PRESENT NAME AFFILIATION VOTING MEMBER

Transcription

1 PROJECT MINUTES Project: Holbrook Elementary Schools and Junior-Senior High School Feasibility Study, Holbrook, MA Project No.: Prepared by: Joel Seeley Meeting Date: 7/14/2014 Re: Permanent School Building Committee Meeting Meeting No: 31 Location: H-CAM Studios Time: 7:00 PM Distribution: Attendees, (MF) Attendees: PRESENT NAME AFFILIATION VOTING MEMBER Daniel F. Moriarty PSBC Chair Voting Member Mike Reith PSBC Vice-Chair Voting Member Patricia Lally HPS Superintendent of Schools Non-Voting Member Timothy Gordon Board of Selectmen Chair Voting Member Barbara Davis School Committee Chair Voting Member Charles Mahoney HPS Procurement Administrator Non-Voting Member William Phelan Town Administrator Non-Voting Member Vincent Hayward HJSHS Principal Non-Voting Member Beth Tolson School Committee Voting Member Tom Taylor Member at Large Voting Member Peter Mahoney Finance Committee Voting Member Matthew Moore Board of Selectmen Voting Member James Day Member at Large Voting Member Fred White Member at Large Voting Member Mike Bolger HPS Director of Facilities Non-Voting Member Kent Kovacs Flansburgh Associates (FAI) Joel Seeley SMMA, OPM

2 Holbrook Elementary Schools and Junior-Senior High School Feasibility Study 7/14/ Item # Action Discussion 31.1 Record Call to Order, 7:00PM, meeting opened Record A motion was made by M. Reith and seconded by B. Davis to approve the 6/5/14 Permanent School Building Committee meeting minutes. No discussion, motion passed unanimous by those attending Record Voucher for reimbursement to SMMA for $16,100 for OPM services and for $19,250 for the independent cost estimate was reviewed. A motion was made by B. Davis and seconded by J. Day to approve the Voucher. No discussion, motion passed unanimous K. Kovacs K. Kovacs to forward the meeting minutes of the meeting with the Fire Department and Police Department that was held on June 3, D. Moriarty FAI delivered 200 color copies of the flyer to P. Lally s office. B. Tolson delivered some to the Library, D. Moriarty will deliver some to the Town Hall, Rotary and Council on Aging M. Reith B. Davis D. Moriarty K. Kovacs P. Mahoney Committee members to let K. Kovacs know of any questions or edits that may be needed for the next printing. The Community Outreach Strategies document, attached, was reviewed with the following actions: M. Reith to schedule and coordinate meetings with town boards, groups, civic clubs, chamber and council on aging. B. Davis to schedule and coordinate meetings with parent groups. D. Moriarty to request time with H-Cam for questions and answers. P. Mahoney to let the PSBC know the date for a presentation to the Finance Committee. K. Kovacs to develop a powerpoint presentation of the project including existing conditions B. Tolson B. Tolson reviewed a draft article for the Holbrook Sun from the PSBC, attached. The committee provided suggested amendments to the draft. J. Seeley to review with MSBA the language on the maintenance requirements. A Motion was made by J. Day and seconded by B. Davis to approve the draft as amended for submission to the newspaper. No discussion, voted unanimously J. Seeley J. Seeley reviewed a draft response to a question from T. Gorman of the Holbrook Sun, attached. The committee provided suggested amendments to the draft. A Motion was made by M. Reith and seconded by J. Day to approve the draft as amended for J. Seeley to forward to the newspaper. No discussion, voted unanimously K. Kovacs K. Kovacs reviewed a draft video rendering of the building and site. The committee provided suggested amendments to the video. K. Kovacs to update the video rendering for the next PSBC meeting K. Kovacs K. Kovacs reviewed an interior rendering of the cafeteria, attached. The committee provided suggested amendments to the rendering. K. Kovacs to update the rendering for the next PSBC meeting.

