There were some renderings/views created from various vantages and presented to the SBC. E. Donoghue noted that in addition to costs, Historic or other approvals could create potential issues for having a 2 story bridge, which could provide possibilities for delays. W. Samaras questioned the width issue of the bridges, and noted that there was currently a bottleneck on the way into the 1922 building. A. Caritano responded saying they were looking to reconfigure the areas to make better flow. She noted they are already planning on relocating the northern bridge to improve bottlenecks. J. Cook clarified that E. Donoghue was recommending a one story bridge. E. Donoghue replied yes, and will continue to look at location and bottlenecks. J. Cook made a motion to take roll call, second by Samaras. 5. Vote - roll call vote to approve the 1-story option passed 12-0 in favor Yes No Eileen Donoghue X William Samaras X  Connie Martin X Conor Baldwin X Michael Vaughn X Jeannine Durkin X Billie Jo Turner X Christine Clancy X James Cook X Maryann Ballotta X Jay Mason X Maria Sheehy X 12 0 A. Caritano showed upcoming schedule including various upcoming meetings. 6. Adjournment E. Donoghue thanked the committee for their time, and noted they will plan on 5:30 PM meetings going forward, and asked for motion to adjourn. Connie Martin motion to adjourn, Seconded by J. Durkin. 7:22 PM.