MINUTES

LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE

LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL LIBRARY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVMBER 20, 2003

A special meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was held on Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Litchfield Intermediate School Library.

Present were: J. Healy, Chairman; L. Chapman; J. Mullen, J. Zullo, G. Waugh, S. Kavle

Also Present: P. Perusse, Business Manager, Diane Knox, BOE Chairman; BOE Members: Wayne Shuhi, Don Falcetti and John Noone; D. Coelho, Selectman, Tim Breslin, Principal LHS, Public and the Press.

Meeting was called to order at 6:32 PM by J. Healy

Motion made by J. Zullo to approve the minutes as corrected of the November 6, 2003 meeting sec. by M. Bramley –

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

Motion was made by J. Zullo to move Agenda items #4, 5, 6 & 7 subsequent to item #8, sec by M. Bramley.

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

TURNER CONSTRUCTION

Presenters: Rusty Hirst, Operations Manager

Peter Zannia, Project Manager

Victor Ciancetta, Manager Education Group

Presentation

Related Experience: In CT since 1916; have done about one billion dollars in school work; 175 professionals in CT office; acquire most work through negotiation; working on 17 high schools in CT and 12 middle schools, passed projects; Waterbury Superior Court, Yale Sterling Law School, Yale Museum of British Art; Bushnell Theater.

Preconstruction Phases: Conceptual/Program Estimate; Construction/Operational Planning; Team Approach/Communication; Marketing Resources.

What are the logistic restrictions? Cost impact, heating, winter work outside. Team communication is key; spend time with Architect to make sure all are on the same page and moving forward, use in house marketing staff to help get referendum passed.

In-House Four Step Approach: Information gathering; putting together system estimates, team concurrence, budget control. Approach to estimating is to get specific details in estimate, look at each component and price out individually, have overall project total. Put together a cost database of schools we have done and compare with cost estimate; reach out to subcontractors and talk about unit prices; as new issues arise price out individual components of carry and put in to estimate so at any given point there is a new bottom line.

Operational Planning: provide input to help with estimate including project goals and objectives; site plan; key to purchasing effort is bid package; comprehensive bid package: incorporate project requirement; pre-qualify bidders; motivate marketplace; scope of work; safety; sire logistics; schedules.

Construction Operations: safety is #1 concern, take into account students, staff, public, class schedules; communication is key; training & enforcement of subcontractors.

As a corporation we have a lot of experience, Individual staff members have a lot of experience, every job is important and we like to do this one.

Question & Answer

Q. Waugh - I work at Pomperaug and am impressed with limited noise and disruption. How do you plan for setting this up?

A. Turner - It takes many hours to figure out, work with administrators, a lot of up front planning.

Q. Waugh - Do you have to use portable classrooms?

A. Turner - Not at Pomperaug, it varies from school to school. We prefer to build the addition first to use that while doing other work to avoid using the portable classrooms.

Q. Mullen - Do you have an in-house safety director?

A. Turner - Yes we have three individuals who have a regular schedule and come to the schools on an average of once a week. Contractors and Field Staff know they are getting grades for safety.

Q. Mullen - When you choose you subcontractors (“subs”) do you go with past experience?

A. Tuner - We are required to advertise but doesn’t mean we can’t call the people we know will perform. We share docs with certain contractors we have experience with so they know the job.

Q. Waugh - What does pre-qualify mean?

A. Turner - We look for people who have an EMR (Experience Modification Ratio) below #1.

Q. Blazek - the cost of this project is a big factor. What is the proportion of projects that came in at or below budget?

A. Turner - We have not had an experience where we weren’t able to bring a project in at budget.

Q. Blazek - Have you had some projects come in below budget, I mean $1M or more below?

A. Turner - Our goal is to come under budget. We shoot for a window of + 5%. The problem is when wants and needs exceed budget.

Q. Zullo - We had a referendum pass and rescinded. Now rescoping. What have you seen with your current ongoing projects in regard to what kind of escalation?

A. Turner - Escalation has been minimal 1-2%

Q. Zullo - In a typical Renovate As New what is the cost per SF?

A. Turner - Light Renovation - $80.00 range; Heavy renovation $110.00 range. In order to maximize reimbursement, you can’t do it until your up in the $100.00 range.

Q. Chapman - If you find something wrong or not workable with Architectural Design, how do changes happen?

A. Turner - We focus on things like preventing water from getting into the buildings. We will do an evaluation during design development and again once construction starts.