3 Holbrook Elementary Schools and Junior-Senior High School Feasibility Study 7/14/ Item # Action Discussion J. Seeley K. Kovacs J. Seeley reviewed the MSBA comments to the Schematic Design Submission, attached, and the meeting with MSBA staff held on July 9, J. Seeley and K. Kovacs to provide written response to the comments by July 21, The MSBA Board meeting is July 30, 2014 at 10:00am Record JGS reviewed the Construction Manager selection timeline, attached. There was discussion on whether to accelerate the selection process. After discussion, the PSBC decided to remain with the current schedule. A Construction Manager selection sub-committee will be established at the next PSBC meeting Record Next PSBC Meeting: August 20, 2014 at 7:00 pm at the H-Cam Studios Record A Motion was made by M. Moore and seconded by P. Mahoney to adjourn the meeting. No discussion, voted unanimously. Attachments: Agenda, Community Outreach Strategies memo, Draft Holbrook Sun article, Draft response to Holbrook Sun question, Interior Rendering, MSBA Schematic design Submission comments The information herein reflects the understanding reached. Please contact the author if you have any questions or are not in agreement with these Project Minutes. JGS/sat/P:\2013\13006\04-MEETINGS\4.3 Mtg_Notes\PSBC Meetings\30_2014_14July_Psbcmeeting\Permanentschoolbuildingcommitteemeeting_14July2014- FINAL.Docx

4

5

6 Holbrook PK-12 School Construction Manager Selection Timeline August 15 November 4 November 1 November 12 Submit Application to Inspector General Proposition 2 /12 Ballot Vote Notice to Proceed CM at Risk from Inspector General RFQ Advertisement 1. Central register (CR) 2. Local Paper 3. CommPass 4. Post in Town Hall November 19 December 3 December 3-10 December 17 January 7 January 7 21 January January 30 Site Tour RFQ Packages Due Evaluate RFP to Prequalify CM Firms Distribute RFP to Prequalified CM Firms RFP Due Evaluate, Rank CM Firms and Interview Top 3 CM Firms and Rank Negotiate Non-Fee Contract Terms with Selected CM Firm Award CM Contract p:\2013\13006\10-bid\cm selection schedule.doc

7 AGENDA Project: Holbrook Elementary Schools and Junior-Senior High School, Holbrook, MA Project No.: Re: Permanent School Building Committee Meeting Meeting Date: 7/14/2014 Prepared by: Joel G. Seeley Meeting Time: 7:00 PM Distribution: Attendees (MF) 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Invoices and Commitments 4. Public Outreach Review 5. Review MSBA Comments on Schematic Design Package 6. Risk Selection Schedule 7. Public Comments 8. Next Meeting 9. Adjourn JGS/sat/P:\2013\13006\04-MEETINGS\4.2 Agendas\PSBC Meetings\30_2014_14July2014_Psbcmeeting\Agenda_14July2014.Doc

8 Project: Holbrook Elementary Schools and Junior-Senior High School Project No.: Prepared by: Joel Seeley Date: 4/14/2014 Re: Community Outreach Strategies Outline Distribution: School Building Committee, (MF) What follows is an outline of Community Outreach strategies for discussion: Public Information/Outreach Meetings Selectmen, Finance Committee Council on Aging/Senior Citizens Business Groups/Civic Clubs/Chamber Realtors Neighborhood Coffees PAC Leadership Recruitment Communications Fundraising Wristbands Lawn Signs Large Scale Signs with Image Telephone Tree Flyers Define the Need, Educationally and Facilities Driven Project Benefits Cost-to-do-nothing MSBA Contribution Tax Impact Images Websites District s Project Information Link on Town s website Just the Facts FAQ Sheet Fly-by video with voiceover Facebook Blogs H-Cam Interviews Other Local Media JGS/sat/P:\2013\13006\04-MEETINGS\4.3 Mtg_Notes\Community Meetings\Community Outreach Strategies Outline.Doc

