project minutes - holbrook.k12.ma.us psbc minutes...project minutes project: holbrook elementary...

PROJECT MINUTES

Project: Holbrook Elementary Schools and Junior-Senior

High School Feasibility Study, Holbrook, MA Project No.: 13006

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

Holbrook Elementary Schools and Junior-Senior High School Feasibility Study

7/14/2014

31

Item # Action Discussion

31.1 Record Call to Order, 7:00PM, meeting opened.

31.2 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.

31.3 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.

31.4 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, 2014.

31.5 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.

Committee members to let K. Kovacs know of any questions or edits that may be

needed for the next printing.

31.6 M. Reith

B. Davis

D. Moriarty

K. Kovacs

P. Mahoney

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.

31.7 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.

31.8 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.

31.9 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.

31.10 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.

Holbrook Elementary Schools and Junior-Senior High School Feasibility Study

7/14/2014

31

Item # Action Discussion

31.11 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, 2014.

J. Seeley and K. Kovacs to provide written response to the comments by July 21, 2014.

The MSBA Board meeting is July 30, 2014 at 10:00am.

31.12 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.

31.13 Record Next PSBC Meeting: August 20, 2014 at 7:00 pm at the H-Cam Studios.

31.14 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

Holbrook PK-12 School

Construction Manager Selection Timeline

August 15 Submit Application to Inspector General

November 4 Proposition 2 /12 Ballot Vote

November 1 Notice to Proceed CM at Risk from Inspector General

November 12 RFQ Advertisement

1. Central register (CR)

2. Local Paper

3. CommPass

4. Post in Town Hall

November 19 Site Tour

December 3 RFQ Packages Due

December 3 - 10 Evaluate RFP to Prequalify CM Firms

December 17 Distribute RFP to Prequalified CM Firms

January 7 RFP Due

January 7 – 21 Evaluate, Rank CM Firms and Interview Top 3 CM Firms and Rank

January 21 – 30 Negotiate Non-Fee Contract Terms with Selected CM Firm

January 30 Award CM Contract

p:\2013\13006\10-bid\cm selection schedule.doc

AGENDA

Project: Holbrook Elementary Schools and Junior-Senior

High School, Holbrook, MA Project No.: 13006

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. CM @ 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

Project: Holbrook Elementary Schools and

Junior-Senior High School Project No.: 13006

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

Facebook

Blogs

H-Cam Interviews

Other Local Media

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

JGS/sat/P:\2013\13006\04-MEETINGS\4.3 Mtg_Notes\Community Meetings\Community Outreach Strategies Outline.Doc

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 2006. 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.

7. 69.12% 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: https://www.facebook.com/promoteandvoteprek12 • H-Cam recordings of the PSBC meeting posted on Youtube

https://www.facebook.com/promoteandvoteprek12

1

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 comments1 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.

4.1. Schematic Design Submittal - Submittal Completion

Schematic Design Submittal Notification - cost & budget informational email (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, emailed 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.

2

Schematic Design Drawings – Complete, see comments.

4.1.1. 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, emailed 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.

4.1.2. 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 4.1.2.1G

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.

3

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 (4.1.2.2.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,

4

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

5

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.

6

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 email 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 Sign-

in Sheet including the signatures of those who voted on June 5, 2014 were not

included in the submittal. Please provide.

4.1.3. 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

7

prepared by the Commonwealth’s Office of Inspector General – available from the

Mass.Gov website.

4.1.4. 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 190.00, 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.

1

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 comments1 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.

2

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)


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)


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.

3

(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



(6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 3,650 nsf which meets the



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 6-12. 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



(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



(6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 610 nsf which meets the



4

Administration & Guidance:




(6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 3,350 nsf which is 20 nsf



Custodial & Maintenance:




(6-12) The District is proposing to provide a total of 2,075 nsf which meets the



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


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

5

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.