Q. Chapman - Two or three years down the road we have a leak, who handles that?

A. Turner - There should be a warranty, usually one year overall but you can purchase a longer one.

Q. Bramley - Committee has discussed CM and GC and voted for a CM. There are lot of positives to be said for a GC. [With a CM] instead of reviewing one contract we review 35 of them. What can we rely on the CM to do to assuage financial?

A. Turner - There is a limit to what you can do to disqualify contractors. We get a payment and performance bond. We can get letters of credit.

Q. Bramley - We are on a $33M budget, however the impact of the project on the mill rate is critical for a passage of the referendum. What is your reimbursement success?

A. Turner - We were hired by the City of Hartford to get reimbursement after the fact. We know the process pretty well.

Q. Kavle - When you have a project that is mostly renovation, how do you approach doing a job vs. new construction?

A. Turner - Spend time in the buildings. With renovation jobs each building is unique, must understand the components. Interim step with M/P/E systems - if you don’t set up some of those systems, if you don’t account for those, costs could surface.

Q. Kavle - Tell us why we should hire you? What do you do that the other two firms here tonight don’t do?

A. Turner - We have more resources in our office than anyone else in CT. More experience with Mechanical and Electrical. Our database to fall back on for comparison. We get awarded more work and have more pull with contractors.

Q. Sapiro - You mentioned the complete bid package. Is that a standard in your business?

A. Turner - No. Our bid package is very comprehensive. A lot of time and hard work to put it together. Many other firms don’t take time to do this. It reduces change orders.

Q. Sapiro - have you worked with the Architects we are taking to?

A. Turner - Both of them. We are currently working with Tai Soo Kim in Hartford and have worked with Newman on several jobs, but not on a public school.

Q. Healy - How many change orders do you see?

A. Turner - There are change orders and there are change orders. We create allowances within the bid package for change orders.

Q. Healy - I am more concerned with change orders from discrepancies.

A. Turner - The key is to root it out before you put it out to bid. Industry standard is 4%.

Q. Healy - What do you recommend for the Construction phase, concurrently or back to back construction?

A. Turner - I there is a way to get up and running, concurrently.

Q. Blazek - Do you have a value analysis methodology that you look at? Is you pre-qualification effort sufficient?

A. Turner - Its hard to eliminate a bid if he meets minimum requirements. We have disqualified people before. You don’t have the latitude you have on private work.

O&G Industries

Presenters: Maurice Hoben - Project Executive

Laurel Purcell - Project Manager

Bruce Walpole - Preconstruction Project Manager

Melissa Corey – Info Tech Support/Marketing

Presentation

Established in 1984, Pre K - grade 12 Department; 108 school projects since then including Wamogo & Region 6; Tyrell MS; Frisbie Elementary; Granby HS - similar by larger project & Middlesex MD - similar, was an older building.

Challenges: Referendum, 3^RD in two years; $33 M budget; maximize state reimbursement; renovation while occupied; multiple phasing plans.

Town Approval Process: Philosophy on Referendums - 1. Establish the Need - Enrollment, physical condition, environmental issues; 2. Cost - must be least expensive option, state reimbursement; tax impact which must be tolerable. Get the message out to voters. This project meets need and cost criteria.

Preconstruction: We understand project. Two sites: LIS 76,000 SF new construction and Auditorium issue and 55,000 SF major renovation; LHS 35,000 SF new construction and 87,000 target renovation; cost $33M.

Project Schedule: Town Approval; schematic design drawings; estimate (target renovation identified); design development; SFU estimate; bidding.

Maximize State Reimbursement: maximize eligibility by program modifications, code compliance, air quality, window replacement, roof over 20 years old, portable classrooms.

Cost Control: We are there to protect the owner’s interest and schedule impact; safety; security; minimizing disruptions; sensitive to the needs to the students, staff and visitors; effective communication between job trailer and school; always looking and planning two weeks ahead. O&G is determined to do this project under $33M.

Question and Answer

Q. Waugh - What do you do to ensure school can function with minimal disruptions?

A. O&G - During preconstruction we plan a schedule to avoid distractions to students and staff. Distractions are noise, fumes and dust. Also visual distractions. It’s an important issue to make sure there are minimal disruptions.

Q. Waugh - Are portable classrooms typical?

A. O&G - Depends on the project. We will work summers and vacations. Phasing is an important component. Have to factor in M/E/P to phasing plane. We have conversation with administrators to come up with a schedule and workable plan.