9 Residents of Holbrook, The proposed school building project is in its final stage of design and will be voted upon in the near future. It is important that the residents understand the process that has been followed and the factors that were considered before the Permanent School Building Committee made its final recommendation. The PSBC has been meeting since During that time the committee has hired a project manager (SMMA), hired an architect/designer (Flansburgh), determined the current conditions of the school buildings, reviewed nine options to address the building needs,, reviewed all nine options for cost and educational benefits, selected a preferred option. The committee voted to support a pk-12 project for the following reasons: 1. Renovation-only of the existing buildings, which would include adding full handicapped accessibility and bringing all systems up to code, would be costly and is not reimbursable by MSBA. A renovation would cost almost as much as new construction. This option was quickly eliminated. 2. All three buildings have significant structural concerns that led the committee to look at options that address all three buildings. 3. The option that was selected can be part of a regional school district with Avon if regionalization should become a reality. This was confirmed by the preliminary regionalization study completed by the MARS group. 4. The pk-12 option has many built-in cost efficiencies such as construction of one power plant and one kitchen. Staff efficiencies (such as custodial and maintenance staff being on one site) are also potential benefits. Additionally, the building will be a green building with many energy-efficient features which will reduce overall operational costs. 5. The design of this building ensures that students are separated into age-appropriate areas of the building, unlike the current 7-12 building. 6. The traffic design allows for 80 cars to queue around the building, taking traffic off of route 37. Start times between the PK-5 & 6-12 schools will be staggered by 1 hour to further alleviate traffic on and off the site % of eligible costs of this project will be paid by the MSBA. 8. The committee recognized the likelihood of the high school losing its accreditation if the building issue is not addressed; as well as the significant capital improvements that would be needed if a new building project is not approved. 9. The proposed, state-approved pk-12 school will be a modern, state-of-the-art facility that will serve the Town of Holbrook for many years to come. Additional information is available at the following locations: Public town buildings School Building Committee Website (Holbrook.k12.ma.us) Facebook page: H-Cam recordings of the PSBC meeting posted on Youtube

10

11

12

13 Attachment A Module 4 Schematic Design Review Comments District: Town of Holbrook School: Holbrook Junior/ Senior High School Submittal Due Date: June 12, 2014 Submittal Received Date: June 12, 2014 Review Date: June 12-25, 2014 Reviewed by: C. Finch The following comments 1 on the Schematic Design submittal are issued pursuant to a review of the project submittal document for renovation of Holbrook Junior/ Senior High School and presented as a Schematic Design submission in accordance with the MSBA Module 4 Guidelines, as produced by Flansburgh Architects, Inc. and its consultants. Certain supplemental components from the Owner s Project Manager (OPM) Symmes Maini & McKee Associates, Inc. are included Schematic Design Submittal - Submittal Completion Schematic Design Submittal Notification - cost & budget informational (due 10 business days prior the Mod 4 due date - see Appendix 4C) Complete. OPM certification of completeness & conformity Complete-see comments o OPM certifies that the: OPM has reviewed and coordinated the submittal As noted in the MSBA s Cursory Review comments, ed to the District on June 12, 2014; the provided transmittal from the OPM indicates that the [project] team has followed the guidelines set forth in Module 4 to develop this submission. However, the OPM does not certify that the submittal is complete, within the District s budget or that the District has approved the submittal to be sent to the MSBA as indicated on page 2 of Module 4. The OPM has since provided an updated OM certification which adheres to Module 4. No further action required. DESE Submittal Complete, see comments. Schematic Design Binder Complete, see comments. Schematic Design Project Manual Complete, see comments. 1 The written comments provided by the MSBA are solely for purposes of determining whether the submittal documents, analysis process, proposed planning concept and any other design documents submitted for MSBA review appear consistent with the MSBA s guidelines and requirements, and are not for the purpose of determining whether the proposed design and its process may meet any legal requirements imposed by federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances and by-laws, environmental regulations, building codes, sanitary codes, safety codes and public procurement laws or for the purpose of determining whether the proposed design and process meet any applicable professional standard of care or any other standard of care. Project designers are obligated to implement detailed planning and technical review procedures to effect coordination of design criteria, buildability, and technical adequacy of project concepts. Each city, town and regional school district shall be solely responsible for ensuring that its project development concepts comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. The MSBA recommends that each city, town and regional school district have its legal counsel review its development process and subsequent bid documents to ensure that it is in compliance with all provisions of federal, state and local law, prior to bidding. The MSBA shall not be responsible for any legal fees or costs of any kind that may be incurred by a city, town or regional school district in relation to MSBA requirements or the preparation and review of the project s planning process or plans and specifications. 1

