Woodrow Wilson Building Committee

Woodrow Wilson Building Committee April 26, 2018 Minutes Present: Mary Bartolotta, Chair, Chris Drake, Phil Pessina, John Giuliano, Sheila Daniels, John Phillips, Richard Pelletier, Ted Raczka, Chris Bonsignore and Kristen Byrd. Absent: Gene Nocera Also Present: Michael Connor, Superintendent of Schools, John Cross, Facilities Manager, Rszard Szczpek, and Randall Luther, TSKP Members of the Public: 4 The Chair opens the meeting at 6 p.m. Public comments: The Chair asks if there is any public comment; seeing none, she moves to the next item of business. Minutes: Mr. Pessina moves to approve the minutes and Mr. Drake seconds the motion. The Chair asks if there is discussion, changes, comments. Hearing none, she calls for the vote. It is unanimous to approve. The Chair declares the minutes approved. Old Business: Chair Bartolotta states as of today, the Mayor has not signed the contract for TSKP; it has been in his office for approximately for two weeks and we checked on Monday and today and it is still in his office. The contract has been through General Counsel’s Office. Noted for the Record Mr. Bonsignore takes his seat at 6:01 p.m. There is discussion. The Chair asks for a motion Ms Daniels’ recommendation is that the Chair, Superintendent and Facilities Director contact Mayor’s Office; she so moves. Mr. Pessina seconds the motion. He asks if it was signed by general counsel; Chair responds yes on March 26th. She states two weeks ago, the insurance certification was requested and it was provided. The Chair asks if there is any further discussion. 1 Hearing none, she calls for the vote on this motion. It is unanimous. Ms Daniels asks if it puts us back. The Chair responds we discussed the differences of a construction manager, general manager and owner’s rep and we will make a decision on that and the Superintendent, TSKP. and John Cross will help put together RFP so we can move forward. We will move forward in our own way. Noted for the Record Richard Pelletier takes his seat at 6:04 p.m. New Business Chair Bartolotta states the last time were given a presentation by the Finance Director who was here. She asked if anyone had questions to send them or bring them forward this evening. She asks if there are any questions. Seeing none, Chair Bartolotta states she has some; we were moving forward with Construction Manager and General Manager and not owner’s rep. We could move to combine the general manager with owner’s rep work. She asks if anyone has any thoughts. She is afraid of things falling through the cracks regarding State reimbursement and change orders. We can make sure that scope is narrowed. Mr. Pessina states that was Carl’s suggestion because his department can do that in conjunction with purchasing and that is his personal feelings. Mr. Drake asks regarding logistics. We are the committee and we recommend and the mayor spends and why we are in the contract situation we are in. He asks who would report to the committee; the architect, construction manager would also report to the committee. Would there be anyone else we would be adding or would we roll the project manager into construction manager or finance. The Chair states we can add in an owner’s rep fees with construction manager. It would be the same scope. Noted for the Record Ted Raczka takes his seat at 6:05 p.m. Chair Bartolotta asks Randall Luther, TSKP, for comments. Chair Bartolotta states some companies are large enough to take on the owner’s rep responsibility and we can determine that. It would simplify the process. That is one option. We could separate it as well. We want to go out to an RFP for a response and we could narrow the language and be very specific. Chris Bonsignore asks has the ship sailed on the owner’s rep or is it a viable option in the game. What would you recommend the steps the committee takes. John Cross states we have to get going and we can satisfactorily pick a construction manager to perform both functions very well. Instead of struggling though the original concept of owner’s rep was the overall look at the district and shepherd the work along and it is taking too long for that to develop. It is costing us money by not getting this out. We have to get going and we can satisfactorily pick a construction manager to make sure they have good expertise and the resume. We can get a good construction manager to do both jobs for us. WWMS Building Committee April 26, 2018 2 Chair Bartolotta states the RFP can be very specific. There will be the whole interview process and the secondary check through the city and we can ensure they do what it is we are asking for. As language is created we can review it to ensure it is what we want it to be. John Phillips asks if it is a Construction Manager-at-risk. Randall Luther states there are two forms of agreement: a Construction Manager-at-risk and a Construction Manager Advisor. The advisor does not hold the contracts for the subcontractors, the city does. It is a paperwork burden one of the advantages is with Construction Manager-at-risk it means the manager is at risk. They give a guarantee price for the project and you have a cap and you know your exposure. To get that number, there is a construction manager contingency. With an advisor there is no contingency; you hold all the money. The chair for me that is the only thing that makes sense. To answer your question, that is the vote, that it is CM/owner’s rep combination that is at risk. Mr. Pessina states if we approve this we will have a job description on what we are looking for and then we can move. Mr. Cross states yes. Chair Bartolotta states that is what we are trying to do. Mr. Phillips states he agrees with Mr. Cross that you can find capable \CM to do one job and at risk is good. He wonders if the City has the capability to do it. Mr. Cross states it would be easier workflow for us if we get cm at risk. Chair Bartolotta states she made calls this week to clarify what she was thinking about at the last meeting. Regarding an owner’s rep, some of the issues that come up like reimbursement could be at risk and we can’t risk that and we have to make sure that is being addressed. Marie can process billing, but the specific language needs to be seen on a regular basis and that person has the responsibility to us. Ms Daniels asks if she is saying the same thing as John. The Chair responds yes. Mr. Drake, if we move forward, it is the drafting of the document. Who is responsible. Chair Bartolotta responds it will be John Cross, TSKP, the Superintendent, and me. We would work with Donna and then ultimately the committee will review it and send it to the attorney’s office for review. John states he has a template worked out and I will discuss with TSKP and should have that for you next month. Chair asks if they should have a meeting sooner. Noted for the Record Kristen Byrd takes a seat at 6:15 p.m. Chair Bartolotta states we can email it to the members and have a review to see if it is on target and raise the questions and concerns and expedite it to City Hall. Councilman Pessina moves that the RFP process for a Construction Manager-at-risk with an Owner’s Rep be started. Mr. Phillips seconds the motion. The Chair calls the vote, and it is unanimous to approve. The Chair states the RFP will be drafted for a Construction Manager-at-risk and Owner’s Rep. The Chair asks for other discussion WWMS Building Committee April 26, 2018 3 Mr. Drake states the priority list is Senate Bill 184 and was placed on calendar on April 11 and it has to sit on the calendar for 3 days and it is ripe for action and it might be good to remind our delegation at the capitol we are depending on getting it out on May 9; we should remind Senator Doyle. Chair Bartolotta states she can put a note together on behalf of the Committee and will nag him and Chris can as well. Motion to adjourn. Mr. Pessina moves to adjourn and his motion is seconded by Mr. Philips seconds. The vote is unanimous to adjourn the meeting. The Chair declares meeting adjourned at 6:18 p.m. WWMS Building Committee April 26, 2018 4