Q. Waugh - What kind of luck do you have when opening schools on time?

A. O&G - We had one out of 108 not open on time. We will meet end date.

Q. Mullen - From what you know about this job with the $33M cap are we going to do all that needs to be done?

A. O&G - We know too much. There is not enough money to Renovate AS New. Have to balance money spent at LIS with what is spent at LHS. There is not enough to do what we’d like but decisions will be made by the Committee. LIS needs new mechanical system and we have enough money to do that, but maybe not other things like carpet, lights, painting,

Q. Blazek - Have you recent projects come in below budget?

A. O&G - Two years ago everything was on target, by June bidding got real good. This project will not bid until 2005.

Q. Blazek - WE may come in below budget, I mean $1M or more below?

A. O&G- Unrealistic. Working off of bond authorization that is two years old. Two years from now there will be about $450 M for theoretically half as many school projects to bid. The Architect will give you what they think is a $33M project. It better not come in $1.5M under budget, maybe $100,000. under.

Q. Zullo - Based on the ED 049R which is structured to possibly allow renovation as new at LIS do we have enough time to develop a strong enough estimate for February referendum?

A. O&G - Yes - you can renovate as new but may pay the price at LHS. You can go to referendum saying you are going to do target renovation and some new construction and later decide whether to renovate as new.

Q. Zullo - What benefit does your experience on this project bring?

A. O&G- We have a $100,000 education, Bruce knows what not do to. Want a programmatic return; want a life cycle return on LIS. Wise expenditure of money.

Q. Chapman - When we hire an Architect and if they come from a different point of view, how do work with them if you don’t agree with them?

A. O&G- We don’t say a word. We create what they think is great. We tell you what it is going to cost. We can work with any Architect. Have to balance creativity along with practicality. The more lavish, the higher price. Every Architect will try to create more space. WE also can help with language for contract with Architect.

Q. Bramley - Committee has discussed CM and GC and voted for a CM. There are lot of positives to be said for a GC. [With a CM] instead of reviewing one contract we review 35 of them. What can we rely on CM to do to assuage our subcontractor financial risk.

A. O&G - We have two methods: CM Advisor or CM at Risk. Proposing same number of bid packages but rather than have contracts go to you, they go to us. If there is an issue later on, you call us, not the sub. We’re promoting it because it gives us more control during and after construction. The Contract used would be AIA-CMC-131.

Q. Bramley - Are you encouraging simultaneous work on both projects or back to back?

A. O&G - Work simultaneously - be more cost saving, project would drag out otherwise.

Q. Bramley - Partner [Friar] said we have to renovate as new, that we can definitely renovate as new. Are their multiple translations in this industry? How much credence to we put to that?

A. O&G - We know what it’s going to cost to renovate as new for both buildings. You can not do both. The renovate as new concept means you will have more back from the State but have to being every SF of building to code. Our services are going to be identical, bids will come to you as owner but contracts will be assigned to O&G. The system doesn’t change. We are liable for the whole thing. The cost is the same for both {CM advisor & CM at Risk]

Q. Sapiro - At $33M project the net cost to the Town of approximately $24.5M. If we went up to $36M can we almost dollar for dollar reimbursement?

A. O&G - For $36M there is no way we can renovate as new for both schools.

Q. Sapiro - What are the components of the bid package? To one trade?

A. O&G - spec sections, depending on which discipline, special instructions, phasing of project, detailed schedule.

Q. Zullo - When you get into the design development specifications how do you mitigate risk?

A. O&G- We get bond from each contractor, get a set of qualifications, disqualify the “bad” people which owner has to agree to disqualify.

Q. Chapman - Do you hold contractor bond until the end of the project?

A. O&G - Six years which is the statute of limitations.

B. Buckley arrived at 8:00PM

Konover Construction Corporation

Presenters: Michael Kolakowski -President, CEO & Owner

Anthony Maselli - Project Executive

Joe DeSanti - Project Manger

Tim McGinn - Project Superintendent

Kinter Van Horne - Project Superintendent

Barrie (Davidson) Deschaine - Community Liaison

Jim Lawler of CJ Lawler - Guest Architect

Sepp Markkanen - Senior Estimator

Presentation

Thank you for the opportunity. Anyone of the selected CM firms can get the job done and we want to tell why we know and believe you should choose Konover. Cost driven and schedule focused; experience in the “hard bid” marketplace; focus on maximizing state reimbursement; can work with or without union firms; 50% is CM process. We don’t match up with the two other firms on number of school projects but we are proud of schools we have done.

Introduced members of the team. Committee will see all firm staff from preconstruction all the way through. We will pre-qualify all contractors, prepare bid packages, provide info on warranty/guaranty, development punch list from day one so it will be minimal, provide project management website.