14 Schematic Design Drawings Complete, see comments DESE Submission (appendix 4B) 4.B.1. Cover Letter o Anticipated board date for approval of PS+B agreement Anticipated PS+B approval date of July 30, 2014 is not indicated in cover letter. 4.B.2. Special Education Delivery Methodology Letter (2 copies signed by the Superintendent, School Principal and the Special Education Director) As noted in the MSBA s Cursory Review comments, ed to the District on June 12, 2014, the DESE narratives included in the submittals were not original. Originals were received from the District on June 17 and the DESE review package was forwarded to DESE on June 18. No further action required Schematic Design Binder 1. Introduction (provide the following): o The District s target total project budget for the proposed project and the steps necessary for the District to secure local funding It is noted that the District will present the project at a Special Town Meeting in October 2014 and the town will hold a debt exclusion vote under Prop 2 ½ to exclude debt service cost. No date for the exclusion vote has been scheduled. Please provide vote dates when known. o Updated description of the project including grades to be served, size of the site, GSF of the proposed building (include GSF of both new construction and renovated areas as appropriate), TPB, list of alternatives (if none, indicate as such, and construction delivery method (design/bid/build or Construction Manager at Risk). The Permanent School Building Committee meeting minutes from May 21 include a slideshow with several alternates listed. However, the alternates were not indicated anywhere else within the submission. Please confirm that there are no alternates scheduled for this project. o Site Plan, Floor Plans, and elevations (sent also as separate electronic files suitable for Board presentation). Provided, however it should be noted that the PK classroom on the conceptual ground floor plan provided in section G of the binder is labeled as a PK- Special Education Classroom. Additionally the kitchen and related spaces are not labeled on this drawing. Please provide an updated conceptual floor plan with labels where suitable. o A copy of the MSBA Preferred Schematic Report review and corresponding District response. Not provided as part of the submittal. The District and its Design Team provided response comments to the MSBA on March 21, 2014, no further action required. 2. Final Design Program o Two signed copies of updated 11x17 prints educational space summary spreadsheets that reflect current design Refer to detailed comments in attachment B. 2

15 o Security and visual access requirements In addition to the information provided, please provide information associated with the following security items: Confirmation that the persons responsible for implementation of the District s emergency procedures, and responding emergency medical, fire protection, and police agency representatives have been consulted in the planning process and any associated requirements have been included in the project. Identification of any security related items particular to the District and/or the proposed project. Verification that the following safety and security related issues have been reviewed and are in accordance with the District s procedures as noted above: Classroom lockset hardware - confirm hardware functions are compatible with the District s protocols related to lockdown; Classroom / Instructional spaces visibility - confirm that the inclusion of sidelights at entrance locations is compatible with the District s current standards related to visibility from corridors and whether any related vision control option measures are to be incorporated. Alternative entry locations - confirm project includes site and building signage, as may be required by District s emergency procedures, to identify locations where first responders may more directly reach a person needing medical attention; Knox Boxes; and provisions for building plans to be delivered to local fire and response agencies. o Site development requirements; Provide a description of the total number of parking spaces, how they are distributed, and how the quantities were derived. Submitted ( G) indicates 300 parking spaces. In response to the MSBA s Preferred Schematic review comments, the District indicated The Town Zoning does not address the number of cars required for a school, so it becomes an interpretation of what is reasonable by the Building Inspector. The Building Inspector has agreed that 300 car spaces should be sufficient. Please confirm that this interpretation is remains accurate. 3. Geotechnical and geo-environmental analysis The Geotechnical Investigation Report indicates that the topsoil is not suitable for foundation or slab support. Please confirm that the cost estimates and budget provided account for potential work associated with removal and backfill of unsuitable soils. 4. Code analysis and list of permitting and other regulatory filing requirements; The provided drawings indicate that the proposed building will exceed the 35 foot maximum building height requirement. In response to the MSBA s Preferred Schematic review comments the District indicated that there is an exception on the 35 foot height limitation which is allowed for chimneys and other necessary features appurtenant to buildings which are usually carried above roofs and are not used for human occupancy. The relocation of the gymnasium resulted in the roof height exceeding the 35 foot limit. Please confirm that the building height will conform to this exception, or, if not, 3

