MINUTES

LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE

LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL LIBRARY

NOVEMBER 13, 2003

A special meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was held on Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 7:00P.M. in the Intermediate School Library.

Present were: J. Healy, Chairman, S. Kavle, L. Chapman; J. Zullo, P. Sapiro, M. Bramley, K, Gilyard, G. Waugh, B. Buckley.

Also Present: Peg Perusse, Business Manager; Diane Knox, BOE Chairman; Edgar Auchincloss, BOF Member; Leo Paul, First Selectman-Elect; Tim Breslin, Principal LHS; Public and the Press.

Motion made by M. Bramley to accept the minutes of the November 6, 2003 meeting with corrections, seconded by P. Sapiro– Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Motion made by K. Gilyard to accept the minutes of the November 10, 2003 meeting, seconded by B. Buckley– Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Public Participation

Barry Davidson of Konover Construction introduced herself and stated that she hopes to be considered for the project and on the short list of Construction Managers for interviews.

Gary Waugh passed out directions for committee members Middlebury Elementary School visit scheduled for 3:45PM on Friday, November 14, 2003 to see the work of Tai Soo Kim and speak with the Principal. L. Chapman, G. Waugh, S. Kavle & J. Healy are will be going.

Payment of Bills

A bill from Herbert S. Newman and Partners (“Newman”) for $1,000.00 dollars was distributed to committee members.

Motion was made by M. Bramley and sec. by B. Buckley to approve the payment of this bill.

Discussion: This bill should say “Final Bill” or we should have only been invoiced for $1,000.00. They showed what their services would have cost if they were charging us full price. They are not going to roll the rest into the project. Committee is only being charged $1,000.00 for this work. Can we include a cover letter accompanying payment stating that the $1,000.00 represents payment in full? Chairman will call R. Munday and ask him re-invoice for just $1,000.00 only.

Motion Carried 6-2. All votes were in the affirmative except B. Buckley and P. Sapiro who voted in the negative. There were no abstentions. J. Healy will write a letter stating that this will be the only payment.

Committee has paid recording secretary’s invoice of $226.90 for 12.6 hours for October 2003. Payment coming out of the budget line items. We are a function of the Town, not a separate entity. Committee asked for the ability to have a checkbook and have the signatory power to spend committee money and were declined.

B. Buckley asked that Committee reconsider the Newman Bill. Town will not understand bill and asked that Newman resubmit a $1,000.00 invoice. L. Chapman pointed out that the billing hours are incorrect.

Motion was made by M. Bramley, sec. by B. Buckley to reconsider Motion previously passed to approve payment of the bill.

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Motion Reconsidered and Motion Defeated. All votes were in the negative. There were no abstentions.

Motion was made by M. Bramley, sec. by L. Chapman to request a new invoice from Newman specifically referencing the existing contract between Building Committee and Newman as payment in full.

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Review and Discussion of Architect Proposals

J. Healy distributed letter he sent to Newman and Tai Soo Kim (“Kim”) attached hereto has Exhibit A.

Motion was made by J. Zullo, seconded by G. Waugh that Committee invite both firms to present proposals to next regular meeting.

Discussion

Committee should have time to review proposals; give firms an hour for a presentation; have firm make a proposal recommending a course of action for not just a three month phase but entire project; how we get to a successful referendum decision; elaborate on concept development; put proposals side by side to compare contracts, costs, length; committee should meet before this presentation; give both firms equal opportunities; time schedule is too tight; State of Connecticut is investigating five (5) Architectural Firms and we should ask these two firms about that; don’t have to make a decision on firm by if we don’t do this next week time is a concern; call a special meeting before next Thursday; convene earlier for an hour or so next meeting; discuss contracts among committee members; important for every member to understand what is in a contract, we should have a meeting going over the parts of the contract; have a special meeting after next Thursday.

Review and Discussion of Construction Manager Proposals

Discussion ensued whether Committee should hire a Construction Manager (“CM”) or a General Contractor (“GC”). Committee voted to send out call statements to CM. Architects fees and services will vary if the know there is a CM as opposed to a GC; experience with CM work out fairly nice; could have as many as 20 contracts that CM coordinates typically on a school project there are 7-8 contracts v. one contract with a GC; every one of the CM proposals they can go either way as a CM or GC; from a liability point a GC is better, cost certain; CM is basically just an organizer; thought we had made a decision to put out a call for a CM and therefore we are going to use a CM.

Do we want Architects to be here to make their presentations? Are we going to make a decision on this proposal on its own? Committee had a short time to get to know Kim where we have been working with Newman for months.

Motion was made by B. Buckley that Committee go with a Construction Manager Advisor type contract only with Architect, sec. by G. Waugh.

GC offers things a CM doesn’t; absolute budget, timely manner, it he doesn’t do this there are penalties, if he runs over and we need temporary classrooms, they are his responsibility, not ours. With 20-30 subcontractors we run a risk of one, two or three of the entities going bankrupt, with a GC, he is responsible.

CM Advisor, town hires each firm for specific jobs; you can have nightmares with a GC; CM is hired to protect the municipality’s interest; imagine that CM must hire individuals with experience and reliable; if you want to get a GC it goes out to bid and Committee has no choice; certain firms have a larger capacity to bond; reduce their risk as a CM; they can put pressure on subs; may work with them on another job; not only are they negotiating contracts for you but providing valuable engineering service; based on experience of last Committee, we decided a CM was good for the Town; if you don’t have a CM you have to rely on the Architect more; Architect and CM check each other’s work.

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

The Interview is a two way street. CM would have a better idea what we are looking for. Would like to narrow three companies and Architect should help make choice. Committee is losing sight of time and working on a leisurely schedule. We have to be working in December if we have any chance of meeting the February referendum. Involving Architect is not necessary

Motion was made by G. Waugh that Committee down select three Construction managers this evening and invite back for an interview. sec. by B. Buckley

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

CM Company # of Votes by Members

Casle Corporation 1

Klewin Building Company 1

Konover Construction Company 7

Newfield Construction 4

O&G Industries 8

Pike Company 0

TBI Construction 2

Turner Construction 9

G. Waugh mentioned that Turner is doing work at Pomperaug and is ahead of schedule, under budget and disruption is minimal.

Invite top three back Thursday, November 20, 2003:

For Interviews:

Turner Construction - 6:30 PM

O&G Industries - 7:30 PM

 Konover Construction - 8:30 PM

Need to review Architect contracts and take action. Will call a Special Meeting for Tuesday, November 25, 2003. Must make this a joint meeting with the BOE.

Motion was made by M. Bramley to invite the three down-selected candidates for CM for interviews, Thursday, November 20, 2003 and subsequent to that Committee down select to two companies and invite written proposals from the down selected two companies. Sec. by B. Buckley

Motion Carried (6-2). All votes were in the affirmative except J. Zullo and S. Kavle who voted in the negative. There were no abstentions.

Motion made by M. Bramley to review Architect proposals on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 and Committee to take appropriate action. sec. by B. Buckley.

Motion Carried (7-1). All votes were in the affirmative except J. Zullo who voted in the negative. There were no abstentions.

Motion was made by B. Buckley to adjourn at 9:00PM, sec. by K. Gilyard

Motion Carried All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Respectfully submitted,

Kelli L. Green, Recording Secretary