Developed Mold Action & Prevention Plan; train all personnel; when we put together schedule we maintain it. We work for you, the Town of Litchfield, safety is serious issue; everyone who works on the site must attend a safety orientation program.

The crux of a job like this is to minimize disruptions, set up site specific plan, meet with school officials daily, clients always come first, have a community liaison to provide construction updates on website, available to attend meetings with town organizations, would like to hold a kick-off meeting to introduce project to community.

Video references from Dave Russell, Principal of John Winthrop Jr HS in Deep River and from Mike Lanewicz, Chairman of Board of Solomon Schecter Day School in West Hartford.

Jim Lawler of CJ Lawler Architects gave an in-person reference. He never had a project run quite so smoothly. Wonderful experience working with Konover.

Question and Answer

Q. Waugh - What is the pre-qualification criteria?

A. Konover -In-house form. Team will site down and talk to committee and purchasing group, understand if there are some firms you want included; collective process. Try to carve our smaller bid packages for local contractors. We can use union or non-union contractors.

Q. Waugh - Have you ever had to deal with bankruptcies?

A. Konover - Unfortunately it happens. We have procedures and processes to protect our clients. Contractors have to submit vendors and subcontractors and sign lien waivers. WE has a bankruptcy at the Deep River project but we recognized it early and there was no impact.

Q. Mullen - How do you feel about subs/local contractors? What kind of quality do you get?

A. Konover - We wouldn’t be in this business if we didn’t provide a quality and cost effective project. We have meetings on site; work with some of the big guys also.

Q. Blazek - With reference to the 20-30 subcontractors, who do we call when there is a problem?

A. Konover - Us, we have a warranty department. They handle warranty which can be up to 18 months or longer. We come up and assess the issue and then dispatch the contractor. We follow up to make sure it has been taken care of. We want calls post warranty also. We’ll stand by it.

Q. Zullo - CM as Advisor or CM at Risk. Which avenue would you recommend? A. Konover -

A. Konover - All of our projects are CM at Risk except one. Do you believe it’s the best interest for the Town for Committee to hold subcontracts? What drives subs is that we hold the check.

Q. Chapman - Our goal is to maximize State reimbursement. Who do you work with Architect when you think their plans are wrong or you can improve upon them?

A. Konover - We look out for Town. Sit down professionally with Architect and be straightforward, talk about what we see and why, go with facts, work through its, sit down, interact and work in a team with least amount of impact on dollars.

Q. Bramley - A lot of conversation has to do with preconstruction, pre-referendum. How many? Your success rate?

A. Konover - We have a vested interest. We want to see it go to construction. We will provide as much service as you need to pass referendum.

Q. Buckley - If we hire a CM in a GC capacity vs. CM advisor capacity - what is the advantage of just going out and hiring a GC?

A. Konover - The reason; you are selecting a professional rather than have it go out to bid. Whoever is low bid is the person you are going to work with. In this case you are selecting. We will go out to bid each contract/ Evaluate bids and recommend to you the lowest responsible bidder. We’re going to get competitive numbers.

Q. Kavle - Does your fee vary if we hire you as CM Advisor or CM at Risk?

A. Konover - Yes

Q. Kavle - Go into detail about what we can expect on a weekly basis?

A. Konover - We’ll provide design development, schematic design drawings, contract documents, constructability reviews, phasing planes & impacts, prepare bud packages to address all scope.

Q. Sapiro - Are there certain trades that you stay within the union? Can you quantify lost savings, may be on the edge to be able to renovate as new?

A. Konover - A Minimum wage will be required. If union only is required you will see upwards of a 10% increase. We keep it competitive by opening up to everybody. We will sit down and do an analysis with the design team; cost to renovate vs. cost for new and let the building committee decide.

Q. Buckley - I thought you worked with PLA (project labor agreement) in New Haven?

A. Konover - They removed PLA in New Haven. Town needs to understand, don’t limit competition.

Q. Bramley - How does the prevailing wage compare to union scale?

A. Konover - It’s close - when you go to PLA you are cutting down on suppliers.

Q. Zullo - Have you had experience with Newman or Kim?

A. Konover - Finished UConn dorms with Newman and presently working with them at Wescon. We worked with Tai Soo Kim at Hamden Middle School for past two years and have done other projects with them.

Q. Zullo - There is a tight time frame before the referendum. Can you support that?

A. Konover - We are looking for pre-construction work now.

Motion was made by J. Zullo to add an agenda item before item #4 to provide for public comment, sec. By P. Sapiro.

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative except B. Buckley who voted in the negative. There were no abstentions.