16 please provide a timeline and narrative describing the local process required to secure a variance for building height. Please note that, as the rejection of a variance can result in the need for significant redesign, the MSBA requires the Town to secure all local building height variances prior to Board authorization for a Project Scope and Budget agreement. Based on the provided Site plans some paving and site work occurs within the 100 foot wetlands buffer. In response to MSBA Preliminary Design Program and Preferred Schematic Review comments, the design team indicated that they would informally meet with the Conservation Commission to understand what measures would be needed to file Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission and Massachusetts DEP towards the end of the Design Development phase once the site design had been finalized. The Design team indicated that it would be concluding with the approval of the permit during the Construction Document phase of the project. Please provide an update in the progress of obtaining an approval. 5. Utility analysis and soils analysis for on-site septic/sewage treatment facilities, if required, determine availability and capacity of required building utilities The LEED for Schools narrative indicates that the achievability of SS Credit 6.1: Stormwater Design Quality Control is contingent upon existing impervious site surface and potential discharge rates of the project. The report concludes that requirements will rely on soil conditions that will be available once geotechnical information is available. Please provide further information as to the progress in identifying the requirements and potential for achieving this prerequisite. Also please confirm that failure to achieve this credit will not prevent the project from meeting the District s stated objective of qualifying for the two incentive points for energy efficiency. 6. Narrative building systems descriptions Describe basic information relative to: o Sustainable design elements See comment above regarding SS Credit 6.1: Stormwater Design. o Plumbing & HVAC Preliminary life cycle cost analysis The life cycle cost analysis provided indicates that the most cost effective mechanical system for this project is a classroom dehumidification displacement ventilation system. No further action required. o Fire Protection Confirm if a fire pump will be required A flow test, performed by Nitsch Engineering on April 24, 2014 indicated adequate water to serve the project without a fire pump. No further action required. 7. Sustainable Building Design Guideline Documents: o Completed MA-CHPS or LEED-S scorecard and a statement from the Designer Provided. It is noted that the District is currently targeting LEED for Schools with 60 points increased from an attempted 57 points at PSR indicated on the submitted scorecard. Please note that in order to receive two additional incentive points for energy efficiency, the District must achieve a minimum of 50 points. If 4

17 the District does not meet the requirements for energy efficiency, the District will not qualify for these incentive points and the MSBA will adjust the reimbursement rate accordingly. 8. Anticipated construction methodology (DBB / CMR) describe the District s evaluation criteria and conclusions determining construction methodology specific to this project. The MSBA notes that the District has selected the CM@Risk construction methodology and that the OPM discussed the CM@Risk process at the April 16, 2014 Building Committee Meeting. Please provide background regarding the District s decision to pursue this construction methodology. 9. Total Project Budget spreadsheet (appendix 4F) to as much detail as the drawings and specifications permit, and a summary of the cost reconciliation of the Designer s and OPM s estimates. The proposed total project budget was provided in the Schematic Design submittal and continues to be reviewed and will be further discussed leading up to the Project Scope and Budget Conference between the project team and MSBA staff. Identify separate costs for: o Building construction costs The MSBA notes that significant budget changes (over 40% change) occurred in certain line items between Preferred Schematic and Schematic Design. Please provide a narrative describing in detail as to which specific items have caused the fluctuations in budget for the following categories: Exterior windows (-40%) Exterior doors (+59%) Converying Systems (+109%) Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities (+85%) Site Electrical Utilities (+47%) GMP Contingency (+54%) o Site costs It is noted that site preparation costs have significantly increased by 185% since the preferred schematic report was submitted. Please provide a narrative describing in detail as to which specific items have caused the significant increase in budget since the Preferred Schematic report. o Alternates As mentioned above, please confirm that the district is not anticipating utilizing any alternates. The MSBA understands that the District intends to construct a maintenance building, concession stand, press box and stadium restrooms as part of the base bid for this project. In order to separate these ineligible costs at PFA and in ProPay during construction, the MSBA has isolated these costs in the alternate section of the Total Project Budget. 10. Independent OPM construction cost estimate Uniformat II, level 3 format and the CSI MasterSpec format to level 3 with aggregated unit rates and quantities supporting each item. The OPM Cost Estimate cover sheet indicates that the estimates were reconciled with the design team, OPM and Estimators through a series of review meetings. However, it appears that the Designer s Cost estimate was used to populate the Project budget. Please confirm that the project team is comfortable using the Designer s Estimate as the basis for the Project Budget. 5