Public Participation

Dan Coelho, BOS Member had a brief observation. Believes committee should strongly consider the political reality of getting this project passed. Some of the Architects have already had a failed referendum in Litchfield. Hope you’d consider a fresh face: Tai Soo Kim. Even the loss of a few votes could end in a lower cap. Maybe its not unreasonable to push for a fresh face for a CM.

Bob Blazek related Bill Dranginis’ comment that the Committee should look more at the net cost to the Town, not the gross. He said this at the public meeting and the BOE refuted it. The public wants certainty.

Ed Fabbri stated that with regard to the CM at Risk would Committee be better off with a GC. That competition is missing. Recommends that if you going with a CM, get someone who is going to act as an agent.

Communication

John Tindall-Gibson gave engineering report on schools. When studies are done he will bring it before building committee. He also emailed superintendent in Canton regarding Tai So Kim and he had nothing but good things to say about them.

Called Senator Andrew Roraback regarding the companies the State if investigating - None are the ones that we are now dealing with.

Letter from Alan Landau was read aloud and is attached hereto a Exhibit A.

A discussion ensued about what to do with emails that individual Committee members were receiving and responding to.

Motion was made by B. Buckley that if we get emails respond and tell sender you are sending their email to the chairman and send to chair and he will keep all emails, sec. by Zullo.

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative except S. Kavle and M. Bramley who voted in the negative. There were no abstentions.

Submission of 2004 Schedule

Motion was made by M. Bramley that meeting will be held the first and third Thursday of each month, sec. by J. Zullo.

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

Financial Update

Motion was made by B. Buckley to table the discussion to next meeting, sec. by J. Zullo.

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

Payment of Bills

J. Healy spoke with Newman and he is submitting a new bill

Kelli’s bill was approved Mac will receive copies of all invoices to keep a tally.

Discussion of Interviews and Take Action

Motion as made by J. Zullo to request a firm fixed fee proposal from all three firms by December 1, 2003, sec. by B. Blazek.

Motion was made by M. Bramley to amend J. Zullo Motion to request two proposals, one a CM Advisor and one as CM at Risk, sec by J. Zullo.

Discussion: Committee decided at last meeting to narrow to two, this is inconsistent; shouldn’t we decide whether we want an Advisor or CM at Risk; what is the scope; ask firms to have two phases of bid, pre-referendum and pre-construction; do we have to make that decision until referendum; Architect has to know what the decision is, it will impact Architect’s contract; made motion that unanimously passed to have a CM Advisor; did not know CM as risk existed; we can ask architect to resubmit proposal is we decide to go with CM at Risk; if we go with CM at risk it requires Committee so a lot of oversight of CM and M Advisor will act on our behalf.

We are going into a rising interest rate scenario and booming economy, if one of the subs goes belly-up what do we do? Cal bond and get job done cheaper. B. Buckley advises to go with a CM Advisor. They are making money saving money for us. It doesn’t matter is we have two or three. We are still being diligent. We are changing what we decided to do.

Motion to Amend Defeated. All votes were in the negative. M. Bramley abstained.

Construction Manger is going to give you a percentage and section on reimbursables with time estimate and it always works out to about 8%.

Zullo Motion Defeated. All votes were in the negative except J. Zullo who votes in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Why don’t we stay on out decision last week and stick to two firms? All three firms were strong. Does anyone want to eliminate any firms at this time?

Motion was made by B. Buckley that we ask all three Construction Managers to submit a proposal based on CM as Advisor approach by December 1, 2003, sec. by B. Blazek.

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

Architect’s Submission

Tai Soo Kim’s proposal did not reach school on time. Did not get here until today. Sent by courier on Tuesday, shipped at 2:55PM on November 18, 2003.

Motion made by M. Bramley to accept Kim’s proposal even though it arrived late, sec. by L. Chapman.

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

Proposals came in two different forms. Want to make sure Committee has a comparative analysis. I want to read these. Can we table this discussion until Tuesday after we have had a chance to review them?

L. Chapmen spoke about her visit to a Tai Soo Kim building in Hartford. Very disappointed to the point even if their proposal was favorable I would consider bringing in another Architect. Difficult to find entrances; used porous white brick which looked dirty; secretary said that they didn’t plan for storage. They had gotten great recommendations so was disappointed. They let design override functionality. Principal of school pointed out problems.

Motion was made by B. Blazek to table further discussion to next meeting, sec by S. Kavle.

Chapman.

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

Motion to adjourn was made by B. Buckley at 11:40PM, sec. by L. Chapman.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Kelli L. Green