18 11. Project schedule: o Sustainable Design MA CHPS / LEED-S The District has identified LEED for Schools to satisfy its sustainable goals, however the schedule reflects the MA- CHPS title, please update to reflect LEED-S. o 90% construction documents phase and submittal The proposed project scheduled indicates the duration between 90% Construction Documents Submission to MSBA (8/31/15) and Advertisement for Bids (9/10/15) to be ten (10) calendar days. The MSBA requires at least twenty-one (21) days to review the submission to issue review comments and the MSBA estimates the project team would need between fourteen (14) and twenty-one (21) days to incorporate the MSBA s review comments into the bid documents. Consequently, the project schedule will not support the MSBA s review of the 90% Construction Document Submission before the advertisement for bids. Please indicate how the project team intends to remedy this issue. o Release of early packages, if applicable Confirm that the district will not be pursuing any early construction packages. Local Actions and Approvals Certification (appendix 4G) - including, but not limited to, the following : o Certified SBC meeting notes with vote language and vote results As noted in the MSBA s to the District on June 23, 2014, the original, raised seal certified copy of the June 5, 2014 meeting minutes, including the vote language for submitting the Schematic Design package and an original Project Meeting Signin Sheet including the signatures of those who voted on June 5, 2014 were not included in the submittal. Please provide Schematic Design Project Manual Itemization of all proprietary items (if any) with an explanation of each, explanation of the public interest for each item, and certification of local authorization that each item complies with state & local regulations, policies and guidelines. It is indicated by the District, that schematic design is not carrying any proprietary items as part of this project. However, many of the building system design narratives and specifications provide singular reference to specific manufacturers and products. Where proprietary items are proposed, the MSBA requests that the District provide an affidavit which shall indicate that an elected body of the District (School Committee, Town Council, or Selectmen - but not an ad-hoc building committee) has been presented with proposals for proprietary requirements approval action, has had an opportunity to investigate, or to require staff or consultant investigation upon each item so proposed, and has discussed and majority voted in an open public session that it is in the public interest to do so. If applicable, provide MSBA with a certified copy of the vote of the elected body. It is important to note that such approvals are not to result from prior investigations, or standing conclusions, but rather be determined for each project and piece of equipment, system or material pursuant to a new evaluation. It is recommended that parties investigating and voting upon recommendations for proprietary specifications acceptance be aware of the document titled Proprietary Specifications in Public Construction Projects, July 2003, as 6

19 prepared by the Commonwealth s Office of Inspector General available from the Mass.Gov website Schematic Design Drawings (Bound half-sized drawings to include): Existing site plan at a minimum scale of 1 = 40 including: o property lines with bearings and distances Property lines indicated, but bearings and distances are not identified. On Drawing C-300 the property line has a leader referencing Note 2, however, Note 2 pertains to roadway drainage lines. Please clarify. o existing parent / bus pick up and drop off lanes Not indicated, please provide in the next submittal. o existing topography Wetlands buffers and boundaries are shown on the existing conditions drawing, but existing topographical lines are not shown. Please provide in the next submittal. Site development plan at a minimum scale of 1 = 40 including: o site acreage Not shown on plan, but indicated as 37 acres in the Project Description section of the submittal binder. No further action required. o proposed buildings and site features The proposed maintenance building, concession stand, stadium restrooms and press box are not labeled on the site plans. Please provide in the next submittal. As noted above; although these items will be part of the base bid for the project, they are isolated in the budget under the alternates section for clarity. o ground floor elevations for all buildings Ground level has not been coordinated, Site plans identify the Finished Floor Elevation at , Architectural plans are based on ground floor at 0-0, and structural drawings are very preliminary offering no vertical dimensioning, please clarify for the next submittal. o future areas of expansion Not shown on plan, but indicated as art of the diagrammatic plans provided in the submittal binder. No further action required. Additional Comments On March 26, 2014 the MSBA Board of Directors approved the District s Preferred Option 3A for a 217,353 square foot new construction option with an estimated total project cost of $101,134,951. This Schematic Design submittal under review shows this same option currently as a 217,353 square foot new construction option with an estimated total project cost of $102,967,198. This represents an increase $1,832,247. The MSBA notes that the District intends to perform additional value engineering throughout the development of construction documents. Please note that the basis of the MSBA grant is established at Schematic Design, and therefore requires the District to complete all value engineering that could impact building scope and use prior to submitting a Schematic Design submittal. Please confirm that all scope related value engineering has been completed and incorporated into the proposed project scope and budget and confirm the District and Design Team understands the MSBA s position on value engineering in subsequent phases of design. 7

20 Attachment B Module 4 Schematic Design Space Summary Review District: Town of Holbrook School: Holbrook Junior/ Senior High School Submittal Due Date: June 12, 2014 Submittal Received Date: June 12, 2014 Review Date: June 12-25, 2014 Reviewed by: C. Finch The following comments 1 on the Schematic Design submittal are issued pursuant to a review of the project submittal document for replacement of Holbrook Junior/ Senior High School presented as a part of the Schematic Design submission in accordance with the MSBA Module 4 Guidelines, as produced by Flansburgh Architects, Inc. and its consultants. Certain supplemental components from the Owner s Project Manager (OPM) Symmes Maini & McKee Associates, Inc. are included. The MSBA considers it critical that the Districts and their Designers aggressively pursue design strategies to achieve compliance with the MSBA guidelines for all proposed projects in the new program and strive to meet the gross square footage allowed per student and the core classroom space standards, as outlined in the guidelines. The MSBA also considers its stance on core classroom space critical to its mission of supporting the construction of successful school projects throughout the Commonwealth that meet current and future educational demands. The MSBA does not want to see this critical component of education suffer at the expense of larger or grander spaces that are not directly involved in the education of students. The following review is based on a new construction project with an agreed upon design enrollment of 1,095students in grades PK-12. The MSBA review comments are as follows: Core Academic: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 27,300 net square feet (nsf) which exceeds the MSBA guidelines by 1,350 nsf. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. The MSBA notes that the Pre-K classroom shown on the plans appears to be the same 1 The written comments provided by the MSBA are solely for purposes of determining whether the submittal documents, analysis process, proposed planning concept and any other design documents submitted for MSBA review appear consistent with the MSBA s guidelines and requirements, and are not for the purpose of determining whether the proposed design and its process may meet any legal requirements imposed by federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances and by-laws, environmental regulations, building codes, sanitary codes, safety codes and public procurement laws or for the purpose of determining whether the proposed design and process meet any applicable professional standard of care or any other standard of care. Project designers are obligated to implement detailed planning and technical review procedures to effect coordination of design criteria, buildability, and technical adequacy of project concepts. Each city, town and regional school district shall be solely responsible for ensuring that its project development concepts comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. The MSBA recommends that each city, town and regional school district have its legal counsel review its development process and subsequent bid documents to ensure that it is in compliance with all provisions of federal, state and local law, prior to bidding. The MSBA shall not be responsible for any legal fees or costs of any kind that may be incurred by a city, town or regional school district in relation to MSBA requirements or the preparation and review of the project s planning process or plans and specifications. 1

21 size as the Pre-K self-contained special education classrooms at 950 sf. The provided space summary indicates that this space is 1,100 nsf, aligning with the lower end of MSBA guidelines. Please provide an explanation for this discrepancy. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 28,150 net square feet (nsf) which exceeds the MSBA guidelines by 2,150 nsf. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. The narrative description of all changes since Preferred Schematic submission indicates that teacher planning rooms have been consolidated at District s request from four rooms at 450 sf to two rooms at 900 sf each. Although the MSBA does not object to the consolidation of these spaces, please provide an explanation describing the District s rationale for the consolidation. Special Education: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 6,400 net square feet (nsf) which is 1,150 nsf below the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 7,894 net square feet (nsf) which exceeds the MSBA guidelines by 2,854 nsf. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. Please note that the Special Education program is subject to approval by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). Formal approval of the District s proposed Special Education program by the DESE is a prerequisite for executing a Project Funding Agreement with the MSBA. Art & Music: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a combined total of 3,300 nsf which is 1,700 nsf below the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. As the District has indicated that the proposed space is sufficient to deliver its educational program, the MSBA accepts these variations to the guidelines. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a combined total of 4,972 nsf which is 153 nsf below the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has increased by 147 nsf since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. The addition of a music office to the music category for supervision of the auditorium and music spaces. Because the proposed program is within the overall area for this category, the MSBA does not object to this variation to the guidelines. Vocations and Technology: (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a combined total of 3,200 nsf, which meets the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. Health and Physical Education: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 6,300 nsf which meets the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. 2

22 (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 15,944 nsf which is 3,000 nsf below the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. As the District has indicated that the proposed space is sufficient to deliver its educational program. No further action is required. Media Center: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 3,393 nsf which meets the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 3,650 nsf which meets the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. Auditorium/ Drama: (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 6,039 nsf meets the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has decreased by 533 nsf since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. The District has proposed an auditorium that exceeds the MSBA guidelines for a high school based on the total population of students in grades The MSBA does not object to the District sizing the proposed auditorium based on the total 6-12 population and this variation to the guidelines. As directed in the PSR review comments the District has reduced the size of the auditorium to conform to the MSBA guidelines for 490 students. No further action is required. Dining & Food Service: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 7,222 nsf which is 873 nsf below the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 6,090 nsf which exceeds the MSBA guidelines by 550 nsf. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. The District has proposed middle/high school cafeteria space which exceeds guidelines by 650 nsf to allow for adequate spaces between tables and space at the cashiers that can become congested. However, the schematic design report does not provide sufficient justification as to why the larger cafeteria is required. The MSBA guidelines allow for 3 servings and 15 nsf per student. As requested in the MSBA s Preferred Schematic Review comments, using narratives and graphics demonstrate why the additional space is required. Medical: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 610 nsf which meets the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 610 nsf which meets the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. 3

23 Administration & Guidance: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 2,560 nsf which is 30 nsf below the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 3,350 nsf which is 20 nsf below the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. Custodial & Maintenance: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 2,055 nsf which is 150 nsf below the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 2,075 nsf which meets the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. No further action is required. Other: The District is proposing to provide 3,400 nsf for District Offices, which exceeds MSBA guidelines. The MSBA does not object to providing for these spaces in the project. However, the MSBA will consider the area associated with central administration as ineligible for reimbursement. Total Building Net Floor Area: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 59,140 nsf which is 2,553 nsf below the MSBA guidelines. The proposed area in this category has not changed since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 85,376 nsf which exceeds the MSBA guidelines by 5,781 nsf. The proposed area has decreased by 386 nsf since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. The MSBA notes that the total nsf is 144,516 nsf and 141,116 without the District offices, which is 170 nsf below the guidelines 141,286 nsf. Total Building Gross Floor Area: (K-5) The District is proposing to provide a total of 88,947 gsf which exceeds the MSBA guidelines by 1,222 gsf. The proposed area increased by 237gsf since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. (6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 128,406 gsf which exceeds the MSBA guidelines by 9016 gsf. The proposed area has decreased by 237 gsf since the Preferred Schematic Report submittal. The MSBA notes that the total gsf is 217,353 nsf which is unchanged since the PDP submittal and assumes a grossing factor of 1.5. Based on the proposed program as outlined above the MSBA considers a project with a maximum of 212,853 gsf acceptable to proceed with a recommendation to the Board of Directors. The MSBA will allow the gross area associated with 4

24 central administration to be included in the project but considers this area, 4,500 gsf, ineligible for reimbursement. Please note that upon moving forward into subsequent phases of the proposed project, the Designer will be required to confirm in writing, with each submission, that the design remains in accordance with the MSBA guidelines and that they have not deviated from the allowable gross square footage and educational program approved in the previous submittals. 5